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.

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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书