Looks like it will apply to physicians 120 days after the rule is officially published except for those physicians whom are in a senior role. This may include medical directorship being excluded from this rule.FTC Announces Rule Banning Noncompetes
Today, the Federal Trade Commission issued a final rule to promote competition by banning noncompetes nationwide, protecting the fundamenwww.ftc.gov
Great for us docs no?
No, doubtful they can enforce it until the litigation is over. Of course hospitals view it as "good for docs" because it's good for the hospitals. They don't want a cardiologist leaving a hospital and going across town taking all of his/her patients with him/her. Good for docs is really just good for hospitals.
Why would they do that when they could offer lower wages and force docs to stay with them with non-competes? You and I understand the way to make a doc not leave -- by using a carrot instead of a stick. Administrators want to use the stick so they can keep the carrot for themselves.
FTC already clarified they *exclusively* mean c-suite positions where compensation may be complex and elements of compensation are actively negotiated with non-competes being used as a counterweight. Without that high level negotiation, there is no exception. So just c-suite people, not directorship. Also, fun fact - it does NOT exempt high level senior roles, it is that it won't retroactively invalidate it for those people. Everyone else is retroactively invalidated. Nobody can have non-competes going forward in the future.
FTC already said this argument is nonsense and they specifically addressed this in their ruling that they feel hospitals, including non-profit hospitals, are one of the clearest places where this will see a benefit. They have some legalese argument that even if non-profit institutions are not directly audited by the FTC through their narrow direct oversight powers doesn't mean that they aren't under the greater purview of the FTC to regulate commerce as a whole.
Depends on your contract. For example, many “academic” sites dont allow docs to work elsewhere while working for them.
) stating that it has very clear and historically established control over 501c3's when they are making market-wide policies and that their inability to make non-profit *specific* policies does not invalidate their ability to make "everyone in the market" policies.
When you are in the boonies moonlighting in secret and have to transfer a bad trauma to your main hospital it gets awkward.
Because the second the other place starts doing credentialing, it's going to pop to your primary that some other group is setting up to bill in your name. They'll know before you even work a shift.
Thats fair. However, you have to go through credentialing. When you do that they reach out to all the places you worked previously. I dont know if they do but it wouldnt be hard to have someone cross reference people going through credentialing elsewhere and your active staff?
I think this is easy for people to say. Similar to “I would never work for a CMG”. Let’s say there is a great job and it is paying $50/hr more than job 2.. You arent gonna sign because of this? Thats total nonsense. Will some people avoid it.. sure.. but enough sign that they have that language in there.
