What a state publishes about its licensees

Publication is a statutory duty

California puts the obligation in the general provisions at the front of its Business and Professions Code, where it applies to a list of named licensing entities rather than to one profession.

Each of those entities shall provide on the internet information regarding the status of every licence it issues, in accordance with the state public records act and its information practices act.

The section then says what the published information must include. It shall include information on suspensions and revocations of licences issued by the entity and other related enforcement action, including accusations filed under the state administrative procedure act, taken by the entity relative to persons, businesses, or facilities subject to its licensure or regulation.

Accusations are the notable inclusion there. An accusation is a charging document rather than a finding, and California requires that category of enforcement action to appear alongside completed suspensions and revocations.

Washington reaches the public through a different mechanism entirely. Rather than a website duty, its Uniform Disciplinary Act requires the disciplining authority to report the issuance of statements of charges and final orders to the public, and defines notification of the public to include press releases to appropriate local news media and the major news wire services.

Current status, item by item

California's medical board has its own section, which separates what is happening now from what happened before.

For all current and former licensees, the board shall post on its website whether the licensee is presently in good standing, current specialty board certification or an equivalent as certified by the board, and any of a listed set of enforcement actions or proceedings to which the licensee is actively subjected.

That listed set is specific. It covers temporary restraining orders; interim suspension orders; revocations, suspensions, probations or limitations on practice ordered by the board or by the board of another state or jurisdiction, including those made part of a probationary order or stipulated agreement; current accusations filed by the Attorney General, including those on appeal; and citations issued that have not been resolved or appealed within thirty days.

The statute defines its own term for one of those. A current accusation means an accusation that has not been dismissed, withdrawn, or settled, and has not been finally decided upon by an administrative law judge and the board, unless an appeal of that decision is pending.

Two features of that list are worth holding onto. It reaches actions ordered by the board of another state or jurisdiction, and it reaches a stipulated agreement as well as a contested order.

The historical half

The second half of the same California section covers historical information in the board's possession, custody or control regarding all current and former licensees.

It includes approved postgraduate training; final revocations and suspensions or equivalent actions taken by the board or by another state or jurisdiction; the surrender of a licence in relation to a disciplinary action or investigation, including the operative accusation resulting in the surrender or discipline; and completed or terminated probation ordered by the board or another jurisdiction, again including the operative accusation.

It also includes any felony convictions, and misdemeanour convictions resulting in a disciplinary action or accusation not subsequently withdrawn or dismissed. Where the licensee provides a certified copy of an expungement order, the board must within six months post notification of the expungement order and its date.

Civil judgments and arbitration awards issued in any amount for a claim of death or personal injury caused by negligence, error or omission in practice, or by rendering unauthorised professional services, are posted, whether or not vacated by a settlement after entry of the judgment, provided they were not reversed on appeal.

Hospital disciplinary actions that resulted in termination or revocation of staff privileges for a medical disciplinary cause are summarised, with the licensee's own explanatory or exculpatory submission published alongside. If privileges are restored and the board is notified, that information remains posted for ten years from the restoration date and is then removed; if a court finds in a final judgment that the peer review was conducted in bad faith and the board is notified, the posting is removed immediately.

Virginia builds a profile instead

Virginia takes a different approach, requiring its Board of Medicine to collect specified data from doctors of medicine, osteopathy and podiatry and to make it available.

The categories are largely biographical and professional: schools and years of graduation; graduate education at an institution approved by the named accrediting bodies; specialty board certification as approved by the named certifying boards; years in active clinical practice as specified by board regulation; hospital affiliations; faculty appointments within the most recent ten-year period and publications in peer-reviewed literature within the most recent five-year period.

Some entries are aimed at access rather than credentials. The profile carries the location and telephone number of any primary and secondary practice settings with the approximate percentage of time spent in each, the access to any translating service provided at those settings, and the status of the doctor's participation in the state medicaid programme.

The disciplinary entries are drawn from mandatory reporting rather than collected separately. The profile includes any final disciplinary or other action required to be reported to the board by health care institutions, other practitioners, insurance companies, health maintenance organisations and professional organisations that results in a suspension or revocation of privileges or the termination of employment, or a final board order relating to disciplinary action, together with conviction of any felony.

Virginia also provides for voluntary reporting of insurance plans accepted and managed care plans in which the doctor participates, which is a category the statute expressly does not require.

What both states deliberately leave out

The exclusions are as specific as the inclusions, and they explain why a public record can look thinner than a reader expects.

California's general provision states that published information may not include personal information, including home telephone number, date of birth, or social security number. Each entity must disclose a licensee's address of record, but must allow a licensee to provide a post office box or other alternate address instead of a home address for that purpose, and may collect a physical address for internal administrative use only.

Virginia excludes contact details it collects for one purpose from publication for another. A doctor supplies an email address or facsimile number solely for expedited dissemination of information about a public health emergency, and the statute states that it shall not be published on the profile database and shall not be released or made available for any other purpose.

Money is handled by category rather than by figure in both states. Virginia requires reports to include malpractice judgments and settlements of more than ten thousand dollars within the most recent ten-year period, in categories indicating the level of significance, while stating that the specific numeric values of reported paid claims shall not be released in any individually identifiable manner under any circumstances. A licensee must nonetheless report a judgment or settlement below that figure if another has been paid by or for them within the preceding twelve months.

California is comparable and adds thresholds. Settlements within the last five years are disclosed for a licensee in a low-risk category where there are three or more in that period, and for a licensee in a high-risk category where there are four or more, with a settlement defined as thirty thousand dollars or more for a claim of death or personal injury caused by negligence, error, or omission in practice or by rendering unauthorised professional services. The board is directed not to disclose the actual dollar amount. California also requires appropriate disclaimers and explanatory statements to accompany the posted information, including an explanation of what types of information are not disclosed, and directs that those disclaimers be adopted by regulation. Virginia separately excludes inactive licence holders and certain named licence categories from the profile requirement altogether.

Sources

Each document below is named as it names itself, with the date printed on that document rather than the day it was read.

1. California Business and Professions Code section 27, internet publication of licence status by named licensing entities, and the personal-information exclusion — California Legislative Information, California Legislature, January 2026
2. California Business and Professions Code section 2027, Medical Board internet posting of current status and historical information, including settlement disclosure thresholds and required disclaimers — California Legislative Information, California Legislature, January 2015
3. Code of Virginia section 54.1-2910.1, Certain data required, the Board of Medicine practitioner profile categories and malpractice reporting limits — Virginia Law, Virginia General Assembly, 2008
4. California Business and Professions Code section 800, the confidential board central file maintained separately from published information — California Legislative Information, California Legislature, January 2022
5. Revised Code of Washington 18.130.110, reporting of statements of charges and final orders, including notification of the public — Washington State Legislature, 2005