As professionals entrenched in the operational and regulatory fabric of the healthcare industry, we understand that structural decisions shape everything from compliance posture to profitability. One structure that has risen in prominence over the past two decades is the Management Services Organization (MSO). For those of us managing growth, legal risk, investor involvement, and clinical delivery at scale, understanding how MSOs work and why they are crucial is not just helpful. It is essential.

This article is a technical deep dive into the MSO framework, written from the perspective of a professional who has worked directly with these entities across specialties and jurisdictions. My aim is to cut through the generalities and offer an in-depth examination of the mechanics, legal justifications, operational advantages, and strategic use cases of MSOs, particularly for those of you navigating multi-state operations, private equity integration, and compliance in a CPOM-constrained environment.

The MSO model has evolved from a niche strategy into a mainstream structural solution that facilitates operational scalability while navigating the regulatory quagmire of the corporate practice of medicine (CPOM). With increasing regulatory oversight, a relentless push for consolidation, and the influx of private capital into healthcare, MSOs are no longer optional for many operator-investors. They are foundational.

What has driven this evolution is not simply a desire for administrative outsourcing. Rather, the rise of MSOs reflects a response to structural limitations embedded within state healthcare laws, particularly those that prohibit the corporate practice of medicine. They also offer a way to separate non-clinical business interests from the delivery of care, enabling greater flexibility in governance, capital formation, and risk allocation.

Over the past decade, I’ve seen MSOs used successfully to launch multi-state specialty platforms, orchestrate complex M&A roll-ups, and maintain strict regulatory compliance amidst aggressive scaling. But I’ve also witnessed how misaligned MSAs, poorly structured ownership models, or insufficient state-level legal diligence can derail even the most promising MSO initiatives. The stakes are high. That’s why this article takes a holistic yet technical approach to how MSOs function and why they truly matter in healthcare.

At its core, a Management Services Organization (MSO) is a legal entity that provides non-clinical, administrative, and business support services to healthcare providers. Importantly, the MSO does not itself provide medical care. Rather, it exists to operate in parallel with the professional entity that employs licensed clinicians. This structural bifurcation is what allows for compliance with CPOM laws while still achieving operational scale.

The MSO typically contracts with a Professional Corporation (PC) or Professional Association (PA) through a Management Services Agreement (MSA). This agreement delineates the scope of services, performance obligations, compensation structure, and governance rights of the MSO. The MSO may provide everything from HR and billing to marketing, IT infrastructure, and facility management. The key principle is that it must not control the clinical judgment of the licensed practitioners.

One of the key distinctions I always emphasize is that MSOs are not just vendors or back-office contractors. They are structurally embedded business partners. Their integration into the day-to-day operations of a practice or platform makes their design and governance highly material. That’s why understanding the MSO’s legal limitations and strategic flexibility is so critical for any investor, operator, or clinician involved in scaling healthcare delivery.

The CPOM doctrine is a legal principle that prohibits non-licensed individuals or entities from practicing medicine or employing physicians to do so. While not uniformly applied across all states, it is enforced strictly in many, including California, Texas, and New York. The doctrine exists to preserve physician-led clinical judgment and protect patients from commercial interference in medical decisions.

For operators and investors, CPOM presents a formidable structural challenge. It prevents business corporations from owning or directly profiting from a clinical practice. This is precisely where the MSO comes into play. The MSO serves as a vehicle for non-clinicians to participate in the economic upside of a clinical operation, without violating CPOM laws. The clinical practice remains owned and controlled by licensed providers, while the MSO captures value through management fees and operational efficiencies.

Each state interprets CPOM differently. In California, for instance, any attempt to exercise control over clinical decisions or to share in clinical revenue may be deemed a violation. In Texas, the law is slightly more nuanced, but the result is the same: non-physicians cannot own or direct medical practices. Given these variations, any MSO structure must be carefully tailored to local legal requirements.

The most common implementation of this structure is the MSO-PC model. In this arrangement, the Professional Corporation (PC) is owned entirely by licensed individuals. The MSO, owned by non-clinicians or entities such as private equity firms, enters into a comprehensive Management Services Agreement (MSA) with the PC.

This MSA typically covers a wide range of services, including everything non-clinical that supports the delivery of care. Importantly, the agreement must be carefully drafted to avoid giving the MSO de facto control over the PC’s medical decision-making. Any such perception of control could expose both entities to legal risk under CPOM laws.

Fee structures within the MSA are often based on fixed fees, cost-plus models, or a percentage of revenue. However, revenue-based fees must be carefully vetted to ensure they do not constitute impermissible fee-splitting or kickbacks. Fair Market Value (FMV) assessments are often used to defend the legitimacy of these arrangements during audits or regulatory inquiries.

A critical design consideration in the MSO model is ownership. While the PC must be owned by licensed providers, the MSO can be owned by anyone, including corporations, investors, or strategic partners. In PE-backed structures, the MSO is often the primary equity vehicle through which returns are realized. The PC, by contrast, is usually controlled through indirect means, such as nominee agreements or stock transfer restriction agreements.

Nominee structures must be handled with care. While technically legal in many jurisdictions, regulators are increasingly scrutinizing arrangements where meaningful clinical authority is lacking. It is essential that the physician owner retains genuine control over clinical decision-making and that governance documents reflect this reality. Otherwise, the entire structure could be deemed non-compliant.

MSOs are often described in terms of administrative outsourcing, but that undersells their strategic value. The modern MSO provides a fully integrated suite of services that touch virtually every aspect of a healthcare organization, with the exception of the clinical encounter itself.

Core services include HR management, payroll administration, facilities management, and revenue cycle management (RCM). In today’s competitive labor market, effective HR functions such as recruiting, onboarding, credentialing, and benefits management are not simply supportive but mission-critical. A well-run MSO can dramatically improve provider satisfaction and retention through operational excellence in these areas.

Technology services are another vital domain. MSOs often manage EHR systems, cybersecurity protocols, interoperability efforts, and telehealth infrastructure. These functions are not just technical add-ons; they are regulatory landmines. A poorly implemented IT system can expose a practice to HIPAA violations or interoperability penalties under CMS rules. The MSO must maintain a high level of sophistication and compliance in managing these systems.

Marketing and front-end engagement services are also increasingly handled by MSOs. These include digital marketing, patient acquisition strategies, call center operations, and brand management. In specialties like dermatology, aesthetics, and urgent care, these services are revenue-critical. When structured correctly, the MSO enables rapid market expansion without placing regulatory burdens on the clinical entity.

One of the most compelling reasons for deploying an MSO structure is scalability. Multi-site operations require standardized systems, consistent policies, and centralized oversight. Trying to achieve this within a traditional physician-owned practice model is not only difficult but often legally impossible due to CPOM constraints.

An MSO provides the platform for scalable, repeatable operations. Whether onboarding a new location or rolling up multiple practices into a cohesive brand, the MSO can drive efficiencies through process automation, shared services, and centralized procurement. I’ve personally overseen MSOs that reduced RCM leakage by 20 percent simply by applying industrial-grade processes to what had previously been a fragmented billing operation.

Private equity has become a dominant force in the healthcare space. MSOs are the structural mechanism through which PE firms enter the market while remaining compliant with CPOM. In a typical transaction, the PE firm acquires the MSO, enters into an MSA with the PC, and receives economic benefit from the platform’s growth.

These deals often involve recapitalization strategies, in which the PE firm invests in a platform, grows it through add-ons, and eventually exits at a higher valuation. MSOs are critical in this strategy because they provide the operational engine needed to absorb acquisitions without losing control or compliance. Without the MSO, most PE strategies in healthcare would be dead on arrival.

MSOs also play an important role in risk mitigation. By separating clinical and non-clinical operations, the structure helps shield investors and business operators from medical malpractice liability. Conversely, clinicians are insulated from liabilities arising from business operations, such as employment disputes or vendor contracts. This delineation of risk enhances insurability and reduces the likelihood of cross-contamination in litigation.

While MSOs are not typically direct participants in physician referrals, they can still trigger regulatory scrutiny under the Stark Law or Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) if not properly structured. Management fees must reflect FMV, and no part of the compensation arrangement can be contingent on the volume or value of referrals.

In structuring these arrangements, we often engage valuation experts to produce independent FMV reports. These documents serve as a critical line of defense in any audit or enforcement action. MSOs should also maintain strict separation between clinical decision-making and any financial incentives tied to the MSA.

Beyond federal regulations, state-specific licensing and entity laws can dramatically impact MSO design. States like California, Massachusetts, and New Jersey maintain tight restrictions on who can operate healthcare entities. In some cases, MSOs may need to register as healthcare service firms, obtain separate business licenses, or navigate tax classifications that differ from those in other sectors.

Failure to comply with these state-level requirements can lead to fines, forced unwinding of deals, or loss of licensure. That’s why we always advise bringing in local counsel early in the structuring phase. Cookie-cutter models are a recipe for disaster in this space.

Perhaps the most common compliance pitfall is fee-splitting. If the MSO’s fee is structured as a percentage of clinical revenue, and if that revenue is tied to referrals or services, regulators may interpret the arrangement as illegal fee-splitting. The risk is even greater if the MSO exerts undue influence over clinical operations.

To mitigate this risk, fee structures should be carefully justified and supported by documentation. Governance documents must also preserve clear clinical decision-making authority. Any appearance that the MSO is directing clinical activities could invalidate the structure and expose all parties to legal penalties.

The formation of an MSO requires more than just registering an LLC and drafting a management agreement. It begins with defining the strategic objectives of the structure. Is the MSO intended to support a single-site practice, or will it serve as the operational hub for a multi-site, multi-specialty platform? Will it be privately held by physicians, or is it designed as an investment vehicle for institutional capital? These decisions will shape every legal, financial, and operational element of the MSO.

In the early stages, careful entity structuring is paramount. This includes not only incorporating the MSO itself but also ensuring that the affiliated PC or PA complies with all state-specific ownership and licensing requirements. Simultaneously, the Management Services Agreement must be developed to reflect the full scope of the relationship between the MSO and the clinical entity. This includes service descriptions, fee structures, duration, termination clauses, and dispute resolution mechanisms.

Another crucial task during formation is capital planning. MSOs often require significant up-front investment in personnel, technology, and infrastructure. Founders must consider how to fund initial operations and whether outside capital will be introduced at inception or at a later stage. A misaligned capital structure at formation can hinder the MSO’s ability to scale or execute transactions down the road.

Once formed, the MSO must operationalize its service offerings. This goes beyond staffing up the administrative team. It involves implementing systems, building out functional departments, and integrating workflows with the affiliated clinical practice. At this stage, the MSO should deploy enterprise-grade systems for HR, billing, scheduling, compliance, and analytics. These systems should be interoperable and capable of supporting future growth.

Standard operating procedures (SOPs) must be developed to ensure consistency and compliance. This includes protocols for patient intake, billing cycle management, IT support, and data security.

Key personnel should be hired with an eye toward specialization. A common mistake I see is over-relying on generalists in the early stages. While flexibility is important, specialized functions such as RCM, legal compliance, and IT security require experienced professionals. Operational excellence begins with the right people and the right processes, and the MSO is no exception.

As the MSO matures, the focus shifts from build-out to optimization. This is where data becomes indispensable. Mature MSOs deploy advanced analytics to track key performance indicators (KPIs) across all departments. Examples include days in AR for billing, patient wait times for scheduling, turnover rates in HR, and uptime metrics for IT systems. These data points allow leadership to benchmark performance and drive continuous improvement.

Another priority during maturation is organizational governance. As the MSO grows in complexity, it must evolve from a founder-led entity into a professionally managed organization. This includes creating a formal board or advisory council, refining executive roles, and implementing internal controls. Without these guardrails, growth can outpace governance, leading to strategic missteps or compliance lapses.

At this stage, many MSOs also begin preparing for potential strategic transactions. This could involve recapitalization, minority investment, or full exit. A well-managed MSO maintains clean financials, robust compliance records, and auditable KPIs. These are critical during due diligence and can materially impact valuation and deal terms.

Exit is often the ultimate goal for investors and founders involved in MSO development. The most common paths include strategic sale to a health system or larger platform, recapitalization with a new investor group, or even a public offering in rare cases. The MSO’s structure plays a critical role in determining what exit options are available and how value is captured.

In a typical private equity-backed MSO, exit occurs through a recapitalization event. The PE firm sells its interest in the MSO to a new investor, often at a significantly higher valuation. The affiliated PC remains legally distinct and under physician control, but the new MSO ownership continues to service the practice through the existing MSA or a newly negotiated agreement.

The key to a successful exit lies in operational and regulatory readiness. Buyers or investors will scrutinize the MSO’s compliance with CPOM laws, the integrity of its MSAs, and the defensibility of its revenue streams. Any red flags, such as control issues, excessive fees, or unresolved litigation, can derail a deal or depress valuation. That is why exit planning should begin years before a transaction, not months.

MSOs are not without risk. One of the most persistent challenges is balancing operational efficiency with regulatory compliance. When MSOs begin to behave like clinical operators by issuing directives, influencing treatment, or controlling schedules, they risk running afoul of CPOM laws. This is not only a legal risk but also a reputational one, especially in an era of increasing transparency and patient advocacy.

Another common pitfall is misalignment between clinical stakeholders and business operators. If physicians feel disempowered or burdened by MSO demands, the relationship can deteriorate quickly. Retaining clinical leadership and involving them in strategic planning helps prevent this type of disintegration.

Private equity involvement adds another layer of complexity. While PE firms bring capital and expertise, they often prioritize growth and profitability in ways that can strain clinical culture. When incentives are not aligned, it can lead to turnover, compliance failures, or suboptimal patient outcomes. That is why experienced governance and clear contractual boundaries are critical.

There is also a growing policy debate around whether MSOs diminish the role of physician-led clinical decision-making or contribute to consolidation in ways that negatively impact patient care. Antitrust scrutiny is intensifying, particularly as large MSO-backed platforms gain market share. We may see future regulatory reforms that affect how MSOs can operate, especially in markets where provider consolidation is already high.

For those of us operating in the complex, high-stakes environment of modern healthcare, MSOs are far more than administrative entities. They are structural enablers of growth, investment, and compliance. But they are also legal minefields if not carefully designed and maintained. The successful MSO is not an afterthought. It is a product of strategic vision, legal precision, and operational excellence.

Whether you are a healthcare executive, legal advisor, investor, or clinician, understanding how MSOs work is no longer optional. It is central to navigating the future of healthcare delivery in a compliant, scalable, and sustainable manner. We must treat MSO design and governance with the same rigor we apply to clinical quality and regulatory adherence. Only then can we unlock their full potential and build healthcare organizations that are truly built to last.

At Collaborating Docs, we understand the operational and regulatory complexities that come with structuring clinical and non-clinical functions in today’s healthcare landscape. As discussed throughout this article, the role of MSOs is to ensure legal separation of business and clinical activities while enabling scalable, compliant healthcare delivery. In many ways, our mission aligns with that objective, particularly when it comes to helping Nurse Practitioners (NPs) and Physician Assistants (PAs) meet their legally required physician collaboration requirements in a compliant, reliable, and scalable way.

Founded by Dr. Annie DePasquale in 2020, Collaborating Docs was built to solve a very specific problem in healthcare: helping advanced practice providers navigate the often-overlooked but legally essential process of securing physician collaborations. Just like the MSO model depends on structural accuracy and regulatory alignment, so too does NP and PA compliance depend on getting these collaborations right the first time. We make that possible.

With over 2,000 collaborating physicians in our national network and more than 5,000 successful matches to date, we provide far more than a transactional service. We focus on high-quality matches, full regulatory compliance, and ongoing support. Whether you’re a solo NP or PA, a growing clinical group, or a national platform supported by an MSO, our service ensures that your clinical operations stay aligned with state laws and licensing requirements.

If your healthcare organization or MSO is scaling across state lines, managing multiple NP or PA teams, or simply looking to tighten your compliance framework, we can help. Collaborating Docs is the premier solution for compliant, effective, and fast physician collaborations.

Let’s get your team matched, compliant, and ready to practice with confidence.
👉 Visit our website to get started or speak with our team today.