Consulting legal counsel to review a physician’s employment agreement before a dispute arises may increase a doctor’s negotiating power and help obtain better working conditions. Employment agreements contain many provisions, which may include: compensation arrangements, arbitration clauses, terms defining the scope of liability insurance, and non-compete agreements. As physicians in the workplace are tending to move away from working in solo practices, we are finding that hospital, health system and other corporate employment agreements containing non-compete clauses are becoming more prevalent.
The American Medical Association advises against physicians entering into restrictive non-compete agreements, saying that they “can disrupt continuity of care, and may limit access to care.”. While the AMA advises physicians to be cautious about unreasonable restrictions and those that limit patient choice of providers, generally speaking, non-compete agreements have been upheld and determined enforceable in courts. Courts can limit the enforcement of these agreements, however, if they deem the provisions unreasonable or too restrictive. Courts have varied in what they define as unreasonable or overly restrictive, in terms of duration and geographic radius.
As the opioid epidemic continues to cause death and create economic hardships within the nation, criminal prosecutors and law enforcement agents have increased their focus on prosecuting and pursuing severe penalties against doctors, pharmacists, nurses and other healthcare providers as a deterrent for providers who would prescribe opioids in excess. For example, earlier this month, a doctor in Kansas was sentenced to life in prison after distributing prescription drugs that caused the death of his patient. Steven Henson, a physician based in Wichita, was convicted of numerous criminal charges after prescribing opioids in amounts that could lead to addiction and economic hardship, after his patient died from overdose. According to the Department of Justice, Henson prescribed maximum-strength opioids in dangerous quantities. Evidence showed that he wrote prescriptions for patients without a medical need and without providing a medical exam. He also post-dated prescriptions and prescribed them in return for cash.
Legislation controlling self-referrals has created a complex road map that can leave doctors with questions regarding their ability to use business agreements to promote lab work and advanced imaging technology for their patients. For physicians, the rules and regulations of self-referrals for imaging can create headaches and lead to fines.
This month, the abrupt closing of four Tennessee 
The Trend: Mandatory Arbitration
The exposure and concern surrounding the opioid epidemic is at an all time high. Notwithstanding the urgency of the issue itself, this publicity places increased pressure on the intervening parties—sub-agencies of the 
In 2017, the Georgia General Assembly passed House Bill 249, implementing several changes to the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (“PDMP”). 
The highly anticipated “AseraCare” decision (United States v. GGSNC Admin. Serv. LLC) is still pending before the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The court is considering “whether a mere difference of opinion between physicians, without more, is enough to establish falsity under the False Claims Act.” To provide some context, the U.S. District Court evaluated the “falsity” element of the False Claims Act in the context of a hospice provider’s “clinical judgment” that a person meets the standard to be eligible for the Medicare Hospice Benefit. The requirement is that a patient be eligible for Medicare Part A and be “Terminally Ill” as defined by the regulation. “Terminally Ill” requires that the hospice Medical Director make a determination that the prognosis of the patient indicates a life expectancy of 6 months or less. So the issue is whether or not the “battle of expert opinion,” without some additional element, is enough to establish that a patient is not terminally ill rendering the subsequent Medicare reimbursement submissions false or fraudulent.
Of the “fraud and abuse” laws, the three decades old Ethics in Patient Referrals Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1395nn, dubbed “Stark Law” after Congressmen Pete Stark who sponsored it, can often be the most challenging to properly interpret and apply, easily leading to head scratching. The law as originally enacted was simple in concept: to remove any financial motivation for doctors to send their patients for unnecessary testing that could raise health care costs and/or result in bad health care. Now often subject to much criticism and even calls for repeal, Stark Law’s is often viewed as confusing, which is ironic because Congressman Stark intended for the law to create “bright line” tests that would provide clear guidance to physicians about what self-referral arrangements are unlawful. Instead, the evolution of the law over the years, including implementing regulations, advisory opinions and court cases have rendered proper interpretation and application of the law debatable and unpredictable in some circumstances.