The disciplinary process as defined by the legislature has built-in bias.  When a complaint is filed with MQAC the commission assigns the case to a reviewing physician, who is in charge of the investigation.  After the investigation is complete the reviewing member makes his recommendations to the entire commission, which the commission generally accepts.  If the reviewing physician recommends charges be filed then the reviewing commission member will also handle the settlement process, if a settlement is agreed upon then the reviewing member makes his recommendation to the entire commission for approval.  If a settlement is not agreed upon then, the case goes to an administrative law hearing with 3 members of the commission acting as the jury.  Herein lies the problem, the same commission that brought the charges also sits as jury for their own charges.  This is akin to being in a civil trial with the opposition's family sitting as the jury.  There is a built in bias.  This is not to say a physician can't get a fair hearing, but the history of these decisions suggests that he or she may not.

If the physician loses in the initial hearing, the physician may file an appeal, but by this time the legal costs are usually in excess of $100,000.   Jonathan Wright MD spent close to $500,000 on his successful defense. 

In Eastern Washington 50% of the integrative medicine providers have been attacked by the Medical Quality Assurance Commission (MQAC).  If the physician employs IV nutritional techniques then the percentage of physicians brought before the commission rises to 100% (5 of 5).  All of these charges have been for profession incompetence as determined by MQAC.  All of these physicians have excellent reputations and strong patient following.   It does not appear that the health care freedom provisions of the Washington State law are protecting the public interest.