Non-compete clause at Kaiser

[Rickettsia]

I am wondering if anyone has ever heard of a psychiatrist employed by Kaiser being allowed to also work occasionally at another facility. It seems like they are very rigid about not allowing any "outside medical work". I'm just curious to see if anyone is familiar with this policy, how strictly it is enforced, and any exceptions that have been made to it. Thanks.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[splik]

This is not a non-compete. Non-competes btw are illegal in california (where kaiser is most well established) and in many states they are largely unenforceable and do not withstand legal scrutiny. Employers are however able to say "we own you" and prohibit you from doing any outside professional work if they think it somehow would damage them, interfere with your work, lead to a conflict of interest etc etc. There are a number of policies they have which may prohibit such work including:

"
Physician partners and shareholders of the Permanente Medical Groups may not
invest in or perform services for any organization providing health care services to
patients in areas served by Kaiser Permanente, except as specifically permitted
by Permanente Medical Group policy or as otherwise approved in writing by an
authorized Permanente Medical Group senior leader. This includes any services
that involve or require a medical license or medical expertise

and

Outside employment, including self-employment, by physicians, dentists,
or employees must always be avoided if it interferes or conflicts with Kaiser
Permanente’s mission, business, or your work. Generally, physicians, dentists, and
employees cannot:
• Serve as a member of a board of directors or an advisory board of a Kaiser
Permanente vendor (See Section 8.3.11: Outside Directorships).
• Be directly involved in the sale of a product or service to Kaiser Permanente
while employed by Kaiser Permanente.
• Serve as a member of a board of directors, an advisory board, or as a
consultant to a research sponsor of a study for which you are a researcher.
You must also give written notice to your chief or immediate supervisor before
working as a consultant, independent contractor, representative, or employee
of any organization that is a competitor of Kaiser Permanente. If an outside
organization you are working for becomes a competitor, disclosure is required at
that time. Examples of outside organizations include another hospital, pharmacy,
insurer, or medical provider.

 

[Extralong]

I am wondering if anyone has ever heard of a psychiatrist employed by Kaiser being allowed to also work occasionally at another facility. It seems like they are very rigid about not allowing any "outside medical work". I'm just curious to see if anyone is familiar with this policy, how strictly it is enforced, and any exceptions that have been made to it. Thanks.

Outside work has nothing to do with non-competes. Physicians in Kaiser cannot do outside gigs once they make partner. Before that, you are an associate and have to get voted in. Well if you are doing stuff outside of Kaiser as an associate and not keeping up with their stuff, people will notice and it’ll be much harder to be voted into partner level. Kaiser has amazing benefits, but not for everyone due to this.

 

[whopper]

in many states they are largely unenforceable and do not withstand legal scrutiny.

Usually not enforceable except through litigation. The police and the state medical board will likely not do anything cause 1) it's not violent so the police won't stop it, and 2) the state medical board hardly does anything to the people giving out benzos and Ambien like candy, you think they're going to do anything to someone about a non-compete clause?

But litigation, that can be a pain in the butt. I do know many who'd just think screw it, "I'm going to break the contract," I just try to not get involved in that type of issue in the first place.

 

[FlowRate]

Usually not enforceable except through litigation. The police and the state medical board will likely not do anything cause 1) it's not violent so the police won't stop it, and 2) the state medical board hardly does anything to the people giving out benzos and Ambien like candy, you think they're going to do anything to someone about a non-compete clause?

But litigation, that can be a pain in the butt. I do know many who'd just think screw it, "I'm going to break the contract," I just try to not get involved in that type of issue in the first place.

I'm skeptical that this sort of thing goes to litigation all that often. If one random doc goes to work at a competitor, is it really worth the $$$ for your former employer to sue?

 

[splik]

I'm skeptical that this sort of thing goes to litigation all that often. If one random doc goes to work at a competitor, is it really worth the $$$ for your former employer to sue?

It is a thing actually. Its primarily for smaller practices who may put a lot of investment in to recruiting, training, and marketing someone and then if they go and set up shop across the road and take their patients with them it's a massive hit.

but there are also ridiculous cases of academic medical centers coming after physicians who want to leave, when there is no direct competition given the kinds of patients one sees at an AMC are not the kinds of patients you would want to see in private practice. https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle...n-competes-doctors-who-leave-uw-medicine.html

 

[nexus73]

We have a local multi-specialty mega clinic notorious for enforcing non-compete clauses. My understanding is at least 2 cases were litigated and the physician lost due to the clause being reasonable, not over-reaching or too restrictive (e.g. restriction is something like you can't work within 25 miles of the main clinic for 1 year, nothing like 'you can't work in the state for 10 years'). The 25 mile limit means the doctors have to move to the next town over or to semi-rural areas at the edge of the suburbs to set up practice (and it'd have to be private practice because there are no employers out there); and the major hospitals locally are all within the 25 miles so surgeons are stuck having to move.

The doctors I've heard about who've since left don't test the clause because it's well established the clinic will come after you and likely win. I've talked to several doctors who interviewed there and the clinic absolutely refused to remove the non-compete, even for a hard to recruit specialty like psychiatry.

Suffice to say, you're better off negotiating the non-compete out of the initial contract instead of hoping it's not enforced if you leave.

Interestingly, I've heard lawyers staunchly oppose non-compete clauses for themselves and argue it is an anti-business measure...but I'm really not sure what the reality is.

 

[whopper]

If one random doc goes to work at a competitor, is it really worth the $$$ for your former employer to sue?

IT depends if the institution is lawyered-up and willing to pull the trigger.

Some places are big enough to have lawyer(s) working for them full-time and their expenses don't go up when doing this thing. Also doing this thing could also save money in the long run cause if they go after a doctor the other doctors working there knows this place means business, and won't break the rules.

If I ran a big business, e.g. a hospital, and a doctor broke the contract, I got to worry about keeping doctors in line, I had a team of lawyers and it wouldn't cost me anything cause the team already works for me on a salary would I go after the doctor? In this mindset it's more of a "why not?" vs "it's not worth it."

I haven't seen this thing happen with doctors but I have seen it in other professions. I've seen several people not do things against the local hospital especially if the hospital was a major source of the economy, stating if they did anything to them they might lose way way way a lot of business in other areas.