As a physician, one of your most valuable assets is your reputation.  Anonymous web postings by disgruntled patients can threaten your good name and practice.

Most medical practices are built through word of mouth. It only takes one negative Internet posting to impact your livelihood.

The national media continues its coverage of our services to protect physicians from Internet defamation. A handful of these stories misinform with the attention-grabbing headline of "gag order." This statement could not be farther from the truth.

We crafted a solution that balances the rights and expectations of patients with the concerns of doctors. Mutual Agreements do not create a choice between healthcare and one's right to free speech (as some have erroneously claimed). Far from it.  We recognize that medical errors can and do occur. There are existing processes and viable venues where patients can report bad experiences with physicians. For example, other doctors, lawyers, friends, state licensing boards, civil court and more. 

The most recent iteration of the Mutual Agreement encourages patients to provide valid feedback. Patients are free to post online. In the rare event the feedback is not constructive, doctors have a tool to address fictional or slanderous posts.

We are not only doctors. We are patients and want to be able to choose the best healthcare professionals available so we receive the highest quality care. We agree that viable, actionable and statistically significant feedback is beneficial to patients and doctors alike. Unfortunately, many current rating sites fail at these criteria. Medical Justice has been approached by a number of doctor rating sites asking how they "can do it right."  Medical Justice outlined several minimum standards and these sites are working hard to be fair and balanced. The marketplace is changing, much of it because of our prompting. These changes will benefit both doctors and patients. The Internet will naturally be an integral part of the long-term solution.

Our organization focuses on serious proposals for reforming the entire healthcare system, not just for physicians, but also payers, and patients. These proposals, as well as discussions of our core offering, have been published in a number of peer-reviewed journals and presented at scientific, legal, and policy conferences.

Current solution: Mutual Agreements address the emergence of now over 40 generally anonymous physician rating sites. Patients are free to post online. Further, Medical Justice can recommend which sites have adopted our minimum standards to increase credibility.  The Agreements provide an actionable tool to address fictional or slanderous posts  In return, patients are granted additional privacy protections by the doctor above and beyond those mandated by law.
 
Problem 1: On rating sites, patients, or people posing as patients- such as disgruntled employees, ex-spouses, or competitors can damage a hard-earned reputation. And a doctor has no recourse. As an arcane nuance of cyberlaw, the web sites are immune from any accountability. (Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act). Many sites have generally taken the position they will not monitor or police any content.
 
Problem 2: In the U.S., the antidote to offensive speech is generally more speech. However, physicians are foreclosed from posting the medical record to correct any factual inconsistencies. As it should be. Both patients and doctors place a higher premium on privacy.
 
Not a "gag": Patients remain entirely free to communicate about their treatment with friends, family, other health professionals, hospitals, licensing boards, attorneys, civil court, and more. There are multiple venues for communicating and/or venting, and these venues are more effective in addressing issue accountability. The Agreement provides additional privacy protections to the patient. Online posts are not forbidden.

Commentary is even promoted; particularly on sites that meet minimum standards for credibility. That's right. This has been a moving target, but the marketplace has responded with meaningful and substantive options. Medical Justice has been instrumental in prompting the marketplace to create these options. Since Spring, 2009, a number of consumer health sites have actively approached Medical Justice asking for guidance on how to work with both doctors and patients. These sites have already implemented or are implementing such standards. Standards include general verification the poster is a patient. Wikipedia followed a similar path. At one point they allowed anonymous posts. Their credibility was questioned. Their policy changed requiring those who post to first register. Now, Wikipedia is perceived as being more credible than before. Doctor rating sites are going through a similar evolution.
 
Ongoing Goal:  We are not, in principle, against physician ratings. We are actively working with a number of rating companies. Patients want good information. Honest – and useful – ratings will require a sophisticated understanding of outcomes research, risk stratification, etc. In other words, it's not a simple task. In 2009, we are still struggling to compare apples to apples, like mortality and infection rates for institutions, much less individual practitioners. That said, subjective impressions by patients can be measured and reported. And such information can be used - by doctors - to improve performance -and by patients-  to make decisions. This information must be placed in context. But,  that does not diminish its potential utility.
 
Future Solution: Medical Justice is partnering with a number of ratings company  to get ratings done right. Doctors are interested in constructive feedback. They want to promote patient safety. In general, they want to improve the experience for the patient.

Our mission is to promote a transformational healthcare system where patients can make informed decisions using the Internet as one means. But, not all sites on the Internet are equal. Medical Justice is identifying sites that are balanced and credible so as to help doctors and patients know where to turn.

Doctor Rating Sites FAQ

VIEW VIDEO CASE STUDY ON INTERNET DEFAMATION AND PHYSICIAN RATING SITES

Medical Justice^® Protects Your Reputation...

Medical Justice has developed a proactive, practice infrastructure to prevent the broadcast of defamatory information BEFORE it happens.  Creating a vaccine for libel.

Build a Barrier to Libel...

• Protective: Licensed intellectual property that creates a vaccine against libel
• Proactive: Prevents the epidemic of defamation against doctors on the web
• Preemptive: Notifies sites to remove posts on member physicians 
• Relentless: Regularly searches rating web sites for compliance

Protect yourself from frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits and Internet Defamation!

CALL 877-633-5878 (877-MED-JUST)

REQUEST INFORMATION and one of our associates will contact you immediately.

• Join Now 
• Request a Consultation

Internet Defamation protection can be purchased as a stand alone service. The program is bundled free with full Medical Justice membership.