There’s nothing more important in healthcare than the doctor-patient relationship. One aspect of our system that can complicate that relationship, however, are the noncompete agreements (NCA) doctors often must sign with their employers (hospitals, group practice, etc.).
In most instances, an NCA protects legitimate business interests, such as the investments they make in specialized training or proprietary information. However, the reasons for an NCA are less compelling in healthcare. Doctors rarely receive specialized training after they leave medical school, and the most valuable information a doctor has access to is generally relevant to patient care, not business practices.
When a doctor leaves his employer, NCAs can create a significant disruption in patient care. A doctor might be required to relocate outside a certain geographical boundary making it impossible for them to continue seeing certain patients. And the previous employer is under no obligation to communicate to the patient that the doctor left or where they went.
Recent polling shows that Texans may want that to change. According to a survey conducted by WPA Intelligence for TPPF, 71 percent of Texans oppose noncompete agreements that prevent patients from continuing to receive care from their current doctor if they leave their current employer. Just 19% support them.
Further, nearly 9 in 10 (86 percent) support limiting the scope of non-compete agreements by requiring health providers to provide patients with contact information for their doctor should they change employers, as well as allowing patients to transfer their health records. Only 6 percent oppose limiting NCAs this way.
NCAs can play an important role in innovation, economic growth, and market competition in certain sectors. Increasingly, in healthcare, they are becoming potentially harmful.
This commentary is published on Thursdays as part of TPPF’s subscriber-only newsletter The Post. If you would like to subscribe to The Post, click here.