presidential order on non-competes and state licensing requirements

[endo4jc]

seems like a very good idea.

i don't know that i think physician licenses should be federal, but why they don't work like driver licenses is beyond me, states should have 100% reciprocity w/ each other.

if nothing else this seems like a massive boon to public health and future pandemic response. could also vastly increase rural access as it would open locums up to any licensed doc.

the fact that when i move to a new state i have to start all over, submit my diplomas, med school transcripts etc is just bonkers. then if there is a hiccup at the state office (have seen this in 2 very different states) i can't see patients on my start date?

i don't know all of the details of the EO, but noncompetes seem a bit more complex, esp in situations where procedural docs could use threats of moving business as a continuous bludgeon.

National reciprocity for a medical license would lead to lost revenue from license applications for each state so I’d imagine that would be a sticking point for each state.

[MPMD]

National reciprocity for a medical license would lead to lost revenue from license applications for each state so I’d imagine that would be a sticking point for each state.

that's not a good argument against the practice.

we manage this just fine w/ DL and i guarantee you the revenue from DL dwarfs any kind of prof licensing.

[Hank]

On the private practice side, non compete provisions do play a role in protecting our investment. Maybe the rules should be different between employed and partner docs.

Maybe the perceived harm to the practice is greater than the reality. Of course the corporatization of clinical medicine has changed the landscape, so maybe more change is good.

Zaphod beat me to the punch. Trade secrets law should cover most of this. Non-solicitation of former employees, co-workers, and patients should cover the rest.

Don’t text, email, or call a list of people specifically whom you met through your old employer. However, feel free to send post cards to a ZIP code with favorable demographics, put out an ad on Indeed or Craigslist for a new office manager or assistant for your office across the street from your old employer, etc.

If you happened to build a strong personal brand and had lots of patients / clients and co-workers as Facebook “friends” or Instagram followers, no harm if they follow you to the new practice. If the old work environment was toxic or the pay and benefits were unreasonably low, there’s no reason not to let a former hygienist, audiologist, respiratory therapist, insurance biller, paralegal, or bookkeeper follow you to greener pastures of their own volition. You shouldn’t turn down a voluntary job applicant just because you personally know that they’re hard working and easy to get along with.

[Tim]

that's not a good argument against the practice.

we manage this just fine w/ DL and i guarantee you the revenue from DL dwarfs any kind of prof licensing.

Actually, one pays both states and only keeps one DL. One valid DL at a time. Legally 30 days grace period if you move. Residency required as well. I think a better comparison would be international travel for medical care. That does not mean it justifies a revenue stream for separate medical licenses.
Contractors need to be licensed. Every hailstorm or hurricane, there is an influx of unscrupulous contractors with no local presence. It definitely should have some type of reciprocity and lower cost for physicians. Not sure we want traveling pill pushers. We have enough as is. But that is a different topic, enforcement and discipline. Same as a traffic ticket? Justice of the Peace? DL is in no way equivalent.

[MWprimarycare]

Over the past several days, there have been many articles written about President Biden’s attempt to curtail non-compete clauses. In particular, does anyone have any information on whether this will also apply to physicians? If so, it could change the landscape a lot. Attached is one article from NPR about it

https://www.npr.org/2021/07/09/10143...ad-for-workers

[pulmdoc]

Interesting. My initial take is that any sort of sweeping ban by executive action alone (not legislation) would be swiftly challenged in court by businesses as overstepping executive authority over state law, and given the Supreme Court track record on owner vs labor rights, would be struck down. A narrrower EO focused on federal contractors would have a better chance of surviving a legal challenge. An act of Congress would be legal, of course, but I see a roughly 0% chance of that passing through the Senate.