Telepsychiatry Non Compete

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

kansasprincess

New Member
7+ Year Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2015
Messages
5
Reaction score
8
I’m interested in a job offer with a telemedicine start up for an outpatient job. They eventually plan to build a physical office in my city that I would have the option to work out of in a hybrid model.
The non compete is the standard 1 year, 5 miles for the physical office, as well as barring ALL use of telemedicine in the exception of community mental health, inpatient, and student health centers. Essentially this prohibits outpatient work accepting private insurance. My lawyer has advised me that this appears extreme, and we attempted to negotiate. The company is holding strong with the clause, and the hiring manager commented “they are not sure it’s enforceable”. Also, this is TX and a buyout is required by law, but they are not listing a figure. I’m very conflicted. Any docs working in telemedicine or TX have advice?

Members don't see this ad.
 
RED FLAG & RED FLAG & RED FLAG

Three. Stop, do not pass go, do not consider, do not collect $200, and don't torture your lawyer any more with trying to negotiate with this company. Absolutely not.

Non competes are bad.
A non compete for all of telemedicine? In this new era? That simply is a dead deal.
And not having the state specific buy out in their contract?

Why are you wasting your time? There is no conflict for you, they already made the decision for you. Completely horrible.

I've had so many other things just come to my mind right now I've typed but deleted out of self censorship.

Please, just walk away.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 12 users
Members don't see this ad :)
Why are we in medicine subject to the most ridiculous employment contracts? Lawyers are bottom feeders
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Oh my goodness. I'll be frank, you are personally harming the practice of medicine and all physicians by continuing to talk to this company and hiring manager. This should have been an immediate, I'm sorry, but that's not something I can accept. Goodbye.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 users
I’m interested in a job offer with a telemedicine start up for an outpatient job. They eventually plan to build a physical office in my city that I would have the option to work out of in a hybrid model.
The non compete is the standard 1 year, 5 miles for the physical office, as well as barring ALL use of telemedicine in the exception of community mental health, inpatient, and student health centers. Essentially this prohibits outpatient work accepting private insurance. My lawyer has advised me that this appears extreme, and we attempted to negotiate. The company is holding strong with the clause, and the hiring manager commented “they are not sure it’s enforceable”. Also, this is TX and a buyout is required by law, but they are not listing a figure. I’m very conflicted. Any docs working in telemedicine or TX have advice?

Tell them to go kick rocks then.

The physical office noncompete is fine if they have a physical location that exists currently or you're given the option to NOT work in the office (since this is telemedicine only) and thus be not subject to the noncompete. The telemedicine one is bizarre and probably wouldn't be enforceable but why would you want to have to drag this through court to find out?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I appreciate the responses! As echoed by the other non-compete posting, it’s really helpful as an early career psychiatrist to have my concerns validated. This practice does seem to be growing quickly and has hired 40+ docs in the last few months
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I appreciate the responses! As echoed by the other non-compete posting, it’s really helpful as an early career psychiatrist to have my concerns validated. This practice does seem to be growing quickly and has hired 40+ docs in the last few months
Those 40+ docs must be seeing something that you aren't or don't care much about the non-competes?
 
I’m not really sure how to explain it. As far as seeing something I’m not- that’s what I pay the lawyer to do for me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Is this a company that was started in a different state in the northeast, and expanding aggressively into TX? I think I talked to them too. Pretty rough look.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
This is a hard pass. I’d never sign that. It’s nuts and I’ve never seen or heard of such a thing. Doesn’t matter that it may not be enforceable as you’ll be spending time&money litigating.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
Maybe their business plan includes inserting themselves between the patient and the doctor and siphoning off fees like a parasite.Dont let ****ty companies like this walk all over you. Its your license and you are assuming all the patient care liabilities and should be compensated and treated accordingly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
So in this particular group's case, they have this non-compete in place because it's mandated by their contracts with insurers. It's not particularly egregious when you look at it from their perspective. I don't think the job package as a whole was horrible -- IF you plan to work solely for them in a purely telepsych capacity and don't want to try and open your own private practice on the side.

The compensation described to me was not bad compared to other PE-backed groups getting into the sector / geo area.
 
Please, just walk away.
I would echo the above and walk away. The compensation is "not bad" (what does that mean?) but it's not extraordinarily good, and the non-compete means a year after you can't practice ANY telepsychiatry anywhere. Furthermore, you can't open your own private office. To what extent this non-compete is helping retaining business secrets as opposed to make it painful for you to transition out?

There are several national telepsych companies right now and *all* of them are quite bad, to the extent that "community mental health, inpatient, and student health centers" don't want to work with them categorically. Secondly, the reason you want to work for a startup is that you want to be able to eventually *own* part of the company for the upside. Due to Stark Law, this is explicitly forbidden, which is why entities like Kaiser have a separate physician-owned group practice that allows for group ownership/negotiation. Are the 40+ physicians they hired operate under a partnership track group practice model a la Permenente Group, or are they simply hired guns that can be replaced by lower cost providers at any time (such as when new investors come in that want to see an improvement of bottom line)? How would you like it when you get replaced by an NP when the owners of the company go IPO? LMAO You wouldn't be the first or the last.

These are not jobs a respectable and experienced physician would take, which is why eventually (if not already) they will only have the worst and most naive physicians. This of course will lead to a downward spiral. And they know this, which is why they clamp the salary-- why would you spend top dollar for low quality people who will leave anyway?

If the compensation is well above market, then I'd say perhaps there's some logic where you would save the excess and invest elsewhere (i.e. you want to be an Uber driver because they decided to pay their drivers above market to trounce competition using investor capital). As is, the more people work for them with out any equity stake, the more money they will make off of you... don't be a sheep--think like a capitalist. When you are old and don't want to work for others, you want to have ownership and control of your work environment.




So in this particular group's case, they have this non-compete in place because it's mandated by their contracts with insurers. It's not particularly egregious when you look at it from their perspective. I don't think the job package as a whole was horrible -- IF you plan to work solely for them in a purely telepsych capacity and don't want to try and open your own private practice on the side.

The compensation described to me was not bad compared to other PE-backed groups getting into the sector / geo area.

Think about this for a second with your brain. Why would an insurance mandate a contract with a provider such that in it there would be a non-compete? Because it's very hard for the insurance to retain providers on their panel!

And why is that? Because they pay very poorly.

Do you really want to be paid poorly AND stuck in a situation if you pull out you aren't able to work somewhere else that pays better AND you are banned from building your own practice?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 9 users
They want a non-compete for a clinic that doesn't exist yet. lol How neurotic.
And bar you from telepsych completely.
That's ridiculous.
Tell them that once the clinic is built they can offer to pay you a yearly stipend differential for a non-compete that you may or may not accept at that time.

The telepsychiatry non compete sounds absurd. Like, what is the distance for your non compete? Oh I don't know, how about the distance electromagnetic waves can travel in 1 year. I guess you could move one light year away and they wouldn't have evidence of you doing telepsych until after the non compete expires.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
It's very interesting to witness the rapid growth of provider organizations that are not owned by providers. This is essentially the downfall of medicine in several specialties (i.e. EM, anesthesia, pathology). The tide was that provider organizations were consolidating because physicians (read: female) want a "lifestyle" which is incongruent with practice ownership. I think the tide is turning back as (female) physicians realized that they are the WORST in being exploited by suits and now want to be empowered to own their practice. This is what I listen to all day on female physician podcasts.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Think about this for a second with your brain.
Lol. Remind me never to try and look at an issue with nuance ever again on this board.

Yes. Working for someone else sucks. Working for an MBA with a billion dollars behind him sucks. Keeping less than half of the total revenue that you're bringing in sucks. Non-competes suck. I would never work for this company.

But stop looking down on anybody that works for them as subhuman, stupid little baby doctors for you to piss on. Getting paid $275,000 to 325,000 for a first job out of residency to work human hours, from home, seeing high-functioning patients and literally not spend a second worrying about billing, scheduling patients, or advertising themselves? Doesn't suck. Some people want that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Lol. Remind me never to try and look at an issue with nuance ever again on this board.

Yes. Working for someone else sucks. Working for an MBA with a billion dollars behind him sucks. Keeping less than half of the total revenue that you're bringing in sucks. Non-competes suck. I would never work for this company.

But stop looking down on anybody that works for them as subhuman, stupid little baby doctors for you to piss on. Getting paid $275,000 to 325,000 for a first job out of residency to work human hours, from home, seeing high-functioning patients and literally not spend a second worrying about billing, scheduling patients, or advertising themselves? Doesn't suck. Some people want that.

So...here's the thing about this. PE groups will spin it this way. "Hey get paid 300K and never have to worry about the business side of medicine again!" I get that sounds good on the surface but this is how people get sucked into this. Uber is a great example as noted above. You dump money in as a loss leader, build the network, then raise prices and cut pay to make up for the money you lost.

sluox and Sushi are correct when they're talking about how these guys really operate. There's an objective for them and guarantee it's not "expanding access to mental health" or "patient care" or whatever BS they throw around. Bottom line is dolla dolla bills and ROI. And eventually that means skimming the most money possible off your encounters for patients at the lowest cost. If they can replace you with an NP they will. Look at their website, it's half NPs anyway. And it's all good until they suddenly decide to switch you to a production model when the contract comes up for renewal at a 60/40 split where now you're suddenly caring about no-shows, billing codes, etc etc.

I mean I'm with sluox. Is that the crap they're feeding you, that their contract with insurers somehow dictates a nationwide non-compete clause? Did they show you the contracts? Cause otherwise that doesn't even sound real. Why would the INSURER want to protect the PROVIDER GROUP by requiring them to have a nationwide telemedicine noncompete somehow? And EVERY private insurer they've contracted with has somehow required this in their contract? You can see just as many patients paneled with them as a private practice as you can with this company. The insurer wouldn't give two ****s if you walked out from the company and took your patient panel with you, the patients are still being seen by someone...which is what a non-compete is supposed to guard against for the practice. So what exactly would the point be for the insurers? I'm not seeing the upside for them. Maybe, like sluox said, if the insurance company pays so poorly they want to try to lock you into the network but even then, you can just walk and go work somewhere else in person, so it's a really weird incentive to stay paneled with them.

No no what happened here is that the COMPANY likely wanted this when they signed a contract with the INSURANCE company. So what they probably did was say, "hey let's negotiate X rate per X codes and we promise to get your patients in to be seen with us in X number of days from when they call if you put us as a "preferred provider" because we know you guys are hurting for mental health resources in your network, so we can try to provide this at scale....but in return you have to promise not to panel anyone we hire independently for 1 year after we let them go for telemedicine". That actually makes sense. They then spin this as "ohhh this is in our insurance contracts, sorry we can't change it!"
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
@sluox I get what you are trying to get at regarding gender correlating to job choice and lifestyle attributes, but so far my limited Psychiatrist exposure has shown approximate same levels for both genders. I've seen just as many women and man vocalize openly choosing more time friendly career trajectories under a Big Box shop as those who have or are in planning stages to open their own practice.

Other specialties perhaps gender has had more of an impact but I'll be a nay sayer of gender/psych influences.

As for your above summary about PE, well said, well articulated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Yeah, this has nothing to do with an insurer of any sort and the fact that they say that makes them even more concerning. No non-competes!
 
Insurer = benefactor/backer

Replace with that and it all makes sense. It's like tech companies don't want to 'train' you and have you go to the competition. It's the same model but it's pretty stupid because having a non-compete from telepsych is like having a non compete for seeing patients in person. It doesn't even make sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Exactly ridethecliche, this noncompete seems to take away a treatment tool rather than just limiting geography or something similar. It's like a noncompete for prescribing antipsychotics. I very much hope such noncompetes are not upheld, and I would think much less of any company that includes something like this
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Insurer = benefactor/backer

Replace with that and it all makes sense. It's like tech companies don't want to 'train' you and have you go to the competition. It's the same model but it's pretty stupid because having a non-compete from telepsych is like having a non compete for seeing patients in person. It doesn't even make sense.

How? I’m failing to see how this benefits the insurance company. If you leave and still stay on their panel, you’re still seeing their patients. Even if you go to another telepsych company, you’re still seeing their insurance patients. There is no “competition” to go to besides being paneled with other private insurances or being cash only.

Now if it actually isn’t the contracts with insurance companies but an agreement with their PE backer, that would actually make more sense.
 
How? I’m failing to see how this benefits the insurance company. If you leave and still stay on their panel, you’re still seeing their patients. Even if you go to another telepsych company, you’re still seeing their insurance patients. There is no “competition” to go to besides being paneled with other private insurances or being cash only.

Now if it actually isn’t the contracts with insurance companies but an agreement with their PE backer, that would actually make more sense.

Which is exactly what my post said.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
It benefits the insurance company because if you go somewhere else, they will be paying a higher rate for your services

Why though? Typically the larger an organization is, the more leverage they have with an insurance company because if they drop them, their patients suddenly can't see anyone for that service in the area (or in this case, nationally).

So say a couple years from now, this telepsych company is now spread pretty national (good example of this is Lifestance). They now have more leverage to negotiate higher rates because they go to the insurance company "hey BCBS increase our E+M rates or we'll drop you and all your customers are now gonna be pissed they can't see anyone in your network because we control so much of the telepsych market share...hey and guess what all our docs can't contract with you anyway if they leave because we have national 1 year non-compete clauses for all of them!!"

This is basically the model for all large hospital systems or large private systems. Use your market share to leverage more favorable insurance rates. That's why PP docs generally end up with lower E+M rates than the big hospital next door for instance. So it doesn't make sense in the long term and the insurance companies are very familiar with this model...so it wouldn't make much sense for them.

The telepsych company and insurer are colluding to keep rates low (and the telepsych company gets patients steered towards them in return)

Right right that part was my point. The company is trying to spin it as "oh no sorry we can't budge on this, it's in our contract"...when THEY probably negotiated it into the contract.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
The telepsych company and insurer are colluding to keep rates low (and the telepsych company gets patients steered towards them in return)

So basically they should be challenged in court and/or turned in to the feds?
 
So basically they should be challenged in court and/or turned in to the feds?

Lol probably but someone’s gonna have to want to pursue that antitrust case.

but yeah the insurance commissioners office in Texas (and New York since it seems that’s where they started if it’s the same company) would probably be very interested to here about these agreements with the insurance companies if they’re true. Especially given the recent executive order looking to limit noncompete clauses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
So basically they should be challenged in court and/or turned in to the feds?
I am using the term "colluding " in an informal sense. I am sure that written agreements between the companies were carefully reviewed by lawyers and follow the letter of the law. The system is stacked against individual physicians
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
I’m not really sure how to explain it. As far as seeing something I’m not- that’s what I pay the lawyer to do for me.
You need a lawyer to tell you that a complete telepsychiatry noncompete is ridiculous?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user
Maybe some telepsych companies want to keep rates low and work off volume but most would obviously want higher reimbursement rates from the insurance companies. This company, Talkiatry, pays its providers based on the rates they get from the insurer. So yes, they negotiate a better rate by ensuring that there is a noncompete. As explained by calvnandhobbs68, that gives the group negotiating leverage. It also assures the insurers that their patients won’t leave to follow their docs and go OUT of network. That is much more costly for the insurers and a lot of these nationwide telepsych companies don’t participate with the major insurance providers.

On a more general note, I have been interviewing with a lot of these OTHER nationwide telepsych companies (Headway, Hims/Hers, Talkspace, etc.) and I am pretty turned off by the way psychiatry, psychiatrists, and psychiatric patients are being handled. The speech I usually get is about how much money I could make by talking to my patients so little. I hear things like, “The patient gets to pick which SSRI out of the 7 in our formulary he’d like,” “If a patient needs to have a phone session more than 3 times in a year (as opposed to an automated email check-in) then that patient probably isn’t right for this practice,” “Sure you can see patients using our group NPI and your own private NPI from the same at home office. And if your current patient has insurance that we take, but you don’t take privately, then you can decide if you want to tell them that they could technically see you in network through our group practice,” “Well the patient pays a monthly subscription, whether or not she utilizes our services, and if she wants to cancel, she has to do so by a certain date to not be charged for the following month.”

I’m currently interviewing with Talkiatry and the least I can say so far is that at least this is a true psychiatry practice with actual psychiatrists, where it seems that I can practice however I want, in person and/or virtually, selecting my own patient population, where my compensation depends mostly on how much I want to work. I also work part time in an outpt clinic focusing on SPMI pts and I don’t want to give that up. The people at Talkiatry weren’t concerned about it at all and said their non compete is actually really flexible. Before I make a decision about a job, I’ll be sure not to focus on someone’s opinion and instead to ask all the right questions directly during my interviews. And for the record, they have 52 psychiatrists and only 11 NPs so they actually aren’t replacing us with NPs. Finally, have you looked at their roster of docs? They have some pretty reputable AND experienced psychiatrists working for them and the medical practice is started by an actual respected NYC psychiatrist. I compare their package and overall respect for medicine and for my autonomy and I’m impressed with it. I certainly don’t feel like a young naive doctor getting pissed on.

I’ve heard from colleagues at other places that there’s excitement about a brick and mortar place that is taking new geriatric Medicare patients and they’re talking about Talkiatry. It’s actually what got me looking at them
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Maybe some telepsych companies want to keep rates low and work off volume but most would obviously want higher reimbursement rates from the insurance companies. This company, Talkiatry, pays its providers based on the rates they get from the insurer. So yes, they negotiate a better rate by ensuring that there is a noncompete. As explained by calvnandhobbs68, that gives the group negotiating leverage. It also assures the insurers that their patients won’t leave to follow their docs and go OUT of network. That is much more costly for the insurers and a lot of these nationwide telepsych companies don’t participate with the major insurance providers.

On a more general note, I have been interviewing with a lot of these OTHER nationwide telepsych companies (Headway, Hims/Hers, Talkspace, etc.) and I am pretty turned off by the way psychiatry, psychiatrists, and psychiatric patients are being handled. The speech I usually get is about how much money I could make by talking to my patients so little. I hear things like, “The patient gets to pick which SSRI out of the 7 in our formulary he’d like,” “If a patient needs to have a phone session more than 3 times in a year (as opposed to an automated email check-in) then that patient probably isn’t right for this practice,” “Sure you can see patients using our group NPI and your own private NPI from the same at home office. And if your current patient has insurance that we take, but you don’t take privately, then you can decide if you want to tell them that they could technically see you in network through our group practice,” “Well the patient pays a monthly subscription, whether or not she utilizes our services, and if she wants to cancel, she has to do so by a certain date to not be charged for the following month.”

I’m currently interviewing with Talkiatry and the least I can say so far is that at least this is a true psychiatry practice with actual psychiatrists, where it seems that I can practice however I want, in person and/or virtually, selecting my own patient population, where my compensation depends mostly on how much I want to work. I also work part time in an outpt clinic focusing on SPMI pts and I don’t want to give that up. The people at Talkiatry weren’t concerned about it at all and said their non compete is actually really flexible. Before I make a decision about a job, I’ll be sure not to focus on someone’s opinion and instead to ask all the right questions directly during my interviews. And for the record, they have 52 psychiatrists and only 11 NPs so they actually aren’t replacing us with NPs. Finally, have you looked at their roster of docs? They have some pretty reputable AND experienced psychiatrists working for them and the medical practice is started by an actual respected NYC psychiatrist. I compare their package and overall respect for medicine and for my autonomy and I’m impressed with it. I certainly don’t feel like a young naive doctor getting pissed on.

I’ve heard from colleagues at other places that there’s excitement about a brick and mortar place that is taking new geriatric Medicare patients and they’re talking about Talkiatry. It’s actually what got me looking at them
What’s the pay structure? Hourly or what?
 
What’s the pay structure? Hourly or what?

It’s salary based on the schedule you choose. It’s not hourly or per patient, it’s based on an estimate of how many patients you’d likely see during your schedule. They also said there’s an incentive bonus which is split amongst the providers and is composed of 75% of the profit made by the business. I might not be relaying all the details perfectly and I still have more calls scheduled to learn more. I’ve gotten to speak to a couple psychiatrists there though and she was really happy with the monthly bonus which is often in the thousands
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
It’s salary based on the schedule you choose. It’s not hourly or per patient, it’s based on an estimate of how many patients you’d likely see during your schedule. They also said there’s an incentive bonus which is split amongst the providers and is composed of 75% of the profit made by the business. I might not be relaying all the details perfectly and I still have more calls scheduled to learn more. I’ve gotten to speak to a couple psychiatrists there though and she was really happy with the monthly bonus which is often in the thousands
What would be the ballpark income working 40hrs per week?
 
Maybe some telepsych companies want to keep rates low and work off volume but most would obviously want higher reimbursement rates from the insurance companies. This company, Talkiatry, pays its providers based on the rates they get from the insurer. So yes, they negotiate a better rate by ensuring that there is a noncompete. As explained by calvnandhobbs68, that gives the group negotiating leverage. It also assures the insurers that their patients won’t leave to follow their docs and go OUT of network. That is much more costly for the insurers and a lot of these nationwide telepsych companies don’t participate with the major insurance providers.

On a more general note, I have been interviewing with a lot of these OTHER nationwide telepsych companies (Headway, Hims/Hers, Talkspace, etc.) and I am pretty turned off by the way psychiatry, psychiatrists, and psychiatric patients are being handled. The speech I usually get is about how much money I could make by talking to my patients so little. I hear things like, “The patient gets to pick which SSRI out of the 7 in our formulary he’d like,” “If a patient needs to have a phone session more than 3 times in a year (as opposed to an automated email check-in) then that patient probably isn’t right for this practice,” “Sure you can see patients using our group NPI and your own private NPI from the same at home office. And if your current patient has insurance that we take, but you don’t take privately, then you can decide if you want to tell them that they could technically see you in network through our group practice,” “Well the patient pays a monthly subscription, whether or not she utilizes our services, and if she wants to cancel, she has to do so by a certain date to not be charged for the following month.”

I’m currently interviewing with Talkiatry and the least I can say so far is that at least this is a true psychiatry practice with actual psychiatrists, where it seems that I can practice however I want, in person and/or virtually, selecting my own patient population, where my compensation depends mostly on how much I want to work. I also work part time in an outpt clinic focusing on SPMI pts and I don’t want to give that up. The people at Talkiatry weren’t concerned about it at all and said their non compete is actually really flexible. Before I make a decision about a job, I’ll be sure not to focus on someone’s opinion and instead to ask all the right questions directly during my interviews. And for the record, they have 52 psychiatrists and only 11 NPs so they actually aren’t replacing us with NPs. Finally, have you looked at their roster of docs? They have some pretty reputable AND experienced psychiatrists working for them and the medical practice is started by an actual respected NYC psychiatrist. I compare their package and overall respect for medicine and for my autonomy and I’m impressed with it. I certainly don’t feel like a young naive doctor getting pissed on.

I’ve heard from colleagues at other places that there’s excitement about a brick and mortar place that is taking new geriatric Medicare patients and they’re talking about Talkiatry. It’s actually what got me looking at them

I understand your sentiment and nobody's saying don't do the research yourself. Definitely go interview with a bunch of places. I talked to 5 different places before I decided on where I am now.

However, as soon as private equity backing starts getting into the picture, one has to be very very careful about their incentives being aligned with your incentives. They often are not. Lifestance (and other larger regional companies backed by large amounts of private equity money) are doing the same thing. They view those initial investments as loss leaders. They're willing to lose money on your the first year by offering 300K off the bat because they know they can rapidly ramp up production on you, fill your schedule, and make decent money off you year 2-3+. Don't kid yourself that you have control over your schedule if they keep paying you a straight salary and not based on production. They're gonna want to pack it as full as possible because time you aren't working is money lost for them. If you're being paid on production, then these companies tend to take a pretty significant cut of your production (60/40 is a pretty typical split for example). There are a decent amount of people on the PP and telepsych facebook groups that are not happy about the way things went when their practice was acquired by these types of PE backed companies. Same thing is happening in other speciality outpatient practices.

Listen, I get the appeal. I really do. I was just in the market and would a guaranteed salary of 300K my first year with 25K upfront as a signing bonus had been awesome compared to the straight production place I'm working at now where I'm having to build a patient load? For sure. But once you look past 1st year, you look at the long game. Run the actual numbers about how much you're gonna produce when your schedule is packed up and realize how much they take off the top and then realize that the likely endgame for them is to continue maximizing that to maintain a maximal return on investment. Ask them for the actual charges they get for their codes (99xxx codes, 90833, etc). Major ways for them to make money are expanding market share, NP "collaboration" with physicians or making their "providers" as efficient as possible. Some of them will expand market share by buying existing practices who know the lay of the local land/details of working with local systems and insurance companies vs putting new office footholds in an area or blend of both.

I'll give you an example. For the same amount of patients per week and weeks per year that one of these large PE companies would have estimated I made ~300K from after year 1, on the low end I would pull in (AFTER the groups split) 437K, higher end 493K where I am currently with a full patient panel. You're also HUSTLING for that amount though too and likely I'm not going to want to see that amount of patients per day (estimating a 40 hour patient contact week).

If their non-compete is "actually really flexible", then why does it start off so atrocious? This is literally the most bizarre thing any of us have ever heard of to have a NATIONWIDE telepsychiatry non-compete. Even if you're not licensed and seeing patients in those states? Bizzare. Maybe they don't care if you break it but do you really wanna be the test case they decide to send the lawyer wolves after to make an example of and burn your time/money dealing with that crap?

I think most of those telepsych companies are junk. Maybe if you wanna burn a few hours on a weekend or something but they're much more geared towards therapists which have a much lower standard of care and much lower liability than physicians and I think a lot of those platforms don't understand that. The sentiments on the facebook private telepsychiatry group reflects this as well generally. General sentiment on there as well is that the best telepsych setup is really just to contract out with CMHCs/community/government agencies/jails/etc. where you can set a pretty decent hourly rate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 users
I honestly cannot imagine a situation in which a nationwide telepsych non-compete isn't predatory. It is clearly a way to edge out competition and restrict psychiatrists or make them feel "locked in". Rather than incentivize them to stay with improvements and benefits, they are basically betting on risk aversion so they can slowly turn up the heat (whether it be by increasing patient numbers, decreasing pay, or some other way of restricting practice), meanwhile us frogs are boiled alive. It has nothing to do with what is "better" for the patients. This company may have some positive features as compared to other companies, but I'm not sure how that in some way makes their predatory actions any better.

You can choose whatever career path you want as an individual and each person may have a lot of personal reasons for doing so, but to imply this non-compete is in some way reasonable or justified doesn't make any sense. The more we as a profession just accept ridiculous policies that are pitched to us in the name of "patient care" when it really means lining CEO pockets (whether those CEOs are physicians or MBAs), the more we'll see these policies everywhere and the less we'll see other options.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
I appreciate the discussion in here, as someone who's still torn between employed vs self-starting once I graduate.

If you're being paid on production, then these companies tend to take a pretty significant cut of your production (60/40 is a pretty typical split for example).

Just wanted to weigh in that I've spoken with two small (2 and 4 docs, respectively) physician-owned private practices in recent months. One wanted to keep 60% (!) of payments and the other (cash + a few private insurers) wanted 40%. Both practices had a limited number of support staff.

Just a data point to demonstrate that docs can be just as hungry to profit off of other docs -- PE monoliths don't have a monopoly on that. I suspect the only way to really trust that you're in charge of what you make is to do it all yourself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 8 users
I appreciate the discussion in here, as someone who's still torn between employed vs self-starting once I graduate.



Just wanted to weigh in that I've spoken with two small (2 and 4 docs, respectively) physician-owned private practices in recent months. One wanted to keep 60% (!) of payments and the other (cash + a few private insurers) wanted 40%. Both practices had a limited number of support staff.

Just a data point to demonstrate that docs can be just as hungry to profit off of other docs -- PE monoliths don't have a monopoly on that. I suspect the only way to really trust that you're in charge of what you make is to do it all yourself.
60 and 40 are both absolutely nuts it should be like 20
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I appreciate the discussion in here, as someone who's still torn between employed vs self-starting once I graduate.



Just wanted to weigh in that I've spoken with two small (2 and 4 docs, respectively) physician-owned private practices in recent months. One wanted to keep 60% (!) of payments and the other (cash + a few private insurers) wanted 40%. Both practices had a limited number of support staff.

Just a data point to demonstrate that docs can be just as hungry to profit off of other docs -- PE monoliths don't have a monopoly on that. I suspect the only way to really trust that you're in charge of what you make is to do it all yourself.

For sure no argument there. However, I would also say you're more likely to find in physician groups or even therapist groups a greater sense of care for actual patient care being the overarching goal.

Also have to keep the actual numbers in perspective, I know I was talking splits as above but the numbers matter too. 60/40 cash practice can be more than 70/30 or even 80/20 insurance split depending on the market or 60/40 insurance in one market can be 70/30 equivalent in a different market, absolute numbers wise. This is why one should be very wary of people who won't share actual numbers of what their reimbursement rates are, collections rate, no show rates, etc. That all matter A LOT if you're paid on production but don't own your own practice, so don't have actual control over many of those factors.

Also remember that the smaller the practice, the fewer people they have to split overhead between. So 2 docs using 1 secretary is much more expensive than 4 docs using one secretary or splitting rent costs or EMR costs or whatever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
I'm also learning a lot here as someone looking for their first job. I've gotten offers from 2 different private equity backed groups who offer attractive first year salaries >300k, and I feel pressured to accept, but the way they handle negotiations feels shady, and obviously their incentives are not aligned with mine.

If one doesn't want to get taken advantage of, but doesn't want to immediately jump to self employment, does hourly locums work make sense? I've been talking to a community mental health clinic looking for a telepsych provider and am negotiating around the $200/hr area.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I'm also learning a lot here as someone looking for their first job. I've gotten offers from 2 different private equity backed groups who offer attractive first year salaries >300k, and I feel pressured to accept, but the way they handle negotiations feels shady, and obviously their incentives are not aligned with mine.

If one doesn't want to get taken advantage of, but doesn't want to immediately jump to self employment, does hourly locums work make sense? I've been talking to a community mental health clinic looking for a telepsych provider and am negotiating around the $200/hr area.
200/hr is reasonable particularly if you can do it remotely via telepsych
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Top