Physicians celebrate their release from non-compete restrictive clauses – NOT SO FAST! Many physician groups celebrated the FTC 'final' ruing that would invalidate non-compete clauses from many physician contracts! However: 1. FYI: Not ALL physicians are reported to be covered by this ruling – such as those working for “non-profit” hospitals, namy working for “safety net’ or other government related facilities, and possibly many physicians classed as “independent contractors”? 2. In this Seyfarth Shaw LLP article, authors Jesse Coleman, Daniel Hart, and Eron Reid, note some of the legal challenges now emerging. It is possible that some higher court may attempt to postpone application of this new ruling - until these challenges are addressed. Meanwhile., physicians continue to suffer the abuses caused by these clauses! FYI: FTC has announced that there will be an upcoming online Zoom briefing on Friday May 31st, to provide an overview of this final rule, and its impact on healthcare. Link - https://lnkd.in/eajSN8AH American Medical Association American Hospital Association American College of Emergency Physicians Tennessee Medical Association U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, & Pensions https://lnkd.in/eyJ2Un-5
Harry W Severance, MD’s Post
More Relevant Posts
-
A concerned yet optimistic CPA at a time of exponential technological and social change. Be the disruptor!
How are physician #noncompete agreements going to be impacted by a new law passed during Indiana’s 2023 legislative session? This blog provides details and lists other key takeaways. #CPA #Accounting
New Indiana Healthcare Laws From the 2023 Legislative Session
ksmcpa.com
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
A concerned yet optimistic CPA at a time of exponential technological and social change. Be the disruptor!
How are physician #noncompete agreements going to be impacted by a new law passed during Indiana’s 2023 legislative session? This blog provides details and lists other key takeaways. #CPA #Accounting
New Indiana Healthcare Laws From the 2023 Legislative Session
ksmcpa.com
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
Healthcare Operations Strategist | Managed Care Specialist | Process Management | Data Analysis & Reporting
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) proposed a rule to ban most noncompete agreements, potentially impacting the healthcare industry. The rule aims to prevent agreements that limit workers' employment options after leaving a job, with implications for employees, contractors, and even volunteers. The healthcare sector, particularly hospitals and physicians, has been vocal about the rule's impact, arguing its effects on staffing and investment. Nonprofit healthcare entities may not be affected, potentially creating a divide between for-profit and nonprofit healthcare providers. The final rule could face legal challenges, influencing how it is enforced. https://lnkd.in/ebSxpbWf
The Expected Impact of the FTC’s Expected Rule on Healthcare Industry
natlawreview.com
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
Award-Winning Author & Journalist/Podcaster/Parenting Writer/Health Writer/B2C & B2B content creator
Yes, I write about health and education, but I *also write about business. My latest ENT Today article is about noncompete clauses & includes a look at the FTC's potential plan to ban noncompete clauses. https://lnkd.in/gBtPfvsK
Navigating Noncompete Agreements - ENTtoday
https://www.enttoday.org
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Notices Publication Date: 11/28/2023 Comments Close: 1/29/2024 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals CMS–102 and CMS–105—CLIA Budget Workload Reports and Supporting Regulations in 42 CFR 493.1–.2001 FedRegDoc#:2023-26201 FRDoc@88 FR 83133 (2 pgs) Agency/Document Identifier: CMS-102 and CMS-105 SUMMARY: CMS is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. ...To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, please access the CMS PRA website by copying and pasting the following web address into your web browser: https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/PaperworkReductionActof1995/PRA-Listing. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William N. Parham at (410) 786–4669. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Contents Information Collection 1. Type of ICRequest: REINSTATEMENT WITH CHANGE of a previously approved collection; Title: CLIA Budget Workload Reports and Supporting Regulations in 42 CFR 493.1–.2001; Use: The Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA), Public Law 100–578 were enacted on October 31, 1988. Provisions of this law mandated by Congress require entities (with few exceptions) that test human specimens be subject to Federal regulation & have in effect a certificate issued by the Department of Health and Human Services. CLIA mandates that fees must be paid by each laboratory to obtain or renew a certificate & for the cost of compliance determination if applicable. The certificate issuance fees will be set by CMS at levels sufficient to recover the full costs of administering the operational provisions of CLIA, including approval & monitoring of proficiency testing programs & accrediting bodies & implementing Federal requirements. Fees will also be collected by CMS to cover the costs of inspecting non-accredited laboratories & validating accrediting laboratories based on the lab's volume & scope of testing. Currently, CMS contracts with 50 State agencies to conduct surveys of all participating health care facilities. As part of their contract, CMS reimburses the State agencies for the reasonable cost of conducting surveys. This information collection gathers the information necessary to reimburse State agencies for a reasonable cost. Form#: CMS–102 and CMS–105 (OMB control#: 0938–0599); Frequency: Yearly/Quarterly; Affected Public: State, Local or Tribal Governments; Number of Respondents: 50; Total Annual Responses: 50; Total Annual Hours: 34. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Eric Powell at 312–886–0791). https://lnkd.in/e4t7Frtn
Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request
federalregister.gov
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
Veterans Affairs Department Notices Publication Date: 8/25/2023 Comments Close: 10/24/2023 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Per Diem to States for Care of Eligible Veterans in State Homes REVISION FedRegDoc#:2023-18312 FRDoc@88 FR 58439 (2 pgs) Agency/Docket#: OMB Control No. 2900-0883 ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Veterans Health Administration (VHA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of a currently approved collection, & allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. ... SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title:.Per Diem to States for Care of Eligible Veterans in State Homes (VA Forms 10–0143, 10–0143A, 10–0144, 10–0144A, 10–0460a, and 10–3567). OMB Control#: 2900–0883. ... Abstract: Authority for this information collection is from Title 38 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 51, Per Diem for Nursing Home, Domiciliary or Adult Day Health Care of Veterans in State Veterans Homes, requiring the VA to ensure that per diem payments are limited to facilities providing high quality care for Veterans. This collection of forms is approved under OMB Control Number 2900–0883. These six forms (10–0143, 10–0143A, 10–0144, 10–0144A, 10–0460a, and 10–3567) are presented to & completed by State Veterans Homes (SVH) management under Subpart B of the CFR part 51 and then assessed for compliance to applicable regulations under Subparts D, E or F by VA contracted vendors during a VA survey at each State Veterans Home (SVH) across the U.S. as a regulatory action. This collection of forms falls under the auspices of The Office of Geriatrics and Extended Care in VA Central Office (12GEC). As per VHA Directive 1145.01, this collection of forms is part of the VA survey process. The legal requirements that necessitate this collection of information are found specifically at title 38 CFR parts 51.31, § 51.43 and § 51.210 for all three levels of care: nursing home, domiciliary, & adult day health care. ... https://lnkd.in/gKKrtytz
Agency Information Collection Activity: Per Diem to States for Care of Eligible Veterans in State Homes
federalregister.gov
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
Salaries and benefits exceeding 85% of the budget make it difficult to manage unexpected expenses. While the budget has passed, there are opportunities available to reduce the expense of benefits and turn employee benefits into a profit center. The Scottsdale Unified School District #1 medical spend is on musculoskeletal. We have found that over 54% of all teachers experience a musculoskeletal issue on any given day. The Solveglobal system is the only solution able to detect and intervene before MSKs become an exensive claim. Save money, retain your most valuable resource and turn your medical spend into profit with Solveglobal. https://lnkd.in/gDVpYUBS
Scottsdale Unified board rejects tax refund plan
eastvalleytribune.com
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
Are you an #ERISA nerd? Do you remember the first time you read the Mertens decision? Was your initial reaction something like “what on Earth is this business about equitable versus legal remedies?” If you answered yes to all these questions, read Alden’s post.
This post is a little more technical than I might like but it serves (I hope) to shed some light on an important question about the way the ERISA’s fiduciary rules have been interpreted by the Supreme Court. Paradoxically, the very rules that are intended to protect plan participants—here, the remedies for breach of fiduciary duties under ERISA section 502(a)(3)—have instead been applied to deprive them of rights. An article published in the Drexel Law Review in 2014 (Vol. 6:539) entitled, “Reflections on ERISA’s Fiduciary Provisions: An Integral and Integrated Part of the Statute” includes a startling claim (or least a claim that startled me): The cramped manner in which the Supreme Court has read the ERISA remedial provision relating to equitable relief was never intended by Congress. Much of the mischief can be traced back to a 1993 case, Mertens v. Hewitt, in which the Supreme Court considered what the drafters of ERISA meant by the phrase “other equitable or remedial relief.” The Court famously observed that this reference “must reflect an intent to provide something less than the full extent of relief that the common law provided for in trust cases.” This led the Court on a proverbial “wild goose chase” in an effort to distinguish “traditional” equitable relief from “all” equitable relief. The effort has been widely criticized over the years as denying relief in a myriad of cases in which relief should be available. Quoting one of the drafters of the provision, here is what the article has to say (pp. 550. 551): ERISA section 502(a)(3) was clearly intended to be a total catchall provision and to provide any sort of appropriate relief. If only we had thought to put "legal" in there, this whole thing would have been avoided. If anybody had said in our drafting [round], “Wait a minute, we’ve got legal and equitable everywhere else, let’s put [it here]” we would have said, “of course.” I mean there was no intention whatsoever to restrict the sort of relief.” (Footnotes omitted). One wonders how U.S. employer-sponsored benefit plans be different if the drafters had included the words “legal” and “equitable” instead of just “equitable.”
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
Today we're sharing a great article written by our long-time contact and Dental Attorney Jonathan Eskow: * FTC Invalidates Almost All Non-Competes, Including Those In Existing Contracts * Whether you are a practice owner, partner, or associate/employee, there is a good chance that a restrictive covenant or non-compete agreement has been part of your practice dynamic. The paradigm of restrictive covenants has left a lot of confusion and differing ideas in the past: - Will this covenant hold up in court? - What are the consequences of breaking the covenant? - What’s the difference between non-compete and non-solicit? - Is the covenant stronger because there’s financial consideration built in? - How strict is the distance restriction? - Does this covenant inhibit a dentist from making a living? All these questions and more suddenly take on a different and most likely less significant meaning with the recent U.S. Federal Trade Commission ruling banning non-compete clauses. It has the potential of drastically impacting or changing dental practice employment contracts, how Associates are considered and treated, and long-term career and practice planning. Read the full article including Jonathan's "Top 8 Things To Know ABout the FTC Ban" on our site at https://ow.ly/c79q50S0Xnr #noncompete
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Notices (1/2) Publication Date: 8/23/2023 Comments Close: 10/23/2023 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals (1/2) CMS–40B Application for Enrollment in Medicare Part B (Medical Insurance) Revision CMS–10102 National Implementation of the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) Survey Extension without change FRDoc#:2023-18151 FRDoc@88 FR 57461 (2 pgs) Agency/Document Identifier: CMS-40B and CMS-10102 Information Collection 1. Title: Application for Enrollment in Medicare Part B (Medical Insurance); Use: ... Section 1836 of the Act permits individuals with Medicare premium-free Part A to enroll in Part B. The CMS–40B provides the necessary information to determine eligibility & to process the beneficiary's request for enrollment for Medicare Part B coverage. This form is only used for enrollment by beneficiaries who already have Part A, but not Part B. Form CMS–40B is completed by the person with Medicare or occasionally by an SSA representative using information provided by the Medicare enrollee during an in-person interview. ... Form#:CMS–40B (OMB control #: 0938–1230); Frequency: Once; Affected Public: Individuals or households; Number of Respondents: 1,132,000; Number of Responses:.1,132,000; Total Annual Hours: 192,440. (For policy questions regarding this collection, contact Candace Carter at 410–786–8466.) ... 2. Title: National Implementation of the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) Survey; Use: The HCAHPS (Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems) Survey is the 1st national, standardized, publicly reported survey of patients' perspectives of their hospital care. ... Since 2008, HCAHPS has allowed valid comparisons to be made across hospitals locally, regionally & nationally. ... Form#: CMS–10102 (OMB control#: 0938–0981); Frequency: Occasionally; Affected Public: Private Sector, Business or other for-profits, Not-for-profits institutions; Number of Respondents: 2,304,450; Number of Responses: 2,304,450; Total Annual Hours: 282,366. (For policy questions regarding this collection, contact William G. Lehrman at 410–786–1037.) Dated: August 18, 2023. William N. Parham, III,.Director, Paperwork Reduction Staff, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs. [FR Doc. 2023–18151 Filed 8–22–23; 8:45 am] https://lnkd.in/dZbVK6ed
Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request
federalregister.gov
To view or add a comment, sign in
More from this author
-
Almost ALL that is wrong with our healthcare workplaces - revealed in ONE “staff meeting memo”!
Harry W Severance, MD 3mo -
Federal "Anti-Referral/Kickback" Laws - How they paradoxically end up Hurting Patient Care
Harry W Severance, MD 4mo -
“Healthcare - Does It Still Look Like a Smart Career Choice-??”
Harry W Severance, MD 7mo