Two nations separated by a common goal: comparing the severity of penalties against doctors at disciplinary hearings in the United States and United Kingdom

Superficially, the disciplinary functions for doctors in the United States and United Kingdom are very similar. Complaints are received, parsed and investigated before being adjudicated upon at a hearing. To compare the severity of disciplinary outcomes for doctors accused of misconduct in the US and UK, respectively, disciplinary decisions against doctors from 1 January 2014 through 31 December 2023 were quantitatively analysed. In total, 25,726 cases were included in the analysis, of which 93% occurred in the US and 7% in the UK. Of the cases heard by US State Boards, only 28% resulted in a severe sanction compared to 83% of those heard by the MPTS. The UK system of discipline is more appropriately harsh, and the American system would benefit from reform in line with the UK's post-Shipman-Inquiry model. Disciplinary functions should be separated from boards that govern licensing and ethics to ensure impartiality and avoid conflicts of interest. The UK provides a model with mixed-member panels, unlike US boards, which are typically dominated by professionals from the same field. While some level of self-regulation is inherent to being a profession, the current extent in the US is excessive.