We have noted that increasing numbers of physicians provide patient care as employees of large organizations, often hospital systems, sometimes for-profit. Since in these settings physicians must answer to generic management which may be more concerned with short-term revenues than patient care, these new arrangements are frought with hazards for physicians and patients.
One set of hazards may be found in the contracts employed physicians must sign.
My fellow blogger, Dr Wally Smith, and I authored an article just published online "How Employed Physicians' Contracts May Threaten Their Patients and Professionalism." Here is the link.
In it we listed multiple contractual provisions that may be found in employed physicians contracts that may threaten professionalism and good patient care:
Confidentiality clauses - which may hide quality and safety problems, medical errors, unethical conduct, other problematic contract clauses, and malfeasance
Productivity clauses - which may provide incentives for actions that primarily increase employers' revenues, and thus may encourage overtreatment
"Leakage control" clauses - which may discourage referrals outside of the employers' systems and thus discourage appropriate referrals for particular patients, potentially threatening quality
Clauses that allow termination without cause - which may reduce access for the terminated physicians' patients, and may discourage complaints by physicians about quality, safety, unethical behavior, or malfeasance
Noncompete clauses - which may reduce access and physicians' ability to leave unsatisfactory positions
Clauses that restrict outside activites - which may restrict teaching or research, or academic freedom or free speech
We also noted clauses in contracts that employers may sign with third parties that may also threaten professionalism and good patient care:
"Gag" clauses affecting employees - which may hide quality and safety problems, medical errors, unethical conduct and malfeasance
"Anti-poaching" clauses - which may reduce patients' access to care, and physicians' ability to leave unsatisfactory positions.
We were able to find cases illustrating all the clauses published in the news media, or publications such as Medscape or Medical Economics. However, they have largely anechoic in the scholarly medical and health services literature, and largely unaddressed by the medical societies that ostensbibly protect physicians' professionalism and patients' and the public's health.
We suggested that such contractual problems may be becoming more frequent in a health care system in which physicians more often are corporate. We suggested that all physicians confronted with new employment contracts should seek competent legal connsel and try to negotiate egregious provisions. However, such actions may now be futile given the increasing market dominance of the hospital systems that are employing increasing numbers of physicians.
We urged medical societies to inform physicians about such employment issues, and better support physicians who struggle with them. However, these contract problems may merely be a reflection of an increasingly commercialized, deregulated health care system run by generic managers who may put revenue generation ahead of supporting physicians' professionalism. So, better enforcement of existing laws, and new laws including bans on the commercial practice of medicine may be the only solutions to this newly recognized plight of corporate physicians and their patients.