Any thoughts on the medical non-compete ban currently under discussion at the FTC?
It is open for public comment until March 20th I believe.
It is open for public comment until March 20th I believe.
FTC Non-compete ban
- Thread starter PeaJay
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2008
- Messages
- 3,383
- Reaction score
- 4,536
Probably not a huge deal for a lot of physicians, but it would be a real good thing for a lot of podiatrists. Maybe not associate mill practice owners, but for everyone else.
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2011
- Messages
- 2,782
- Reaction score
- 6,319
The historic orthopedic group at my residency hospital was handed non-competes during a structural reorganization of the hospital system. They refused to sign them. Years later they asked the hospital to compromise on how overnight call was to be handled. The hospital refused.
The entire orthopedic group quit. They built themselves a brand new building in the center of the town with PT, and MRI, etc and then brought all their cases to a hospital up the road who welcomed them with open arms. My residency hospital never recovered financially and never could rebuild a competing orthopedic department that could match what they lost.
Non-competes are garbage. I welcome their end. Except I don't think it will happen. Womp womp.
The entire orthopedic group quit. They built themselves a brand new building in the center of the town with PT, and MRI, etc and then brought all their cases to a hospital up the road who welcomed them with open arms. My residency hospital never recovered financially and never could rebuild a competing orthopedic department that could match what they lost.
Non-competes are garbage. I welcome their end. Except I don't think it will happen. Womp womp.
I think there is a good chance they get abolished. So many people have to sell their homes and uproot their families over a stupid non compete. In some states they already are not enforceable.
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2008
- Messages
- 3,383
- Reaction score
- 4,536
Hopefully it does. I guess it will depend on how much giant corporate healthcare wants to fight it (HCA, Kaiser, LifePoint, etc.). If they put millions in the correct unelected bureaucrats’ pockets over at the FTC then they will do whatever they are told. Unfortunately.
The argument should be simple, and it’s the one that wins in court when non competes are challenged by physicians, but non competes for medical providers are a detriment to overall community health. At a time when there is plenty of need for more healthcare providers in communities all across the country, making non competes illegal in healthcare can be a huge benefit in terms of access to care for the general population.
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2014
- Messages
- 550
- Reaction score
- 1,114
It's also completely anti-capitalist to limit competition. But it fits perfectly into modern American corporate welfare while screwing actual people at corporations' behest.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2009
- Messages
- 181
- Reaction score
- 323
But the government is good. free markets. lets export democracy. salute the flag. don't bend the knee. watch more fox and cnn. more war. as long as it's not in my backyard (like opiods), it should be illegal and stiff punishments should exist. freedom! freedom fries!
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2007
- Messages
- 4,167
- Reaction score
- 4,553
For now, anyone who buys a house in a place with enforceable non-compete clauses and having signed one is kinda manufacturing their own crisis.
It's very important for anyone to know the law in the area before starting a job or definitely before laying down major roots. And sure, one can get lucky and quit or get fired and still flip some profit on a house, but it's stressful nonetheless.
...The federal law changes are interesting, but they're trivia at this point. If fed laws mattered, everywhere would have health insurance and $15 minimum wage and online betting and recreational weed and abortion illegal. All federal really does is open or close doors for the states. What matters is the state laws (some already ban non-compete entirely, many do ban them for physicians or low-wage workers) and, more importantly, precedents of what the end results for doc restrictions in courts have been. Physicians are described specifically in many jurisdictions. In Cali or DC or etc, the restrictions don't stand don't a chance. In NJ or NMex etc, they are very unlikely to hold up - esp for docs. In Mich or NC, they tend to hold up but can be often be reduced - esp for rural. In Texas or Utah or other places, non-competes have a lot of teeth and it's not smart to ignore them.
At the end of the day, everyone has to do their research. For example, the NMex employer I recently left for solo put nothing in my original contact about non-compete radius (since they never hold up here for physicians). I wasn't planning to leave, until they "adjusted" my compensation after the contract ended and expected me to produce more with weak staffing. Now, they're putting 50 mile non compete radius from all offices in some newer NM doc hire and renew contracts. Go figure. They are one of the largest NM pod groups, multi-state, and corporately based in a different state, where non-compete would be more enforceable. In NM, though, even 5 miles or 0.5 mile would never hold up in their wildest dreams, but they're probably hoping some DPMs who are fired or quit won't know that or wouldn't challenge it. If they find ppl that gullible or naïve or conflict-averse, it might work to deter them from going to competitors or on their own in the area - regardless of what the laws and court results really are. That's sad but true. It's all on each person to do their homework on precedents in their area and their industry.
A decent employment or medical attorney contract review is always a good choice. A couple hours is maybe around $500. Always at the beginning (offer from job you'd seriously consider)... usually at any major changes/end also. There are a lot of job offers (in podiatry) so bad you can junk them just by reading, but if it passes your own read, on to the lawyer it goes.
Last edited:
