Snehal Patel, Quynh Tran, Tucker Bettis, Logan Glosser, Felipe Maegawa
{"title":"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。","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":"{\"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}","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}
Malpractice Payments and State Medical Board Discipline: National Evidence From the National Practitioner Data Bank.
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.