Editorial: Closer scrutiny for doctors

Wednesday, May 10, 2006 | 7:26 a.m.

A national advocacy group rates the Nevada Board of Medical Examiners nearly last in the country on its effectiveness in protecting patients from incompetent doctors.

Public Citizen, a nonprofit, Washington-based organization founded in 1971 by Ralph Nader, ranks Nevada 47th on a survey of serious disciplinary actions taken by medical boards in the 50 states and the District of Columbia.

The group believes medical boards that frequently dish out serious discipline, such as revocation or suspension of medical licenses, are performing a higher public service than those boards whose records show infrequent disciplinary actions.

Topping Public Citizen's list released this spring, which covers the years 2003-2005, is the medical board in Kentucky. It imposed serious discipline against an average of 9.08 doctors for every 1,000 doctors in the state. For the same period, according to Public Citizen's research, Nevada's board imposed serious discipline against an average of 2.03 doctors for every 1,000 doctors in the state.

"(The numbers) raise serious questions about the extent to which patients in many of these states with poorer records of serious doctor discipline are being protected from physicians who would likely be barred from practice in states with boards that are doing a better job of disciplining physicians," Public Citizen's Health Research Group wrote in its report.

Nevada's board counters that it investigates every complaint it receives and every malpractice case. Its executive director, Tony Clark, told the Sun this week that the board has about 600 open complaints at any given time. He was dismissive of Nevada's ranking, saying, "We're not going to let Public Citizen determine how we discipline our doctors."

We agree that Public Citizen's report is not definitive. But it does point out a statistical difference that bears scrutiny. Why are Nevada's doctors disciplined more infrequently than doctors in most other states?

The closed nature of the Nevada board, including the posting of only scant information about cases on its Web site, makes it impossible to know whether Nevada's board is being sufficiently aggressive. But we know there are some questionable procedures the board follows, such as not considering past complaints against doctors in deciding upon a current complaint.

Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie, D-Reno, told the Sun there is a perception that Nevada is overly protective of its doctors. She says the Legislature, in light of Public Citizen's report, should review the board's procedures. We believe she is right.