Non-Competes No More? What Dental Practice Owners Need To Know About The FTC’s Recent Ruling
Jordan Uditsky • April 25, 2024
For decades, businesses of all stripes and across all industries and professions – including dental practices - have used non-competition agreements to limit the ability of former employees to go head-to-head against their former employers. Over the past decade or so, however, there has been a concerted effort at the state and federal levels to either prohibit or significantly limit the use of such provisions. Those efforts have culminated with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission’s April 23, 2024 approval of a Final Rule that effectively bans all non-competes, except those for “senior executives” or related to the sale of a business.
The ban was met with stiff resistance from the business community when the FTC first proposed it in January 2023, and, indeed, a federal lawsuit challenging the validity of the Final Rule was filed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and others within hours of its approval. Short of judicial intervention, the rule will become effective 120 days after its publication in the Federal Register.
Accordingly, practice owners who currently use such agreements or provisions to protect their business interests need to prepare for a post-non-compete world and understand exactly what the new rule prohibits, and what it still allows.
What Does The Final Rule Prohibit?
With the two notable exceptions discussed below, the Final Rule renders all existing "non-compete clauses" null and void and forbids their use in the future. As defined in the rule, a prohibited “non-compete clause” is "a term or condition of employment that prohibits a worker from, penalizes a worker for, or functions to prevent a worker from:
- Seeking or accepting work in the United States with a different person where such work would begin after the conclusion of the employment that includes the term or condition; or
- Operating a business in the United States after the conclusion of the employment that includes the term or condition."
For purposes of the Final Rule, "term or condition of employment" includes, but is not limited to, a contractual term or workplace policy, whether written or oral.
Non-Disclosure and Non-Solicitation Provisions Are Fine – As Long As They Don’t Act As a Non-Compete
Non-disclosure or non-solicitation clauses and agreements are still permitted and enforceable under the Final Rule, so long they do not act as a non-compete as a practical matter. If any such agreement effectively "prohibits," "penalizes," or "functions to prevent a worker from" seeking or accepting work after the end of their employment, it may be deemed to be a prohibited non-compete. The FTC states that whether any given provision constitutes a "non-compete clause" is a "fact-specific inquiry."
All Workers Other Than “Senior Executives” Are Covered by the Non-Compete Ban
Other than "senior executives," as discussed below, the rule bans all non-competes for employees, independent contractors, externs, interns, volunteers, apprentices, sole proprietors who provide a service to a person, and a person who works for a franchisee or franchisor but does not include a franchisee in the context of a franchisee-franchisor relationship.
Ban Does Not Apply to "Senior Executives" or if Connected to the Sale of a Business
One significant change between the proposed and final rules is that the final version does not void any existing non-competes involving "senior executives." However, it prohibits employers from entering into or enforcing new non-competes with senior executives after the Final Rule's effective date.
A "senior executive" is defined as a worker in a "policy-making position" who earns an actual or annualized sum of $151,164 (through salary, bonuses, and/or commissions, but excluding fringe benefits, retirement contributions, and medical/life insurance premium payments). A "policy-making position" means a business entity's president, chief executive officer, or the equivalent, any other officer with policy-making authority, or any other person with policy-making authority for the business, similar to an officer with policy-making authority.
Importantly, for dentists who are considering purchasing or selling their practice, the Final Rule does not apply to a non-compete clause entered into by a person selling their ownership interest in a business entity, or of all or substantially all of a business entity’s operating assets. Buyers of a dental practice can therefore still use reasonable non-compete provisions to limit the seller’s activities after the consummation of the transaction.
Employers Must Notify Workers That Their Non-Compete Is No Longer Enforceable
The proposed rule would have required employers to legally modify existing non-competes by formally rescinding them. The Final Rule streamlines these obligations, and employers must now simply notify any worker subject to a non-compete that it will not be enforced against them in the future. To aid employers' compliance with this requirement, the FTC included model language in the final rule that employers can use to communicate with workers.
Regardless of the rule's ultimate fate in pending litigation, dental practice owners who rely on non-competition provisions to protect their business interests should engage counsel to review any non-competition language in their employment agreements and consider other options for protecting trade secrets and confidential information.
If you have questions or concerns about the FTC’s Final Rule, or if you need a review of your employment agreements, please call Grogan Hesse & Uditsky at (630) 833-5533 or contact us online to arrange for your free initial consultation.
Speak to an Attorney
Related Posts
Selling a dental practice is a lengthy and involved process that involves due diligence, negotiation, drafting, financing, and other elements, culminating in the seller handing over the keys to the business to the buyer. But the parties’ signatures on the final purchase agreement and ancillary documents hardly mean that the now-former owner can ride off into the sunset without a care in the world. That is because the purchaser will want and require the seller to be responsible for any undisclosed or undiscovered problems with the practice they just bought. For this reason, every dental practice purchase agreement will inevitably contain indemnification provisions that address what happens if problems emerge after closing. These clauses determine who bears the risk for post-closing discoveries and how much exposure each party faces. While the purchaser wants the assurances and protections that come from the contract’s indemnification provisions, the seller doesn’t want to make an open-ended, potentially limitless promise that could eviscerate the financial upsides of the transaction and leave them forever on the hook for millions of dollars in possible liability. That is why deal savvy dental practice attorneys usually require that the purchase and sale agreement’s indemnification provisions include “caps” and “baskets” that establish the maximum exposure a seller will face as well as the minimum amount that must be at issue before any indemnification obligations are triggered. Given the significance that these maximums and minimums have for both parties, it is critical that buyers and sellers understand how caps and baskets work and the best ways to protect their respective interests in a dental practice sale. It All Starts With the Seller’s Representations and Warranties In any dental practice sale, the seller makes certain representations and warranties about the practice and its current condition. These disclosures might include assurances that all patient records are accurate, all equipment is in good working order, the practice has no pending lawsuits or liabilities, all taxes have been paid, and certain personnel matters are in order. If any such representations prove to be false, the indemnification provisions give the buyer the right to seek compensation from the seller for any losses incurred. Liability Caps Establish the Seller’s Maximum Indemnification Exposure A liability cap limits the total amount a seller must pay for breaches of representations and warranties. In dental practice transactions, caps can range from 10% on longer transactions to 100% of the purchase price on practices trending below $1,000,000, with 25% to 50% being most common for middle-market acquisitions. Where the parties ultimately land as to that percentage is a factor of each party’s risk tolerance and the practice's characteristics. A well-established practice with meticulous records, abundant goodwill, and comprehensive due diligence might justify a lower cap. Conversely, a practice with a limited or checkered financial history or significant operational complexity might warrant a higher cap to protect the buyer. Most liability caps exclude certain matters for which the seller remains on the hook for an unlimited amount. Such issues can include overt fraud or fundamental misrepresentations regarding the seller's authority to sell the practice or having clear title to assets. Tax obligations, environmental issues, and employee-related liabilities might also receive special treatment with separate, higher caps than provided for other matters. Baskets Are Like Deductibles While caps address maximum liability, baskets establish minimum thresholds before indemnification obligations arise. Think of a basket like a deductible in an insurance policy. Just as an insured is responsible for paying amounts up to the deductible before the insurer’s obligations kick in, a basket establishes the threshold below which the purchaser must bear any costs or liabilities for post-closing problems, even for matters covered by the contract’s indemnification provisions. Dental practice sales typically include one of two basket types: · A “true deductible” basket provides that the buyer absorbs all losses until reaching the threshold amount, after which they are entitled to recover all sums above it. For example, with a $25,000 true deductible basket, if the buyer’s losses total $30,000, the seller pays only $5,000. · A “tipping” basket , sometimes called a dollar-one basket, provides that once the buyer’s losses exceed the designated threshold, the seller pays from dollar one. Using the same example, the seller would pay the entire $30,000 once that threshold is crossed. Basket amounts in dental practice sales typically range from $5,000 to $25,000, depending on deal size. A $500,000 practice might have a $5,000 basket, while a $3 million practice might see a $25,000 threshold, for example. How Caps and Baskets Impact the Parties After Closing These provisions significantly impact post-closing dynamics. A seller who negotiates a low cap and high basket will minimize their exposure, while a buyer who secures a high cap and low basket gains significant protection and reassurance. Since negotiations over indemnification caps and baskets aren’t conducted in a vacuum, a party that secures an advantageous cap and basket arrangement can expect more challenging negotiations when discussing other aspects of the transaction, such as a higher purchase price or less favorable payment terms. Unanticipated liabilities can wreak havoc for dental practice buyers and sellers alike long after the ink has dried on their agreement. Dentists on either side of a practice sale should work closely with experienced legal counsel to negotiate terms that strike an appropriate balance between protection and practicality. Contact Grogan, Hesse & Uditsky Today If you are a practice owner anticipating a sale or transition, please contact Grogan, Hesse & Uditsky today. We focus a substantial part of our practice on providing exceptional legal services for dentists and dental practices, as well as orthodontists, periodontists, endodontists, pediatric dentists, and oral surgeons. We bring unique insights and deep commitment to protecting the interests of dental professionals and their practices and welcome the opportunity to work with you. Jordan Uditsky, an accomplished businessman and seasoned attorney, combines his experience as a legal counselor and successful entrepreneur to advise dentists and other business owners in the Chicago area. Jordan grew up in a dental family, with his father, grandfather, and sister each owning their own dental practices, and this blend of legal, business, and personal experience provides Jordan with unique insight into his clients’ needs, concerns, and goals.
The care that dentists need to provide their patients doesn’t end when they get up from the chair. Dental offices, and the computers, networks, servers, and files maintained within (and outside of) their walls, contain patient files and information that must be kept protected from data breaches and unauthorized disclosure. Failure to handle these records properly can not only breach patient trust, but it can also create regulatory and licensing headaches for dentists and practice owners. That’s why ensuring that patient records are transferred securely and appropriately is of the utmost importance when a dental practice changes hands from one owner to the next. When selling a dental practice, one of the most critical yet often overlooked aspects of the transaction involves the proper handling of patient records. As an attorney who has advised numerous healthcare providers through practice transitions, I can tell you that mishandling patient records can expose both the selling and buying dentists to significant legal liability, regulatory penalties, and damage to professional reputation. Understanding your obligations under federal and state law is essential to protecting yourself and your patients during this transition. HIPAA Considerations Are the Highest Priority Patient dental records are governed by both federal regulations, primarily the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), and state-specific laws that vary considerably across jurisdictions. Under HIPAA, patient records are protected health information (PHI), and any transfer of a patient’s protected health information (PHI) must comply with the law’s strict privacy and security requirements. Additionally, most states have dental practice acts and regulations that impose specific recordkeeping and transfer obligations on licensed dentists. The downsides of failing to thoroughly and carefully follow these requirements arguably represent the biggest potential legal threat to buyers and sellers alike in a practice sale. The selling dentist remains the legal custodian of patient records until the practice sale is complete and proper transfer protocols have been followed. This means that the practice owner cannot simply hand over file cabinets or hard drives to the buyer without taking appropriate legal steps. The seller’s fiduciary duty to their patients continues through the transition period and beyond. Notifying Patients Obviously, patients want and deserve to know that their dentist’s office is changing hands. While HIPAA does not explicitly require advance notice of a practice sale, it does require that patients be informed about who has access to their records. More importantly, many state laws explicitly require written notification to patients when a practice changes hands. The seller should inform patients of the new practice owner's identity, the date of the transition, their options regarding their records, and how they can obtain copies of their records if they choose to seek care elsewhere. Typically, this notification should be sent 30 to 60 days prior to the sale closing, allowing patients sufficient time to make informed decisions about their care. The Actual Transfer Itself The purchase agreement should clearly specify how the records will be transferred, who will bear the costs of transfer, and in what format the records will be transferred. For electronic health records (EHRs), the seller may need to coordinate with their EHR vendor to ensure the proper migration of data to the buyer's system or to maintain access if the buyer intends to use the same platform. For practices that still maintain paper records, the physical transfer must be handled securely to prevent unauthorized access or data breaches. Consider using a secure courier service and keeping a detailed inventory of all records transferred. Record Retention Obligations Generally, upon closing, the buyer assumes the responsibility for maintaining patient records going forward and must retain them for the period required by state law, which typically ranges from five to ten years from the last date of treatment. However, the seller may retain copies of records for their own protection, particularly if there's potential for future liability claims related to treatment provided before the sale. For patients who choose not to continue with the new owner and who do not request their records be sent to another provider, the buyer typically assumes responsibility for storing these inactive records for the required retention period. The purchase agreement should clearly allocate these ongoing obligations and any associated costs. Selling a dental practice is often the culmination of decades of hard work and the start of a new chapter in which the now-former practice owner can reap the benefits of those efforts. However, missteps in the handling of patient records could compromise those plans and leave the seller vulnerable to potential liability. By working closely with experienced counsel throughout the sales process, practice owners can wrap up their careers with clarity, confidence, and conclusiveness. If you are a practice owner anticipating a sale or transition, please contact Grogan, Hesse & Uditsky today. Contact Grogan, Hesse & Uditsky Today If you are a practice owner anticipating a sale or transition, please contact Grogan, Hesse & Uditsky today. We focus a substantial part of our practice on providing exceptional legal services for dentists and dental practices, as well as orthodontists, periodontists, endodontists, pediatric dentists, and oral surgeons. We bring unique insights and deep commitment to protecting the interests of dental professionals and their practices and welcome the opportunity to work with you. Jordan Uditsky, an accomplished businessman and seasoned attorney, combines his experience as a legal counselor and successful entrepreneur to advise dentists and other business owners in the Chicago area. Jordan grew up in a dental family, with his father, grandfather, and sister each owning their own dental practices, and this blend of legal, business, and personal experience provides Jordan with unique insight into his clients’ needs, concerns, and goals.
Whatever shortcomings and deficiencies there may be in the dynamic between dental practices and insurance companies, their distinct roles in patient care are not among them. While dentists certainly want to maximize reimbursements for the services they provide, they are not beholden to insurers and remain in a position to advocate for their patients and challenge an insurer’s cost-related decisions without fear of retribution. But a recent unprecedented move by Delta Dental in Wisconsin threatens to upend this relationship model and has raised serious concerns among industry groups, patient advocates, and regulators about conflicts of interest, competition, and provider independence. Over the summer, Delta Dental announced that it had acquired Cherry Tree Dental, which owns and operates 31 clinics, 25 of which are in Wisconsin. The American Dental Association (ADA) is among several organizations that have vocally opposed the transaction. As the ADA wrote shortly after the deal was announced: When an insurance company becomes both health care provider and insurance payer, questions arise regarding potential conflict of interest. From a business standpoint, dental insurance companies seek to minimize cost and maximize profit. As a result, patients may find their treatment options limited to what is most cost-effective for the insurer, not necessarily what is most effective for their oral health. The ADA believes that the health interests of patients are best protected when dental practices and other private facilities for the delivery of dental care are owned and controlled by a dentist licensed in the jurisdiction where the practice is located. In November, the ADA filed a letter with the Wisconsin Office of the Commissioner of Insurance expanding on its concerns and opposition, including worries about provider independence in making care decisions: Direct ownership by Delta Dental could compromise dentists’ ability to advocate for patients. In traditional arrangements, dentists can appeal plan decisions regarding patient care or choose to leave a network if plan policies are overly restrictive. However, the ADA warned that when dentists are employed by the payer, challenging cost-related decisions could label them as “problem employees,” potentially discouraging proper patient care. The potentially anti-competitive effects of such arrangements were also raised by the ADA, which noted that “Delta Dental’s acquisition could influence agreements, business practices, and fee schedules between Cherry Tree and other payers, potentially creating unfair competition.” In addition to the ADA, the acquisition has drawn concerns from the Wisconsin Dental Association, the American Economic Liberties Project, and the Alliance of Independent Dentists. The fallout of this acquisition, if consummated, could ripple through other markets, potentially leading to a seismic shift in the provider-insurer landscape. We will continue to monitor developments and provide updates as warranted. We Focus on You So You Can Focus on Your Patients At Grogan Hesse & Uditsky, P.C., we focus a substantial part of our practice on providing exceptional legal services for dentists and dental practices, as well as orthodontists, periodontists, endodontists, pediatric dentists, and oral surgeons. We bring unique insights and deep commitment to protecting the interests of dental professionals and their practices and welcome the opportunity to work with you. Please call us at (630) 833-5533 or contact us online to arrange for your free initial consultation. Jordan Uditsky, an accomplished businessman and seasoned attorney, combines his experience as a legal counselor and successful entrepreneur to advise dentists and other business owners in the Chicago area. Jordan grew up in a dental family, with his father, grandfather, and sister each owning their own dental practices. This blend of legal, business, and personal experience provides Jordan with unique insight into his clients’ needs, concerns, and goals.
Selling a dental practice is a lengthy and involved process that involves due diligence, negotiation, drafting, financing, and other elements, culminating in the seller handing over the keys to the business to the buyer. But the parties’ signatures on the final purchase agreement and ancillary documents hardly mean that the now-former owner can ride off into the sunset without a care in the world. That is because the purchaser will want and require the seller to be responsible for any undisclosed or undiscovered problems with the practice they just bought. For this reason, every dental practice purchase agreement will inevitably contain indemnification provisions that address what happens if problems emerge after closing. These clauses determine who bears the risk for post-closing discoveries and how much exposure each party faces. While the purchaser wants the assurances and protections that come from the contract’s indemnification provisions, the seller doesn’t want to make an open-ended, potentially limitless promise that could eviscerate the financial upsides of the transaction and leave them forever on the hook for millions of dollars in possible liability. That is why deal savvy dental practice attorneys usually require that the purchase and sale agreement’s indemnification provisions include “caps” and “baskets” that establish the maximum exposure a seller will face as well as the minimum amount that must be at issue before any indemnification obligations are triggered. Given the significance that these maximums and minimums have for both parties, it is critical that buyers and sellers understand how caps and baskets work and the best ways to protect their respective interests in a dental practice sale. It All Starts With the Seller’s Representations and Warranties In any dental practice sale, the seller makes certain representations and warranties about the practice and its current condition. These disclosures might include assurances that all patient records are accurate, all equipment is in good working order, the practice has no pending lawsuits or liabilities, all taxes have been paid, and certain personnel matters are in order. If any such representations prove to be false, the indemnification provisions give the buyer the right to seek compensation from the seller for any losses incurred. Liability Caps Establish the Seller’s Maximum Indemnification Exposure A liability cap limits the total amount a seller must pay for breaches of representations and warranties. In dental practice transactions, caps can range from 10% on longer transactions to 100% of the purchase price on practices trending below $1,000,000, with 25% to 50% being most common for middle-market acquisitions. Where the parties ultimately land as to that percentage is a factor of each party’s risk tolerance and the practice's characteristics. A well-established practice with meticulous records, abundant goodwill, and comprehensive due diligence might justify a lower cap. Conversely, a practice with a limited or checkered financial history or significant operational complexity might warrant a higher cap to protect the buyer. Most liability caps exclude certain matters for which the seller remains on the hook for an unlimited amount. Such issues can include overt fraud or fundamental misrepresentations regarding the seller's authority to sell the practice or having clear title to assets. Tax obligations, environmental issues, and employee-related liabilities might also receive special treatment with separate, higher caps than provided for other matters. Baskets Are Like Deductibles While caps address maximum liability, baskets establish minimum thresholds before indemnification obligations arise. Think of a basket like a deductible in an insurance policy. Just as an insured is responsible for paying amounts up to the deductible before the insurer’s obligations kick in, a basket establishes the threshold below which the purchaser must bear any costs or liabilities for post-closing problems, even for matters covered by the contract’s indemnification provisions. Dental practice sales typically include one of two basket types: · A “true deductible” basket provides that the buyer absorbs all losses until reaching the threshold amount, after which they are entitled to recover all sums above it. For example, with a $25,000 true deductible basket, if the buyer’s losses total $30,000, the seller pays only $5,000. · A “tipping” basket , sometimes called a dollar-one basket, provides that once the buyer’s losses exceed the designated threshold, the seller pays from dollar one. Using the same example, the seller would pay the entire $30,000 once that threshold is crossed. Basket amounts in dental practice sales typically range from $5,000 to $25,000, depending on deal size. A $500,000 practice might have a $5,000 basket, while a $3 million practice might see a $25,000 threshold, for example. How Caps and Baskets Impact the Parties After Closing These provisions significantly impact post-closing dynamics. A seller who negotiates a low cap and high basket will minimize their exposure, while a buyer who secures a high cap and low basket gains significant protection and reassurance. Since negotiations over indemnification caps and baskets aren’t conducted in a vacuum, a party that secures an advantageous cap and basket arrangement can expect more challenging negotiations when discussing other aspects of the transaction, such as a higher purchase price or less favorable payment terms. Unanticipated liabilities can wreak havoc for dental practice buyers and sellers alike long after the ink has dried on their agreement. Dentists on either side of a practice sale should work closely with experienced legal counsel to negotiate terms that strike an appropriate balance between protection and practicality. Contact Grogan, Hesse & Uditsky Today If you are a practice owner anticipating a sale or transition, please contact Grogan, Hesse & Uditsky today. We focus a substantial part of our practice on providing exceptional legal services for dentists and dental practices, as well as orthodontists, periodontists, endodontists, pediatric dentists, and oral surgeons. We bring unique insights and deep commitment to protecting the interests of dental professionals and their practices and welcome the opportunity to work with you. Jordan Uditsky, an accomplished businessman and seasoned attorney, combines his experience as a legal counselor and successful entrepreneur to advise dentists and other business owners in the Chicago area. Jordan grew up in a dental family, with his father, grandfather, and sister each owning their own dental practices, and this blend of legal, business, and personal experience provides Jordan with unique insight into his clients’ needs, concerns, and goals.
The care that dentists need to provide their patients doesn’t end when they get up from the chair. Dental offices, and the computers, networks, servers, and files maintained within (and outside of) their walls, contain patient files and information that must be kept protected from data breaches and unauthorized disclosure. Failure to handle these records properly can not only breach patient trust, but it can also create regulatory and licensing headaches for dentists and practice owners. That’s why ensuring that patient records are transferred securely and appropriately is of the utmost importance when a dental practice changes hands from one owner to the next. When selling a dental practice, one of the most critical yet often overlooked aspects of the transaction involves the proper handling of patient records. As an attorney who has advised numerous healthcare providers through practice transitions, I can tell you that mishandling patient records can expose both the selling and buying dentists to significant legal liability, regulatory penalties, and damage to professional reputation. Understanding your obligations under federal and state law is essential to protecting yourself and your patients during this transition. HIPAA Considerations Are the Highest Priority Patient dental records are governed by both federal regulations, primarily the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), and state-specific laws that vary considerably across jurisdictions. Under HIPAA, patient records are protected health information (PHI), and any transfer of a patient’s protected health information (PHI) must comply with the law’s strict privacy and security requirements. Additionally, most states have dental practice acts and regulations that impose specific recordkeeping and transfer obligations on licensed dentists. The downsides of failing to thoroughly and carefully follow these requirements arguably represent the biggest potential legal threat to buyers and sellers alike in a practice sale. The selling dentist remains the legal custodian of patient records until the practice sale is complete and proper transfer protocols have been followed. This means that the practice owner cannot simply hand over file cabinets or hard drives to the buyer without taking appropriate legal steps. The seller’s fiduciary duty to their patients continues through the transition period and beyond. Notifying Patients Obviously, patients want and deserve to know that their dentist’s office is changing hands. While HIPAA does not explicitly require advance notice of a practice sale, it does require that patients be informed about who has access to their records. More importantly, many state laws explicitly require written notification to patients when a practice changes hands. The seller should inform patients of the new practice owner's identity, the date of the transition, their options regarding their records, and how they can obtain copies of their records if they choose to seek care elsewhere. Typically, this notification should be sent 30 to 60 days prior to the sale closing, allowing patients sufficient time to make informed decisions about their care. The Actual Transfer Itself The purchase agreement should clearly specify how the records will be transferred, who will bear the costs of transfer, and in what format the records will be transferred. For electronic health records (EHRs), the seller may need to coordinate with their EHR vendor to ensure the proper migration of data to the buyer's system or to maintain access if the buyer intends to use the same platform. For practices that still maintain paper records, the physical transfer must be handled securely to prevent unauthorized access or data breaches. Consider using a secure courier service and keeping a detailed inventory of all records transferred. Record Retention Obligations Generally, upon closing, the buyer assumes the responsibility for maintaining patient records going forward and must retain them for the period required by state law, which typically ranges from five to ten years from the last date of treatment. However, the seller may retain copies of records for their own protection, particularly if there's potential for future liability claims related to treatment provided before the sale. For patients who choose not to continue with the new owner and who do not request their records be sent to another provider, the buyer typically assumes responsibility for storing these inactive records for the required retention period. The purchase agreement should clearly allocate these ongoing obligations and any associated costs. Selling a dental practice is often the culmination of decades of hard work and the start of a new chapter in which the now-former practice owner can reap the benefits of those efforts. However, missteps in the handling of patient records could compromise those plans and leave the seller vulnerable to potential liability. By working closely with experienced counsel throughout the sales process, practice owners can wrap up their careers with clarity, confidence, and conclusiveness. If you are a practice owner anticipating a sale or transition, please contact Grogan, Hesse & Uditsky today. Contact Grogan, Hesse & Uditsky Today If you are a practice owner anticipating a sale or transition, please contact Grogan, Hesse & Uditsky today. We focus a substantial part of our practice on providing exceptional legal services for dentists and dental practices, as well as orthodontists, periodontists, endodontists, pediatric dentists, and oral surgeons. We bring unique insights and deep commitment to protecting the interests of dental professionals and their practices and welcome the opportunity to work with you. Jordan Uditsky, an accomplished businessman and seasoned attorney, combines his experience as a legal counselor and successful entrepreneur to advise dentists and other business owners in the Chicago area. Jordan grew up in a dental family, with his father, grandfather, and sister each owning their own dental practices, and this blend of legal, business, and personal experience provides Jordan with unique insight into his clients’ needs, concerns, and goals.
Whatever shortcomings and deficiencies there may be in the dynamic between dental practices and insurance companies, their distinct roles in patient care are not among them. While dentists certainly want to maximize reimbursements for the services they provide, they are not beholden to insurers and remain in a position to advocate for their patients and challenge an insurer’s cost-related decisions without fear of retribution. But a recent unprecedented move by Delta Dental in Wisconsin threatens to upend this relationship model and has raised serious concerns among industry groups, patient advocates, and regulators about conflicts of interest, competition, and provider independence. Over the summer, Delta Dental announced that it had acquired Cherry Tree Dental, which owns and operates 31 clinics, 25 of which are in Wisconsin. The American Dental Association (ADA) is among several organizations that have vocally opposed the transaction. As the ADA wrote shortly after the deal was announced: When an insurance company becomes both health care provider and insurance payer, questions arise regarding potential conflict of interest. From a business standpoint, dental insurance companies seek to minimize cost and maximize profit. As a result, patients may find their treatment options limited to what is most cost-effective for the insurer, not necessarily what is most effective for their oral health. The ADA believes that the health interests of patients are best protected when dental practices and other private facilities for the delivery of dental care are owned and controlled by a dentist licensed in the jurisdiction where the practice is located. In November, the ADA filed a letter with the Wisconsin Office of the Commissioner of Insurance expanding on its concerns and opposition, including worries about provider independence in making care decisions: Direct ownership by Delta Dental could compromise dentists’ ability to advocate for patients. In traditional arrangements, dentists can appeal plan decisions regarding patient care or choose to leave a network if plan policies are overly restrictive. However, the ADA warned that when dentists are employed by the payer, challenging cost-related decisions could label them as “problem employees,” potentially discouraging proper patient care. The potentially anti-competitive effects of such arrangements were also raised by the ADA, which noted that “Delta Dental’s acquisition could influence agreements, business practices, and fee schedules between Cherry Tree and other payers, potentially creating unfair competition.” In addition to the ADA, the acquisition has drawn concerns from the Wisconsin Dental Association, the American Economic Liberties Project, and the Alliance of Independent Dentists. The fallout of this acquisition, if consummated, could ripple through other markets, potentially leading to a seismic shift in the provider-insurer landscape. We will continue to monitor developments and provide updates as warranted. We Focus on You So You Can Focus on Your Patients At Grogan Hesse & Uditsky, P.C., we focus a substantial part of our practice on providing exceptional legal services for dentists and dental practices, as well as orthodontists, periodontists, endodontists, pediatric dentists, and oral surgeons. We bring unique insights and deep commitment to protecting the interests of dental professionals and their practices and welcome the opportunity to work with you. Please call us at (630) 833-5533 or contact us online to arrange for your free initial consultation. Jordan Uditsky, an accomplished businessman and seasoned attorney, combines his experience as a legal counselor and successful entrepreneur to advise dentists and other business owners in the Chicago area. Jordan grew up in a dental family, with his father, grandfather, and sister each owning their own dental practices. This blend of legal, business, and personal experience provides Jordan with unique insight into his clients’ needs, concerns, and goals.
