Doctors’ board declines to post complete documentation of complaints

Beth Slovic

Wednesday, June 9, 2004 | 9:58 a.m.

Residents who want to learn more about their doctors can, at the click of a few buttons, review the Web site of the state agency that licenses and regulates doctors.

Anyone with access to the Internet can double-check physicians' licenses, learn about malpractice settlements and read a synopsis of disciplinary records and, perhaps as soon as this summer, learn where the doctor went to school.

However, complete reports on disciplinary actions taken against doctors by the Nevada Board of Medical Examiners will not be made available on the Web site.

Instead, following a decision by the board last week, any member of the public who wants to examine all of the documents related to a doctor's disciplinary record will have to pick up the phone.

In line with the board's current policy, the public will have to call the board in Reno, make a request over the phone, and send in money, anywhere from about $1 to more than $60. Then they will have to wait for the documents -- from a few pages to more than 100 -- to arrive in the mail.

The board decided to require the slower method because members worried that posting all of its information on disciplinary actions could inappropriately circulate accusations against doctors that are later dismissed by an investigative committee.

Documents outlining the charges are public and would remain on file at the board and be available upon request. Accessing the documents off-line will continue to cost the interested party, with fees assessed to cover copying costs. Photocopies now costs 60 cents a page, the board said.

This process may take more time, but Dr. Joel Lubritz, vice president of the board, said the longstanding process would make it less likely that misleading or unsubstantiated information would be posted on the Internet.

"There's no reason to put that on the Internet, when it's available to the public by making a call," Lubritz said.

What medical examiners post on the Web site, how they present the information and when they do so is a matter of debate in this state, as well as elsewhere in the country.

Regulatory bodies, lawmakers and advocacy groups have all weighed in on the discussion of how best to serve the public in their efforts to find quality health care.

Public Citizen, a watchdog group which publishes a Web site called "Questionable Doctors," has monitored and ranked the nation's medical boards' Web sites for content and user-friendliness.

Part of the group's effort is to encourage the agencies to publish useful information that helps consumers select doctors in a format that is easy for the public to understand and access.

The group gave Nevada's medical board in 2002 a B grade for its Web site's "content" and an F for "user-friendliness."

In a different survey, in which the nonprofit group looked at the rate at which regulatory agencies across the country disciplined their doctors in 2003, Nevada's board ranked 36th in the nation.

That year the board took "serious actions" against the state's nearly 4,000 doctors 11 times. Public Citizen defines "serious actions," as license revocations, surrenders, suspensions or restrictions.

"It's getting worse,"said Dr. Sidney Wolfe, a physician and health researcher at Public Citizen, referring to the Nevada board's rate. By comparison Arizona's board ranks first nationwide in its three-year average rate of disciplining doctors.

"The people in Nevada are not being as well protected as in neighboring Arizona," Wolfe said.

Jaculine Jones, a former high school principal from Washoe County, whose term as a non-medical member of the board expires this month, said that when she was selected by the governor eight years ago to serve on the board she was skeptical. She imagined a board made up of doctors might not be aggressive in its mission to monitor other doctors.

"People looking in think that doctors are protecting other doctors," Jones said. "It only took me a meeting or two to realize that is not the case; doctors don't want bad doctors in Nevada either."