Biting or Toothless? What Dentists Need to Know About Non-Competition and Non-Solicitation Agreements in 2022
Jordan Uditsky • April 20, 2022
We live in a free-market economy based on fair competition and the principle that everyone should be able to make a living in their chosen occupation or profession. Accordingly, the law is not a fan of any restrictions that infringe on otherwise legal business activities or limit competition. Nevertheless, that hasn’t stopped business owners in all sectors of the economy, including dentistry, from trying to restrict what employees can do after they part ways by inserting non-competition and non-solicitation provisions in their employment contracts.
But in Illinois, such restrictive covenants are often not worth the paper they’re printed on.
Not only have Illinois courts over the years rejected and refused to enforce non-competition agreements that they deem unreasonably broad and oppressive, but amendments to Illinois law that became effective on January 1, 2022 explicitly prohibit non-competition and non-solicitation agreements for whole classes of employees.
As lawyers for the dental profession, we often get questions about what restrictions dentists can face from or impose on colleagues after they leave a practice. And while narrowly tailored non-competition and non-solicitation provisions can still be enforceable, those that are poorly drafted or violate the new law can give a practice owner a false sense of security, or cause a dentist to needlessly reject job offers or other opportunities.
Therefore, practice owners and dentists alike should understand precisely what Illinois law permits and what it doesn’t when it comes to restrictive covenants
Non-Competition and Non-Solicitation Aren’t The Same Things
People often use the term “non-compete” interchangeably for two related but distinct limitations on future business and employment activities. But non-competition provisions and non-solicitation clauses are very much different, and judges and the law treat them as such.
Typically, a non-competition provision in a dental employment agreement will purport to restrict a dentist’s ability to practice within a specified geographic area for a set time. For many dentists, the effect of such a provision, if enforceable, is that they will not be able to treat any patients in the identified area until the end of that designated period.
Non-solicitation provisions, on the other hand, only limit a dentist’s ability to actively and directly lure or “poach” patients or employees of their former employer over to their new practice, though they are free to set up shop and treat patients. Importantly, practice owners can’t ethically stop a current patient from going to a former dental associate for treatment on their own if the dentist did not actively solicit them.
2021 Changes In The Law
For decades, Illinois judges have not hesitated to hold restrictive covenants in employment agreements unenforceable or modify them to make them more limited, especially if they are overly broad, unsupported by sufficient consideration, or involve lower-wage workers.
Amendments to the Illinois Freedom to Work Act passed on May 31, 2021 place further limits on the validity and enforceability of non-competition and non-solicitation agreements. These new restrictions apply to all contracts and provisions dated on or after January 1, 2022.
Non-Competes and Non-Solicitation Agreements Prohibited For Certain Employees
Perhaps the most straightforward and significant part of the amendments is that they completely prohibit non-competes and non-solicitation agreements for employees whose income is below a specific threshold. Specifically:
- Non-competition agreements are invalid and unenforceable as to employees whose expected annual earnings are less than $75,000.
- Customer/employee non-solicitation agreements are invalid and unenforceable as to employees who have expected annual earnings of less than $45,000.
These baseline income amounts are set to increase in 2027 and every five years thereafter. Given that the majority of dental employment agreements involve compensation above the foregoing limits, it is the law’s other elements that are more likely relevant to the evaluation of a restrictive covenant’s enforceability
A Restrictive Covenant Must Protect a “Legitimate Business Interest” Considering the “Totality of Circumstances”
One of the fundamental principles Illinois judges have used to evaluate the validity of restrictive covenants is to assess the facts and circumstances surrounding a provision and decide whether the limits on competition or solicitation are narrowly tailored to protect an employer’s “legitimate business interests.”
The changes to the law reflect and codify this fact-specific approach. The statute now explicitly states that ‘the same identical contract and restraint may be reasonable and valid under one set of circumstances and unreasonable and invalid under another set of circumstances.” The amended law establishes several factors that a judge may consider when determining whether the employer has a legitimate business interest, including:
- The employee's exposure to the employer's customer relationships or other employees
- The near-permanence of customer relationships
- The employee's acquisition, use, or knowledge of confidential information through the employee's employment
- The time restrictions, the place restrictions, and the scope of the activity restrictions.
Adequate, Independent Consideration Required
An agreement or contract of any kind – including those involving restrictive covenants - must be supported by adequate consideration to be enforceable. Under the amended statute, “adequate consideration” for a restrictive covenant in a dental employment agreement means:
- The dentist worked for the practice for at least two years after signing an agreement containing a non-compete or non-solicitation covenant, or
- The practice otherwise provided consideration adequate to support a covenant not to compete or solicit, such as a set period of employment and additional compensation or benefits.
Judges Can Still Revise Overly Broad Restrictive Covenants
The new law also codifies the discretion judges have used to reform and rewrite overly broad or otherwise legally deficient covenants – a practice known as “blue penciling” - rather than holding the entire covenant unenforceable.
Proposed or existing dental non-competition agreements can’t be evaluated in a vacuum; they must be drafted carefully and in the context of the specific practice and the market in which its provisions would be enforced. Any dentist wishing to or asked to enter into a non-competition agreement should consult with an experienced attorney who can help them make informed decisions about their rights.
You Focus On Your Patients. We’ll Focus On You.
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, and this blend of legal, business, and personal experience provides Jordan with unique insight into his clients’ needs, concerns, and goals.
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.
