How Many Patients Filing Complaints with the MBC have Reported a Positive Outcome? The Answer Probably won't Surprise You.

 I was doing some research about the Medical Board of California when it occurred to me that I have never read a social media post or read an article where a patient made a complaint about a doctor and then came back and reported that they were happy with the way the MBC handled it.  On a whim. I requested a deep research to see if any patient who filed a complaint had reported a positive outcome.  At first, it came back with people who had complained about the MBC - the opposite of what I wanted.  This happened because AI systems don't like to report negative results, so I rephrased the prompt and told the AI a negative result was acceptable, as long as it searched far and wide.  I've pasted the results below, but you probably have already guessed that it came back with no results - zero, zilch, nada.  

Now, I'm sure someone has made a positive public statement about them somewhere - I myself have heard people praise individual employees of this organization at their quarterly board meetings, but it doesn't happen very often.  Also,as the analysis points out, there are reasons the number might be low, but zero?  This report searched through hundreds of sources,  every major newspaper archive going back five years and every major social network, and it didn't find a single positive report from a patient who had filed a complaint - not one.  

The Key Takeaway Here?  I rhink wc can now safely say:

The Medical Board of California has close ot zero public support. 

The Process is the Punishment: What Doctors Think about the Medical Board of California

 This is the prompt, and the resulting deep-dive research project I gave to Gemini AI.  It makes some excellent points, but the one I like most is, "The Process is the Punishment.  Even if a doctor is exonerated, the process is so long, so expensive, and so potentially damaging to their careers, that just going through it is like being convicted of a crime.  Since doctors cannot speak freely about the Medical Board of California out of the reasonable fear of retaliation, this report used anonymous forums for most of the analysis here.  It also reviews the MBC drug testing program for doctors who have been accused of substance abuse, which seems unnecessarily brutal, even draconian. 

Waiting Time for Serious Complaints about Doctors is now 1387 Days at the MBC

 It currently takes 1387 days, nearly four years, for a complaint about a doctor to make it entirely through the complaint process at the Medical Board of California (MBC), assuming it doesn't get blocked along the way.   Just getting to the first part of the process, where the case the Central Complaint Unit takes 148 days, about five months.  At this stage, they review the complaint, determine if the MBC has jurisdiction, gather initial medical records, and have a medical consultant provide an initial opinion.  After that, a decision is made to either close the complaint or refer it for a full investigation.

Let's use holographic projections to replace the Medical Board of California -I'm serious

 The Medical Board of California makes a huge production of its "public outreach" quarterly meetings.  They travel to a different California city, stay one or two nights in a high-end hotel, where they rent a conference room, and presumably have meals and other expenses paid by the State.  Usually, about 10 board members and 10 staff members attend these meetings, so they are sending 20 people, and that doesn't come cheap, especially for an organization that constantly whines that it doesn't have enough money to do its job.  

I got Censored by the MBC!

 I just reviewed the YouTube video of the MBC August Quarterly meeting in San Diego, and it appears that some of my comments have been removed from the published video.   I went there in person and was blocked from speaking, and I am still not clear why.  At the time, I was commenting on their regulation of the physician assistant program, specifically the number of PAs a doctor would be allowed to supervise.  I mentioned the medical director of Family Health Centers of San Diego (FHCSD), Dr Christopher Gordon, had been addicted to crystal meth and was released from monitoring for good behavior.  I have no problem with that, but the MBC seems to love this guy, and I wanted to mention that he was one of the ones who (purportedly) agreed with the "approach" of accusing me of being a drug addict.   

I say this because Dr. Joe Sepulveda, a staff psychiatrist there who fraudulently claimed to have been "my psychiatrist", told me that in the 10-minute online meeting that was not consensual  (I told staff there in writing that this was only to discuss continuity of care) .  That makes it highly relevant to me, and highly relevant for the topic being discussed.   I am still reviewing and will update this post when I learn more.  I also need to know how common this is.   I was stopped by their Chief Council Kerrie Webb.  From comments made at that meeting, I understand this is not the first time.  As far as I am concerned, if they are censoring citizens because they don't like what is being said, they have negated the very reason for their existence.