Protect Health Care Access From Covenants

Summary#

A-11681 would amend New York’s Public Health Law by adding the “Essential Health Care Access Protection act.” Its goal is to protect access to essential health care services: a court could not order a health care professional to comply with certain post-employment restrictions if the court finds that enforcement would have one of the listed harmful effects. The bill was introduced and referred to the Assembly Health Committee; it is not law.

  • It covers physicians and other health care professionals licensed, certified or registered under Title 8 of New York’s Education Law.
  • It applies to agreements restricting a professional, after a job or other professional relationship ends, from practicing, taking another provider’s job or providing services to another provider.
  • A court must consider listed factors, including affected patients, nearby comparable services, the professionals’ roles, hospital services and continuity of care.
  • The state health commissioner may, if an affected general hospital or professional asks, provide a court with information or an assessment about the effect on access.
  • Confidentiality, trade-secret, proprietary-information and employee non-solicitation terms—and other obligations unrelated to restricting health care services—would not be affected by this section.

What it means for you#

  • Health care professionals: If a former employer seeks a court order enforcing a covered restriction, the court could not grant an injunction or other equitable relief if it finds enforcement would cause one or more of the specified harms. The bill does not itself cancel every such contract term.
  • Hospitals and other health care providers: A provider could not obtain that type of court order when the required finding is made. The bill does not expressly address whether other remedies, such as damages, would be available.
  • Patients and communities: The court would consider effects on patient access, nearby alternatives and continuity of care. This is a rule for court decisions, not a new patient service or guarantee that services will remain available.
  • Courts and the health commissioner: Courts would apply the listed factors and may consider other relevant ones. The commissioner’s input is optional and only available upon request from an affected general hospital or professional.
  • Other contract terms: The bill says it does not affect the specified confidentiality and information-protection terms or other obligations unrelated to restricting health care services.

Money#

No cost estimate or other money information is in the available material.

  • The commissioner may provide information or an assessment, but the bill gives no staffing, cost or funding figures.
  • The bill sets no fee, fine, benefit or appropriation.

What is unclear#

  • The bill does not define “essential health care services,” “essential clinical service,” or “substantial risk.”
  • The current Public Health Law was not supplied, so the existing rules on these covenants and how this proposal would interact with them could not be verified.
  • The bill does not set procedures or deadlines for the commissioner’s assessment, or say how that assessment would be weighed by a court.
  • It does not say whether the restriction on court-ordered equitable relief affects other possible legal remedies.
  • It would apply to requests for court relief made or pending on or after its effective date, but passage is uncertain and the bill has not become law.

Case for#

  • The bill appears intended to prevent enforcement of employment restrictions from materially reducing access to essential services in a community.
  • A possible argument for the approach is that courts could weigh the effects on patients and hospital services before granting an order that limits where a professional may work.
  • The listed factors direct attention to the number of affected patients, available alternatives and continuity of care, rather than treating the contract term alone as decisive.
  • The commissioner’s optional input could give courts information about possible effects on access.

Case against#

  • The bill does not define key terms such as “essential” or “substantial,” leaving important judgments to courts.
  • The catch-all factor allowing courts to consider any other relevant matter may make outcomes harder for professionals and providers to predict.
  • The bill does not explain how its limits on court orders interact with other possible remedies or existing law.
  • The commissioner’s role is optional and has no stated process or deadline, so the bill does not ensure that courts receive an assessment.