Skip to main content

Perfusionist (What’s That?) Licensing: Making Heart Surgery More Dangerous


Do you know what a perfusionist is? I didn’t, either, but it’s one of the many occupations that are licensed in the State of Oklahoma. However, we at the 1889 Institute are gradually looking into each licensed occupation to learn if there is justification for forcing people to ask the government’s permission to earn money doing it. So, we got curious about these perfusionists, about which we knew nothing, and why they are licensed (our report).

It came as no surprise that perfusionists use their skills in medicine. Nearly every occupation involved in medicine, other than custodians, especially in Oklahoma, is licensed. Yet, the majority of states do not license perfusionists. Perfusionists do perform an important service. They monitor and operate the machines that regulate blood and air flow of patients having heart surgery.

And perfusionists have accidentally killed people, sometimes due to something as simple as failing to notice a kinked hose.

We have previously reviewed 11 other occupations licensed in Oklahoma, asking two simple questions. First, is it likely people will be significantly harmed if the occupation is not practiced properly? Second, is there some reason markets and civil law fail to protect people? We have answered “No” to both of these questions 11 times. And, only if the answer to both questions is “Yes” would we determine that licensing is justified.

But this time, the answer to the first question is clearly “Yes.” Patients lying on an operating room table, under anesthesia, with a heart stopped and undergoing dissection, are clearly vulnerable if the person charged with keeping the blood flowing and oxygenated neglects that important work.

Nevertheless, the answer to the second question is clearly “No.” If there were some kind of inherent market and/or legal failure, surely all fifty states, rather than a minority, would require individuals to ask permission to be a perfusionist through licensing. Why isn’t this the case?

The answer is that people are already essentially asking permission to act as perfusionists. Surgeons select the perfusionists with whom they work, and surgeons are the ultimate authorities facing potential liability should something go wrong in the operating room. That liability is a much stronger motive for selecting skilled, attentive perfusionists than any motive a licensing board will ever have, since the board faces no consequences at all.

Two facts expose the lie that licensing perfusionists in Oklahoma was ever about public safety. First, the licensing law included a grandfather provision, which made it easy for any bad actor already working as a perfusionist at the time to continue doing so. Second, there are so few perfusionists in Oklahoma and nationwide that they are often in the operating room exhausted and lacking sleep after attending too many surgeries. At least one expert believes the vast majority of perfusionist errors are due to fatigue and stress.

Licensing only makes perfusionists scarcer, especially since the nearest training program to Oklahoma is in Houston, Texas. That artificially limited supply helps to explain why perfusionists, who average more than $120k per year, are worth the money they earn. That scarcity, partly caused by licensing, also explains why patients are at risk from groggy, over-worked perfusionists.

Byron Schlomach is Director of the 1889 Institute and can be reached at bschlomach@1889institute.org.


Popular posts from this blog

The Problem of Diffuse Costs and Concentrated Benefits

Do you ever find yourself observing a seemingly illogical government program , spending decision, or other strange practice and ask “how is it that no one has fixed that?” If you are like me, you encounter this phenomenon regularly. This often takes the form of a curious headline (Save Federal Funding for the Cowboy Poets!) that most people see and can’t believe is real. I would like to suggest that this phenomenon often results from the problem of diffuse costs and concentrated benefits. To understand this concept, consider a hypothetical law that assessed a $1 tax on everyone in the United States with the proceeds to be given to one individual for unrestricted use as he sees fit. The people harmed by such a law—the individual taxpayers—will not be very motivated to spend the time and effort to convince Congress to change the law. They might resent the dollar taken from them for a silly cause they don’t support, but the lost dollar isn’t worth the trouble of doing something about i...
Read more

If Data Is Supposed to Be Our Guide, the Great Coronavirus Shutdown of 2020 Should End

According to the most widely cited model projecting the course of the coronavirus outbreak, today is supposed to be Oklahoma’s peak in daily deaths. Now is a good time to go back to the beginning of the Great Coronavirus Shutdown of 2020, review the goal of our policy, and assess our current status. If our policy should be “data-driven,” as we are constantly told, then let’s actually look at the data and determine our next policy steps accordingly. Spoiler alert: according to the terms set out by those advocating for the shutdown policy, the policy’s continuance is no longer justified. The stated goal of the shutdown policy was to “flatten the curve” so as to prevent hospitals from becoming overwhelmed with COVID patients. The fear was that the virus would spread so fast that at its peak, the number of cases would exceed the overall capacity of the healthcare system. If that peak could be stretched out over a longer period of time, lives would be saved. This concept was il...
Read more

Even If Pandemic Models Were Right, Were Covid Lockdowns Wrong?

1889 has been quite critical of pandemic modeling that government officials have relied on for their Covid-19 response. We have also criticized shutdown orders in light of flaws in the models. But let’s assume for a moment that the worst predictions really would have come true if nothing was done. Even in those worst case scenarios, it’s fair to ask if our governments did the right thing. Were involuntary shutdowns justified, or would people have found a way to both limit the contagion and maintain some level of productivity? Was putting healthy citizens under house arrest acceptable even if they were willing to risk infection?   While large groups of people are often compared to herd animals, we are not sheep. We don’t behave like animals. We can, have, and will step up when our communities are in danger. When government and journalists give incomplete or false information, people will act irrationally. Depending on the situation, some will blindly follow the first aut...
Read more

Why Does Oklahoma License Polygraph Examiners?

Should polygraph examiners be licensed? In Oklahoma, a license is required to work as a polygraph examiner (a professional who applies lie-detector tests), and it is not at all obvious why. Generally, an occupation is licensed if it is obviously in the public’s interest to prevent potential bad actors from practicing. So, for example, it is argued that doctors must be licensed because, otherwise, some idiot might open a hospital in his garage and really hurt someone. And it is argued that accountants must be licensed because, otherwise, some college-dropout might offer to do accounting for an unsuspecting mom-and-pop shop, tell them their numbers look great (when, in fact, they don’t), and cause them to go bankrupt. In short, occupational licensing is supposed to either (1) prevent real, tangible harm, or (2) assure customers that their service-provider is trustworthy. However, interestingly, licensing polygraph examiners does not accomplish either of those goals because polygraph e...
Read more