Beyond Licence Revocation: Causes, Career Pathways, and Transparency Challenges in Southeastern States
Poster #: 024
Session/Time: A
Author:
Houston Nelson, BS
Mentor:
Yifan Guo, MD
Research Type: Educational
Abstract
INTRODUCTION:
Physician license revocation is one of the most severe disciplinary measures, effectively ending a physician's ability to practice medicine in their current capacity. This loss carries profound financial and professional consequences, particularly for surgeons, whose highly specialized skills are uniquely tied to operative practice. The Open, Public, Electronic, and Necessary (OPEN) Government Data Act of 2019 encouraged states to make physician licensure data more publicly accessible to promote transparency. Despite this, little is known about physicians' career trajectories following revocation. Our study sought to examine post-revocation outcomes, with a particular focus on surgeons, by utilizing state medical board databases and supplemental sources such as LinkedIn, organizational websites, and social media. Individuals whose revocations resulted in incarceration were excluded.
METHODS:
We identified physicians with revoked licenses in Southeastern states by reviewing state medical board disciplinary databases. For each case, we documented the stated reason(s) for revocation. We then searched publicly available resources, including LinkedIn and other online platforms, to investigate subsequent career activities, with particular attention to surgeons.
DISCUSSION:
Florida demonstrated the highest level of transparency, allowing us to identify both the causes of revocation and post-revocation career patterns. Common reasons for revocation included substance misuse, fraud, malpractice, and professional misconduct. Among surgeons and other physicians, post-revocation trajectories frequently involved transitions into educational roles, business ventures, or healthcare consulting, where knowledge of medical systems could be repurposed. However, outside of Florida, data accessibility posed significant challenges. Many states lacked comprehensive or easily searchable databases, obscured details of disciplinary actions, or presented incomplete records, which limited our ability to identify broader trends.
CONCLUSION:
This study provides insight into the professional pathways of physicians-particularly surgeons-following license revocation, with Florida serving as the clearest case example. Our findings highlight both the types of careers pursued after revocation and the systemic barriers to accessing disciplinary data. Improving transparency will require standardized, user-friendly reporting systems to ensure that the public can meaningfully access information intended to protect them.
Physician license revocation is one of the most severe disciplinary measures, effectively ending a physician's ability to practice medicine in their current capacity. This loss carries profound financial and professional consequences, particularly for surgeons, whose highly specialized skills are uniquely tied to operative practice. The Open, Public, Electronic, and Necessary (OPEN) Government Data Act of 2019 encouraged states to make physician licensure data more publicly accessible to promote transparency. Despite this, little is known about physicians' career trajectories following revocation. Our study sought to examine post-revocation outcomes, with a particular focus on surgeons, by utilizing state medical board databases and supplemental sources such as LinkedIn, organizational websites, and social media. Individuals whose revocations resulted in incarceration were excluded.
METHODS:
We identified physicians with revoked licenses in Southeastern states by reviewing state medical board disciplinary databases. For each case, we documented the stated reason(s) for revocation. We then searched publicly available resources, including LinkedIn and other online platforms, to investigate subsequent career activities, with particular attention to surgeons.
DISCUSSION:
Florida demonstrated the highest level of transparency, allowing us to identify both the causes of revocation and post-revocation career patterns. Common reasons for revocation included substance misuse, fraud, malpractice, and professional misconduct. Among surgeons and other physicians, post-revocation trajectories frequently involved transitions into educational roles, business ventures, or healthcare consulting, where knowledge of medical systems could be repurposed. However, outside of Florida, data accessibility posed significant challenges. Many states lacked comprehensive or easily searchable databases, obscured details of disciplinary actions, or presented incomplete records, which limited our ability to identify broader trends.
CONCLUSION:
This study provides insight into the professional pathways of physicians-particularly surgeons-following license revocation, with Florida serving as the clearest case example. Our findings highlight both the types of careers pursued after revocation and the systemic barriers to accessing disciplinary data. Improving transparency will require standardized, user-friendly reporting systems to ensure that the public can meaningfully access information intended to protect them.