Management Company, Referral Payments, and "Board Certified" Marketing
Dr. Chen is a solo general dentist. A non-dentist investor, Mr. Hale, proposes a "turnkey" arrangement: Hale's management company will own the equipment, lease it to Dr. Chen's professional corporation for $6,000 per month, handle marketing, and receive 18% of the practice's gross collections. Hale will also pay Dr. Chen $100 for every patient who comes from Hale's "dental savings" call center and who completes at least $1,500 of treatment. The marketing plan includes a website describing Dr. Chen as "Board Certified Implant Specialist" (he holds no board certification), a "free whitening for every 5-star Google review" offer, and a coupon for "50% off any crown" without disclosing restrictions. Hale wants the contract signed before the new year to capture "year-end patients." Dr. Chen's accountant says the 18% fee is "standard" and the lease is below market for the space.
1. Identify the fee-splitting and corporate-practice risks in the Hale proposal. Which terms, if any, could be acceptable?
Read the worked answer
The 18% of gross collections paid to a non-dentist is the most serious problem. Connecticut dental practice is built on licensed-dentist ownership and control; a non-dentist management company that takes a percentage of gross revenue can amount to fee splitting and improper control of the dental practice, even if the contract calls the payment a management fee. The $100 per patient who completes $1,500 of treatment is an even clearer per-referral payment and should be rejected outright.
A fair-market-value lease for equipment and office space, or a fixed management fee for identifiable services, is generally more defensible than percentage-of-collections compensation. But the documents must not give the investor control over clinical decisions, patient records, hiring of clinicians, or fee setting. Dr. Chen should have health-care counsel review the full contract, including the non-compete and arbitration provisions, before signing. The accountant's "standard" comment is not a legal opinion.
2. Evaluate the advertising claims and the review incentive under Connecticut law and dental ethics.
Read the worked answer
"Board Certified Implant Specialist" is misleading if Dr. Chen holds no board certification. Connecticut prohibits false or deceptive advertising, and specialty or certification claims must be accurate and capable of substantiation. A general dentist may describe his license and relevant continuing education, but he should not imply specialty status or board certification he does not have.
The "free whitening for every 5-star Google review" offer is also problematic. It conditions a benefit on a positive review, which suppresses honest negative feedback and deceives the public. It may violate advertising and ethics rules and the review platform's policies. The "50% off any crown" coupon must disclose meaningful restrictions, including the usual fee, the treatment period, and any excluded teeth or materials; otherwise it can be a bait-and-switch. The marketing should be revised to accurate, verifiable statements with clear terms.
3. What should Dr. Chen do before signing, and what documents should she preserve?
Read the worked answer
She should not sign on the investor's year-end timetable. She should ask for the complete contract, all fee schedules, the lease, the marketing agreement, and any side letters. She should have Connecticut health-care counsel review whether the arrangement complies with the Dental Practice Act, corporate-practice rules, and fee-splitting prohibitions. She should also confirm who owns the patient records, who sets fees, who controls clinical hiring and firing, and what happens if the management company fails.
She should preserve the original proposal, emails, text messages, the accountant's statement, and any draft advertisements. If she declines, she should document why. If she proceeds with a lawful fixed-fee arrangement, the agreement should be in writing and reflect fair market value. She should not allow the investor to advertise on her behalf without approving accurate copy.