{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021937842778793418, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007312614259597806, 'mean_word_length': 5.2272727272727275, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The case against without-cause termination provisions in provider contracts.

The decision of the California Supreme Court in Potvin v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, issued in 2000, held that a physician who is eliminated from a health plan's network based upon a "without-cause" termination clause in the contract nevertheless may be entitled to fair procedure rights. Although the case did not explain certain elements of the test of substantial economic power, healthcare entities can take precautions in response to the Potvin decision.