HB598 changes Maryland physician licensure law to create a new limited license pathway for internationally trained physicians and to revise rules for certain out-of-state physicians practicing in Maryland without a license. The bill authorizes the State Board of Physicians, beginning January 1, 2028, to issue a nonrenewable limited license of up to three years to qualified physicians educated and licensed outside the United States, its territories, Puerto Rico, and Canada, provided they meet education, training, examination, English-language, moral character, and good-standing requirements. It also establishes two routes to eventual full licensure: one based on passing a state standard-of-care assessment and another based on supervised practice at an approved facility with structured oversight and competency evaluations.
The bill defines key terms such as community sponsor, facility, foreign country, solo practice, and the state standard-of-care assessment, and it directs the Board to adopt regulations on qualifications, fees, conditions of practice, and a pathway to full licensure. It also repeals existing Section 14-308 and replaces it with a more detailed framework for limited licensure, while making related amendments to provisions governing supervised medical graduates and physicians licensed in other jurisdictions. The bill requires reporting to the legislature on implementation readiness and expresses legislative intent that Maryland medical schools and other facilities help develop the assessment used in the new licensure pathway.
In practical terms, the bill would expand the pool of physicians eligible to practice in Maryland, especially in underserved and community-based settings, while preserving Board oversight and patient-safety safeguards. It affects the State Board of Physicians, hospitals, health systems, federally qualified health centers, rural health clinics, community health centers, nonprofit clinics, and group practices that may serve as sponsors or training sites. It also changes the conditions under which visiting physicians from other jurisdictions may participate in clinical training or teaching in Maryland.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill’s progress is favorable. The House committee reported the bill favorably with amendments, and the House adopted it on second reading; the recorded floor vote on third reading was 95 yeas to 33 nays, indicating substantial support but not unanimity. The absence of committee transcript excerpts limits insight into detailed debate, but the structure of the bill suggests a policy goal of addressing physician workforce shortages while maintaining oversight standards.
The main points of contention are likely to center on patient safety, the rigor and fairness of the new state standard-of-care assessment, and how much discretion the Board should have in evaluating foreign credentials, prior discipline, and supervised practice. Supporters are likely to emphasize workforce expansion and access to care, especially in underserved areas, while critics may focus on whether the limited-license pathway and supervision model provide sufficient safeguards before internationally trained physicians can practice more independently.
HB598 repeals current law on limited practice by certain foreign-trained physicians and replaces it with a new licensing framework in the Health Occupations Article. It gives the State Board of Physicians authority to issue a limited, nonrenewable license to eligible internationally trained physicians, sets detailed eligibility and supervision requirements, and requires regulations, reporting, and a future pathway to full licensure. The bill also amends related provisions governing physicians licensed in other jurisdictions and supervised medical graduates, thereby changing who may practice medicine in Maryland and under what conditions.
The bill appears to have generally favorable momentum. It received a favorable-with-amendments committee report, was adopted by the House, and passed third reading with a 95-33 vote. That vote suggests broad support for expanding physician licensure pathways, though a meaningful minority opposed it, likely reflecting concerns about standards, oversight, and implementation.
The likely areas of disagreement are the adequacy of safeguards for patient safety, the reliability of foreign credentials and training, and the design of the state standard-of-care assessment. Some may question whether the Board and sponsoring facilities can effectively supervise internationally trained physicians and whether the pathway to full licensure is too permissive or too restrictive. Others may support the bill as a workforce and access-to-care measure, particularly for underserved communities, community health centers, and rural providers.