Share this site! The Safe Patient Project is a Consumers Union campaign focused on eliminating medical harm, improving FDA oversight of prescription drugs and promoting disclosure laws that give information to consumers about health care safety and quality.

Utah Rated Among Worst In Nation For Failing to Keep Patients Informed About Bad Doctors

For Immediate Release:  Tuesday, March 29, 2016

Contact:  Michael McCauley,, 415-431-6747, ext 7606 (office) or 415-902-537 (cell)


Consumer Reports:  Utah Rated Among Worst In Nation

For Failing to Keep Patients Informed About Bad Doctors


State Medical Boards Urged to Improve Public Access to Disciplinary

Records And Require Physicians on Probation to Tell Patients


YONKERS, NY — A Consumer Reports review of medical board websites in all 50 states and the District of Columbia found that Utah earned one of the lowest ratings in the country for failing to provide the public easy access to the disciplinary records of doctors licensed to practice in the state.   As a result, Utah residents face a challenging time finding out whether their doctor has been put on probation for misconduct, made malpractice payouts, or been convicted of crimes.


“Patients have a right to know whether their doctor has been disciplined for bad behavior, especially when it could endanger their health,” said Lisa McGiffert, Director of Consumer Reports’ Safe Patient Project.  “But Utah makes it very hard to find out if a doctor practicing in the state has a history of harming patients or putting them at risk.”


The review of medical board websites is featured in “What You Don’t Know About Your Doctor Could Hurt You,”  the cover story of the latest issue of Consumer Reports.  The article highlights some of the challenges patients face when checking up on doctors and includes tips for helping consumers find a good physician and what to do if they have been harmed during treatment.


Medical boards are state government agencies responsible for licensing and disciplining doctors and investigating complaints about them.  While most doctors have clean records, thousands of doctors around the country have been put on probation by state medical boards for a variety of offenses, including sexual misconduct, drug and alcohol abuse, overprescribing controlled substances, and other unprofessional or dangerous practices.  Most of these doctors are allowed to continue seeing patients.


In addition, doctors can be disciplined by the hospitals where they work for misconduct or by federal regulatory and law enforcement agencies for such offenses as Medicare fraud, abusing prescription drugs, or drug related crimes.   Doctors who harm patients also can be the subject of malpractice suits.


Consumer Reports and the Informed Patient Institute, a nonprofit group that provides consumers with information about healthcare quality and cost, analyzed medical board websites to see whether they provided easy access to complete information about doctors, rating them on a scale of 1 to 100.  The Utah Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing website received a score of 34, among the lowest in the country.


  • Utah doesn’t make it particularly easy for users to search online for information about their doctor. The website’s homepage does not clearly indicate where to go to search for a physician’s profile.   Instead of having a consumer-friendly “Look Up Your Doctor” link on the home page, the website features a “Verify a License” link, which many users may not understand as the pathway to look up a doctor’s disciplinary history.   And users are only able to search using the doctor’s name and license number (which is not known by most users).


  • Utah earned very good scores when it came to enabling patients to file a complaint about a doctor and providing general information about the board’s operations. The website includes a plain language description of the complaint process and enables users to submit those complaints online.  However, the website does not spell out how soon complaints must be submitted after a patient encounters misconduct.


  • Utah received fair marks for the information it discloses about disciplinary actions it has taken against doctors licensed in the state. The physician profiles have links to the disciplinary actions, but don’t provide a plain language summary of the actions taken or clearly indicate how the doctor’s license was impacted by each action.


  • The state’s Division of Occupational and Professional Licensure, which hosts the profiles of doctors and other professionals, provides a list of all disciplinary actions it has taken against these professionals dating back to 1999. Each month is downloadable and arranged chronologically and the lists include good plain language summaries of the actions, but no links to the actual orders.    Utah could greatly improve consumer access to information if the state provided information from the list in each doctor’s profile.


  • Finally, Utah received poor marks for not posting a doctor profile that provides a full picture of each licensed doctor’s history, including information about disciplinary actions against the doctor taken by hospitals and the federal government, and malpractice payouts. However, it got positive marks for providing information about whether doctors licensed in the state have been convicted of any crimes.


To help ensure patients can find out whether their doctor has a history of misconduct more easily, Consumers Union urged all state medical boards to adopt a number of reforms to help make their websites more consumer-friendly, including:


  • Use easily understandable search terms on medical board home pages and eye catching graphics to help consumers quickly find doctor-specific information.


  • Include a plain language summary of any disciplinary actions taken by the medical board on a physician’s profile that includes the date, reason, duration, and restrictions tied to the order, as well as links to documents with more detailed information.


  • In addition to board disciplinary orders, provide more comprehensive information on all physicians, including information about malpractice lawsuits, disciplinary actions taken by hospitals and federal agencies, and criminal convictions.


  • Allow the public to file complaints online and provide clear information about how complaints are handled, including expected time frames and when and how the complainant will be notified of the outcome.


While these kinds of website improvements will make it easier for consumers to check up on their doctors, Consumers Union has urged medical boards to require doctors on probation to inform their patients.  “The onus shouldn’t be on patients to investigate their physicians,” said McGiffert.  “Doctors on probation should be required to tell their patients of their status.” A Consumer Reports survey found that 82 percent of consumers are in favor of requiring doctors to tell their patients if they are on probation and why.


At the national level, Consumer Reports has advocated for the National Practitioners Data Bank, a federal repository that includes information about disciplinary actions taken by state medical boards, hospitals, as well as malpractice payments, to be open to the public.  Only hospitals, doctors, law enforcement, insurance companies, and a few other select groups are currently granted access.  Medical boards should also have free access to the Data Bank when checking on licensed doctors.




© 2016 Consumer Reports. The material above is intended for legitimate news entities only; it may not be used for advertising or promotional purposes. Consumer Reports® is an expert, independent nonprofit organization whose mission is to work for a fair, just, and safe marketplace for all consumers and to empower consumers to protect themselves. We accept no advertising and pay for all the products we test. We are not beholden to any commercial interest. Our income is derived from the sale of Consumer Reports®,® and our other publications and information products, services, fees, and noncommercial contributions and grants. Our Ratings and reports are intended solely for the use of our readers. Neither the Ratings nor the reports may be used in advertising or for any other commercial purpose without our permission. Consumer Reports will take all steps open to it to prevent commercial use of its materials, its name, or the name of Consumer Reports®.