Mandatory-reporting laws require doctors to report persons with disorders that may make driving hazardous. Six states (California, Delaware, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, and Pennsylvania) have such laws, though each state’s approach differs in terms of disorders covered, legal protections for physicians, and administrative requirements. In most reporting cases, the doctor notifies the department of motor vehicles of the person's name, age, and address. The DMV then makes the determination whether driving privileges should be suspended or revoked.
Many of the disorders that trigger reporting are neurological in nature, including Alzheimer’s disease, dementia, epilepsy, and cognitive problems related to MS. When our patients lose their driving privileges, the consequences can be severe.
Mandatory reporting intrudes upon the privacy of the physician-patient relationship without improving the public’s driving safety. It encourages patients to withhold medical information that physicians need to provide good care, and prevents an honest evaluation of a patient’s potential safety as a driver.
State reporting laws can also put physicians at risk of lawsuit. In several states, physicians are held legally liable for signing off on a person’s ability to drive, even when all laws and medical guidelines are followed in good faith. Physicians are doing their best to follow the rules, and need to know they won’t be punished for doing their job to the best of their abilities.
The AAN Professional Association (Academy) wants to ensure that our highways remain safe, patients retain their privacy and freedom to travel, and physicians can practice medicine without undue fear of liability.
In 2006 the Academy reaffirmed its support for optional reporting of significant medical disorders. This option is already available in all 50 states, and most states allow physicians to report a patient anonymously without legal liability. This will give physicians discretion to report patients who do not heed medical advice to the DMV for further evaluation, with immunity provisions for physicians who act in good faith when choosing whether to report a patient’s condition or to sign DMV forms vouching for the patient as a medically safe driver.
The Academy also recognizes that better evaluation tools are needed to measure drivers' skills objectively, and that the transportation needs of people who are no longer allowed to drive also must be addressed.
The Academy has developed an advocacy toolkit (to the right) to help you advocate on this important issue.