Malpractice Payments and State Medical Board Discipline: National Evidence From the National Practitioner Data Bank.

Snehal Patel, Quynh Tran, Tucker Bettis, Logan Glosser, Felipe Maegawa
{"title":"Malpractice Payments and State Medical Board Discipline: National Evidence From the National Practitioner Data Bank.","authors":"Snehal Patel, Quynh Tran, Tucker Bettis, Logan Glosser, Felipe Maegawa","doi":"10.1097/JMQ.0000000000000361","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Malpractice payments and state medical board discipline are often assumed to identify the same physicians, yet that assumption has never been tested nationally.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>National retrospective cohort study using the National Practitioner Data Bank Public Use Data File (March 31, 2026 release). A total of 76 353 allopathic and osteopathic physicians without prior state licensure actions were followed from their first observed paid malpractice report (2004-2018) through March 2026. The primary outcome was any substantive new state licensure action; secondary outcomes classified actions as quality-of-care-related, nonclinical, or severe. All outcomes describe the first subsequent action in a time-to-first-event design.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 71 372 physicians (93.5%) had no subsequent state licensure action during observed follow-up; a severe first action occurred in 2.1% within 15 years, including license revocation in 0.2%. Among the 4981 physicians (6.5%) with a subsequent action, the first action occurred a median of 5 years after the index report, and 43.7% involved exclusively nonclinical conduct. The 15-year cumulative incidence was 2.54% for quality-of-care actions and 2.94% for nonclinical actions. Severe injury or death in the index report was not associated with subsequent quality-of-care discipline (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.90-1.12).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Board discipline following a paid malpractice report was uncommon, delayed, and frequently unrelated to clinical care. These accountability systems appear to serve complementary rather than interchangeable roles in assessing physician quality.</p>","PeriodicalId":101338,"journal":{"name":"American journal of medical quality : the official journal of the American College of Medical Quality","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of medical quality : the official journal of the American College of Medical Quality","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/JMQ.0000000000000361","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Malpractice payments and state medical board discipline are often assumed to identify the same physicians, yet that assumption has never been tested nationally.

Methods: National retrospective cohort study using the National Practitioner Data Bank Public Use Data File (March 31, 2026 release). A total of 76 353 allopathic and osteopathic physicians without prior state licensure actions were followed from their first observed paid malpractice report (2004-2018) through March 2026. The primary outcome was any substantive new state licensure action; secondary outcomes classified actions as quality-of-care-related, nonclinical, or severe. All outcomes describe the first subsequent action in a time-to-first-event design.

Results: Overall, 71 372 physicians (93.5%) had no subsequent state licensure action during observed follow-up; a severe first action occurred in 2.1% within 15 years, including license revocation in 0.2%. Among the 4981 physicians (6.5%) with a subsequent action, the first action occurred a median of 5 years after the index report, and 43.7% involved exclusively nonclinical conduct. The 15-year cumulative incidence was 2.54% for quality-of-care actions and 2.94% for nonclinical actions. Severe injury or death in the index report was not associated with subsequent quality-of-care discipline (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.90-1.12).

Conclusions: Board discipline following a paid malpractice report was uncommon, delayed, and frequently unrelated to clinical care. These accountability systems appear to serve complementary rather than interchangeable roles in assessing physician quality.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
医疗事故支付和国家医学委员会纪律:来自国家从业者数据库的国家证据。
背景:医疗事故支付和国家医学委员会纪律通常被认为是同一位医生,但这种假设从未在全国范围内进行过测试。方法:使用国家从业者数据库公共使用数据文件(2026年3月31日发布)进行全国回顾性队列研究。从首次观察到的带薪医疗事故报告(2004-2018)到2026年3月,共有76353名没有州执照的对抗疗法和整骨疗法医生进行了随访。主要结果是任何实质性的新州执照行动;次要结果将行为分为与护理质量相关、非临床或严重。在“时间到第一事件”设计中,所有结果都描述了第一个后续行动。结果:总体而言,71 372名医生(93.5%)在观察随访期间没有后续的国家许可行动;在15年内发生严重的首次行动的比例为2.1%,包括吊销许可证的比例为0.2%。在4981名有后续行为的医生(6.5%)中,第一次行为发生在指数报告后的中位数5年,43.7%完全涉及非临床行为。15年累积发病率为2.54%的护理质量行动和2.94%的非临床行动。指数报告中的严重伤害或死亡与随后的护理质量学科无关(校正风险比,1.01;95% CI, 0.90-1.12)。结论:董事会在支付医疗事故报告后的纪律是罕见的,延迟的,并且经常与临床护理无关。在评估医生质量时,这些问责制似乎是互补的,而不是相互替代的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Optimizing Clinic Efficiency and Patient Flow in an Outpatient General Surgery Clinic. Malpractice Payments and State Medical Board Discipline: National Evidence From the National Practitioner Data Bank. Overcoming Barriers to Providing Medical Aid in Dying Services Using a Provider-Facing Navigator and the Electronic Health Record. AI-Assisted Thematic Analysis in a Quality Improvement Evaluation: Replicable Findings and Subtle Misrepresentations. Electronic Health Record-Embedded Structural Interventions to Improve Sepsis Bundle Quality Measure Performance: A Quality Improvement Initiative at a Veterans Affairs Medical Center.
wanfang
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1