The California legislature recently introduced legislation, SB 351, that would impact private equity or hedge funds managing physician or dental practices in California. The bill is similar to a portion of California legislation from last year, AB 3129, which targeted private equity group and hedge fund management of medical practices. Last year, AB 3129 passed in the legislature but was vetoed by the Governor before becoming law. The introduction of SB 351 is part of a continuing trend in California and across the country in examining the influence of private equity investment in medical practices.
What Does SB 351 Do?
SB 351 is intended to ensure health care providers maintain control of clinical decision-making and treatment choices and to limit the influence of private equity or hedge fund influence or control over care delivery in the state.
SB 351 would codify and reinforce existing guidance relating to the prohibition on the corporate practice of medicine and dentistry. Specifically, SB 351 would prohibit a private equity group or hedge fund involved in any manner with a California physician or dental practice from interfering with professional judgment in making health care decisions or exercising control of certain practice operations.
Under the proposed legislation, prohibited activities include: determining the diagnostic tests appropriate for a particular condition; determining the need for referrals to other providers; being responsible for the ultimate care or treatment options for the patient; and determining the number of patient visits in a time period or how many hours a physician or dentist may work. Exercising control over a practice would include the following types of activities: owning or determining the content of patient medical record; selecting, hiring, or firing physicians, dentists, allied health staff, and medical assistants based on clinical competency; setting the parameters of contracts with third-party payors; setting the parameters for contracts with other physicians or dentists for care delivery; making coding and billing decisions; and approving the selection of medical equipment and supplies.
In addition, SB 351 would limit the ability of a private equity or hedge fund to restrict a provider or practice from engaging in competitive activities. SB 351 would prohibit a private equity group or hedge fund from explicitly or implicitly barring any practice provider from competing with the practice in the event of a termination or resignation of that provider from that practice. The bill would also prohibit a private equity group or hedge fund from barring a provider from disparaging, opining, or commenting on issues relating to quality of care, utilization, ethical or professional changes in the practice of medicine or dentistry, or revenue-increasing strategies employed by the private equity group or hedge fund. The California Attorney General would be entitled to injunctive relief and other equitable remedies for enforcement of the provisions of SB 351.
SB 351 contains some of the provisions that were included in AB 3129 relating to management of physician and dental practices but does not include the same breadth of limitations that were in AB 3129. Notably, SB 351 does not require the notice to and consent of the California Attorney General for certain private equity health care transactions. SB 351 also does not extend to hedge fund or private equity involvement with psychiatric practices. The scope is limited to private equity or hedge fund involvement with a physician or dental practice.
What Happens Next?
SB 351 will continue to make its way through the California legislature this year and may undergo further amendments throughout the process. Similar to AB 3129, SB 351 may garnish sufficient support to be passed by the California legislature.
The reintroduction of this legislation in California demonstrates the continuing national focus on private investment in medical practices across the country and the limitation on restrictive covenants. Management organizations and professional entities in California should review their existing arrangements to ensure compliance with applicable laws and existing corporate practice restrictions. Given the continued interest in the California legislature in addressing these issues, it may be prudent to proactively align those arrangements with the limitations in SB 351. We will continue tracking SB 351’s progress.