{"id":2535,"date":"2025-02-16T12:10:00","date_gmt":"2025-02-16T17:10:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/magazine.law.unc.edu\/march-2025\/?p=2535"},"modified":"2025-02-26T09:37:51","modified_gmt":"2025-02-26T14:37:51","slug":"carolina-law-professors-jama-study-reveals-medical-boards-rarely-discipline-physician-misinformation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/magazine.law.unc.edu\/march-2025\/carolina-law-professors-jama-study-reveals-medical-boards-rarely-discipline-physician-misinformation\/","title":{"rendered":"Carolina Law Professor\u2019s JAMA Study Reveals Medical Boards Rarely Discipline Physician Misinformation"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>Despite increased concerns about doctors spreading false medical claims during the COVID-19 pandemic, medical boards rarely take disciplinary action against physicians for spreading misinformation. These were the findings of a new study by <a href=\"https:\/\/law.unc.edu\/people\/richard-s-saver\/\">Richard S. Saver<\/a>, Arch T. Allen Distinguished Professor of Law at UNC School of Law and professor in the Department of Social Medicine at the UNC School of Medicine, which was published in JAMA Network Open.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Through analysis of over 3,100 medical board disciplinary proceedings across the nation\u2019s five most populous states, Saver found that spreading misinformation to the public was the least common reason for physician discipline, accounting for just 0.1% of all disciplinary offenses. Even when physicians spread misinformation directly to patients, it resulted in discipline in only 0.3% of cases, which is exponentially lower than more common reasons like practitioner negligence (at 28.7%).&nbsp;&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201cThere\u2019s a striking disconnect between medical boards\u2019 statements about the dangers of physician misinformation, as well as increasing public attention to the problem, and the actual enforcement actions,\u201d said Saver. \u201cEven within the small number of actions involving misinformation, the data shows that boards are far more comfortable disciplining physicians for misconduct involving direct patient care than addressing erroneous public statements. Yet false public communications may cause wider harm.\u201d&nbsp;&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The research, which examined disciplinary actions from January 2020 through May 2023, revealed that medical boards face significant challenges in policing physician misinformation, particularly communications made to the general public rather than to individual patients. This raises important questions about whether the current medical board system is equipped to address the modern challenge of medical misinformation.&nbsp;&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201cMedical boards traditionally focus on monitoring physician-patient relationships,\u201d Saver explained. \u201cBut in today\u2019s digital age, when a single physician spreading misinformation can influence thousands of people, our regulatory framework may need to evolve.\u201d&nbsp;&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-container-1 wp-block-buttons\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-button\"><a class=\"wp-block-button__link\" href=\"\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Access the Article Now<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Carolina Law Professor Richard Saver&#8217;s bombshell JAMA study reveals the shocking truth about what happens when doctors spread medical misinformation \u2014 and why medical boards aren&#8217;t stopping it.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":2568,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":true,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[11],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/magazine.law.unc.edu\/march-2025\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2535"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/magazine.law.unc.edu\/march-2025\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/magazine.law.unc.edu\/march-2025\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/magazine.law.unc.edu\/march-2025\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/magazine.law.unc.edu\/march-2025\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2535"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/magazine.law.unc.edu\/march-2025\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2535\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2571,"href":"https:\/\/magazine.law.unc.edu\/march-2025\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2535\/revisions\/2571"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/magazine.law.unc.edu\/march-2025\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2568"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/magazine.law.unc.edu\/march-2025\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2535"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/magazine.law.unc.edu\/march-2025\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2535"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/magazine.law.unc.edu\/march-2025\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2535"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}