Search

In 1974, following an extensive eight-year review of professional practices in the Province of Quebec, the Professional Code and the 21 professional bills associated with it became operational. Thirty-eight professional corporations encompassing the fields of health, administration, finance, applied sciences and justice were named in the Code, and each was assigned an exclusive mandate to protect the public. The mechanisms outline for controlling professional practice and promoting public service included professional inspection and discipline, as well as regulations regarding ethics, the arbitration of accounts, the keeping of client records, and publicity. This paper discusses the effectiveness of these mechanisms over the past 10-year period. It also looks at the capabilities of the corporations to achieve their mandates in light of the legal status assigned to each--whether that be exclusive right of practice and reserve of title (21 corporations), or reserve of title only (17 corporations).

Even though physicians need business organizations to help them compete for the limited health care dollars, such organizations should be separate from the hospital medical staff. This article points out that the risks in incorporating the medical staff--increased risk of liability for peer review, loss of antitrust defenses, increased risk of malpractice suits, and a number of tax problems--outweigh any perceived benefits.

Recent changes in the American medical care system, such as new forms of practice used by physicians and hospitals, have presented new and uncertain legal issues. This Article discusses these changes and how older legal doctrines, such as the corporate practice of medicine, have become outdated and are in need of change. Furthermore, efforts to remedy these outmoded legal policies are explored as well as ways for the practicing attorney to avoid the problems they cause.

Tax reform legislation through 1987 was analyzed for its impact on whether a partnership form of group practice or a professional corporation form is more advantageous from a federal tax standpoint. The effect of new tax legislation on pension plan contributions and on the deductibility of fringe benefits is delineated and discussed. Several miscellaneous changes in the law affecting group practice modes are discussed. Even though the individual income tax rates are now slightly lower than the corporate income tax rates, there is still life left in the professional corporation form of group practice if the Subchapter S election is made.

In recent years, hospitals have sought greater control and involvement in the delivery of ambulatory care. Hence, they have increasingly sought to acquire physician practices. Such an acquisition must be consistent with legal and regulatory hurdles as well as legitimate business objectives. However, if properly structured, such an arrangement could become a golden opportunity for all involved.

The Revenue Act of 1978 contains several changes in the federal tax laws that affect the business aspects of dental practice as well as the dentist as a individual taxpayer. The dentist as a business person should be aware of the provisions affecting the investment credit, simplified pensions plans, the corporate tax rates, the jobs tax credit, and subchapter S corporations. The dentist as an individual taxpayer should be aware of the new individual tax rates, the general tax credit, changes in the itemized deductions, and the capital gains tax. In addition, all dentists must be aware of the changes in the social security laws. The provisions of the Revenue Act of 1978 presented do not represent every new provision, only those that most directly affect the dentist. Several other provisions of the act must not be overlooked in tax planning or tax preparation. With the changes in the tax laws in mind, the dentist, working with an attornye, accountant, or business advisor, could plan the advantageous ways to expand the practice, purchase new equipment, or shorten the time of tax return preparation.

This article explores the various legal and ethical restrictions governing physician-owned health care ventures to which the physician-investors expect to refer patients. The article also suggests ways to structure such enterprises so as to minimize the risk of liability to the physician-investors as well as to the health care venture itself.