Prohibit the Corporate Practice of Medicine
Senate Bill 570 would significantly restrict the corporate practice of medicine in North Carolina by limiting who may own, control, or contract with medical practices. The bill adds definitions for “management services organization” and “stakeholder,” and it bars a professional corporation practicing medicine from sharing stakeholders with a management services organization unless that organization is owned entirely by North Carolina licensees. It also directs the North Carolina Medical Board to require annual certifications confirming compliance with these ownership restrictions.
The bill further requires that physicians retain control over all medical decisions for patient care without clinical interference from non-physicians, stakeholders in management services organizations, or out-of-state physicians or medical professionals affiliated with the practice. It limits the entities through which physicians may practice, generally allowing only professional corporations or PLLCs, certain licensed health care entities, nonprofits/free clinics, HMOs, government and military health systems, and other employers approved by rule. It also creates a complaint and enforcement process, including required employer disclosures, public access to requested bylaws, possible discipline for physicians working for an “unapproved employer,” and potential suspension or revocation of a professional corporation’s registration.
The bill would amend Chapter 55B and Chapter 90 of the General Statutes, especially the laws governing professional corporations and the practice of medicine. It would also expand the North Carolina Medical Board’s rulemaking and enforcement role, and it authorizes consultation with the Attorney General for investigations and enforcement actions. The bill applies prospectively to contracts entered into, modified, or renewed after enactment, with related rules to be adopted by October 1, 2026.
Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, the overall sentiment cannot be measured from formal debate or roll calls. Based on the bill text and title, the measure appears to be framed as a physician autonomy and anti-corporate-control reform, suggesting support from advocates of independent medical judgment. At the same time, the detailed restrictions on ownership, contracting, and management relationships indicate likely concern from hospitals, health systems, management services organizations, staffing firms, and other entities that rely on corporate or nontraditional practice structures.
The main points of contention are likely to be the breadth of the restrictions and the enforcement mechanism. Potentially disputed issues include whether the bill would limit business arrangements that are common in modern health care, whether it could affect staffing flexibility and access to care, and how broadly the Medical Board and Attorney General could police employer relationships. The requirement that employer bylaws and ownership structures be disclosed, and the prohibition on shared stakeholders between practices and MSOs, are likely to be the most controversial provisions.
The bill would amend North Carolina’s professional corporation and medical practice statutes by adding new ownership, contracting, and control requirements for physicians and medical practices. It would restrict corporate and management-services involvement in medical practices, require physician control over clinical decisions, create new certification and disclosure obligations, and authorize the Medical Board to enforce compliance through discipline, registration actions, and rulemaking. These changes would directly affect physicians, professional corporations, professional limited liability companies, hospitals, health systems, staffing companies, management services organizations, and other health care employers.
No committee discussion or vote history is provided, so there is no recorded legislative sentiment to summarize from debate or roll call. From the bill’s language and title, the measure is presented as a pro-physician, pro-clinical-judgment reform intended to curb corporate influence over medicine. The absence of recorded opposition or support in the supplied materials means any broader sentiment can only be inferred from the bill’s framing, not from formal legislative action.
The most likely areas of contention are the bill’s limits on ownership and contracting relationships, especially the ban on shared stakeholders between medical practices and management services organizations unless the MSO is wholly owned by North Carolina licensees. Critics may view the bill as overly restrictive for hospitals, health systems, staffing firms, and MSOs, while supporters are likely to argue it protects independent medical judgment and patient care from non-clinical interference. The enforcement provisions, including public disclosure of bylaws, discipline for working for an unapproved employer, and Attorney General involvement, may also be disputed as potentially burdensome or expansive.