I read with interest Alvarez and Gibb's recent analysis of healthcare-licensee misconduct in Michigan. 1 Their article usefully emphasizes transparency, data quality, and preventive ethics education. I write to note, respectfully, that reference 16 in the Discussion subsection "Enhance Collaboration with Law Enforcement" does not support the proposition for which it is cited.
The cited source is Faber and colleagues, a mixed-methods study of 65 Kentucky psychology-board disciplinary cases and interviews with affected early-career psychologists. 2 That article is important precisely because it examines the risks of unchecked board power: it describes a two-tiered and at times arbitrary disciplinary system, reports that early-career psychologists often received greater punishment despite less serious offenses, and recommends external review of complaints, anti-bias training, separation of prosecutorial and adjudicatory roles, timely communication, and restorative responses for minor first offenses. 2 It frames public safety as something to be balanced with equity, psychologist well-being, and professional development—not as a rationale for expanded board-law-enforcement coordination. 2
Accordingly, reference 16 is misplaced when attached to the statement that, in cases involving criminal activity, boards and law-enforcement agencies should mount a coordinated response. 1 Faber and colleagues, do not discuss criminal referrals, police partnerships, or interagency law-enforcement protocols. 2 The miscitation matters because it reverses the direction of a rare and valuable paper warning that disciplinary authority can become punitive, biased, and insufficiently accountable.
A similar caution appears in Mishler v. State Board of Medical Examiners , where the Nevada Supreme Court reversed board discipline and described "a disturbing abuse of its power." 3 Mishler underscores the same principle: licensing power exists to protect the public, not to punish dissent or magnify procedural unfairness. 3
A correction or clarification to the work by Alvarez and Gibb would strengthen the article and preserve the value of Faber and colleagues' contribution.
Footnotes
Open Access: © 2026 The Authors. Published by the Journal of Medical Regulation. This is an Open Access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (CC BY-NC, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by-nc/4.0/), which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and the use is noncommercial.
Funding/support: N/A
Acknowledgment: Dr. Snodgrass used AI-assisted tools in preparing this letter: GPT-5.4/5.5 Pro (OpenAI) to compare the cited sources, Gemini 3.1 Pro (Google) to verify the claims against the primary sources, and Claude Opus 4.8 (Anthropic) for editorial and citation-format revisions. Snodgrass reviewed all source material, independently verified every proposition and citation against the primary sources, and takes full responsibility for the content. No AI tool meets authorship criteria or is listed as an author.
References
- 1↵AlvarezNGibbTS (2026) Sex, drugs, and continuing education: analysis of professional misconduct by healthcare licensees in Michigan (2011-2023). J Med Regul 111(4):35–47, 10.30770/2572-1852-111.4.35.
- 2↵FaberSCWuEBartlettA (2023) Abuse of power in the disciplinary actions of a state psychology licensing board: inequitable outcomes and early career psychologists. Front Psychol 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1184528.
- 3↵Mishler v. State Bd. of Med. Examiners, 109 Nev. 287, 849 P.2d 291 (1993).
