More Advice on Contract Reviews & an AI Prompt You’ll Love

The Entrepreneur's Life

More Advice on Contract Reviews & an AI Prompt You’ll Love

This past Saturday, I published a post about the five things physicians most commonly overlook when reviewing their own contracts, and why relying on self-review or AI assistance leaves real gaps -- read it here: Five Things You Will Almost Certainly Miss When You Review Your Own Physician Contract -- Even With AI Helping You.

Within hours of that post going out, I received a response from Dr. Mark C. Royer, MD, MBA, a fellow Hoosier,  otolaryngologist, and COO of SpecialtyLocums.com, a physician-led locum tenens platform he runs alongside his CEO and wife, Dr. Allison Royer. Mark had some kind words. He also had substantive, specific pushback, and he gave me permission to publish all of it.

I want to share what he said because it makes Saturday's post better, and because the way Mark framed his feedback is itself a model for how this community is supposed to work.

From Dr. Mark Royer -- published with his permission

"I'm a huge fan of you and your brand. I find your content valuable and read everything you send my way. Your career path and trajectory including your entrepreneurial endeavors, travel/CME with your wife and practice structure have been inspirations and guides for me since we met on my podcast in early 2025. However, I believe the sincerest form of respect is calling out the times when those we admire miss the mark as I believe, with all due respect, you did in this email."

-- Dr. Mark C. Royer, MD, MBA | COO, SpecialtyLocums.com

He was right. And I told him so.

What Mark Said I Missed

Mark's pushback had two distinct parts. The first was about MGMA data and the alternatives to paid access. The second was about what a well-constructed AI prompt can actually do for physician contract review when used correctly. Both are worth taking seriously.

On the MGMA data question, Mark made a point that I acknowledged and should have made in the original post. Compensation benchmarking data -- the data that tells you whether your wRVU rate is above or below market for your specialty and geography -- is notoriously and asymmetrically kept from physicians in favor of health systems. MGMA data has historically been expensive and difficult for individual physicians to access, which is exactly why the information gap exists and exactly why services like Contract Diagnostics provide real value by making it accessible at a fraction of the cost health systems pay to hold it.

But Mark is right that MGMA data is not the only route to fair market value intelligence. He named several free or low-cost alternatives that physicians can use when paid data access is not in the budget:

• Online searches for specialty-specific compensation surveys and published benchmarks

• Private physician Facebook groups where colleagues share compensation data openly

• Residency and fellowship networks where program directors and alumni often have current market knowledge

• Reddit communities focused on physician finance and compensation -- r/physicianfinance in particular has active and knowledgeable participants

• Physicians who offer fair market value opinions as a professional service or as a community contribution -- Mark himself falls into this category

• Companies like Marit Health that focus on providing FMV info to doctors for free.

My response to Mark was that his thinking on this reflects the sophistication of someone running a physician staffing company who has deeply internalized the data landscape. Most individual physicians early in their careers do not know these resources exist, do not have established residency networks yet, and do not have the time or energy to triangulate across multiple informal sources before a contract deadline. That is the gap that professional review fills most efficiently.

But Mark's point is fair: I should have named these alternatives in the original post, and I did not. Consider this Monday's post the correction. If you cannot afford professional contract review right now, those resources above are worth your time before you sign anything.

Related resources

Blog: Five Things You Will Almost Certainly Miss When You Review Your Own Physician Contract (Friday's original post)

Affiliate: Contract Diagnostics -- physician contract review and affordable MGMA-based compensation benchmarking

Blog: When the Hospital Lawyer Says No: Navigating the Five Legal Objections to Physician Independence

Free eBook: PSAs and Employment Lite Guide (subscriber free)

The AI Prompt That Changes What the Tool Can Do

Mark's second point is where this post adds something genuinely new to Saturday’s argument. I said in Saturday's post that AI tools are limited in their usefulness for physician contract review. Mark agreed on the market data limitation -- but pushed back on the text analysis limitation with something concrete: a specific prompt he has developed and uses that dramatically changes what an AI tool produces when applied to a physician employment contract.

I am reproducing it here in full, exactly as he wrote it, because the specificity of the prompt is what makes it work. A generic "review my contract" request to an AI tool produces a generic summary. This prompt produces something much closer to the work a physician contract specialist would do, because it provides the role, the framework, the physician-specific context fields, and the exact four-part output structure that forces the tool to go beyond surface reading into gap analysis and negotiation drafting.

Dr. Mark Royer's physician contract AI review prompt, reproduced with permission

Contract Review Prompt

Role & Task: Act as an elite healthcare attorney specializing in physician employment agreements with over 20 years of experience protecting physicians. Your task is to perform a comprehensive Omission & Gap Analysis as well as a Risk Review of the attached physician employment contract.

 

Context & Physician Profile:

Specialty: [e.g., General Cardiology / Outpatient Pediatrics / Hospitalist]

State of Practice: [e.g., Texas]

Practice Setting: [e.g., Private Practice / Health System / Academic Medical Center]

Key Priorities/Concerns: [e.g., Call burden, tail coverage costs, restrictive covenants]

 

Instructions: Read the contract against an ideal, highly protective "Physician Golden Template." Do not just analyze what is explicitly written; actively flag what is absent that exposes the physician to unmitigated risk.

 

Structure your analysis into the following four clear sections:

 

1. Critical Omissions & Missing Protections (Gap Analysis)

Identify standard or protective clauses that are completely missing or vaguely stated in this agreement. Specifically check for and highlight the absence of:

- Malpractice & Tail Coverage: Who pays for tail insurance upon termination (for cause vs. without cause)? Is there missing language requiring the employer to cover tail if they terminate without cause?

- Compensation & Bonus Transparency: Are metrics, formulas, audit rights, or payment schedules for RVU/quality bonuses omitted? Is "call pay" missing or left to "employer discretion"?

- Termination & Cure Periods: Is there a missing "right to cure" (typically 30 days) before termination for cause? Is there a bilateral "without cause" notice period?

- Duties & Allocation: Is there a missing cap on clinical vs. administrative hours, patient volume, or call-coverage ratios? Is there missing language guaranteeing specific practice locations?

- Post-Termination & IP Rights: Is there an absence of carveouts for physician-owned intellectual property, pre-existing patient relationships, or academic works?

 

2. Ambiguous & High-Risk Language Analysis

For clauses that are present, highlight problematic, one-sided, or overly broad terms:

- Restrictive Covenants: Non-compete radius, duration, practice type restrictions, and non-solicitation scope.

- Indemnification & Breach: Unilateral liability placed on the physician.

- Without-Cause Termination: Asymmetric notice periods (e.g., physician must give 180 days, employer only 30 days).

 

3. Strategic Risk Matrix

Organize the top findings into a quick-reference table:

Issue / Clause | Status (Missing or Problematic) | Risk Level (High/Med/Low) | Physician Exposure & Scenario

 

4. Exact Negotiation Counter-Proposals & Insertion Drafts

Provide specific, actionable wording and contract addenda to address each major risk or missing clause:

- For Missing Clauses: Draft the exact contractual paragraph(s) to insert into the contract.

- For Problematic Clauses: Provide specific redline revisions (struck-through text to delete, bold text to add).

This prompt addresses oversight number five from Saturday's post directly: the missing provisions problem. By telling the AI to read the contract against a "Physician Golden Template" and actively flag what is absent rather than only analyzing what is present, it reorients the tool toward exactly the gap analysis that generic AI contract review fails to do.

The output you get from a well-specified prompt like this is substantially more useful than what you get from pasting a contract into ChatGPT and asking whether anything looks concerning. Mark is right about this. And his prompt is better than most of what I have seen in this space, specific enough in its four-part structure to produce something that actually functions as a first-pass review document rather than a generic summary.

My position from Saturday’s post still stands on the market data limitation: no AI tool, regardless of how well the prompt is constructed, has access to current, specialty-specific, geographically adjusted compensation benchmarks. The prompt above will produce excellent gap analysis and flagging of problematic language. It will not tell you whether your wRVU rate is competitive in your market. That still requires data the tool does not have.

But Mark's prompt closes a real portion of the AI contract review gap. I am glad he shared it, I am glad I asked for his permission to publish it, and I recommend you save it.

Related resources

Blog: The Third Kind of Income Most Physicians Never Think About

Tool: PEA Retained Income Assessment

Free eBook: 12 Tax Secrets Every Physician Entrepreneur Should Know (PEA Builder)

Affiliate: Earned Wealth Management -- physician wealth management including compensation structure guidance

What This Exchange Is Actually About

Mark closed his email with something I want to quote directly, because it captures what I hope PEA is and what I try to build toward every week:

From Dr. Mark Royer

"You provide resources and tools to our colleagues that are valuable. You personally live the life many of us aspire to. I wish you would have included these other options as a 'next best alternative' if someone doesn't have the resources to engage Contract Diagnostics. I hope you'll take my feedback to heart, pushback if you believe I'm out of line or share with your community if you think I have a valid point."

-- Dr. Mark C. Royer, MD, MBA | COO, SpecialtyLocums.com

Here is what I told Mark in my reply, and I mean it: PEA is not set up as me being the expert with all the answers and everyone else receiving them passively. That is not what makes a community valuable. What makes it valuable is the mutuality:  the physician who has built a locum tenens company and lives inside the compensation data landscape every day, having a different view than the rural family physician who built a micro-corporation in Indiana and writes about it three days a week. Both views add something. Neither one is complete without the other.

Mark pushed back respectfully, specifically, and constructively. He offered better information. He identified a real gap in what I published and named it clearly. That is not a threat to what this community is trying to do. That is what this community is trying to do.

The final word from our exchange came after Mark clarified that Dr. Allison Royer is actually the CEO;  he is COO. I told him he has a great boss in Allison, and that you have to love a family-run business. He did not disagree.

Related resources

Blog: Saying Yes to Self-Employment Is Not a Career Move. It's an Identity Decision.

Blog: Ownership: The Key to Physician Freedom

Free eBook: Design Your Career Around Your Life: The Physician's Guide to Professional Freedom (subscriber free)

Free guide: Dare to Dream: Goal-Setting Guide for Physician Entrepreneurs (subscriber free)

Is This Deductible?

Professional Contract Review Fees Paid Through Your S-Corp

Deductible -- ordinary and necessary business expense

The scenario: You pay $500 to Contract Diagnostics for a professional review of your employment contract or professional services agreement before signing. You pay through your professional corporation's business account. Is this deductible?

The ruling: Yes. Professional fees paid in connection with reviewing, negotiating, or establishing contracts that govern your professional income are ordinary and necessary business expenses under IRC Section 162. A physician contract review fee paid by your professional corporation is directly connected to generating and protecting the clinical income the corporation earns. Pay it from your S-Corp business account, not personally. Keep the receipt and document the contract reviewed and the business purpose. Your bookkeeper should categorize it under professional fees or legal and consulting costs.

The broader principle: Any professional advisory fee—legal, accounting, contract review, business consulting -- that is directly connected to the operation of your professional corporation belongs in the corporation, not on your personal credit card. Every dollar you pay personally for a cost that could have run through the PC is a dollar paid with after-tax money instead of pre-tax corporate dollars. The $500 contract review fee that saves you $39,000 per year in compensation gap is both a deductible business expense and one of the highest-return professional investments you can make.

For physician S-Corp business expense guidance, see the free eBook Tax Deduction Guide for Micro-Business Owners (PEA Explorer) and connect with DocWealth

Join the movement

Thank you, Mark. The post is better for your feedback. The community is better for the kind of engagement you modeled.

If you read Saturday’s post and want the most useful free starting point before signing a contract, save Mark's AI prompt above and use it with your current contract in ChatGPT or Claude. Fill in the four context fields with your specialty, state, practice setting, and key concerns. It will produce a more useful document than any generic contract summary you have seen from an AI tool.

If you want current, geographically adjusted market compensation data for your specialty -- the one thing the prompt cannot provide -- Contract Diagnostics is still the most accessible route to that information at a cost that is a fraction of what the data gap typically costs over the life of a contract.

And if you have feedback, pushback, or expertise that would make this community better, send it. The email is [email protected]. I read everything, and I publish the best of it with your permission.

Book a $500 Business Strategy Session when you are approaching a contract signing or renegotiation and want the full picture -- compensation benchmarking, contractual structure, the employment versus independent contractor question, and the retained income implications of how your compensation is structured. Join the PEA community at $99/year for Explorer membership. The best content in this community comes from the physicians in it as much as from me.