Steph Weber

A California jury has awarded $14 million to a former University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) oncologist who claimed she was paid thousands less than her male colleagues and wrongfully terminated after her complaints of gender-based harassment and intimidation were ignored by program leadership.

The decision comes after a lengthy 8-year legal battle in which an appellate judge reversed a previous jury decision in her favor.

Lauren Pinter-Brown, MD, a hematologic oncologist, was hired in 2005 by the University of California, Los Angeles School of Medicine — now called UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine. As the school’s lymphoma program director, she conducted clinical research alongside other oncology doctors, including Sven de Vos, MD.

She claimed that her professional relationship with Dr. de Vos became contentious after he demonstrated “oppositional” and “disrespectful” behavior at team meetings, such as talking over her and turning his chair so Dr. Pinter-Brown faced his back. Court documents indicated that Dr. de Vos refused to use Dr. Pinter-Brown’s title in front of colleagues despite doing so for male counterparts.

Dr. Pinter-Brown argued that she was treated as the “butt of a joke” by Dr. de Vos and other male colleagues. In 2016, she sued Dr. de Vos, the university, and its governing body, the Board of Regents, for wrongful termination.

She was awarded a $13 million verdict in 2018. However, the California Court of Appeals overturned it in 2020 after concluding that several mistakes during the court proceedings impeded the school’s right to a fair and impartial trial. The case was retried, culminating in the even higher award of $14 million issued on May 9.

“Two juries have come to virtually identical findings showing multiple problems at UCLA involving gender discrimination,” Dr. Pinter-Brown’s attorney, Carney R. Shegerian, JD, told this news organization.

A spokesperson from UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine said administrators are carefully reviewing the new decision.

The spokesperson told this news organization that the medical school and its health system remain “deeply committed to maintaining a workplace free from discrimination, intimidation, retaliation, or harassment of any kind” and fostering a “respectful and inclusive environment ... in research, medical education, and patient care.”
 

Gender Pay Disparities Persist in Medicine

The gender pay gap in medicine is well documented. The 2024 Medscape Physician Compensation Report found that male doctors earn about 29% more than their female counterparts, with the disparity growing larger among specialists. In addition, a recent JAMA Health Forum study found that male physicians earned 21%-24% more per hour than female physicians.

Dr. Pinter-Brown, who now works at the University of California, Irvine, alleged that she was paid $200,000 less annually, on average, than her male colleagues.

That’s not surprising, says Martha Gulati, MD, professor and director of preventive cardiology at Cedars-Sinai Smidt Heart Institute, Los Angeles. She coauthored a commentary about gender disparities in JAMA Network Open. Dr. Gulati told this news organization that even a “small” pay disparity of $100,000 annually adds up.

“Let’s say the [male physician] invests it at 3% and adds to it yearly. Even without a raise, in 20 years, that is approximately $3 million,” Dr. Gulati explained. “Once you find out you are paid less than your male colleagues, you are upset. Your sense of value and self-worth disappears.”

Eileen Barrett, MD, MPH, president-elect of the American Medical Women’s Association, said that gender discrimination is likely more prevalent than research indicates. She told this news organization that self-doubt and fear of retaliation keep many from exposing the mistreatment.

Although more women are entering medicine, too few rise to the highest positions, Dr. Barrett said.

“Unfortunately, many are pulled and pushed into specialties and subspecialties that have lower compensation and are not promoted to leadership, so just having numbers isn’t enough to achieve equity,” Dr. Barrett said.

Dr. Pinter-Brown claimed she was repeatedly harassed and intimidated by Dr. de Vos from 2008 to 2015. Despite voicing concerns multiple times about the discriminatory behavior, the only resolutions offered by the male-dominated program leadership were for her to separate from the group and conduct lymphoma research independently or to avoid interacting with Dr. de Vos, court records said.

Even the school’s male Title IX officer, Jan Tillisch, MD, who handled gender-based discrimination complaints, reportedly made sexist comments. When Dr. Pinter-Brown sought his help, he allegedly told her that she had a reputation as an “angry woman” and “diva,” court records showed.

According to court documents, Dr. Pinter-Brown endured nitpicking and research audits as retaliation for speaking out, temporarily suspending her research privileges. She said she was subsequently removed from the director position and replaced by Dr. de Vos.

Female physicians who report discriminatory behavior often have unfavorable outcomes and risk future career prospects, Dr. Gulati said.

To shift this dynamic, she said institutions must increase transparency and practices that support female doctors receiving “equal pay for equal work.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A California jury has awarded $14 million to a former University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) oncologist who claimed she was paid thousands less than her male colleagues and wrongfully terminated after her complaints of gender-based harassment and intimidation were ignored by program leadership.

The decision comes after a lengthy 8-year legal battle in which an appellate judge reversed a previous jury decision in her favor.

Lauren Pinter-Brown, MD, a hematologic oncologist, was hired in 2005 by the University of California, Los Angeles School of Medicine — now called UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine. As the school’s lymphoma program director, she conducted clinical research alongside other oncology doctors, including Sven de Vos, MD.

She claimed that her professional relationship with Dr. de Vos became contentious after he demonstrated “oppositional” and “disrespectful” behavior at team meetings, such as talking over her and turning his chair so Dr. Pinter-Brown faced his back. Court documents indicated that Dr. de Vos refused to use Dr. Pinter-Brown’s title in front of colleagues despite doing so for male counterparts.

Dr. Pinter-Brown argued that she was treated as the “butt of a joke” by Dr. de Vos and other male colleagues. In 2016, she sued Dr. de Vos, the university, and its governing body, the Board of Regents, for wrongful termination.

She was awarded a $13 million verdict in 2018. However, the California Court of Appeals overturned it in 2020 after concluding that several mistakes during the court proceedings impeded the school’s right to a fair and impartial trial. The case was retried, culminating in the even higher award of $14 million issued on May 9.

“Two juries have come to virtually identical findings showing multiple problems at UCLA involving gender discrimination,” Dr. Pinter-Brown’s attorney, Carney R. Shegerian, JD, told this news organization.

A spokesperson from UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine said administrators are carefully reviewing the new decision.

The spokesperson told this news organization that the medical school and its health system remain “deeply committed to maintaining a workplace free from discrimination, intimidation, retaliation, or harassment of any kind” and fostering a “respectful and inclusive environment ... in research, medical education, and patient care.”
 

Gender Pay Disparities Persist in Medicine

The gender pay gap in medicine is well documented. The 2024 Medscape Physician Compensation Report found that male doctors earn about 29% more than their female counterparts, with the disparity growing larger among specialists. In addition, a recent JAMA Health Forum study found that male physicians earned 21%-24% more per hour than female physicians.

Dr. Pinter-Brown, who now works at the University of California, Irvine, alleged that she was paid $200,000 less annually, on average, than her male colleagues.

That’s not surprising, says Martha Gulati, MD, professor and director of preventive cardiology at Cedars-Sinai Smidt Heart Institute, Los Angeles. She coauthored a commentary about gender disparities in JAMA Network Open. Dr. Gulati told this news organization that even a “small” pay disparity of $100,000 annually adds up.

“Let’s say the [male physician] invests it at 3% and adds to it yearly. Even without a raise, in 20 years, that is approximately $3 million,” Dr. Gulati explained. “Once you find out you are paid less than your male colleagues, you are upset. Your sense of value and self-worth disappears.”

Eileen Barrett, MD, MPH, president-elect of the American Medical Women’s Association, said that gender discrimination is likely more prevalent than research indicates. She told this news organization that self-doubt and fear of retaliation keep many from exposing the mistreatment.

Although more women are entering medicine, too few rise to the highest positions, Dr. Barrett said.

“Unfortunately, many are pulled and pushed into specialties and subspecialties that have lower compensation and are not promoted to leadership, so just having numbers isn’t enough to achieve equity,” Dr. Barrett said.

Dr. Pinter-Brown claimed she was repeatedly harassed and intimidated by Dr. de Vos from 2008 to 2015. Despite voicing concerns multiple times about the discriminatory behavior, the only resolutions offered by the male-dominated program leadership were for her to separate from the group and conduct lymphoma research independently or to avoid interacting with Dr. de Vos, court records said.

Even the school’s male Title IX officer, Jan Tillisch, MD, who handled gender-based discrimination complaints, reportedly made sexist comments. When Dr. Pinter-Brown sought his help, he allegedly told her that she had a reputation as an “angry woman” and “diva,” court records showed.

According to court documents, Dr. Pinter-Brown endured nitpicking and research audits as retaliation for speaking out, temporarily suspending her research privileges. She said she was subsequently removed from the director position and replaced by Dr. de Vos.

Female physicians who report discriminatory behavior often have unfavorable outcomes and risk future career prospects, Dr. Gulati said.

To shift this dynamic, she said institutions must increase transparency and practices that support female doctors receiving “equal pay for equal work.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A California jury has awarded $14 million to a former University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) oncologist who claimed she was paid thousands less than her male colleagues and wrongfully terminated after her complaints of gender-based harassment and intimidation were ignored by program leadership.

The decision comes after a lengthy 8-year legal battle in which an appellate judge reversed a previous jury decision in her favor.

Lauren Pinter-Brown, MD, a hematologic oncologist, was hired in 2005 by the University of California, Los Angeles School of Medicine — now called UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine. As the school’s lymphoma program director, she conducted clinical research alongside other oncology doctors, including Sven de Vos, MD.

She claimed that her professional relationship with Dr. de Vos became contentious after he demonstrated “oppositional” and “disrespectful” behavior at team meetings, such as talking over her and turning his chair so Dr. Pinter-Brown faced his back. Court documents indicated that Dr. de Vos refused to use Dr. Pinter-Brown’s title in front of colleagues despite doing so for male counterparts.

Dr. Pinter-Brown argued that she was treated as the “butt of a joke” by Dr. de Vos and other male colleagues. In 2016, she sued Dr. de Vos, the university, and its governing body, the Board of Regents, for wrongful termination.

She was awarded a $13 million verdict in 2018. However, the California Court of Appeals overturned it in 2020 after concluding that several mistakes during the court proceedings impeded the school’s right to a fair and impartial trial. The case was retried, culminating in the even higher award of $14 million issued on May 9.

“Two juries have come to virtually identical findings showing multiple problems at UCLA involving gender discrimination,” Dr. Pinter-Brown’s attorney, Carney R. Shegerian, JD, told this news organization.

A spokesperson from UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine said administrators are carefully reviewing the new decision.

The spokesperson told this news organization that the medical school and its health system remain “deeply committed to maintaining a workplace free from discrimination, intimidation, retaliation, or harassment of any kind” and fostering a “respectful and inclusive environment ... in research, medical education, and patient care.”
 

Gender Pay Disparities Persist in Medicine

The gender pay gap in medicine is well documented. The 2024 Medscape Physician Compensation Report found that male doctors earn about 29% more than their female counterparts, with the disparity growing larger among specialists. In addition, a recent JAMA Health Forum study found that male physicians earned 21%-24% more per hour than female physicians.

Dr. Pinter-Brown, who now works at the University of California, Irvine, alleged that she was paid $200,000 less annually, on average, than her male colleagues.

That’s not surprising, says Martha Gulati, MD, professor and director of preventive cardiology at Cedars-Sinai Smidt Heart Institute, Los Angeles. She coauthored a commentary about gender disparities in JAMA Network Open. Dr. Gulati told this news organization that even a “small” pay disparity of $100,000 annually adds up.

“Let’s say the [male physician] invests it at 3% and adds to it yearly. Even without a raise, in 20 years, that is approximately $3 million,” Dr. Gulati explained. “Once you find out you are paid less than your male colleagues, you are upset. Your sense of value and self-worth disappears.”

Eileen Barrett, MD, MPH, president-elect of the American Medical Women’s Association, said that gender discrimination is likely more prevalent than research indicates. She told this news organization that self-doubt and fear of retaliation keep many from exposing the mistreatment.

Although more women are entering medicine, too few rise to the highest positions, Dr. Barrett said.

“Unfortunately, many are pulled and pushed into specialties and subspecialties that have lower compensation and are not promoted to leadership, so just having numbers isn’t enough to achieve equity,” Dr. Barrett said.

Dr. Pinter-Brown claimed she was repeatedly harassed and intimidated by Dr. de Vos from 2008 to 2015. Despite voicing concerns multiple times about the discriminatory behavior, the only resolutions offered by the male-dominated program leadership were for her to separate from the group and conduct lymphoma research independently or to avoid interacting with Dr. de Vos, court records said.

Even the school’s male Title IX officer, Jan Tillisch, MD, who handled gender-based discrimination complaints, reportedly made sexist comments. When Dr. Pinter-Brown sought his help, he allegedly told her that she had a reputation as an “angry woman” and “diva,” court records showed.

According to court documents, Dr. Pinter-Brown endured nitpicking and research audits as retaliation for speaking out, temporarily suspending her research privileges. She said she was subsequently removed from the director position and replaced by Dr. de Vos.

Female physicians who report discriminatory behavior often have unfavorable outcomes and risk future career prospects, Dr. Gulati said.

To shift this dynamic, she said institutions must increase transparency and practices that support female doctors receiving “equal pay for equal work.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians are leaving healthcare in droves, “not because they don’t want to practice ... but because the system is making it more and more difficult for them to care for their patients,” Bruce Scott, MD, president-elect of the American Medical Association (AMA), said at a press conference May 9 at the National Rural Health Association’s Annual Conference in New Orleans. 

He said that shrinking reimbursement rates and excessive administrative tasks are pushing doctors out of the workforce, exacerbating physician shortages in rural locations where 46 million Americans live. 

Rural areas have about one tenth of the specialists that urban areas do, and 65% of rural communities do not have enough primary care doctors, according to federal data. A recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report found that people living in rural areas are more likely to die early from preventable causes than their urban counterparts, said Dr. Scott. 

He said the AMA wants Congress to pass legislation to incentivize more physicians to work in rural areas and expand the number of rural and primary care residency spots. Historically, 80% of residents practice within 80 miles of where they complete residency, he said. 

Dr. Scott also hopes Congress will revise the J-1 visa rules to allow qualified international medical graduates to continue to practice in the United States. He’d like to see the pandemic telehealth flexibilities made permanent because these loosened guidelines greatly improved care access for rural areas in recent years. 

Lower Pay Affects Care in Rural, Urban Areas

Decreased reimbursements also have hit rural and urban doctors in independent practice particularly hard, Dr. Scott said. When adjusted for inflation, the current Medicare payment rate for physicians has dropped 29% since 2001, he said. Now that commercial payers tie their reimbursement models to the Medicare rate, physicians are experiencing “severe” financial stress amid rising practice costs and student loan debt. 

He shared anecdotes about how these issues have affected his private otolaryngology practice in Louisville, Kentucky, a state where more than 2 million people live in federally designated primary care professional shortage areas. 

“A major insurance company that controls over 60% of the private payer market in rural Kentucky [recently] offered us ... surgical rates less than they paid us 6 years ago,” he said. 

Dr. Scott said physicians must make difficult choices. “Do we not invest in the latest physical equipment? Do we reduce our number of employees? Do we perhaps stop accepting new Medicare patients?”

He noted that physicians now spend twice as much time on prior authorizations and other administrative tasks as they do on direct patient care. According to a 2022 AMA survey, 33% of physicians reported that the cumbersome prior authorization process led to a serious adverse event for a patient. Eighty percent reported it caused their patient to forgo treatment altogether.

Dr. Scott, who will be sworn in as AMA president in June, said he experiences the frustration daily. 

“I have to get on the phone and justify to an insurance person who rarely has gone to medical school, has never seen the patient, and heck, in my case, sometimes they can’t even say otolaryngology, much less tell me what the appropriate care is for my patient,” he said.

When asked about the impact of private equity in healthcare, Dr. Scott said there is room for all different modes of practice, but private equity could bring a unique benefit. 

“They have deeper pockets to potentially invest in telehealth technology, AI, and better computer systems,” he said. 

But, he said, some private equity-owned systems have abandoned rural areas, and in other regions they “push the physicians to move faster, see more patients, and do the things that are profit-driven.

“The key is to continue to provide ... quality medical care that is determined by an individual physician in consultation with the patient.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians are leaving healthcare in droves, “not because they don’t want to practice ... but because the system is making it more and more difficult for them to care for their patients,” Bruce Scott, MD, president-elect of the American Medical Association (AMA), said at a press conference May 9 at the National Rural Health Association’s Annual Conference in New Orleans. 

He said that shrinking reimbursement rates and excessive administrative tasks are pushing doctors out of the workforce, exacerbating physician shortages in rural locations where 46 million Americans live. 

Rural areas have about one tenth of the specialists that urban areas do, and 65% of rural communities do not have enough primary care doctors, according to federal data. A recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report found that people living in rural areas are more likely to die early from preventable causes than their urban counterparts, said Dr. Scott. 

He said the AMA wants Congress to pass legislation to incentivize more physicians to work in rural areas and expand the number of rural and primary care residency spots. Historically, 80% of residents practice within 80 miles of where they complete residency, he said. 

Dr. Scott also hopes Congress will revise the J-1 visa rules to allow qualified international medical graduates to continue to practice in the United States. He’d like to see the pandemic telehealth flexibilities made permanent because these loosened guidelines greatly improved care access for rural areas in recent years. 

Lower Pay Affects Care in Rural, Urban Areas

Decreased reimbursements also have hit rural and urban doctors in independent practice particularly hard, Dr. Scott said. When adjusted for inflation, the current Medicare payment rate for physicians has dropped 29% since 2001, he said. Now that commercial payers tie their reimbursement models to the Medicare rate, physicians are experiencing “severe” financial stress amid rising practice costs and student loan debt. 

He shared anecdotes about how these issues have affected his private otolaryngology practice in Louisville, Kentucky, a state where more than 2 million people live in federally designated primary care professional shortage areas. 

“A major insurance company that controls over 60% of the private payer market in rural Kentucky [recently] offered us ... surgical rates less than they paid us 6 years ago,” he said. 

Dr. Scott said physicians must make difficult choices. “Do we not invest in the latest physical equipment? Do we reduce our number of employees? Do we perhaps stop accepting new Medicare patients?”

He noted that physicians now spend twice as much time on prior authorizations and other administrative tasks as they do on direct patient care. According to a 2022 AMA survey, 33% of physicians reported that the cumbersome prior authorization process led to a serious adverse event for a patient. Eighty percent reported it caused their patient to forgo treatment altogether.

Dr. Scott, who will be sworn in as AMA president in June, said he experiences the frustration daily. 

“I have to get on the phone and justify to an insurance person who rarely has gone to medical school, has never seen the patient, and heck, in my case, sometimes they can’t even say otolaryngology, much less tell me what the appropriate care is for my patient,” he said.

When asked about the impact of private equity in healthcare, Dr. Scott said there is room for all different modes of practice, but private equity could bring a unique benefit. 

“They have deeper pockets to potentially invest in telehealth technology, AI, and better computer systems,” he said. 

But, he said, some private equity-owned systems have abandoned rural areas, and in other regions they “push the physicians to move faster, see more patients, and do the things that are profit-driven.

“The key is to continue to provide ... quality medical care that is determined by an individual physician in consultation with the patient.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians are leaving healthcare in droves, “not because they don’t want to practice ... but because the system is making it more and more difficult for them to care for their patients,” Bruce Scott, MD, president-elect of the American Medical Association (AMA), said at a press conference May 9 at the National Rural Health Association’s Annual Conference in New Orleans. 

He said that shrinking reimbursement rates and excessive administrative tasks are pushing doctors out of the workforce, exacerbating physician shortages in rural locations where 46 million Americans live. 

Rural areas have about one tenth of the specialists that urban areas do, and 65% of rural communities do not have enough primary care doctors, according to federal data. A recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report found that people living in rural areas are more likely to die early from preventable causes than their urban counterparts, said Dr. Scott. 

He said the AMA wants Congress to pass legislation to incentivize more physicians to work in rural areas and expand the number of rural and primary care residency spots. Historically, 80% of residents practice within 80 miles of where they complete residency, he said. 

Dr. Scott also hopes Congress will revise the J-1 visa rules to allow qualified international medical graduates to continue to practice in the United States. He’d like to see the pandemic telehealth flexibilities made permanent because these loosened guidelines greatly improved care access for rural areas in recent years. 

Lower Pay Affects Care in Rural, Urban Areas

Decreased reimbursements also have hit rural and urban doctors in independent practice particularly hard, Dr. Scott said. When adjusted for inflation, the current Medicare payment rate for physicians has dropped 29% since 2001, he said. Now that commercial payers tie their reimbursement models to the Medicare rate, physicians are experiencing “severe” financial stress amid rising practice costs and student loan debt. 

He shared anecdotes about how these issues have affected his private otolaryngology practice in Louisville, Kentucky, a state where more than 2 million people live in federally designated primary care professional shortage areas. 

“A major insurance company that controls over 60% of the private payer market in rural Kentucky [recently] offered us ... surgical rates less than they paid us 6 years ago,” he said. 

Dr. Scott said physicians must make difficult choices. “Do we not invest in the latest physical equipment? Do we reduce our number of employees? Do we perhaps stop accepting new Medicare patients?”

He noted that physicians now spend twice as much time on prior authorizations and other administrative tasks as they do on direct patient care. According to a 2022 AMA survey, 33% of physicians reported that the cumbersome prior authorization process led to a serious adverse event for a patient. Eighty percent reported it caused their patient to forgo treatment altogether.

Dr. Scott, who will be sworn in as AMA president in June, said he experiences the frustration daily. 

“I have to get on the phone and justify to an insurance person who rarely has gone to medical school, has never seen the patient, and heck, in my case, sometimes they can’t even say otolaryngology, much less tell me what the appropriate care is for my patient,” he said.

When asked about the impact of private equity in healthcare, Dr. Scott said there is room for all different modes of practice, but private equity could bring a unique benefit. 

“They have deeper pockets to potentially invest in telehealth technology, AI, and better computer systems,” he said. 

But, he said, some private equity-owned systems have abandoned rural areas, and in other regions they “push the physicians to move faster, see more patients, and do the things that are profit-driven.

“The key is to continue to provide ... quality medical care that is determined by an individual physician in consultation with the patient.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As three federal agencies investigate how private equity ownership and consolidation of healthcare organizations affects patient care and costs, physicians are giving them an earful.

“Before I retired, I could already see the damage private equity was doing to hospitals and medical practices. Well-regarded physician groups were being bought and the respected doctors and staff forced out to squeeze out profit for the buyers. Hospital-based physicians were being hit especially hard,” wrote Rhonda Wright, MD, of Brookhaven, Georgia. 

“Now, the rot is setting in for emergency rooms. One in four ERs is now (under-)staffed by private equity firms. This is leading to longer wait times, deterioration in patient care, and higher bills,” Dr. Wright continued. “Private equity takeover of medicine must be stopped. All such deals should be strictly regulated and should be heavily scrutinized, if not barred altogether. Our health depends upon it!”

The federal government is accepting public comments like Dr. Wright’s through June 5 and has even set up a website (healthycompetition.gov) to make it easier to file complaints against health organizations possibly violating antitrust laws.

The US Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and the Department of Health and Human Services want to hear from physicians and the public about how private equity firms’ investments in healthcare entities, such as hospitals, nursing homes, or specialty service providers, affect patients and healthcare workers. The investigation will also evaluate how market pricing, competition, and referral patterns change when practices and hospitals are acquired by health systems or insurers.

Maintaining competition in the provider and payer markets benefits healthcare workers through higher pay, while patients can access quality care at lower prices, the joint request for information said. However, consolidation and mergers — potentially driven by private equity’s entry into the market — can diminish these benefits.

Investigating private equity and consolidation in medicine is part of the Biden Administration’s focus on lowering medical and prescription drug costs and strengthening competition in healthcare. The FTC’s vote last week to ban noncompete agreements, which business groups have vowed to challenge in court, falls under the same initiative.

Alexandra Nicole Thran, MD, FACEP, president of the Vermont Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians, said that the private equity business model is problematic because it ties physicians’ wages to patient satisfaction and the number of patients they see per hour. 

A Connecticut primary care physician expressed similar sentiments. “Physicians are being forced into a system where corporations provide financial incentives and punitive policies to direct healthcare decisions towards a profitable aim,” said Eric Schwaber, MD. 

While a majority of comments criticized the role of private equity and consolidation, some reflected a more positive view. 

“Private equity helps make healthcare more efficient and effective. It brings needed operational and managerial expertise to allow for better patient care,” said Reenie Abraham, MD, an associate professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. The University of Texas is facing a lawsuit involving the liability status of its physicians who work for a private equity-backed hospital partly owned by the university.

Several public comments point to the increasing market influence UnitedHealth Group (UHG) and other payers have obtained through recent acquisitions. Retired emergency room physician Scott Davis, MD, said that the “astronomical” rate of burnout among providers has been exacerbated by “the economic takeover of the healthcare system by…United Healthcare [and] private equity groups who put profits over anything else.”  

The healthcare conglomerate employs approximately 10% of active US physicians, including many through its subsidiary, Optum Health, which provides primary, urgent, and surgical care. UHG has also invested heavily in acquiring physician practices to advance its value-based care model.

“If a publicly traded private insurance or private equity company is interested in their short-term quarterly profits or stock price, there is little interest in the…effective management of chronic disease, other than that which fulfills a ‘value-based’ metric,” wrote Kenneth Dolkart, MD, FACP, clinical assistant professor at the Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine in Hanover, New Hampshire. 

Sarah Ealy, a revenue cycle professional, commented that payers like UHG have outsized bargaining power when negotiating rates with providers. “In many states, United Healthcare and its subsidiaries pay a lower reimbursement rate than state Medicaid plans — these rates are nearly 50% of the breakeven per-visit rate that practices need to keep the lights on.”

Another comment ties the recent cyberattack on UHG-owned Change Healthcare to private equity ownership and “healthcare behemoths buying up practices and data.”

“The ramrodding of consolidation and private oversight with little to no barriers to foreign intrusions…is a testament to how ill prepared [the] US market is to private equity healthcare takeovers,” said SW Dermatology Practice LLC. 

The agencies request comments from all health market participants, including physicians, nurses, employers, administrators, and patients.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As three federal agencies investigate how private equity ownership and consolidation of healthcare organizations affects patient care and costs, physicians are giving them an earful.

“Before I retired, I could already see the damage private equity was doing to hospitals and medical practices. Well-regarded physician groups were being bought and the respected doctors and staff forced out to squeeze out profit for the buyers. Hospital-based physicians were being hit especially hard,” wrote Rhonda Wright, MD, of Brookhaven, Georgia. 

“Now, the rot is setting in for emergency rooms. One in four ERs is now (under-)staffed by private equity firms. This is leading to longer wait times, deterioration in patient care, and higher bills,” Dr. Wright continued. “Private equity takeover of medicine must be stopped. All such deals should be strictly regulated and should be heavily scrutinized, if not barred altogether. Our health depends upon it!”

The federal government is accepting public comments like Dr. Wright’s through June 5 and has even set up a website (healthycompetition.gov) to make it easier to file complaints against health organizations possibly violating antitrust laws.

The US Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and the Department of Health and Human Services want to hear from physicians and the public about how private equity firms’ investments in healthcare entities, such as hospitals, nursing homes, or specialty service providers, affect patients and healthcare workers. The investigation will also evaluate how market pricing, competition, and referral patterns change when practices and hospitals are acquired by health systems or insurers.

Maintaining competition in the provider and payer markets benefits healthcare workers through higher pay, while patients can access quality care at lower prices, the joint request for information said. However, consolidation and mergers — potentially driven by private equity’s entry into the market — can diminish these benefits.

Investigating private equity and consolidation in medicine is part of the Biden Administration’s focus on lowering medical and prescription drug costs and strengthening competition in healthcare. The FTC’s vote last week to ban noncompete agreements, which business groups have vowed to challenge in court, falls under the same initiative.

Alexandra Nicole Thran, MD, FACEP, president of the Vermont Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians, said that the private equity business model is problematic because it ties physicians’ wages to patient satisfaction and the number of patients they see per hour. 

A Connecticut primary care physician expressed similar sentiments. “Physicians are being forced into a system where corporations provide financial incentives and punitive policies to direct healthcare decisions towards a profitable aim,” said Eric Schwaber, MD. 

While a majority of comments criticized the role of private equity and consolidation, some reflected a more positive view. 

“Private equity helps make healthcare more efficient and effective. It brings needed operational and managerial expertise to allow for better patient care,” said Reenie Abraham, MD, an associate professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. The University of Texas is facing a lawsuit involving the liability status of its physicians who work for a private equity-backed hospital partly owned by the university.

Several public comments point to the increasing market influence UnitedHealth Group (UHG) and other payers have obtained through recent acquisitions. Retired emergency room physician Scott Davis, MD, said that the “astronomical” rate of burnout among providers has been exacerbated by “the economic takeover of the healthcare system by…United Healthcare [and] private equity groups who put profits over anything else.”  

The healthcare conglomerate employs approximately 10% of active US physicians, including many through its subsidiary, Optum Health, which provides primary, urgent, and surgical care. UHG has also invested heavily in acquiring physician practices to advance its value-based care model.

“If a publicly traded private insurance or private equity company is interested in their short-term quarterly profits or stock price, there is little interest in the…effective management of chronic disease, other than that which fulfills a ‘value-based’ metric,” wrote Kenneth Dolkart, MD, FACP, clinical assistant professor at the Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine in Hanover, New Hampshire. 

Sarah Ealy, a revenue cycle professional, commented that payers like UHG have outsized bargaining power when negotiating rates with providers. “In many states, United Healthcare and its subsidiaries pay a lower reimbursement rate than state Medicaid plans — these rates are nearly 50% of the breakeven per-visit rate that practices need to keep the lights on.”

Another comment ties the recent cyberattack on UHG-owned Change Healthcare to private equity ownership and “healthcare behemoths buying up practices and data.”

“The ramrodding of consolidation and private oversight with little to no barriers to foreign intrusions…is a testament to how ill prepared [the] US market is to private equity healthcare takeovers,” said SW Dermatology Practice LLC. 

The agencies request comments from all health market participants, including physicians, nurses, employers, administrators, and patients.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As three federal agencies investigate how private equity ownership and consolidation of healthcare organizations affects patient care and costs, physicians are giving them an earful.

“Before I retired, I could already see the damage private equity was doing to hospitals and medical practices. Well-regarded physician groups were being bought and the respected doctors and staff forced out to squeeze out profit for the buyers. Hospital-based physicians were being hit especially hard,” wrote Rhonda Wright, MD, of Brookhaven, Georgia. 

“Now, the rot is setting in for emergency rooms. One in four ERs is now (under-)staffed by private equity firms. This is leading to longer wait times, deterioration in patient care, and higher bills,” Dr. Wright continued. “Private equity takeover of medicine must be stopped. All such deals should be strictly regulated and should be heavily scrutinized, if not barred altogether. Our health depends upon it!”

The federal government is accepting public comments like Dr. Wright’s through June 5 and has even set up a website (healthycompetition.gov) to make it easier to file complaints against health organizations possibly violating antitrust laws.

The US Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and the Department of Health and Human Services want to hear from physicians and the public about how private equity firms’ investments in healthcare entities, such as hospitals, nursing homes, or specialty service providers, affect patients and healthcare workers. The investigation will also evaluate how market pricing, competition, and referral patterns change when practices and hospitals are acquired by health systems or insurers.

Maintaining competition in the provider and payer markets benefits healthcare workers through higher pay, while patients can access quality care at lower prices, the joint request for information said. However, consolidation and mergers — potentially driven by private equity’s entry into the market — can diminish these benefits.

Investigating private equity and consolidation in medicine is part of the Biden Administration’s focus on lowering medical and prescription drug costs and strengthening competition in healthcare. The FTC’s vote last week to ban noncompete agreements, which business groups have vowed to challenge in court, falls under the same initiative.

Alexandra Nicole Thran, MD, FACEP, president of the Vermont Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians, said that the private equity business model is problematic because it ties physicians’ wages to patient satisfaction and the number of patients they see per hour. 

A Connecticut primary care physician expressed similar sentiments. “Physicians are being forced into a system where corporations provide financial incentives and punitive policies to direct healthcare decisions towards a profitable aim,” said Eric Schwaber, MD. 

While a majority of comments criticized the role of private equity and consolidation, some reflected a more positive view. 

“Private equity helps make healthcare more efficient and effective. It brings needed operational and managerial expertise to allow for better patient care,” said Reenie Abraham, MD, an associate professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. The University of Texas is facing a lawsuit involving the liability status of its physicians who work for a private equity-backed hospital partly owned by the university.

Several public comments point to the increasing market influence UnitedHealth Group (UHG) and other payers have obtained through recent acquisitions. Retired emergency room physician Scott Davis, MD, said that the “astronomical” rate of burnout among providers has been exacerbated by “the economic takeover of the healthcare system by…United Healthcare [and] private equity groups who put profits over anything else.”  

The healthcare conglomerate employs approximately 10% of active US physicians, including many through its subsidiary, Optum Health, which provides primary, urgent, and surgical care. UHG has also invested heavily in acquiring physician practices to advance its value-based care model.

“If a publicly traded private insurance or private equity company is interested in their short-term quarterly profits or stock price, there is little interest in the…effective management of chronic disease, other than that which fulfills a ‘value-based’ metric,” wrote Kenneth Dolkart, MD, FACP, clinical assistant professor at the Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine in Hanover, New Hampshire. 

Sarah Ealy, a revenue cycle professional, commented that payers like UHG have outsized bargaining power when negotiating rates with providers. “In many states, United Healthcare and its subsidiaries pay a lower reimbursement rate than state Medicaid plans — these rates are nearly 50% of the breakeven per-visit rate that practices need to keep the lights on.”

Another comment ties the recent cyberattack on UHG-owned Change Healthcare to private equity ownership and “healthcare behemoths buying up practices and data.”

“The ramrodding of consolidation and private oversight with little to no barriers to foreign intrusions…is a testament to how ill prepared [the] US market is to private equity healthcare takeovers,” said SW Dermatology Practice LLC. 

The agencies request comments from all health market participants, including physicians, nurses, employers, administrators, and patients.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) voted Tuesday to ban noncompete agreements, possibly making it easier for doctors to switch employers without having to leave their communities and patients behind. But business groups have vowed to challenge the decision in court.

The proposed final rule passed on a 3-2 vote, with the dissenting commissioners disputing the FTC’s authority to broadly ban noncompetes.

Tensions around noncompetes have been building for years. In 2021, President Biden issued an executive order supporting measures to improve economic competition, in which he urged the FTC to consider its rulemaking authority to address noncompete clauses that unfairly limit workers’ mobility. In January 2023, per that directive, the agency proposed ending the restrictive covenants.

While the FTC estimates that the final rule will reduce healthcare costs by up to $194 billion over the next decade and increase worker earnings by $300 million annually, the ruling faces legal hurdles.

US Chamber of Commerce president and CEO Suzanne P. Clark said in a statement that the move is a “blatant power grab” that will undermine competitive business practices, adding that the Chamber will sue to block the measure.

The FTC received more than 26,000 comments on noncompetes during the public feedback period, with about 25,000 supporting the measure, said Benjamin Cady, JD, an FTC attorney.

Mr. Cady called the feedback “compelling,” citing instances of workers who were forced to commute long distances, uproot their families, or risk expensive litigation for wanting to pursue job opportunities.

For example, a comment from a physician working in Appalachia highlights the potential real-life implications of the agreements. “With hospital systems merging, providers with aggressive noncompetes must abandon the community that they serve if they [choose] to leave their employer. Healthcare providers feel trapped in their current employment situation, leading to significant burnout that can shorten their [career] longevity.”

Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya said physicians have had their lives upended by cumbersome noncompetes, often having to move out of state to practice. “A pandemic killed a million people in this country, and there are doctors who cannot work because of a noncompete,” he said.

It’s unclear whether physicians and others who work for nonprofit healthcare groups or hospitals will be covered by the new ban. FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter acknowledged that the agency’s jurisdictional limitations mean that employees of “certain nonprofit organizations” may not benefit from the rule.

“We want to be transparent about the limitation and recognize there are workers, especially healthcare workers, who are bound by anticompetitive and unfair noncompete clauses, that our rule will struggle to reach,” she said. To cover nonprofit healthcare employees, Ms. Slaughter urged Congress to pass legislation banning noncompetes, such as the Workforce Mobility Act of 2021 and the Freedom to Compete Act of 2023.

The FTC final rule will take effect 120 days after it is published in the federal register, and new noncompete agreements will be banned as of this date. However, existing contracts for senior executives will remain in effect because these individuals are less likely to experience “acute harm” due to their ability to negotiate accordingly, said Mr. Cady.
 

States, AMA Take Aim at Noncompetes

Before the federal ban, several states had already passed legislation limiting the reach of noncompetes. According to a recent article in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 12 states prohibit noncompete clauses for physicians: Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and South Dakota.

The remaining states allow noncompetes in some form, often excluding them for employees earning below a certain threshold. For example, in Oregon, noncompete agreements may apply to employees earning more than $113,241. Most states have provisions to adjust the threshold annually. The District of Columbia permits 2-year noncompetes for “medical specialists” earning over $250,000 annually.

Indiana employers can no longer enter into noncompete agreements with primary care providers. Other specialties may be subject to the clauses, except when the physician terminates the contract for cause or when an employer terminates the contract without cause.

Rachel Marcus, MD, a cardiologist in Washington, DC, found out how limiting her employment contract’s noncompete clause was when she wanted to leave a former position. Due to the restrictions, she told this news organization that she couldn’t work locally for a competitor for 2 years. The closest location she could seek employment without violating the agreement was Baltimore, approximately 40 miles away.

Dr. Marcus ultimately moved to another position within the same organization because of the company’s reputation for being “aggressive” in their enforcement actions.

Although the American Medical Association (AMA) does not support a total ban, its House of Delegates adopted policies last year to support the prohibition of noncompete contracts for physicians employed by for-profit or nonprofit hospitals, hospital systems, or staffing companies.
 

Challenges Await

The American Hospital Association, which opposed the proposed rule, called it “bad policy.” The decision “will likely be short-lived, with courts almost certain to stop it before it can do damage to hospitals’ ability to care for their patients and communities,” the association said in a statement.

To ease the transition to the new rule, the FTC also released a model language for employers to use when discussing the changes with their employees. “All employers need to do to comply with the rule is to stop enforcing existing noncompetes with workers other than senior executives and provide notice to such workers,” he said.

Dr. Marcus hopes the ban improves doctors’ lives. “Your employer is going to have to treat you better because they know that you can easily go across town to a place that has a higher salary, and your patient can go with you.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) voted Tuesday to ban noncompete agreements, possibly making it easier for doctors to switch employers without having to leave their communities and patients behind. But business groups have vowed to challenge the decision in court.

The proposed final rule passed on a 3-2 vote, with the dissenting commissioners disputing the FTC’s authority to broadly ban noncompetes.

Tensions around noncompetes have been building for years. In 2021, President Biden issued an executive order supporting measures to improve economic competition, in which he urged the FTC to consider its rulemaking authority to address noncompete clauses that unfairly limit workers’ mobility. In January 2023, per that directive, the agency proposed ending the restrictive covenants.

While the FTC estimates that the final rule will reduce healthcare costs by up to $194 billion over the next decade and increase worker earnings by $300 million annually, the ruling faces legal hurdles.

US Chamber of Commerce president and CEO Suzanne P. Clark said in a statement that the move is a “blatant power grab” that will undermine competitive business practices, adding that the Chamber will sue to block the measure.

The FTC received more than 26,000 comments on noncompetes during the public feedback period, with about 25,000 supporting the measure, said Benjamin Cady, JD, an FTC attorney.

Mr. Cady called the feedback “compelling,” citing instances of workers who were forced to commute long distances, uproot their families, or risk expensive litigation for wanting to pursue job opportunities.

For example, a comment from a physician working in Appalachia highlights the potential real-life implications of the agreements. “With hospital systems merging, providers with aggressive noncompetes must abandon the community that they serve if they [choose] to leave their employer. Healthcare providers feel trapped in their current employment situation, leading to significant burnout that can shorten their [career] longevity.”

Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya said physicians have had their lives upended by cumbersome noncompetes, often having to move out of state to practice. “A pandemic killed a million people in this country, and there are doctors who cannot work because of a noncompete,” he said.

It’s unclear whether physicians and others who work for nonprofit healthcare groups or hospitals will be covered by the new ban. FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter acknowledged that the agency’s jurisdictional limitations mean that employees of “certain nonprofit organizations” may not benefit from the rule.

“We want to be transparent about the limitation and recognize there are workers, especially healthcare workers, who are bound by anticompetitive and unfair noncompete clauses, that our rule will struggle to reach,” she said. To cover nonprofit healthcare employees, Ms. Slaughter urged Congress to pass legislation banning noncompetes, such as the Workforce Mobility Act of 2021 and the Freedom to Compete Act of 2023.

The FTC final rule will take effect 120 days after it is published in the federal register, and new noncompete agreements will be banned as of this date. However, existing contracts for senior executives will remain in effect because these individuals are less likely to experience “acute harm” due to their ability to negotiate accordingly, said Mr. Cady.
 

States, AMA Take Aim at Noncompetes

Before the federal ban, several states had already passed legislation limiting the reach of noncompetes. According to a recent article in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 12 states prohibit noncompete clauses for physicians: Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and South Dakota.

The remaining states allow noncompetes in some form, often excluding them for employees earning below a certain threshold. For example, in Oregon, noncompete agreements may apply to employees earning more than $113,241. Most states have provisions to adjust the threshold annually. The District of Columbia permits 2-year noncompetes for “medical specialists” earning over $250,000 annually.

Indiana employers can no longer enter into noncompete agreements with primary care providers. Other specialties may be subject to the clauses, except when the physician terminates the contract for cause or when an employer terminates the contract without cause.

Rachel Marcus, MD, a cardiologist in Washington, DC, found out how limiting her employment contract’s noncompete clause was when she wanted to leave a former position. Due to the restrictions, she told this news organization that she couldn’t work locally for a competitor for 2 years. The closest location she could seek employment without violating the agreement was Baltimore, approximately 40 miles away.

Dr. Marcus ultimately moved to another position within the same organization because of the company’s reputation for being “aggressive” in their enforcement actions.

Although the American Medical Association (AMA) does not support a total ban, its House of Delegates adopted policies last year to support the prohibition of noncompete contracts for physicians employed by for-profit or nonprofit hospitals, hospital systems, or staffing companies.
 

Challenges Await

The American Hospital Association, which opposed the proposed rule, called it “bad policy.” The decision “will likely be short-lived, with courts almost certain to stop it before it can do damage to hospitals’ ability to care for their patients and communities,” the association said in a statement.

To ease the transition to the new rule, the FTC also released a model language for employers to use when discussing the changes with their employees. “All employers need to do to comply with the rule is to stop enforcing existing noncompetes with workers other than senior executives and provide notice to such workers,” he said.

Dr. Marcus hopes the ban improves doctors’ lives. “Your employer is going to have to treat you better because they know that you can easily go across town to a place that has a higher salary, and your patient can go with you.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) voted Tuesday to ban noncompete agreements, possibly making it easier for doctors to switch employers without having to leave their communities and patients behind. But business groups have vowed to challenge the decision in court.

The proposed final rule passed on a 3-2 vote, with the dissenting commissioners disputing the FTC’s authority to broadly ban noncompetes.

Tensions around noncompetes have been building for years. In 2021, President Biden issued an executive order supporting measures to improve economic competition, in which he urged the FTC to consider its rulemaking authority to address noncompete clauses that unfairly limit workers’ mobility. In January 2023, per that directive, the agency proposed ending the restrictive covenants.

While the FTC estimates that the final rule will reduce healthcare costs by up to $194 billion over the next decade and increase worker earnings by $300 million annually, the ruling faces legal hurdles.

US Chamber of Commerce president and CEO Suzanne P. Clark said in a statement that the move is a “blatant power grab” that will undermine competitive business practices, adding that the Chamber will sue to block the measure.

The FTC received more than 26,000 comments on noncompetes during the public feedback period, with about 25,000 supporting the measure, said Benjamin Cady, JD, an FTC attorney.

Mr. Cady called the feedback “compelling,” citing instances of workers who were forced to commute long distances, uproot their families, or risk expensive litigation for wanting to pursue job opportunities.

For example, a comment from a physician working in Appalachia highlights the potential real-life implications of the agreements. “With hospital systems merging, providers with aggressive noncompetes must abandon the community that they serve if they [choose] to leave their employer. Healthcare providers feel trapped in their current employment situation, leading to significant burnout that can shorten their [career] longevity.”

Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya said physicians have had their lives upended by cumbersome noncompetes, often having to move out of state to practice. “A pandemic killed a million people in this country, and there are doctors who cannot work because of a noncompete,” he said.

It’s unclear whether physicians and others who work for nonprofit healthcare groups or hospitals will be covered by the new ban. FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter acknowledged that the agency’s jurisdictional limitations mean that employees of “certain nonprofit organizations” may not benefit from the rule.

“We want to be transparent about the limitation and recognize there are workers, especially healthcare workers, who are bound by anticompetitive and unfair noncompete clauses, that our rule will struggle to reach,” she said. To cover nonprofit healthcare employees, Ms. Slaughter urged Congress to pass legislation banning noncompetes, such as the Workforce Mobility Act of 2021 and the Freedom to Compete Act of 2023.

The FTC final rule will take effect 120 days after it is published in the federal register, and new noncompete agreements will be banned as of this date. However, existing contracts for senior executives will remain in effect because these individuals are less likely to experience “acute harm” due to their ability to negotiate accordingly, said Mr. Cady.
 

States, AMA Take Aim at Noncompetes

Before the federal ban, several states had already passed legislation limiting the reach of noncompetes. According to a recent article in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 12 states prohibit noncompete clauses for physicians: Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and South Dakota.

The remaining states allow noncompetes in some form, often excluding them for employees earning below a certain threshold. For example, in Oregon, noncompete agreements may apply to employees earning more than $113,241. Most states have provisions to adjust the threshold annually. The District of Columbia permits 2-year noncompetes for “medical specialists” earning over $250,000 annually.

Indiana employers can no longer enter into noncompete agreements with primary care providers. Other specialties may be subject to the clauses, except when the physician terminates the contract for cause or when an employer terminates the contract without cause.

Rachel Marcus, MD, a cardiologist in Washington, DC, found out how limiting her employment contract’s noncompete clause was when she wanted to leave a former position. Due to the restrictions, she told this news organization that she couldn’t work locally for a competitor for 2 years. The closest location she could seek employment without violating the agreement was Baltimore, approximately 40 miles away.

Dr. Marcus ultimately moved to another position within the same organization because of the company’s reputation for being “aggressive” in their enforcement actions.

Although the American Medical Association (AMA) does not support a total ban, its House of Delegates adopted policies last year to support the prohibition of noncompete contracts for physicians employed by for-profit or nonprofit hospitals, hospital systems, or staffing companies.
 

Challenges Await

The American Hospital Association, which opposed the proposed rule, called it “bad policy.” The decision “will likely be short-lived, with courts almost certain to stop it before it can do damage to hospitals’ ability to care for their patients and communities,” the association said in a statement.

To ease the transition to the new rule, the FTC also released a model language for employers to use when discussing the changes with their employees. “All employers need to do to comply with the rule is to stop enforcing existing noncompetes with workers other than senior executives and provide notice to such workers,” he said.

Dr. Marcus hopes the ban improves doctors’ lives. “Your employer is going to have to treat you better because they know that you can easily go across town to a place that has a higher salary, and your patient can go with you.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Pregnant physicians may receive more workplace accommodations and protection against discrimination thanks to an updated rule from the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The guidelines could prevent women from losing critical career momentum. 

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) aims to help workers balance professional demands with healthy pregnancies. It requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for a “worker’s known limitations,” including physical or mental conditions associated with “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.”

Reasonable accommodations vary but may involve time off to attend healthcare appointments or recover from childbirth, extra breaks during a shift, shorter work hours, or the ability to sit instead of stand. Private and public sector employers, including state and local governments, federal agencies, and employment agencies, must abide by the new guidelines unless they can provide evidence that doing so will cause undue hardship. 

Female doctors have historically encountered significant barriers to family planning. Years of training cause them to delay having children, often leading to higher rates of infertility, miscarriage, and pregnancy complications than in the general population. 

Some specialties, like surgeons, are particularly at risk, with 42% reporting at least one pregnancy loss. Most surgeons work their regular schedules until delivery despite desiring workload reductions, commonly citing unsupportive workplaces as a reason for not seeking accommodations. 

Trauma surgeon Qaali Hussein, MD, became pregnant with her first child during her intern year in 2008. She told this news organization that her residency program didn’t even have a maternity policy at the time, and her male supervisor was certain that motherhood would end her surgical career. 

She shared how “women usually waited until the end of their training to get pregnant. No one had ever gotten pregnant during the program and returned from maternity leave. I was the first to do so, so there wasn’t a policy or any program support to say, ‘What can we do to help?’ ”

Dr. Hussein used her vacation and sick time, returning to work 4 weeks after delivery. She had five more children, including twins her chief year and another baby during fellowship training in 2014. 

Each subsequent pregnancy was met with the same response from program leadership, she recalled. “They’d say, ‘This is it. You may have been able to do the first and second child, but this one will be impossible.’ ”

After the PWFA regulations first became enforceable in June, the EEOC accepted public feedback. The guidelines received nearly 100,000 comments, spurred mainly by the inclusion of abortion care as a qualifying condition for which an employee could receive accommodations. About 54,000 comments called for abortion to be excluded from the final rule, and 40,000 supported keeping the clause. 

The EEOC issued the final rule on April 15. It includes abortion care. However, the updated rule “does not require any employee to have — or not to have — an abortion, does not require taxpayers to pay for any abortions, and does not compel health care providers to provide any abortions,” the unpublished version of the final rule said. It is scheduled to take effect 60 days after its publication in the Federal Register on April 19.
 

Increasing Support for Doctor-Moms

The PWFA supplements other EEOC protections, such as pregnancy discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and access to reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act. In addition, it builds upon Department of Labor regulations, like the PUMP Act for breastfeeding employees and the Family and Medical Leave Act, which provides 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave for the arrival of a child or certain medical conditions.

FMLA applies only to employees who have worked full-time for at least 12 months for an employer with 50 or more employees. Meanwhile, the unpaid, job-protected leave under the PWFA has no waiting period, lowers the required number of employees to 15, and permits accommodations for up to 40 weeks. 

Employers are encouraged to honor “common and simple” requests, like using a closer parking space or pumping or nursing at work, without requiring a doctor’s note, the rule said. 

Efforts to improve family leave policies for physicians and residents have been gaining traction. In 2021, the American Board of Medical Specialties began requiring its member boards with training programs lasting 2 or more years to allow at least 6 weeks off for parental, caregiver, and medical leave. This time can be taken without exhausting vacation or sick leave or requiring an extension in training. Over half of the 24 member boards permit leave beyond 6 weeks, including the American Boards of Allergy and Immunology, Emergency Medicine, Family Medicine, Radiology, and Surgery. 

Estefania Oliveros, MD, MSc, cardiologist and assistant professor at the Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia, told this news organization that the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education also requires that residents and fellows receive 6 weeks of paid leave. 

“We add to that vacation time, so it gives them at least 8 weeks,” she said. The school has created spaces for nursing mothers — something neither she nor Dr. Hussein had access to when breastfeeding — and encourages the attendings to be proactive in excusing pregnant fellows for appointments. 

This differs significantly from her fellowship training experience 6 years ago at another institution, where she worked without accommodations until the day before her cesarean delivery. Dr. Oliveros had to use all her vacation time for recovery, returning to the program after 4 weeks instead of the recommended 6. 

“And that’s the story you hear all the time. Not because people are ill-intended; I just don’t think the system is designed to accommodate women, so we lose a lot of talent that way,” said Dr. Oliveros, whose 2019 survey in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology called for more support and protections for pregnant doctors. 

Both doctors believe the PWFA will be beneficial but only if leadership in the field takes up the cause. 

“The cultures of these institutions determine whether women feel safe or even confident enough to have children in medical school or residency,” said Dr. Hussein. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Pregnant physicians may receive more workplace accommodations and protection against discrimination thanks to an updated rule from the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The guidelines could prevent women from losing critical career momentum. 

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) aims to help workers balance professional demands with healthy pregnancies. It requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for a “worker’s known limitations,” including physical or mental conditions associated with “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.”

Reasonable accommodations vary but may involve time off to attend healthcare appointments or recover from childbirth, extra breaks during a shift, shorter work hours, or the ability to sit instead of stand. Private and public sector employers, including state and local governments, federal agencies, and employment agencies, must abide by the new guidelines unless they can provide evidence that doing so will cause undue hardship. 

Female doctors have historically encountered significant barriers to family planning. Years of training cause them to delay having children, often leading to higher rates of infertility, miscarriage, and pregnancy complications than in the general population. 

Some specialties, like surgeons, are particularly at risk, with 42% reporting at least one pregnancy loss. Most surgeons work their regular schedules until delivery despite desiring workload reductions, commonly citing unsupportive workplaces as a reason for not seeking accommodations. 

Trauma surgeon Qaali Hussein, MD, became pregnant with her first child during her intern year in 2008. She told this news organization that her residency program didn’t even have a maternity policy at the time, and her male supervisor was certain that motherhood would end her surgical career. 

She shared how “women usually waited until the end of their training to get pregnant. No one had ever gotten pregnant during the program and returned from maternity leave. I was the first to do so, so there wasn’t a policy or any program support to say, ‘What can we do to help?’ ”

Dr. Hussein used her vacation and sick time, returning to work 4 weeks after delivery. She had five more children, including twins her chief year and another baby during fellowship training in 2014. 

Each subsequent pregnancy was met with the same response from program leadership, she recalled. “They’d say, ‘This is it. You may have been able to do the first and second child, but this one will be impossible.’ ”

After the PWFA regulations first became enforceable in June, the EEOC accepted public feedback. The guidelines received nearly 100,000 comments, spurred mainly by the inclusion of abortion care as a qualifying condition for which an employee could receive accommodations. About 54,000 comments called for abortion to be excluded from the final rule, and 40,000 supported keeping the clause. 

The EEOC issued the final rule on April 15. It includes abortion care. However, the updated rule “does not require any employee to have — or not to have — an abortion, does not require taxpayers to pay for any abortions, and does not compel health care providers to provide any abortions,” the unpublished version of the final rule said. It is scheduled to take effect 60 days after its publication in the Federal Register on April 19.
 

Increasing Support for Doctor-Moms

The PWFA supplements other EEOC protections, such as pregnancy discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and access to reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act. In addition, it builds upon Department of Labor regulations, like the PUMP Act for breastfeeding employees and the Family and Medical Leave Act, which provides 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave for the arrival of a child or certain medical conditions.

FMLA applies only to employees who have worked full-time for at least 12 months for an employer with 50 or more employees. Meanwhile, the unpaid, job-protected leave under the PWFA has no waiting period, lowers the required number of employees to 15, and permits accommodations for up to 40 weeks. 

Employers are encouraged to honor “common and simple” requests, like using a closer parking space or pumping or nursing at work, without requiring a doctor’s note, the rule said. 

Efforts to improve family leave policies for physicians and residents have been gaining traction. In 2021, the American Board of Medical Specialties began requiring its member boards with training programs lasting 2 or more years to allow at least 6 weeks off for parental, caregiver, and medical leave. This time can be taken without exhausting vacation or sick leave or requiring an extension in training. Over half of the 24 member boards permit leave beyond 6 weeks, including the American Boards of Allergy and Immunology, Emergency Medicine, Family Medicine, Radiology, and Surgery. 

Estefania Oliveros, MD, MSc, cardiologist and assistant professor at the Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia, told this news organization that the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education also requires that residents and fellows receive 6 weeks of paid leave. 

“We add to that vacation time, so it gives them at least 8 weeks,” she said. The school has created spaces for nursing mothers — something neither she nor Dr. Hussein had access to when breastfeeding — and encourages the attendings to be proactive in excusing pregnant fellows for appointments. 

This differs significantly from her fellowship training experience 6 years ago at another institution, where she worked without accommodations until the day before her cesarean delivery. Dr. Oliveros had to use all her vacation time for recovery, returning to the program after 4 weeks instead of the recommended 6. 

“And that’s the story you hear all the time. Not because people are ill-intended; I just don’t think the system is designed to accommodate women, so we lose a lot of talent that way,” said Dr. Oliveros, whose 2019 survey in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology called for more support and protections for pregnant doctors. 

Both doctors believe the PWFA will be beneficial but only if leadership in the field takes up the cause. 

“The cultures of these institutions determine whether women feel safe or even confident enough to have children in medical school or residency,” said Dr. Hussein. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Pregnant physicians may receive more workplace accommodations and protection against discrimination thanks to an updated rule from the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The guidelines could prevent women from losing critical career momentum. 

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) aims to help workers balance professional demands with healthy pregnancies. It requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for a “worker’s known limitations,” including physical or mental conditions associated with “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.”

Reasonable accommodations vary but may involve time off to attend healthcare appointments or recover from childbirth, extra breaks during a shift, shorter work hours, or the ability to sit instead of stand. Private and public sector employers, including state and local governments, federal agencies, and employment agencies, must abide by the new guidelines unless they can provide evidence that doing so will cause undue hardship. 

Female doctors have historically encountered significant barriers to family planning. Years of training cause them to delay having children, often leading to higher rates of infertility, miscarriage, and pregnancy complications than in the general population. 

Some specialties, like surgeons, are particularly at risk, with 42% reporting at least one pregnancy loss. Most surgeons work their regular schedules until delivery despite desiring workload reductions, commonly citing unsupportive workplaces as a reason for not seeking accommodations. 

Trauma surgeon Qaali Hussein, MD, became pregnant with her first child during her intern year in 2008. She told this news organization that her residency program didn’t even have a maternity policy at the time, and her male supervisor was certain that motherhood would end her surgical career. 

She shared how “women usually waited until the end of their training to get pregnant. No one had ever gotten pregnant during the program and returned from maternity leave. I was the first to do so, so there wasn’t a policy or any program support to say, ‘What can we do to help?’ ”

Dr. Hussein used her vacation and sick time, returning to work 4 weeks after delivery. She had five more children, including twins her chief year and another baby during fellowship training in 2014. 

Each subsequent pregnancy was met with the same response from program leadership, she recalled. “They’d say, ‘This is it. You may have been able to do the first and second child, but this one will be impossible.’ ”

After the PWFA regulations first became enforceable in June, the EEOC accepted public feedback. The guidelines received nearly 100,000 comments, spurred mainly by the inclusion of abortion care as a qualifying condition for which an employee could receive accommodations. About 54,000 comments called for abortion to be excluded from the final rule, and 40,000 supported keeping the clause. 

The EEOC issued the final rule on April 15. It includes abortion care. However, the updated rule “does not require any employee to have — or not to have — an abortion, does not require taxpayers to pay for any abortions, and does not compel health care providers to provide any abortions,” the unpublished version of the final rule said. It is scheduled to take effect 60 days after its publication in the Federal Register on April 19.
 

Increasing Support for Doctor-Moms

The PWFA supplements other EEOC protections, such as pregnancy discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and access to reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act. In addition, it builds upon Department of Labor regulations, like the PUMP Act for breastfeeding employees and the Family and Medical Leave Act, which provides 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave for the arrival of a child or certain medical conditions.

FMLA applies only to employees who have worked full-time for at least 12 months for an employer with 50 or more employees. Meanwhile, the unpaid, job-protected leave under the PWFA has no waiting period, lowers the required number of employees to 15, and permits accommodations for up to 40 weeks. 

Employers are encouraged to honor “common and simple” requests, like using a closer parking space or pumping or nursing at work, without requiring a doctor’s note, the rule said. 

Efforts to improve family leave policies for physicians and residents have been gaining traction. In 2021, the American Board of Medical Specialties began requiring its member boards with training programs lasting 2 or more years to allow at least 6 weeks off for parental, caregiver, and medical leave. This time can be taken without exhausting vacation or sick leave or requiring an extension in training. Over half of the 24 member boards permit leave beyond 6 weeks, including the American Boards of Allergy and Immunology, Emergency Medicine, Family Medicine, Radiology, and Surgery. 

Estefania Oliveros, MD, MSc, cardiologist and assistant professor at the Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia, told this news organization that the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education also requires that residents and fellows receive 6 weeks of paid leave. 

“We add to that vacation time, so it gives them at least 8 weeks,” she said. The school has created spaces for nursing mothers — something neither she nor Dr. Hussein had access to when breastfeeding — and encourages the attendings to be proactive in excusing pregnant fellows for appointments. 

This differs significantly from her fellowship training experience 6 years ago at another institution, where she worked without accommodations until the day before her cesarean delivery. Dr. Oliveros had to use all her vacation time for recovery, returning to the program after 4 weeks instead of the recommended 6. 

“And that’s the story you hear all the time. Not because people are ill-intended; I just don’t think the system is designed to accommodate women, so we lose a lot of talent that way,” said Dr. Oliveros, whose 2019 survey in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology called for more support and protections for pregnant doctors. 

Both doctors believe the PWFA will be beneficial but only if leadership in the field takes up the cause. 

“The cultures of these institutions determine whether women feel safe or even confident enough to have children in medical school or residency,” said Dr. Hussein. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Medical schools with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives could lose federal funding under a new bill proposed this week in the US House of Representatives. 

The Embracing Anti-Discrimination, Unbiased Curricula, and Advancing Truth in Education (EDUCATE) Act was introduced March 19 by North Carolina Rep. Greg Murphy (R-NC3). It aims to ban what the bill describes as “race-based mandates” at medical schools. 

The legislation highlights a larger national backlash, largely led by conservatives, against considering race and ethnicity in higher education after the Supreme Court overturned affirmative action last summer. 

According to the bill’s text, medical schools must not “establish, maintain, or contract with a [DEI] office, or any other functional equivalent.” They must also agree that they will not force students or faculty to acknowledge that “America is an oppressive nation” or that “individuals should be adversely treated on the basis of their sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin.” 

If H.R. 7725 passes, noncompliant medical schools would no longer receive federal funding or be eligible to participate in guaranteed student loan programs. 

Advocating for colorblind medical school admissions overlooks the racism that still exists in society, said Vanessa Grubbs, MD, MPH, nephrologist and cofounder of the nonprofit Black Doc Village. She told this news organization that bills like H.R. 7725 distract from the real work of diversifying the physician workforce to achieve equitable care for all. 

“There’s a huge body of literature that shows when there is racial or cultural concordance, people have better satisfaction and health outcomes,” said Dr. Grubbs. “It’s really telling that the first thing the people dreaming up these bills say is that by having a diverse workforce, it automatically means that you have a less qualified workforce or that you’re lowering standards.”

The bill joins dozens of state legislative actions seeking to ban DEI principles in healthcare.

This week, Alabama legislators passed a bill prohibiting public universities from establishing DEI programs or using state money to sponsor events involving “divisive concepts.” If signed by the governor, the bill would go into effect on October 1, 2024, joining states like Tennessee and Utah with similar laws already on the books.

Industry groups are also grappling with anti-DEI sentiment. Earlier this month, the American Academy of Dermatology’s annual meeting took an unexpected turn when a member physician and 92 colleagues petitioned the academy to end its DEI programs, including scholarships and mentoring. A committee hearing the petition declined to send it to the Academy’s board.

Rep. Murphy, a urology surgeon who wrote a related editorial in the Wall Street Journal, argued that DEI ideology violates freedom of speech and allows medical schools to reject candidates for not being progressive enough. In the opinion piece, he and coauthor nephrologist Stanley Goldfarb, MD, referred to DEI efforts as “quackery” and a form of discrimination. 

Dr. Goldfarb is the chairman of Do No Harm, a Virginia-based advocacy group that has pushed to eradicate “identity politics” in medical education and clinical practice. The group was instrumental in suing the Louisiana governor for a law requiring that minority candidates fill some state medical board positions. It also filed a complaint against the Medical Board of California on behalf of two physicians, claiming the state’s mandated implicit bias training for healthcare professionals violates their First Amendment rights.

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling overturning affirmative action, the American Medical Association (AMA) adopted a policy advising medical schools to consider race as a factor in admissions alongside other criteria such as test scores, grades, and interviews. The policy provides a “necessary safeguard” to diversify the physician workforce and advance health equity, the AMA said at the time. 

The Association of American Medical Colleges supports DEI principles in medical education while advocating for race-neutral admissions practices like holistic review. This method considers the whole applicant, including their experiences, attributes, academic achievements, and the value they bring to the learning environment. 

H.R. 7725 has 35 cosponsors, many of whom are physicians. Podiatrist and Ohio Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R) said in a statement that medical education should be “free of discrimination” and that the bill would prevent physicians from “being forced to pledge, affirm, or adopt tenets that have infiltrated higher education.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Medical schools with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives could lose federal funding under a new bill proposed this week in the US House of Representatives. 

The Embracing Anti-Discrimination, Unbiased Curricula, and Advancing Truth in Education (EDUCATE) Act was introduced March 19 by North Carolina Rep. Greg Murphy (R-NC3). It aims to ban what the bill describes as “race-based mandates” at medical schools. 

The legislation highlights a larger national backlash, largely led by conservatives, against considering race and ethnicity in higher education after the Supreme Court overturned affirmative action last summer. 

According to the bill’s text, medical schools must not “establish, maintain, or contract with a [DEI] office, or any other functional equivalent.” They must also agree that they will not force students or faculty to acknowledge that “America is an oppressive nation” or that “individuals should be adversely treated on the basis of their sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin.” 

If H.R. 7725 passes, noncompliant medical schools would no longer receive federal funding or be eligible to participate in guaranteed student loan programs. 

Advocating for colorblind medical school admissions overlooks the racism that still exists in society, said Vanessa Grubbs, MD, MPH, nephrologist and cofounder of the nonprofit Black Doc Village. She told this news organization that bills like H.R. 7725 distract from the real work of diversifying the physician workforce to achieve equitable care for all. 

“There’s a huge body of literature that shows when there is racial or cultural concordance, people have better satisfaction and health outcomes,” said Dr. Grubbs. “It’s really telling that the first thing the people dreaming up these bills say is that by having a diverse workforce, it automatically means that you have a less qualified workforce or that you’re lowering standards.”

The bill joins dozens of state legislative actions seeking to ban DEI principles in healthcare.

This week, Alabama legislators passed a bill prohibiting public universities from establishing DEI programs or using state money to sponsor events involving “divisive concepts.” If signed by the governor, the bill would go into effect on October 1, 2024, joining states like Tennessee and Utah with similar laws already on the books.

Industry groups are also grappling with anti-DEI sentiment. Earlier this month, the American Academy of Dermatology’s annual meeting took an unexpected turn when a member physician and 92 colleagues petitioned the academy to end its DEI programs, including scholarships and mentoring. A committee hearing the petition declined to send it to the Academy’s board.

Rep. Murphy, a urology surgeon who wrote a related editorial in the Wall Street Journal, argued that DEI ideology violates freedom of speech and allows medical schools to reject candidates for not being progressive enough. In the opinion piece, he and coauthor nephrologist Stanley Goldfarb, MD, referred to DEI efforts as “quackery” and a form of discrimination. 

Dr. Goldfarb is the chairman of Do No Harm, a Virginia-based advocacy group that has pushed to eradicate “identity politics” in medical education and clinical practice. The group was instrumental in suing the Louisiana governor for a law requiring that minority candidates fill some state medical board positions. It also filed a complaint against the Medical Board of California on behalf of two physicians, claiming the state’s mandated implicit bias training for healthcare professionals violates their First Amendment rights.

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling overturning affirmative action, the American Medical Association (AMA) adopted a policy advising medical schools to consider race as a factor in admissions alongside other criteria such as test scores, grades, and interviews. The policy provides a “necessary safeguard” to diversify the physician workforce and advance health equity, the AMA said at the time. 

The Association of American Medical Colleges supports DEI principles in medical education while advocating for race-neutral admissions practices like holistic review. This method considers the whole applicant, including their experiences, attributes, academic achievements, and the value they bring to the learning environment. 

H.R. 7725 has 35 cosponsors, many of whom are physicians. Podiatrist and Ohio Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R) said in a statement that medical education should be “free of discrimination” and that the bill would prevent physicians from “being forced to pledge, affirm, or adopt tenets that have infiltrated higher education.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Medical schools with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives could lose federal funding under a new bill proposed this week in the US House of Representatives. 

The Embracing Anti-Discrimination, Unbiased Curricula, and Advancing Truth in Education (EDUCATE) Act was introduced March 19 by North Carolina Rep. Greg Murphy (R-NC3). It aims to ban what the bill describes as “race-based mandates” at medical schools. 

The legislation highlights a larger national backlash, largely led by conservatives, against considering race and ethnicity in higher education after the Supreme Court overturned affirmative action last summer. 

According to the bill’s text, medical schools must not “establish, maintain, or contract with a [DEI] office, or any other functional equivalent.” They must also agree that they will not force students or faculty to acknowledge that “America is an oppressive nation” or that “individuals should be adversely treated on the basis of their sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin.” 

If H.R. 7725 passes, noncompliant medical schools would no longer receive federal funding or be eligible to participate in guaranteed student loan programs. 

Advocating for colorblind medical school admissions overlooks the racism that still exists in society, said Vanessa Grubbs, MD, MPH, nephrologist and cofounder of the nonprofit Black Doc Village. She told this news organization that bills like H.R. 7725 distract from the real work of diversifying the physician workforce to achieve equitable care for all. 

“There’s a huge body of literature that shows when there is racial or cultural concordance, people have better satisfaction and health outcomes,” said Dr. Grubbs. “It’s really telling that the first thing the people dreaming up these bills say is that by having a diverse workforce, it automatically means that you have a less qualified workforce or that you’re lowering standards.”

The bill joins dozens of state legislative actions seeking to ban DEI principles in healthcare.

This week, Alabama legislators passed a bill prohibiting public universities from establishing DEI programs or using state money to sponsor events involving “divisive concepts.” If signed by the governor, the bill would go into effect on October 1, 2024, joining states like Tennessee and Utah with similar laws already on the books.

Industry groups are also grappling with anti-DEI sentiment. Earlier this month, the American Academy of Dermatology’s annual meeting took an unexpected turn when a member physician and 92 colleagues petitioned the academy to end its DEI programs, including scholarships and mentoring. A committee hearing the petition declined to send it to the Academy’s board.

Rep. Murphy, a urology surgeon who wrote a related editorial in the Wall Street Journal, argued that DEI ideology violates freedom of speech and allows medical schools to reject candidates for not being progressive enough. In the opinion piece, he and coauthor nephrologist Stanley Goldfarb, MD, referred to DEI efforts as “quackery” and a form of discrimination. 

Dr. Goldfarb is the chairman of Do No Harm, a Virginia-based advocacy group that has pushed to eradicate “identity politics” in medical education and clinical practice. The group was instrumental in suing the Louisiana governor for a law requiring that minority candidates fill some state medical board positions. It also filed a complaint against the Medical Board of California on behalf of two physicians, claiming the state’s mandated implicit bias training for healthcare professionals violates their First Amendment rights.

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling overturning affirmative action, the American Medical Association (AMA) adopted a policy advising medical schools to consider race as a factor in admissions alongside other criteria such as test scores, grades, and interviews. The policy provides a “necessary safeguard” to diversify the physician workforce and advance health equity, the AMA said at the time. 

The Association of American Medical Colleges supports DEI principles in medical education while advocating for race-neutral admissions practices like holistic review. This method considers the whole applicant, including their experiences, attributes, academic achievements, and the value they bring to the learning environment. 

H.R. 7725 has 35 cosponsors, many of whom are physicians. Podiatrist and Ohio Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R) said in a statement that medical education should be “free of discrimination” and that the bill would prevent physicians from “being forced to pledge, affirm, or adopt tenets that have infiltrated higher education.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Hospital mergers and acquisitions continue to garner intense scrutiny from lawmakers, with pressure likely to hold steady following the recent announcement of new antitrust guidelines and state and federal investigations into potential healthcare monopolies.

In December, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released updated guidelines outlining the factors they consider when determining if a merger illegally monopolizes a local healthcare market or jeopardizes access to critical healthcare services.

Last week, the DOJ also announced a UnitedHealth Group antitrust probe, just months after the healthcare conglomerate’s workforce numbers indicated it is now affiliated with or employs 10% of the US physician workforce.

While the impact of the latest guidelines is yet to be seen, concerns over healthcare market consolidation are not new. Over the past two decades, mergers have attracted attention for contributing to a decline in independent hospitals, said Rachel M. Werner, MD, PhD, executive director of the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

“At this point, most hospitals are operating in a pretty concentrated market,” she said.

Here are five things to know about the current state of hospital mergers.

1. Record-Breaking Merger Enforcements

The DOJ and FTC reported the highest level of enforcement activity in over 20 years in fiscal year 2022 — the latest available data. Together, the agencies filed 50 merger enforcement actions and brought a record-breaking number of merger enforcement challenges, resulting in 11 approved actions, the restructuring or abandonment of seven mergers, and six business deals entering litigation.

Included in those statistics was a proposed merger between the two largest health systems in Rhode Island, Lifespan and Care New England Health System, which was abandoned after the FTC and the state Attorney General took steps to block it. the HCA branch in Utah Healthcare abandoned plans for to acquire five Salt Lake City area hospitals from competitor Steward Health Care System, as did RWJBarnabas Health after exploring a merger with Saint Peter's Healthcare System in New Jersey.

2. New Antitrust Guidelines Consider Labor Market

The new guidelines notably focus on labor competition, said Jody Boudreault, JD, attorney and chair of the Antitrust Life Sciences and Healthcare Group at Baker Botts law firm in Washington, DC. Health professionals typically have more employment opportunities in an urban area, unless hindered by restrictive noncompete agreements, and fewer options in rural settings.

In the Lifespan merger that fell through, Ms. Boudreault said that the newly created hospital system would have employed two thirds of Rhode Island's full-time nurses, limiting opportunities for local employment elsewhere.

“Going forward, I would expect federal authorities to review not only the competitive impact of the hospitals merging but also the competitive impact of the physician, and especially nursing, workforce,” she said.

FTC Chair Lina M. Khan noted similar labor market concerns.

In a statement to Congress, she said that hospital consolidation reduces options for employees, who fear “being blacklisted from further hiring in a system that controls many of the hospitals in the area” and “makes workers afraid to file complaints, organize their workplace, or leave before the end of a contract.”

3. Mergers Can Drive Care Costs Higher

When hospital markets become less competitive, the cost of care often increases. In Indiana, inpatient prices rose 13% in hospitals that merged. Another study found that prices at monopoly hospitals are 12% higher than in markets with four or more rivals. Even cross-market mergers, when hospitals in different geographic locations combine, can drive prices higher.

Dr. Werner told this news organization that more significant price hikes of 20-30% aren’t unheard of, with reimbursements by some commercial insurance companies rising as much as 50%. “That’s the direct price that the insurers pay, but the burden of those higher prices ultimately falls on patients through higher premiums,” she said.

Still, the American Hospital Association (AHA) says that mergers and acquisitions can significantly lower annual operating expenses per admission and reduce inpatient readmission rates and mortality measures. In comments to the FTC, the AHA stated that mergers could provide a lifeline for rural and community hospitals struggling with shrinking payer reimbursement and rising labor and supply costs. The business arrangements also could ensure these communities maintain continuity of care.

Although a cross-market merger may initially benefit cash-strapped rural hospitals, Dr. Werner urged caution.

“In the long run, it’s not clear that it is good for patients because we start to see decreased access to some types of service, like labor and delivery, which are services needed in rural markets,” she said.

4. Mergers to Watch in 2024

Ms. Boudreault, who represented RWJBarnabas in the abandoned Saint Peter’s transaction, says the courts widely accepted the old merger guidelines, and it will take time to see how the new measures are interpreted. “The guidelines don’t yet have the force of law, but they can be persuasive to a court.”

Looking ahead, she is watching how Steward Health Care navigates its impending financial collapse. The nation’s largest private for-profit health system was previously owned by private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management and includes nine Massachusetts hospitals plus entities in at least seven other states.

Ms. Boudreault also plans to monitor Jefferson Health’s intent to merge with Lehigh Valley Health Network. “It’s a pretty big deal because they would become a 30-hospital system,” said Ms. Boudreault. The newly formed network would become the largest employer in Philadelphia.

5. Merger and Acquisition Reversals Unlikely

Dr. Werner said that mergers and acquisitions are complicated business moves that are nearly impossible to undo once approved, so it makes sense for agencies to continue to evaluate them closely.

“The costs of healthcare are borne by us as a society,” she said. “We’re going to have to live with the ill effects of a consolidated market once we let hospitals merge, so they deserve additional scrutiny.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Hospital mergers and acquisitions continue to garner intense scrutiny from lawmakers, with pressure likely to hold steady following the recent announcement of new antitrust guidelines and state and federal investigations into potential healthcare monopolies.

In December, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released updated guidelines outlining the factors they consider when determining if a merger illegally monopolizes a local healthcare market or jeopardizes access to critical healthcare services.

Last week, the DOJ also announced a UnitedHealth Group antitrust probe, just months after the healthcare conglomerate’s workforce numbers indicated it is now affiliated with or employs 10% of the US physician workforce.

While the impact of the latest guidelines is yet to be seen, concerns over healthcare market consolidation are not new. Over the past two decades, mergers have attracted attention for contributing to a decline in independent hospitals, said Rachel M. Werner, MD, PhD, executive director of the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

“At this point, most hospitals are operating in a pretty concentrated market,” she said.

Here are five things to know about the current state of hospital mergers.

1. Record-Breaking Merger Enforcements

The DOJ and FTC reported the highest level of enforcement activity in over 20 years in fiscal year 2022 — the latest available data. Together, the agencies filed 50 merger enforcement actions and brought a record-breaking number of merger enforcement challenges, resulting in 11 approved actions, the restructuring or abandonment of seven mergers, and six business deals entering litigation.

Included in those statistics was a proposed merger between the two largest health systems in Rhode Island, Lifespan and Care New England Health System, which was abandoned after the FTC and the state Attorney General took steps to block it. the HCA branch in Utah Healthcare abandoned plans for to acquire five Salt Lake City area hospitals from competitor Steward Health Care System, as did RWJBarnabas Health after exploring a merger with Saint Peter's Healthcare System in New Jersey.

2. New Antitrust Guidelines Consider Labor Market

The new guidelines notably focus on labor competition, said Jody Boudreault, JD, attorney and chair of the Antitrust Life Sciences and Healthcare Group at Baker Botts law firm in Washington, DC. Health professionals typically have more employment opportunities in an urban area, unless hindered by restrictive noncompete agreements, and fewer options in rural settings.

In the Lifespan merger that fell through, Ms. Boudreault said that the newly created hospital system would have employed two thirds of Rhode Island's full-time nurses, limiting opportunities for local employment elsewhere.

“Going forward, I would expect federal authorities to review not only the competitive impact of the hospitals merging but also the competitive impact of the physician, and especially nursing, workforce,” she said.

FTC Chair Lina M. Khan noted similar labor market concerns.

In a statement to Congress, she said that hospital consolidation reduces options for employees, who fear “being blacklisted from further hiring in a system that controls many of the hospitals in the area” and “makes workers afraid to file complaints, organize their workplace, or leave before the end of a contract.”

3. Mergers Can Drive Care Costs Higher

When hospital markets become less competitive, the cost of care often increases. In Indiana, inpatient prices rose 13% in hospitals that merged. Another study found that prices at monopoly hospitals are 12% higher than in markets with four or more rivals. Even cross-market mergers, when hospitals in different geographic locations combine, can drive prices higher.

Dr. Werner told this news organization that more significant price hikes of 20-30% aren’t unheard of, with reimbursements by some commercial insurance companies rising as much as 50%. “That’s the direct price that the insurers pay, but the burden of those higher prices ultimately falls on patients through higher premiums,” she said.

Still, the American Hospital Association (AHA) says that mergers and acquisitions can significantly lower annual operating expenses per admission and reduce inpatient readmission rates and mortality measures. In comments to the FTC, the AHA stated that mergers could provide a lifeline for rural and community hospitals struggling with shrinking payer reimbursement and rising labor and supply costs. The business arrangements also could ensure these communities maintain continuity of care.

Although a cross-market merger may initially benefit cash-strapped rural hospitals, Dr. Werner urged caution.

“In the long run, it’s not clear that it is good for patients because we start to see decreased access to some types of service, like labor and delivery, which are services needed in rural markets,” she said.

4. Mergers to Watch in 2024

Ms. Boudreault, who represented RWJBarnabas in the abandoned Saint Peter’s transaction, says the courts widely accepted the old merger guidelines, and it will take time to see how the new measures are interpreted. “The guidelines don’t yet have the force of law, but they can be persuasive to a court.”

Looking ahead, she is watching how Steward Health Care navigates its impending financial collapse. The nation’s largest private for-profit health system was previously owned by private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management and includes nine Massachusetts hospitals plus entities in at least seven other states.

Ms. Boudreault also plans to monitor Jefferson Health’s intent to merge with Lehigh Valley Health Network. “It’s a pretty big deal because they would become a 30-hospital system,” said Ms. Boudreault. The newly formed network would become the largest employer in Philadelphia.

5. Merger and Acquisition Reversals Unlikely

Dr. Werner said that mergers and acquisitions are complicated business moves that are nearly impossible to undo once approved, so it makes sense for agencies to continue to evaluate them closely.

“The costs of healthcare are borne by us as a society,” she said. “We’re going to have to live with the ill effects of a consolidated market once we let hospitals merge, so they deserve additional scrutiny.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Hospital mergers and acquisitions continue to garner intense scrutiny from lawmakers, with pressure likely to hold steady following the recent announcement of new antitrust guidelines and state and federal investigations into potential healthcare monopolies.

In December, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released updated guidelines outlining the factors they consider when determining if a merger illegally monopolizes a local healthcare market or jeopardizes access to critical healthcare services.

Last week, the DOJ also announced a UnitedHealth Group antitrust probe, just months after the healthcare conglomerate’s workforce numbers indicated it is now affiliated with or employs 10% of the US physician workforce.

While the impact of the latest guidelines is yet to be seen, concerns over healthcare market consolidation are not new. Over the past two decades, mergers have attracted attention for contributing to a decline in independent hospitals, said Rachel M. Werner, MD, PhD, executive director of the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

“At this point, most hospitals are operating in a pretty concentrated market,” she said.

Here are five things to know about the current state of hospital mergers.

1. Record-Breaking Merger Enforcements

The DOJ and FTC reported the highest level of enforcement activity in over 20 years in fiscal year 2022 — the latest available data. Together, the agencies filed 50 merger enforcement actions and brought a record-breaking number of merger enforcement challenges, resulting in 11 approved actions, the restructuring or abandonment of seven mergers, and six business deals entering litigation.

Included in those statistics was a proposed merger between the two largest health systems in Rhode Island, Lifespan and Care New England Health System, which was abandoned after the FTC and the state Attorney General took steps to block it. the HCA branch in Utah Healthcare abandoned plans for to acquire five Salt Lake City area hospitals from competitor Steward Health Care System, as did RWJBarnabas Health after exploring a merger with Saint Peter's Healthcare System in New Jersey.

2. New Antitrust Guidelines Consider Labor Market

The new guidelines notably focus on labor competition, said Jody Boudreault, JD, attorney and chair of the Antitrust Life Sciences and Healthcare Group at Baker Botts law firm in Washington, DC. Health professionals typically have more employment opportunities in an urban area, unless hindered by restrictive noncompete agreements, and fewer options in rural settings.

In the Lifespan merger that fell through, Ms. Boudreault said that the newly created hospital system would have employed two thirds of Rhode Island's full-time nurses, limiting opportunities for local employment elsewhere.

“Going forward, I would expect federal authorities to review not only the competitive impact of the hospitals merging but also the competitive impact of the physician, and especially nursing, workforce,” she said.

FTC Chair Lina M. Khan noted similar labor market concerns.

In a statement to Congress, she said that hospital consolidation reduces options for employees, who fear “being blacklisted from further hiring in a system that controls many of the hospitals in the area” and “makes workers afraid to file complaints, organize their workplace, or leave before the end of a contract.”

3. Mergers Can Drive Care Costs Higher

When hospital markets become less competitive, the cost of care often increases. In Indiana, inpatient prices rose 13% in hospitals that merged. Another study found that prices at monopoly hospitals are 12% higher than in markets with four or more rivals. Even cross-market mergers, when hospitals in different geographic locations combine, can drive prices higher.

Dr. Werner told this news organization that more significant price hikes of 20-30% aren’t unheard of, with reimbursements by some commercial insurance companies rising as much as 50%. “That’s the direct price that the insurers pay, but the burden of those higher prices ultimately falls on patients through higher premiums,” she said.

Still, the American Hospital Association (AHA) says that mergers and acquisitions can significantly lower annual operating expenses per admission and reduce inpatient readmission rates and mortality measures. In comments to the FTC, the AHA stated that mergers could provide a lifeline for rural and community hospitals struggling with shrinking payer reimbursement and rising labor and supply costs. The business arrangements also could ensure these communities maintain continuity of care.

Although a cross-market merger may initially benefit cash-strapped rural hospitals, Dr. Werner urged caution.

“In the long run, it’s not clear that it is good for patients because we start to see decreased access to some types of service, like labor and delivery, which are services needed in rural markets,” she said.

4. Mergers to Watch in 2024

Ms. Boudreault, who represented RWJBarnabas in the abandoned Saint Peter’s transaction, says the courts widely accepted the old merger guidelines, and it will take time to see how the new measures are interpreted. “The guidelines don’t yet have the force of law, but they can be persuasive to a court.”

Looking ahead, she is watching how Steward Health Care navigates its impending financial collapse. The nation’s largest private for-profit health system was previously owned by private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management and includes nine Massachusetts hospitals plus entities in at least seven other states.

Ms. Boudreault also plans to monitor Jefferson Health’s intent to merge with Lehigh Valley Health Network. “It’s a pretty big deal because they would become a 30-hospital system,” said Ms. Boudreault. The newly formed network would become the largest employer in Philadelphia.

5. Merger and Acquisition Reversals Unlikely

Dr. Werner said that mergers and acquisitions are complicated business moves that are nearly impossible to undo once approved, so it makes sense for agencies to continue to evaluate them closely.

“The costs of healthcare are borne by us as a society,” she said. “We’re going to have to live with the ill effects of a consolidated market once we let hospitals merge, so they deserve additional scrutiny.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A Pennsylvania urologist is suing his former employer for the alleged illegal enforcement of a noncompete agreement that limits his ability to practice locally for the next 2 years. 

The lawsuit brings renewed attention to the ongoing public discourse around restrictive covenants for physicians as more state and federal legislators signal plans to limit or ban the practice. 

According to a civil suit filed on January 30 in the Court of Common Pleas, Scranton, Pennsylvania, Eric Rottenberg, MD, signed a 3-year employment agreement with Commonwealth Health Physician Network (CPN) in November 2022. He worked for the health system from May to November 2023, seeing patients at several of its locations, including Wilkes-Barre General Hospital and other facilities throughout northeast and central Pennsylvania. 

Although Dr. Rottenberg previously practiced in Albany, New York, court records state he did not bring a significant referral or patient base to the new role, receive any specialized training, or have knowledge of CPN’s trade secrets during his tenure. 

Instead, he was a “9-to-5 practitioner,” or a physician-employee like a “locum tenens whose replacement would not cost the employer more than his traditional compensation,” the complaint said. Dr. Rottenberg only treated patients assigned to him by CPN and its parent company, Commonwealth Health Systems, and did not take a patient base with him upon his departure from CPN. 

Commonwealth Health spokesperson Annmarie Poslock declined to comment on pending litigation. 

After becoming frustrated by “restrictions on his ability to practice medicine” at CPN, Dr. Rottenberg submitted the required 90-day written notice to terminate the employment agreement. He subsequently received a letter from Simon Ratliff, CPN’s chief executive officer, confirming that his last day of employment would be February 11, 2024. Ratliff also reiterated that the noncompete clause would be enforced, essentially banning Dr. Rottenberg from practicing within a 20-mile radius of his previous CPN locations for the next 2 years, court documents said. 

Dr. Rottenberg was recruited by Lehigh Valley Physician Group (LVPG), part of Lehigh Valley Health Network, in December 2023 for a urology position at its Dickson City and Scranton locations — some of which are within 20 miles of CPN facilities, the complaint said. 

Employers often include noncompete terms in physician contracts because they want to keep the departing physician’s patients from following them to a competitor. However, about a dozen states and the District of Columbia have passed legislation that allows physicians and other clinicians to more easily exit contracts and change jobs. 

For example, an Indiana law took effect on July 1 that prohibits employers from entering a noncompete agreement with primary care physicians. Minnesota legislators also banned new noncompete agreements for all employees effective July 1. 

“There’s actually been a long-standing push for bans on physician noncompetes going back to some of the first states to pass them, like Colorado, Delaware, and Massachusetts, in the late 1970s and early 1980s,” said Evan Starr, PhD, associate professor of management and organization at the Robert H. Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland. 

Although New York Governor Kathy Hochul recently vetoed a bill that would have outlawed restrictive covenants, more states may consider passing laws that limit or ban noncompetes amid increasing patient equity and care access concerns. Dr. Starr told this news organization that one reason to eliminate restrictive covenants is because they can cause “third-party harm” to patients. “The patient doesn’t get the choice to sign a noncompete, but they’re going to be impacted by that agreement if the physician has to leave the area,” he said. 

Interestingly, one profession — lawyers — is the only occupation in the US for which noncompete agreements are banned, says Dr. Starr. “Basically, the American Medical Association (AMA) and other physician governing bodies haven’t made the same policies to exempt themselves that the lawyers have.”

That may be changing. In June, the AMA’s House of Delegates adopted policies to support the prohibition of noncompete contracts for employed physicians. The change came several months after the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) proposed a new rule that could more broadly ban companies from enforcing noncompete clauses. 

Despite Rottenberg’s attorney, Ryan Campbell, Esq, claiming that the noncompete is unenforceable without a protectable business interest, CPN would not release him from the agreement and opted to move forward with litigation, court records said. The suit cites several other cases where Pennsylvania judges have released physicians from similar restrictive covenants. 

Mr. Campbell told this news organization that he and his client are “working diligently with CPN and its counsel to resolve the matter amicably and without further litigation.” 

As employers await the FTC’s final rule, Dr. Starr says they could take steps to eliminate noncompete agreements altogether in favor of other stipulations. Contract terms prohibiting physicians from soliciting former patients could protect business interests and still allow patients to seek their preferred physician on their own accord. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

A Pennsylvania urologist is suing his former employer for the alleged illegal enforcement of a noncompete agreement that limits his ability to practice locally for the next 2 years. 

The lawsuit brings renewed attention to the ongoing public discourse around restrictive covenants for physicians as more state and federal legislators signal plans to limit or ban the practice. 

According to a civil suit filed on January 30 in the Court of Common Pleas, Scranton, Pennsylvania, Eric Rottenberg, MD, signed a 3-year employment agreement with Commonwealth Health Physician Network (CPN) in November 2022. He worked for the health system from May to November 2023, seeing patients at several of its locations, including Wilkes-Barre General Hospital and other facilities throughout northeast and central Pennsylvania. 

Although Dr. Rottenberg previously practiced in Albany, New York, court records state he did not bring a significant referral or patient base to the new role, receive any specialized training, or have knowledge of CPN’s trade secrets during his tenure. 

Instead, he was a “9-to-5 practitioner,” or a physician-employee like a “locum tenens whose replacement would not cost the employer more than his traditional compensation,” the complaint said. Dr. Rottenberg only treated patients assigned to him by CPN and its parent company, Commonwealth Health Systems, and did not take a patient base with him upon his departure from CPN. 

Commonwealth Health spokesperson Annmarie Poslock declined to comment on pending litigation. 

After becoming frustrated by “restrictions on his ability to practice medicine” at CPN, Dr. Rottenberg submitted the required 90-day written notice to terminate the employment agreement. He subsequently received a letter from Simon Ratliff, CPN’s chief executive officer, confirming that his last day of employment would be February 11, 2024. Ratliff also reiterated that the noncompete clause would be enforced, essentially banning Dr. Rottenberg from practicing within a 20-mile radius of his previous CPN locations for the next 2 years, court documents said. 

Dr. Rottenberg was recruited by Lehigh Valley Physician Group (LVPG), part of Lehigh Valley Health Network, in December 2023 for a urology position at its Dickson City and Scranton locations — some of which are within 20 miles of CPN facilities, the complaint said. 

Employers often include noncompete terms in physician contracts because they want to keep the departing physician’s patients from following them to a competitor. However, about a dozen states and the District of Columbia have passed legislation that allows physicians and other clinicians to more easily exit contracts and change jobs. 

For example, an Indiana law took effect on July 1 that prohibits employers from entering a noncompete agreement with primary care physicians. Minnesota legislators also banned new noncompete agreements for all employees effective July 1. 

“There’s actually been a long-standing push for bans on physician noncompetes going back to some of the first states to pass them, like Colorado, Delaware, and Massachusetts, in the late 1970s and early 1980s,” said Evan Starr, PhD, associate professor of management and organization at the Robert H. Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland. 

Although New York Governor Kathy Hochul recently vetoed a bill that would have outlawed restrictive covenants, more states may consider passing laws that limit or ban noncompetes amid increasing patient equity and care access concerns. Dr. Starr told this news organization that one reason to eliminate restrictive covenants is because they can cause “third-party harm” to patients. “The patient doesn’t get the choice to sign a noncompete, but they’re going to be impacted by that agreement if the physician has to leave the area,” he said. 

Interestingly, one profession — lawyers — is the only occupation in the US for which noncompete agreements are banned, says Dr. Starr. “Basically, the American Medical Association (AMA) and other physician governing bodies haven’t made the same policies to exempt themselves that the lawyers have.”

That may be changing. In June, the AMA’s House of Delegates adopted policies to support the prohibition of noncompete contracts for employed physicians. The change came several months after the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) proposed a new rule that could more broadly ban companies from enforcing noncompete clauses. 

Despite Rottenberg’s attorney, Ryan Campbell, Esq, claiming that the noncompete is unenforceable without a protectable business interest, CPN would not release him from the agreement and opted to move forward with litigation, court records said. The suit cites several other cases where Pennsylvania judges have released physicians from similar restrictive covenants. 

Mr. Campbell told this news organization that he and his client are “working diligently with CPN and its counsel to resolve the matter amicably and without further litigation.” 

As employers await the FTC’s final rule, Dr. Starr says they could take steps to eliminate noncompete agreements altogether in favor of other stipulations. Contract terms prohibiting physicians from soliciting former patients could protect business interests and still allow patients to seek their preferred physician on their own accord. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

A Pennsylvania urologist is suing his former employer for the alleged illegal enforcement of a noncompete agreement that limits his ability to practice locally for the next 2 years. 

The lawsuit brings renewed attention to the ongoing public discourse around restrictive covenants for physicians as more state and federal legislators signal plans to limit or ban the practice. 

According to a civil suit filed on January 30 in the Court of Common Pleas, Scranton, Pennsylvania, Eric Rottenberg, MD, signed a 3-year employment agreement with Commonwealth Health Physician Network (CPN) in November 2022. He worked for the health system from May to November 2023, seeing patients at several of its locations, including Wilkes-Barre General Hospital and other facilities throughout northeast and central Pennsylvania. 

Although Dr. Rottenberg previously practiced in Albany, New York, court records state he did not bring a significant referral or patient base to the new role, receive any specialized training, or have knowledge of CPN’s trade secrets during his tenure. 

Instead, he was a “9-to-5 practitioner,” or a physician-employee like a “locum tenens whose replacement would not cost the employer more than his traditional compensation,” the complaint said. Dr. Rottenberg only treated patients assigned to him by CPN and its parent company, Commonwealth Health Systems, and did not take a patient base with him upon his departure from CPN. 

Commonwealth Health spokesperson Annmarie Poslock declined to comment on pending litigation. 

After becoming frustrated by “restrictions on his ability to practice medicine” at CPN, Dr. Rottenberg submitted the required 90-day written notice to terminate the employment agreement. He subsequently received a letter from Simon Ratliff, CPN’s chief executive officer, confirming that his last day of employment would be February 11, 2024. Ratliff also reiterated that the noncompete clause would be enforced, essentially banning Dr. Rottenberg from practicing within a 20-mile radius of his previous CPN locations for the next 2 years, court documents said. 

Dr. Rottenberg was recruited by Lehigh Valley Physician Group (LVPG), part of Lehigh Valley Health Network, in December 2023 for a urology position at its Dickson City and Scranton locations — some of which are within 20 miles of CPN facilities, the complaint said. 

Employers often include noncompete terms in physician contracts because they want to keep the departing physician’s patients from following them to a competitor. However, about a dozen states and the District of Columbia have passed legislation that allows physicians and other clinicians to more easily exit contracts and change jobs. 

For example, an Indiana law took effect on July 1 that prohibits employers from entering a noncompete agreement with primary care physicians. Minnesota legislators also banned new noncompete agreements for all employees effective July 1. 

“There’s actually been a long-standing push for bans on physician noncompetes going back to some of the first states to pass them, like Colorado, Delaware, and Massachusetts, in the late 1970s and early 1980s,” said Evan Starr, PhD, associate professor of management and organization at the Robert H. Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland. 

Although New York Governor Kathy Hochul recently vetoed a bill that would have outlawed restrictive covenants, more states may consider passing laws that limit or ban noncompetes amid increasing patient equity and care access concerns. Dr. Starr told this news organization that one reason to eliminate restrictive covenants is because they can cause “third-party harm” to patients. “The patient doesn’t get the choice to sign a noncompete, but they’re going to be impacted by that agreement if the physician has to leave the area,” he said. 

Interestingly, one profession — lawyers — is the only occupation in the US for which noncompete agreements are banned, says Dr. Starr. “Basically, the American Medical Association (AMA) and other physician governing bodies haven’t made the same policies to exempt themselves that the lawyers have.”

That may be changing. In June, the AMA’s House of Delegates adopted policies to support the prohibition of noncompete contracts for employed physicians. The change came several months after the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) proposed a new rule that could more broadly ban companies from enforcing noncompete clauses. 

Despite Rottenberg’s attorney, Ryan Campbell, Esq, claiming that the noncompete is unenforceable without a protectable business interest, CPN would not release him from the agreement and opted to move forward with litigation, court records said. The suit cites several other cases where Pennsylvania judges have released physicians from similar restrictive covenants. 

Mr. Campbell told this news organization that he and his client are “working diligently with CPN and its counsel to resolve the matter amicably and without further litigation.” 

As employers await the FTC’s final rule, Dr. Starr says they could take steps to eliminate noncompete agreements altogether in favor of other stipulations. Contract terms prohibiting physicians from soliciting former patients could protect business interests and still allow patients to seek their preferred physician on their own accord. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

The supervising physician for the California nurse practitioner (NP) “Dr. Sarah,” who illegally presented herself as a doctor, has been fined $25,000. The case highlights the liability concerns doctors face when they oversee NPs.

According to the complaint, ob.gyn. Anika Moore, MD, FACOP, agreed to pay the civil penalty but admitted no fault related to allegations of unlawful supervision of Sarah Erny, DNP. Dr. Moore did not respond to an emailed request for comment.

Ms. Erny was fined nearly $20,000 after an investigation in November by the San Luis Obispo County, California, district attorney found she had committed false advertising and fraud by regularly calling herself “Doctor” on social media and with patients.

A group of California DNPs, including Ms. Erny, pushed back against those regulations last year by suing the state, alleging a law restricting the use of the honorific title violates their right to free speech.

For collaborative agreements, California law requires physicians and the NPs they supervise to adhere to specific roles and prescribing privileges as outlined in the written document. Supervising physicians must routinely review the terms of the agreement and the nurse’s performance and skills.

Even as more states loosen supervision restrictions for NPs, physicians who still do so face added risks. Medical boards may sanction them for improper supervision, and the majority of patients who sue their NP for malpractice also sue the supervising doctor.

Dr. Moore lived in Massachusetts in 2018 when she entered the agreement with Ms. Erny, but she only skimmed the document and did no further research on her supervising responsibilities, court records said. Although Dr. Moore was not compensated for the oversight role, she said she made herself available over the next 2 years to answer Ms. Erny’s questions.

However, an investigation by the California Department of Consumer Affairs and the San Luis Obispo County District Attorney’s Office found that Dr. Moore never reviewed any physical medical records of Ms. Erny’s patients.

Instead, without Dr. Moore’s knowledge, Ms. Erny opened an independent medical practice near San Luis Obispo, called Holistic Women’s Health, where she provided medical services and drug supplements, including prescribing controlled substances like testosterone.

Meanwhile, Dr. Moore believed Ms. Erny was practicing in a clinical setting with other physicians, court documents said.

Ms. Erny and Dr. Moore agreed to terminate the collaborative agreement in March 2021.

“As a supervising physician, Dr. Moore accepted a professional commitment to collaborate and supervise Nurse Practitioner Erny,” Assistant District Attorney Eric Dobroth said in a statement.

“Our office seeks to ensure that every physician that consents to supervise a nurse will comply with California requirements and take great care to routinely evaluate whether the terms of the agreement are being met and to evaluate the nurse’s performance to ensure best patient care.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

The supervising physician for the California nurse practitioner (NP) “Dr. Sarah,” who illegally presented herself as a doctor, has been fined $25,000. The case highlights the liability concerns doctors face when they oversee NPs.

According to the complaint, ob.gyn. Anika Moore, MD, FACOP, agreed to pay the civil penalty but admitted no fault related to allegations of unlawful supervision of Sarah Erny, DNP. Dr. Moore did not respond to an emailed request for comment.

Ms. Erny was fined nearly $20,000 after an investigation in November by the San Luis Obispo County, California, district attorney found she had committed false advertising and fraud by regularly calling herself “Doctor” on social media and with patients.

A group of California DNPs, including Ms. Erny, pushed back against those regulations last year by suing the state, alleging a law restricting the use of the honorific title violates their right to free speech.

For collaborative agreements, California law requires physicians and the NPs they supervise to adhere to specific roles and prescribing privileges as outlined in the written document. Supervising physicians must routinely review the terms of the agreement and the nurse’s performance and skills.

Even as more states loosen supervision restrictions for NPs, physicians who still do so face added risks. Medical boards may sanction them for improper supervision, and the majority of patients who sue their NP for malpractice also sue the supervising doctor.

Dr. Moore lived in Massachusetts in 2018 when she entered the agreement with Ms. Erny, but she only skimmed the document and did no further research on her supervising responsibilities, court records said. Although Dr. Moore was not compensated for the oversight role, she said she made herself available over the next 2 years to answer Ms. Erny’s questions.

However, an investigation by the California Department of Consumer Affairs and the San Luis Obispo County District Attorney’s Office found that Dr. Moore never reviewed any physical medical records of Ms. Erny’s patients.

Instead, without Dr. Moore’s knowledge, Ms. Erny opened an independent medical practice near San Luis Obispo, called Holistic Women’s Health, where she provided medical services and drug supplements, including prescribing controlled substances like testosterone.

Meanwhile, Dr. Moore believed Ms. Erny was practicing in a clinical setting with other physicians, court documents said.

Ms. Erny and Dr. Moore agreed to terminate the collaborative agreement in March 2021.

“As a supervising physician, Dr. Moore accepted a professional commitment to collaborate and supervise Nurse Practitioner Erny,” Assistant District Attorney Eric Dobroth said in a statement.

“Our office seeks to ensure that every physician that consents to supervise a nurse will comply with California requirements and take great care to routinely evaluate whether the terms of the agreement are being met and to evaluate the nurse’s performance to ensure best patient care.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

The supervising physician for the California nurse practitioner (NP) “Dr. Sarah,” who illegally presented herself as a doctor, has been fined $25,000. The case highlights the liability concerns doctors face when they oversee NPs.

According to the complaint, ob.gyn. Anika Moore, MD, FACOP, agreed to pay the civil penalty but admitted no fault related to allegations of unlawful supervision of Sarah Erny, DNP. Dr. Moore did not respond to an emailed request for comment.

Ms. Erny was fined nearly $20,000 after an investigation in November by the San Luis Obispo County, California, district attorney found she had committed false advertising and fraud by regularly calling herself “Doctor” on social media and with patients.

A group of California DNPs, including Ms. Erny, pushed back against those regulations last year by suing the state, alleging a law restricting the use of the honorific title violates their right to free speech.

For collaborative agreements, California law requires physicians and the NPs they supervise to adhere to specific roles and prescribing privileges as outlined in the written document. Supervising physicians must routinely review the terms of the agreement and the nurse’s performance and skills.

Even as more states loosen supervision restrictions for NPs, physicians who still do so face added risks. Medical boards may sanction them for improper supervision, and the majority of patients who sue their NP for malpractice also sue the supervising doctor.

Dr. Moore lived in Massachusetts in 2018 when she entered the agreement with Ms. Erny, but she only skimmed the document and did no further research on her supervising responsibilities, court records said. Although Dr. Moore was not compensated for the oversight role, she said she made herself available over the next 2 years to answer Ms. Erny’s questions.

However, an investigation by the California Department of Consumer Affairs and the San Luis Obispo County District Attorney’s Office found that Dr. Moore never reviewed any physical medical records of Ms. Erny’s patients.

Instead, without Dr. Moore’s knowledge, Ms. Erny opened an independent medical practice near San Luis Obispo, called Holistic Women’s Health, where she provided medical services and drug supplements, including prescribing controlled substances like testosterone.

Meanwhile, Dr. Moore believed Ms. Erny was practicing in a clinical setting with other physicians, court documents said.

Ms. Erny and Dr. Moore agreed to terminate the collaborative agreement in March 2021.

“As a supervising physician, Dr. Moore accepted a professional commitment to collaborate and supervise Nurse Practitioner Erny,” Assistant District Attorney Eric Dobroth said in a statement.

“Our office seeks to ensure that every physician that consents to supervise a nurse will comply with California requirements and take great care to routinely evaluate whether the terms of the agreement are being met and to evaluate the nurse’s performance to ensure best patient care.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Telemedicine visits skyrocketed during the pandemic, but a new lawsuit alleges that the return to pre-COVID licensing mandates unnecessarily restricts interstate medical practice and reduces patients’ ability to get care from specialists.

In the complaint filed on December 13 in New Jersey District Court, plaintiff Shannon MacDonald, MD, radiation oncologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said that New Jersey’s telehealth rules make it illegal for her and other out-of-state specialists to consult with and treat residents who could benefit from their unique expertise, unless they first obtain licensure through the medical board.

While she currently maintains licenses in six states, New Jersey’s application process can take several months and requires an initial fee of $550, plus additional expenses for a background check and fingerprinting, court documents said.

Physicians providing telehealth services to New Jersey residents without a state-authorized medical license are subject to up to 5 years in prison and criminal and civil fines exceeding $10,000.

“Every day, my ethical obligations to my patients are in direct conflict with the legal framework,” said Dr. MacDonald.

She and coplaintiff Paul Gardner, MD, neurosurgical codirector of the Center for Cranial Base Surgery at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, are represented by the public interest law firm Pacific Legal Foundation, which recently sued Louisiana’s governor over its medical board diversity rules.

The lawsuit names Otto Sabando, DO, president of the New Jersey State Board of Medical Examiners. Representatives for Dr. Sabando and the medical board did not respond to a request for comment.

The complaint describes the care Dr. MacDonald provided several years before the pandemic for an out-of-state patient, J.A., also named as a plaintiff, who was diagnosed with pineoblastoma at 18 months old.

After initially undergoing treatment in New York, court documents indicate that J.A.’s medical team referred him to Dr. MacDonald “because of her nationally recognized expertise in proton therapy” targeting rare childhood cancers. Dr. MacDonald remotely reviewed J.A.’s scans and discussed options before his family pursued treatment with her in Boston.

Dr. MacDonald said that allowing more patients like J.A. to use telehealth to access services when specialists are unavailable in their state would go a long way toward achieving health equity. She says it could reduce the financial burden of travel and lodging expenses and provide timely consultations and follow-up care.

Many states, including New Jersey, waived or eased licensing regulations during the pandemic so physicians could temporarily practice in other states. Since those emergency orders have ended, physicians must again seek licensure in the states where their patients are located or potentially be subjected to fines or other penalties by state medical boards.

New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed a law in 2022 joining the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, an agreement that offers a streamlined process for physicians already licensed in their home states to obtain licensure in 37 other member states as well as the District of Columbia and Territory of Guam. However, the lawsuit alleges that applications still take weeks and pose significant administrative and financial barriers for physicians.
 

Telehealth in a Post-COVID World

“Until COVID, we didn’t realize that a telephone call really was practicing medicine,” said Dr. MacDonald. “After being allowed to do telemedicine consultations across state lines for a year and 2 years for follow-ups, I thought it would last forever, but it’s placed a spotlight on what we cannot do.”

Dr. MacDonald, who recently penned a related editorial in the Wall Street Journal, said laws regarding interstate practice are outdated.

“They made sense in the preindustrial era when you had to be in the same location as your patient, but they make little sense in the modern era when distance disappears over the Internet or telephone,” she said.

The issue isn’t unique to New Jersey. Caleb Trotter, JD, attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation, said that 30 states prohibit doctors from conducting telemedicine services in states where they are not licensed.

“Some hospitals instruct doctors and administrators to ask the patient where they are physically located at the beginning of a telehealth appointment, and if it isn’t a state where the physician is licensed, they are instructed to end the appointment immediately,” Mr. Trotter said. “A win in New Jersey would solve a very real problem for these [patients] of not having convenient legal access to specialists.”

Neither Dr. MacDonald nor Dr. Gardner have had any enforcement actions taken against them, said Mr. Trotter. Still, he said the New Jersey attorney general’s office reminded physicians last year that state licensure rules apply to out-of-state doctors using telemedicine to conduct follow-up appointments.

In November, the Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation at Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Massachusetts, proposed telemedicine reforms, including exceptions for the care of established patients and screening for specialty referrals.

Dr. MacDonald hopes the lawsuit will increase awareness of telehealth laws and spur changes.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Telemedicine visits skyrocketed during the pandemic, but a new lawsuit alleges that the return to pre-COVID licensing mandates unnecessarily restricts interstate medical practice and reduces patients’ ability to get care from specialists.

In the complaint filed on December 13 in New Jersey District Court, plaintiff Shannon MacDonald, MD, radiation oncologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said that New Jersey’s telehealth rules make it illegal for her and other out-of-state specialists to consult with and treat residents who could benefit from their unique expertise, unless they first obtain licensure through the medical board.

While she currently maintains licenses in six states, New Jersey’s application process can take several months and requires an initial fee of $550, plus additional expenses for a background check and fingerprinting, court documents said.

Physicians providing telehealth services to New Jersey residents without a state-authorized medical license are subject to up to 5 years in prison and criminal and civil fines exceeding $10,000.

“Every day, my ethical obligations to my patients are in direct conflict with the legal framework,” said Dr. MacDonald.

She and coplaintiff Paul Gardner, MD, neurosurgical codirector of the Center for Cranial Base Surgery at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, are represented by the public interest law firm Pacific Legal Foundation, which recently sued Louisiana’s governor over its medical board diversity rules.

The lawsuit names Otto Sabando, DO, president of the New Jersey State Board of Medical Examiners. Representatives for Dr. Sabando and the medical board did not respond to a request for comment.

The complaint describes the care Dr. MacDonald provided several years before the pandemic for an out-of-state patient, J.A., also named as a plaintiff, who was diagnosed with pineoblastoma at 18 months old.

After initially undergoing treatment in New York, court documents indicate that J.A.’s medical team referred him to Dr. MacDonald “because of her nationally recognized expertise in proton therapy” targeting rare childhood cancers. Dr. MacDonald remotely reviewed J.A.’s scans and discussed options before his family pursued treatment with her in Boston.

Dr. MacDonald said that allowing more patients like J.A. to use telehealth to access services when specialists are unavailable in their state would go a long way toward achieving health equity. She says it could reduce the financial burden of travel and lodging expenses and provide timely consultations and follow-up care.

Many states, including New Jersey, waived or eased licensing regulations during the pandemic so physicians could temporarily practice in other states. Since those emergency orders have ended, physicians must again seek licensure in the states where their patients are located or potentially be subjected to fines or other penalties by state medical boards.

New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed a law in 2022 joining the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, an agreement that offers a streamlined process for physicians already licensed in their home states to obtain licensure in 37 other member states as well as the District of Columbia and Territory of Guam. However, the lawsuit alleges that applications still take weeks and pose significant administrative and financial barriers for physicians.
 

Telehealth in a Post-COVID World

“Until COVID, we didn’t realize that a telephone call really was practicing medicine,” said Dr. MacDonald. “After being allowed to do telemedicine consultations across state lines for a year and 2 years for follow-ups, I thought it would last forever, but it’s placed a spotlight on what we cannot do.”

Dr. MacDonald, who recently penned a related editorial in the Wall Street Journal, said laws regarding interstate practice are outdated.

“They made sense in the preindustrial era when you had to be in the same location as your patient, but they make little sense in the modern era when distance disappears over the Internet or telephone,” she said.

The issue isn’t unique to New Jersey. Caleb Trotter, JD, attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation, said that 30 states prohibit doctors from conducting telemedicine services in states where they are not licensed.

“Some hospitals instruct doctors and administrators to ask the patient where they are physically located at the beginning of a telehealth appointment, and if it isn’t a state where the physician is licensed, they are instructed to end the appointment immediately,” Mr. Trotter said. “A win in New Jersey would solve a very real problem for these [patients] of not having convenient legal access to specialists.”

Neither Dr. MacDonald nor Dr. Gardner have had any enforcement actions taken against them, said Mr. Trotter. Still, he said the New Jersey attorney general’s office reminded physicians last year that state licensure rules apply to out-of-state doctors using telemedicine to conduct follow-up appointments.

In November, the Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation at Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Massachusetts, proposed telemedicine reforms, including exceptions for the care of established patients and screening for specialty referrals.

Dr. MacDonald hopes the lawsuit will increase awareness of telehealth laws and spur changes.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Telemedicine visits skyrocketed during the pandemic, but a new lawsuit alleges that the return to pre-COVID licensing mandates unnecessarily restricts interstate medical practice and reduces patients’ ability to get care from specialists.

In the complaint filed on December 13 in New Jersey District Court, plaintiff Shannon MacDonald, MD, radiation oncologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said that New Jersey’s telehealth rules make it illegal for her and other out-of-state specialists to consult with and treat residents who could benefit from their unique expertise, unless they first obtain licensure through the medical board.

While she currently maintains licenses in six states, New Jersey’s application process can take several months and requires an initial fee of $550, plus additional expenses for a background check and fingerprinting, court documents said.

Physicians providing telehealth services to New Jersey residents without a state-authorized medical license are subject to up to 5 years in prison and criminal and civil fines exceeding $10,000.

“Every day, my ethical obligations to my patients are in direct conflict with the legal framework,” said Dr. MacDonald.

She and coplaintiff Paul Gardner, MD, neurosurgical codirector of the Center for Cranial Base Surgery at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, are represented by the public interest law firm Pacific Legal Foundation, which recently sued Louisiana’s governor over its medical board diversity rules.

The lawsuit names Otto Sabando, DO, president of the New Jersey State Board of Medical Examiners. Representatives for Dr. Sabando and the medical board did not respond to a request for comment.

The complaint describes the care Dr. MacDonald provided several years before the pandemic for an out-of-state patient, J.A., also named as a plaintiff, who was diagnosed with pineoblastoma at 18 months old.

After initially undergoing treatment in New York, court documents indicate that J.A.’s medical team referred him to Dr. MacDonald “because of her nationally recognized expertise in proton therapy” targeting rare childhood cancers. Dr. MacDonald remotely reviewed J.A.’s scans and discussed options before his family pursued treatment with her in Boston.

Dr. MacDonald said that allowing more patients like J.A. to use telehealth to access services when specialists are unavailable in their state would go a long way toward achieving health equity. She says it could reduce the financial burden of travel and lodging expenses and provide timely consultations and follow-up care.

Many states, including New Jersey, waived or eased licensing regulations during the pandemic so physicians could temporarily practice in other states. Since those emergency orders have ended, physicians must again seek licensure in the states where their patients are located or potentially be subjected to fines or other penalties by state medical boards.

New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed a law in 2022 joining the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, an agreement that offers a streamlined process for physicians already licensed in their home states to obtain licensure in 37 other member states as well as the District of Columbia and Territory of Guam. However, the lawsuit alleges that applications still take weeks and pose significant administrative and financial barriers for physicians.
 

Telehealth in a Post-COVID World

“Until COVID, we didn’t realize that a telephone call really was practicing medicine,” said Dr. MacDonald. “After being allowed to do telemedicine consultations across state lines for a year and 2 years for follow-ups, I thought it would last forever, but it’s placed a spotlight on what we cannot do.”

Dr. MacDonald, who recently penned a related editorial in the Wall Street Journal, said laws regarding interstate practice are outdated.

“They made sense in the preindustrial era when you had to be in the same location as your patient, but they make little sense in the modern era when distance disappears over the Internet or telephone,” she said.

The issue isn’t unique to New Jersey. Caleb Trotter, JD, attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation, said that 30 states prohibit doctors from conducting telemedicine services in states where they are not licensed.

“Some hospitals instruct doctors and administrators to ask the patient where they are physically located at the beginning of a telehealth appointment, and if it isn’t a state where the physician is licensed, they are instructed to end the appointment immediately,” Mr. Trotter said. “A win in New Jersey would solve a very real problem for these [patients] of not having convenient legal access to specialists.”

Neither Dr. MacDonald nor Dr. Gardner have had any enforcement actions taken against them, said Mr. Trotter. Still, he said the New Jersey attorney general’s office reminded physicians last year that state licensure rules apply to out-of-state doctors using telemedicine to conduct follow-up appointments.

In November, the Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation at Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Massachusetts, proposed telemedicine reforms, including exceptions for the care of established patients and screening for specialty referrals.

Dr. MacDonald hopes the lawsuit will increase awareness of telehealth laws and spur changes.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.