There has been 32,000 Michigan residents who have been diagnosed with the COVID-19 coronavirus as of April 20, according to the state of Michigan. And 2,468 people have died as of April 20. Medical facilities on the front lines of the pandemic are struggling to overcome many challenges, not least of them staffing.

Doctors and health care workers in hard-hit areas have been begging for assistance as they struggle to treat gravely ill patients.

The situation grew so dire at Detroit’s Sinai-Grace Hospital on April 5 that night-shift nurses in the emergency room refused to work unless more nurses were brought in, according to WJBK. Stressed hospital administrators told the nurses to either work or go home. To fill the gaps, some remaining emergency room personnel found themselves working 24-hour shifts.

To lend a hand, many older doctors and nurses have come out of retirement, but licensing restrictions are an obstacle to them crossing state lines and going where the needs are greatest.

One scholar has a suggestion for reducing the burden this is placing on the medical profession.

Stephen Slivinski, senior research fellow at the Center for the Study of Economic Liberty at Arizona State University, says states should revise their professional licensing rules to allow a concept known as universal license recognition. If Michigan did this, licensed medical professionals from other states could come here and go right to work.

“States are looking for ways to get more medical professionals to the front lines of the fight against the spread of the virus,” read a recent press release from Arizona State University.

“It’s the equivalent of how states treat driver’s licenses from other states, except in this case for occupational license,” Slivinski said.

State Rep. Mary Whiteford, R-Casco Township, is the sponsor of a bill to enroll Michigan in a multistate nursing licensure compact that currently has 34 members. The bill passed the House with all Democrats and two Republicans voting against it.

"I couldn't get a single Democrat to support it,” she said.

Whiteford is a nurse herself. As she put it, “You cannot call someone in another state as a professional and do follow-up on a surgery unless you are licensed in that state."

She also compared the concept to a driver’s license.

“The best way to do it is to put it into statute,” Whiteford said. “Then there is full-license protection. Any nurse would want that.”

Beyond nursing, more than a dozen states have implemented some form of temporary license recognition for out-of-state medical personnel since early March, according to Slivinski.

Legislatures would have to amend state laws for the reform to become permanent – a move that Pennsylvania and Arizona have already adopted.

Slivinski said that universal license recognition could also be applied to other types of licensed workers.

“Universal recognition of licenses isn’t just an important response to a radically increased demand for medical professionals in a pandemic. It will also be important to many other types of workers once the pandemic passes,” he said.

Among other benefits, this reform might provide opportunities to out-of-work Michiganders who are subject to occupational license mandates, letting them take temporary jobs in other states that may also adopt universal license recognition.

“When the freedom of movement has been restored and things begin to get back to normal, discouraging people from moving to where the best economic opportunities for them are will hinder both their economic well-being and that of states as a whole,” Slivinski said.

“Keeping occupational licensing barriers in place would be like instituting a different form of ‘shelter in place,’” he said. “This time, it would be one of an economic sort by restricting their job opportunities and their economic mobility.”

On March 17 Whiteford's House-passed licensure compact bill was discharged from a Senate committee and sent to the full body for further consideration. The legislature has only met twice since then with many members absent and no roll call votes taken.

Gov. Gretchen Whitmer received broad public support and very little pushback when she first issued an emergency stay-at-home order on March 23.

But there has been growing resentment and confusion since Whitmer expanded the range of restrictions in an April 9 extension of the original order, which now expires April 30.

A handful of government officials are saying they will not enforce the expanded provisions in the extended order.

In an April 13 Facebook post, Byron Township Supervisor Tom Hooker said he encouraged certain businesses deemed non-essential to stay open.

“A landscaper or someone mowing your yard for you is not putting anyone at risk,” Hooker wrote. “I encourage those businesses to continue. I will not stop or fine them unless they are doing it against the owners wishes.”

“While she has some authority to suggest guidelines for safety during this COVID-19 health situation, she doesn’t have the authority to forbid citizens from assembly as families, as churches or as citizens to assemble or criticize her decisions,” Hooker said in his April 13 Facebook post. “Her method of selecting essential vs non-essential activities is seriously flawed as her models used to arrive at numbers.”

Hooker added: “I believe her goal is to destroy the economy of Michigan and to lay the blame on our president.”

On April 18, Hooker retracted that statement on Facebook and admitted he was wrong to speculate on Whitmer’s intent.

Sheriffs in Leelanau, Benzie, Manistee and Mason counties have all stated they will not pursue “strict enforcement” of Whitmer’s executive orders in their jurisdictions.

“We will deal with every case as an individual situation and apply common sense in assessing the apparent violation,” the sheriffs wrote in an April 15 press release. “Our focus needs to be on reopening our counties and getting people back to work.”

The sheriffs questioned whether Whitmer is “overstepping her executive authority” with some of the restrictions in her emergency order.

For example, the executive order limits what items can be purchased at stores that are larger than 50,000 square feet.

“If a store falls within this category then they must narrow their advertising and promotion of goods to groceries or medical supplies, and items necessary to maintain the safety, sanitation, and basic operations of residences,” reads an official webpage about the executive order. “A store subject to advertising limitations may still promote general awareness of the store’s brand.”