The “Free MRI” Marketing Deal
Dr. P. opens a new clinic and contracts with a marketing company that charges $75 for each new patient who mentions the ad. The ad says: “100% CURE for asthma and allergies-no drugs, no surgery!” It also calls Dr. P. a “Board-certified spinal decompression specialist,” although no such board certification exists. The office offers a “free MRI”-actually a $200 voucher toward imaging at a center owned by Dr. P.’s brother-in-law; Dr. P. receives 20% of the center’s monthly revenue. Patients who pay cash get a 20% discount, and the front desk tells insured patients to submit the full charge to their insurer and “keep the difference.” Dr. P. also pays a local gym $50 for each patient referral. A competing chiropractor files a Board complaint.
1. Identify the advertising violations and explain why each claim is risky under Ohio chiropractic advertising rules.
Read the worked answer
The ad has several problems. “100% CURE for asthma and allergies” is false or misleading and suggests a guarantee; chiropractic care does not cure asthma. “Board-certified spinal decompression specialist” implies a credential that does not exist, which is deceptive. The “free MRI” is not free if it is a $200 voucher tied to a center in which Dr. P. has a financial interest; the ad must disclose the material terms. The Board’s advertising rules require truthful, non-deceptive statements and prohibit claims of superior results or cure. Dr. P. should revise the ad to describe services accurately, avoid guarantees, identify himself by license, and disclose any financial interest if he continues the voucher. The Board may treat the ad as a violation even without proof that a patient was harmed, because the risk is deception.
2. Analyze the fee-splitting and billing issues, including the marketing fee, the gym payments, the imaging revenue, and the cash-pay instruction.
Read the worked answer
Paying the marketing company $75 per new patient who mentions the ad is a per-patient inducement; if the payment is for referral rather than bona fide advertising, it looks like fee splitting. Paying the gym $50 per referral is even clearer: remuneration for sending patients is prohibited. Receiving 20% of the imaging center’s revenue is a financial interest in referrals to that center and must be disclosed; depending on the arrangement, it may be an illegal fee split or self-referral. The “keep the difference” instruction is insurance fraud and a billing violation; it also encourages patients to misrepresent the charge. The Board can discipline for fee splitting, false billing, and unprofessional conduct. Dr. P. should unwind the per-referral payments, get a legal review of the imaging arrangement, and correct the billing practice.
3. What should Dr. P. expect from the Board investigation, and what corrective steps should he take now?
Read the worked answer
Dr. P. should expect the Board to request the advertising copy, the marketing and gym contracts, the imaging center agreement, billing records, and patient files. He should not alter or destroy documents. He should cooperate, retain counsel, and prepare a written response. Possible grounds include false advertising, fee splitting, and fraud or deceit. The Board may propose a consent agreement with a reprimand, fine, probation, or practice restrictions, or it may issue a notice and hold a hearing. Because some conduct could also be insurance fraud, he may face referral to law enforcement or the insurer. Corrective action-revising ads, ending per-referral payments, refunding improper charges-may mitigate but does not erase the violations. He should not continue the arrangements while the complaint is pending.