The American Medical Association’s house of Delegates voted June 12 to oppose noncompete contracts for physicians in clinical practice who are employed by hospitals, hospital systems or staffing companies.

It noted physicians who are employers and owners of physician practices may favor the use of reasonable noncompetes; however, employed physicians may believe that noncompetes need to be banned outright.

“Allowing physicians to work for multiple hospitals can enhance the availability of specialist coverage in a community, improving patient access to care and reducing healthcare disparities,” said Ilse Levin, AMA Board of Trustees member, in a press release.

Noncompete agreements in the healthcare system affect up to 45% of primary care physicians. And recently graduated trainees entering the workforce may be especially vulnerable to the negative effects of noncompete contracts. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education already prohibits restrictive covenants as a contingency for residents or fellows participating in any graduate medical education training program, according to the AMA. Still, there are non-ACGME fellowship programs that require trainees to sign restrictive covenants as a condition for employment.

The AMA also noted noncompetes are already prohibited outright in several states: California, North Dakota and Oklahoma. Additional states ban noncompetes specifically for physicians: New Hampshire, Delaware, Massachusetts and Rhode Island.

Recently, the Federal Trade Commission called on a ban on noncompetes overall, and the move has raised concerns in the staffing industry. The general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board has also come out against noncompetes.

Earlier this year, the American Hospital Association has come out in favor of noncompete clauses.

Noncompetes are agreements in employment contracts that prohibit employees from working for competitor companies after their current employment for a specified amount of time and within a specified geography.