The standard argument for occupational licensing — government‐imposed limits on who can supply medical, legal, plumbing, and other services — is that such laws protect the public from low‐quality provision of these services.
This argument is not convincing on its own: licensing limits the quantity of services provided, raising price, and thus harming consumers. A necessary condition for licensing to make sense, therefore, is that any improvements in service quality outweight the losses from higher prices.
A new study, however, finds that when de‐regulation allows nurse practioners to perform more tasks without doctor supervision, the price of well‐child medical exams declines (as implied by standard economics), with no “changes … in outcomes such as infant mortality rates.”
In at least this case, therefore, licensure is all cost and no benefit.