Senate subcommittee hears hours of testimony on bill to bar physician noncompetes; debate centers on patient choice vs. health‑system stability

The LCI subcommittee took extensive testimony on House Bill 47‑67, a proposal to declare physician noncompete clauses impermissible and void for contracts entered into or renewed on or after the act’s effective date.

Staff summarized H4767, saying the measure would prohibit geographic and temporal noncompetes and other restrictions (including continuity‑of‑care and patient‑notification covenants named in the bill), while preserving employers’ ability to recover enumerated, documented costs if a physician departs within a specified period and provided those costs are listed in the written agreement at signing. The bill also preserves employer protections for trade secrets and confidential business information.

Multiple physicians and health‑system representatives testified on both sides. Dr. Richard McCain, an orthopedic surgeon with decades of practice, argued noncompetes interfere with the physician‑patient covenant, reduce mobility and can concentrate market power in large systems; he cited workforce concerns (testimony referenced a projected primary‑care shortage of "3,230 by 2030"). Dr. Marcel Hockman, a facial plastic surgeon and past president of the Charleston County Medical Society, urged passage without amendments, framing the bill as a patient‑choice protection and pointing to similar actions in several other states.

Opponents urged caution. A community family medicine physician (addressed in committee as Heber Watson) said hospitals and rural clinics invest heavily to recruit and maintain service lines and that eliminating noncompetes outright could destabilize smaller systems and accelerate private‑equity consolidation in higher‑margin specialties. He advocated a balanced regulatory approach that limits duration and geographic scope or permits negotiated restrictive covenants and repayment terms. The South Carolina Nurses Association (represented by Dr. Stephanie Burgess) urged the panel not to single out physicians and asked that any restriction be extended to APRNs and other providers; she also raised practical enrollment and Medicaid network concerns that can limit access for underserved patients.

Jennifer Montgomery, CEO for Prisma Health’s Midlands market, testified in favor of removing noncompetes, saying her system does not use them and that noncompetes have prevented physicians from continuing to serve communities after practice sales. She described Prisma’s efforts to preserve local access by investing in office space outside contractual geographic limits when physicians were blocked by noncompetes.

Members pressed witnesses on constitutional and practical questions: whether the bill’s prospective application would avoid impairment‑of‑contract challenges, how to define "reasonable" radius and duration across urban and rural contexts, and whether allowable repayment provisions adequately protect employers’ legitimate investments (relocation, education, recruitment). Senators warned the measure could prompt litigation even if applied prospectively. The panel alternated pro and con witnesses and, with the room’s scheduled time expiring, recessed to reconvene later in the State House to complete testimony; no final committee vote on H4767 was taken that day.

The hearing captured the core policy tradeoff: supporters framed the measure as restoring patient choice and physician autonomy, while opponents emphasized system stability, employer investments and the risk of unintended consolidation in health care markets.