Medical Board Discipline of Physicians for Spreading Medical Misinformation.

Abstract

Importance: False medical information disseminated dangerously during the COVID-19 pandemic, with certain physicians playing a surprisingly prominent role. Medical boards engendered widespread criticism for not imposing forceful sanctions, but considerable uncertainty remains about how the professional licensure system regulates physician-spread misinformation.

Objective: To compare the level of professional discipline of physicians for spreading medical misinformation relative to discipline for other offenses.

Design, setting, and participants: This cross-sectional study analyzed and coded publicly reported medical board disciplinary actions in the 5 most populous US states. The analysis included data from January 1, 2020, through May 30, 2023, for California, Florida, New York, and Pennsylvania and from January 1, 2020, through March 30, 2022, for Texas.

Main outcomes and measures: Medical board disciplinary proceedings that resulted in some form of sanction were analyzed. Codes were assigned for the different types of offenses relied on by medical boards for imposing physician discipline.

Results: Among 3128 medical board disciplinary proceedings in the 5 most populous states, spreading misinformation to the community was the least common reason for medical board discipline of physicians (6 [0.1%] of all identified offenses). Two reasons tied for third least common: patient-directed misinformation (21 [0.3%]) and inappropriate advertising or patient solicitation (21 [0.3%]). The frequency of misinformation conduct was exponentially lower than more common reasons for discipline, such as physician negligence (1911 [28.7%]), problematic record-keeping (990 [14.9%]), and inappropriate prescribing (901 [13.5%]). Patient-directed misinformation provided a basis for discipline 3 times as often as spreading misinformation to the community. The frequency of disciplinary actions for any reasons related to COVID-19 care, even if not about misinformation, was also quite low (10 [0.2%]). Sanctions in misinformation actions tended to be relatively light.

Conclusions and relevance: The frequency of discipline for physician-spread misinformation observed in this cross-sectional study was quite low despite increased salience and medical board warnings since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic about the dangers of physicians spreading falsehoods. These findings suggest that there is a serious disconnect between regulatory guidance and enforcement and that medical boards relied on spreading misinformation to patients as a reason for discipline 3 times more frequently than disseminating falsehoods to the public. These results shed light on important policy concerns about professional licensure, including why, under current patient-centered frameworks, this form of regulation may be particularly ill-suited to address medical misinformation.