**The Concealed Effects of Non-Compete Agreements on Healthcare**
Non-compete agreements—a common feature in many employment contracts—are insidiously worsening a crisis in healthcare accessibility throughout the United States. These agreements, initially intended to safeguard proprietary business concerns, have become a considerable contributor to the nation’s physician deficit, restricting patients’ access to the essential care they urgently require.
A Personal Encounter with Non-Competes
The tangible effects of these contractual limitations are starkly demonstrated by the experience of a neurologist from Portsmouth, Virginia. After departing her position due to a non-compete, she encountered a two-year ban preventing her from practicing within 15 miles of her previous workplace—a distance extensive enough to include her entire patient base. This situation effectively eliminates a vital neurologist from Portsmouth, a city already grappling with a deficit of specialists.
Impacts of a Neurologist’s Departure
The absence of a single neurologist in Portsmouth sends ripples through the healthcare system: increased patient wait times, a strained emergency department, and hospitalists struggling to address complex neurological cases without specialist aid. Each of these challenges intensifies the existing hurdles of healthcare access in communities with limited resources.
Grasping Non-Competes
Non-compete clauses are prevalent in the medical field; around 45% of physicians find themselves restricted by such agreements, as reported by the American Medical Association (AMA). These clauses frequently exclude physicians from entire areas, especially in smaller towns where a single employer may dominate the healthcare scene. This presents not only a workforce dilemma but also a significant barrier to patient access.
The Impending Physician Shortage
Forecasts from the Association of American Medical Colleges indicate a possible deficit of up to 124,000 physicians by 2034. Specialties such as neurology and psychiatry are anticipated to be the most affected. Yet, many states, including Virginia, continue to uphold non-competes that further obstruct specialists from serving their communities.
Tackling the Problem
Though non-competes were originally designed to protect business interests, in healthcare, they frequently inflict more harm than benefit. Some states have already made notable progress in addressing this issue. California, North Dakota, and Oklahoma have completely eliminated physician non-competes. Additionally, the Federal Trade Commission has suggested a rule to nullify the majority of such agreements nationwide.
Advocating for Reform
For states still enforcing strict non-competes, reform is essential. Proposed solutions include prohibiting non-competes for health professionals in underserved regions, demanding clear justification for any remaining restrictions, and allowing physicians to buy out their non-competes at fair market value. These adjustments would foster greater trust between hospitals and physicians, enhance retention, and importantly, ensure that underprivileged communities maintain access to needed medical services.
Communities cannot afford the loss of physicians due to restrictive contracts. As patients continue to seek care from displaced doctors like the neurologist from Portsmouth, it is crucial for states to prioritize public health over limiting corporate agreements.
The moment for transformative change is now—one that prioritizes patient care over corporate interests. As states weigh their options, they hold the potential to promote improved community health and patient access over outdated contractual boundaries.
*Sharisse Stephenson, a neurologist, has witnessed firsthand the imbalance that non-compete agreements foster in healthcare.*