A Contract with Consequences
When people think about noncompete agreements, they usually imagine Silicon Valley executives or financial advisors jumping ship to a rival firm. But in medicine, noncompetes look very different- and the consequences are far more profound.
A physician bound by one of these agreements may be legally prevented from practicing anywhere near the community they’ve served. In practical terms, that means when a doctor leaves a health system- whether over ethical disagreements, workload demands, or simple career changes- they can’t continue caring for their patients down the street. Often, they can’t even remain in the same town.
For patients, the doctor they’ve trusted for years disappears overnight. For physicians, the choice is stark: uproot your family or abandon your career. Neither option puts patients first.
The Scale of the Problem
While exact numbers are difficult to pin down, studies suggest nearly half of U.S. physicians are currently bound by noncompete agreements. A 2018 study in JAMA found that 45% of primary care doctors in group practices were under such contracts. The numbers are likely higher now, given the acceleration of hospital mergers and private equity acquisitions in the past decade.
Consider that in 2012, 60% of physicians owned their own practices. By 2024, that number had dropped to just 42%, according to the American Medical Association (AMA). The majority of doctors now work as employees of health systems. And with consolidation, a “10-mile” restriction may cover an entire metro area- sometimes dozens of hospitals under the same corporate umbrella.
What began as a tool for small practices to protect themselves from immediate poaching has evolved into a widespread barrier that reduces physician mobility, suppresses wages, and most importantly, undermines continuity of care for patients.
Patients Lose When Doctors Are Shackled
The argument against noncompetes is not simply about physician rights- it’s about patient well-being.
- Continuity of care suffers: Patients are forced to find new physicians, repeat their histories, and rebuild trust. For those with chronic illnesses, gaps in treatment can be dangerous.
- Access to care shrinks: Rural and underserved areas, already struggling with shortages, lose doctors who would otherwise stay if not for contractual bans.
- Choice disappears: Patients have the right to choose their doctor. Noncompetes effectively transfer that right to corporations.
The National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP) has made this point clear: banning noncompetes helps preserve access to primary care, maternity care, and behavioral health- three of the most fragile areas of our healthcare system.
Hospitals’ Justification- and Its Weakness
Hospital systems argue that noncompetes are necessary to protect their investments. Recruiting a physician, particularly to a rural or underserved area, is costly. Incentives, relocation packages, and training all carry a price tag. If a physician leaves, they say, the hospital deserves protection.
But here’s the flaw: you don’t retain talent by force. You retain talent by building workplaces where physicians want to stay.
Furthermore, the premise that patients are part of a hospital’s “assets” ignores the foundational truth of medicine: patients are people, not property. They are not “transferrable” like a list of corporate clients.
The irony is that the very consolidation driving hospitals to rely more heavily on noncompetes is what’s creating the toxic environments that push physicians away in the first place- longer patient loads, unsafe staffing ratios, and assembly-line care models.
The Human Toll
Behind every contract is a human story.
A family doctor who has to leave her hometown because she can’t practice within 50 miles of the only health system in town. A specialist forced to choose between honoring his noncompete or being close to his elderly parents. A young physician couple unable to find two jobs in the same city because of overlapping restrictions.
These aren’t abstract anecdotes- they are real scenarios I hear from colleagues across the country. And the fallout doesn’t stop with doctors. It reverberates through entire communities.
Momentum for Change
Thankfully, momentum is shifting. States including Colorado, Montana, Indiana, Oregon, and Maryland have passed laws banning or restricting physician noncompetes. Some laws are comprehensive, others more limited- but the trend is clear.
Even the AMA, long neutral on the issue, voted in 2023 to support bans for physicians employed by hospitals or staffing companies. That decision reflects a growing recognition that these contracts harm both doctors and patients in an era of corporate consolidation.
At the federal level, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) proposed a nationwide ban in 2023, estimating it could increase worker earnings by nearly $300 billion annually across industries. For physicians, the impact would be even more significant- restoring autonomy, stabilizing local access to care, and reducing forced migration of talent.
Litigation has stalled the FTC’s rule for now, but the issue is not going away. Whether through courts, Congress, or continued state-level reform, the tide is turning.
What We Should Be Asking
The deeper question is not whether noncompetes are “legal.” It’s whether they’re ethical.
- Should a doctor be prevented from serving the very community that trained and supported them?
- Should patients lose their trusted physician because of corporate paperwork?
- Should healthcare prioritize protecting market share- or protecting lives?
We already know the answers. What we need now is the courage to act on them.
A Way Forward
There are better solutions. Hospitals can use retention bonuses tied to years of service, loan repayment incentives, or flexible work models to encourage physicians to stay. They can focus on addressing burnout, improving staffing ratios, and restoring autonomy.
These approaches respect both the physician and the patient. They encourage loyalty through trust, not coercion. And they ensure that when a physician does move on, patients are not collateral damage.
Noncompetes may have a place in some industries. But in healthcare, they are- without question- bad medicine.
***
This is a conversation we need to have- not just among doctors, but with patients, policymakers, and communities.
- If you’re a physician: have you been bound by a noncompete? What did it cost you- and your patients?
- If you’re a patient: would you want your doctor forced out of town because of a contract?
- If you’re a policymaker: do these agreements serve your constituents, or corporate interests?
I’d love to hear your thoughts. Drop a comment, share your story, and let’s keep this conversation alive until meaningful change is the norm, not the exception.
