Physicians across New York are increasingly approached with MSO partnership proposals, often tied to a practice transition, acquisition, or growth plan. The concept is usually explained in a straight story, however, in real life, it’s much simpler.
An MSO model is an operating structure that separates clinical decision making, which must remain with licensed professionals, from non-clinical business operations that can be run by a business organization. In a compliant model, the MSO doesn't create new clinical obligations for physicians. Its role is operational support under clearly defined agreements. The point is to keep boundaries clear and make operations easier to run and scale.
This is a practical overview of the questions physicians ask most often in New York, especially around responsibility, liability, and what actually changes day to day.
Why MSO Partnerships Break: And How to Prevent It
An MSO is a business entity that provides non-clinical services to a professional practice. Common MSO functions include staffing and payroll administration, benefits administration, revenue cycle workflow support, billing operations support, scheduling systems, call center operations, patient intake workflows, marketing operations, technology systems, analytics and reporting, vendor management, procurement, facilities support, and non-clinical compliance operations such as training systems and documentation workflows.
The medical practice entity remains responsible for the clinical side: patient care, medical judgment, supervision, credentialing, and clinical quality. A well run model makes those lines obvious, not blurry.
Successor Physician Arrangements and Why They Exist
This should be answered carefully and precisely.
A lawsuit doesn’t automatically threaten a medical license. In New York, professional discipline is generally tied to professional misconduct and violations of professional standards. Being involved in a civil dispute, or being an owner of an entity involved in litigation, doesn’t by itself trigger license discipline.
Civil liability and professional discipline are different tracks. A civil claim, including malpractice litigation, is different from professional discipline. Civil claims are about damages and legal liability. Discipline is about professional standards and regulator review.
The practice can be sued is true, but that’s not the same as license loss. Entities get sued, Practices get sued and physicians can be named. However, that fact alone doesn’t equal license risk. What matters is the underlying conduct and whether professional standards were violated.
A practical nuance without panic. Physician responsibility is usually tied to the patients a physician treats and the care a physician provides. There are also scenarios where exposure can extend beyond that narrow frame, such as supervision, coverage, documentation, ordering, or leadership roles with real oversight duties. That’s why governance clarity and clinical systems matter.
When physicians worry about lawsuits, they usually mix two separate concerns.
One is clinical discipline which is a regulator and professional standards topic. The other is financial liability and that’s where insurance matters.
Most practices operate with a combination of coverages, and the details vary by carrier and contract, but the common building blocks in New York look like this:
Professional liability or malpractice coverage. Practices and physicians typically carry malpractice coverage to defend claims and pay covered losses, subject to policy terms. This is the core protection for clinical claims, so if a physician is working through a practice, the practice’s policy may cover employed physicians and may also cover certain contracted physicians depending on structure, policy language, and how the physician is engaged.
Entity coverage and who gets named. In many lawsuits, the plaintiff names multiple parties: the treating physician, the practice entity, and sometimes owners or managers. Being named doesn’t mean the claim is valid. It does mean you want the defense obligation and indemnity structure to be clear.
Independent contractor physicians and coverage. If a physician provides services as an independent contractor (1099), it’s common for that physician to carry their own malpractice policy and for the services agreement to spell out insurance requirements clearly. A typical setup is the:
Tail coverage and transitions. When a physician leaves a practice or when employment status changes, tail coverage can matter depending on whether the policy is claims made or occurrence based. Tail is one of the few insurance topics that can surprise physicians if it isn’t discussed early.
5.
General liability and other nonclinical coverages. Separate from malpractice, practices usually carry general liability coverage for premises issues and related non-clinical risks. Many also carry cyber coverage and employment practices coverage depending on size and risk profile.
6.
What insurance does and does not do. Insurance is mainly about defense and financial protection. It doesn’t make clinical standards irrelevant or turn professional discipline into a non-issue. However, it does reduce the financial panic that often gets mixed into these conversations. Policies, limits, and who is covered can vary materially by carrier, policy type, and how physicians are engaged (employee versus independent contractor). Before signing, physicians should confirm coverage details directly with the practice’s insurance broker and New York healthcare counsel, and make sure the employment or services agreements match the insurance requirements in writing, including any additional insured language and tail coverage responsibilities where applicable.
A separate worry is the assumption that any claim permanently damages a physician record. Certain events, such as malpractice payments in specific circumstances, can be reportable to national systems depending on the facts and structure. Reporting systems and professional discipline are not the same thing and have different triggers. This is one reason mature platforms push for clean documentation, consistent workflows, and clear supervision and coverage policies.
In a compliant model, an MSO should NOT:
Good agreements make this boring and explicit.
Physicians are right to ask how MSO fees are set. In a compliant model, fees should be supportable as fair market value (FMV) and commercially reasonable for real non-clinical services actually delivered.
If the MSO provides more services over time, the agreement should allow fee adjustments tied to operational scope changes such as added locations, increased administrative complexity, additional technology modules, expanded nonclinical services, or increased staffing support. The adjustment logic should stay operational rather than clinical. Any adjustments should be documented in writing and supported by the expanded scope of non-clinical services actually being provided.
In New York, the biggest problems in physician MSO transactions usually come from unclear roles, weak governance, poor documentation, misaligned expectations, or legal noise becoming the decision maker because the operating plan is vague.
When roles are clear, governance is polished, and operations are disciplined, the structure becomes predictable and workable.
Disclaimer: This article is for general educational purposes and is not legal advice. Every transaction is fact specific. Physicians should consult qualified New York healthcare counsel regarding CPOM, contracting, insurance, and professional responsibility questions.
Practice may require being listed as an additional insured where appropriate.
