I agree this does not seem to have relevant data to back it up. At least when they rank insurance carriers they base it on the actually number of complaints against them. If they are talking about doctors with mal-pratice suits pending then maybe they have some facts they didn’t show in this article.
I agree with “me” (I like saying that.) The study takes as a given that doctors are as bad now as they were before, or are as bad in one state as in the next.
In fact, the actual study (on Public Citizen’s website) says:
“These data demonstrate a remarkable variability in the rates of serious disciplinary actions taken by the state boards. Once again, only one of the nation’s 15 most populous states, Ohio, is represented among those 10 states with the highest disciplinary rates. For the first time, the largest state in the country, California, is among the 10 states with the lowest rates of serious disciplinary actions. Absent any evidence that the prevalence of physicians deserving of discipline varies substantially from state to state, this variability must be considered the result of the boards’ practices. Indeed, the ability of certain states to rapidly increase or decrease their rankings (even when these are calculated on the basis of three-year averages) can only be due to changes in practices at the board level; the prevalence of physicians eligible for discipline cannot change so rapidly.”
Don’t just tell me that there’s no “evidence that the prevalence of physicians deserving of discipline varies substantially from state to state”, SHOW ME evidence that there IS NO substantial variability!
Public Citizen has taken a strong position with the support of flimsy statistics.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
I agree this does not seem to have relevant data to back it up. At least when they rank insurance carriers they base it on the actually number of complaints against them. If they are talking about doctors with mal-pratice suits pending then maybe they have some facts they didn’t show in this article.
I agree with “me” (I like saying that.) The study takes as a given that doctors are as bad now as they were before, or are as bad in one state as in the next.
In fact, the actual study (on Public Citizen’s website) says:
“These data demonstrate a remarkable variability in the rates of serious disciplinary actions taken by the state boards. Once again, only one of the nation’s 15 most populous states, Ohio, is represented among those 10 states with the highest disciplinary rates. For the first time, the largest state in the country, California, is among the 10 states with the lowest rates of serious disciplinary actions. Absent any evidence that the prevalence of physicians deserving of discipline varies substantially from state to state, this variability must be considered the result of the boards’ practices. Indeed, the ability of certain states to rapidly increase or decrease their rankings (even when these are calculated on the basis of three-year averages) can only be due to changes in practices at the board level; the prevalence of physicians eligible for discipline cannot change so rapidly.”
Don’t just tell me that there’s no “evidence that the prevalence of physicians deserving of discipline varies substantially from state to state”, SHOW ME evidence that there IS NO substantial variability!
Public Citizen has taken a strong position with the support of flimsy statistics.