Police-Ordered Blood Draws In Idaho

/in

By Kim Stanger

Law enforcement officers often request or demand that Idaho hospitals draw blood or conduct other tests on patients for law enforcement purposes; nevertheless, the general rule remains that patients (including persons in custody of the police) have the right to consent to or refuse their own healthcare, including blood draws or tests. (See I.C. § 39-4503). In addition, HIPAA limits the ability of healthcare providers to disclose information to police unless a HIPAA exception applies. (45 C.F.R. § 164.502). Accordingly, tests generally should not be performed and test results should not be disclosed to the police without the patient’s consent absent a court order or statutory authority. In the case of minors or incompetent patients, the healthcare provider must generally obtain the consent of the minor’s parent or other legally authorized representative. (See I.C. §§ 32-10151 and 39-4504). Read more

Idaho’s New Crisis Hold Law

/in

By Kim Stanger

Idaho’s new crisis hold statute takes effect October 1, 2024, and allows hospitals to temporarily detain “persons with a neurocognitive disorder who are in acute crisis due to an unidentified underlying medical condition [so they] can get the care they need and return home once the underlying medical condition is resolved.” (I.C. § 56-21011). The new statute was intended to help fill a gap created by recent amendments to Idaho’s mental hold statute. Although the new law does not provide a long-term solution for such patients, it is a step in the right direction.

MENTAL v. CRISIS HOLDS. As a general rule, hospitals must have informed consent from a competent patient or, if the patient lacks capacity to consent, from the patients’ legally authorized surrogate decision-maker2 to detain a patient and/or render necessary care. (I.C. §§ 39-4503 and -4504). If the patient or the patient’s surrogate decision-maker consents to care, there is generally no need for a mental or crisis hold: the hospital may provide care based on the patient’s or personal representative’s consent. In some cases, however, it may be necessary to initiate a mental or crisis hold to detain the patient because the patient objects to needed care, lacks capacity to consent, or consent cannot be obtained from a surrogate decision-maker. Initiating a hold may also help ensure a payer source for the care rendered. Read more

Idaho’s New Parental Consent Law: FAQs

/in

By Kim Stanger

Idaho’s new parental consent law took effect July 1, 2024. Under the new law:

  • “[A]n individual shall not furnish a health care service or solicit to furnish a health care service to a minor child without obtaining the prior consent of the minor child’s parent.”1
  • “[N]o health care provider or governmental entity shall deny a minor child’s parent access to health information that is [i]n such health care provider’s or governmental entity’s control….”2

“‘Minor child’ means an individual under eighteen (18) years of age but does not include an individual who is an emancipated minor.”3 Parents may sue healthcare providers and other individuals who violate the law.4 For more information about the law, see our articles at New Limits on Minor Consents in Idaho, Blanket Consents Under Idaho’s New Minor Consent Law, and Idaho’s New Parental Access Law v. HIPAA. In the meantime, here are my answers and, in some cases, my best guesses in response to common questions I receive concerning the law. Read more

Supreme Court Restores the EMTALA Exception to Idaho’s Abortion Ban for Now

/in ,

By Kim Stanger and Cameron McCue

On June 27, 2024, the United States Supreme Court temporarily restored the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) exception to Idaho’s abortion ban. As a result, Idaho hospitals may perform abortions in EMTALA cases when necessary to preserve the health of the pregnant woman.

How We Got Here. In 2022, the United State Department of Justice (DOJ) brought a lawsuit challenging Idaho’s abortion statute in cases in which EMTALA applies. In August 2022, the federal District Court of Idaho entered a preliminary injunction that prohibited Idaho from enforcing its broad abortion ban in EMTALA cases pending resolution of the DOJ’s lawsuit. (See Order, available here: https://f.datasrvr.com/fr1/822/74681/Winmill-abortion-injunction-decision_(003).pdf). Idaho appealed to the 9th Circuit, which first lifted then restored the preliminary injunction. Idaho then sought immediate relief from the United States Supreme Court, which agreed to take the case and stayed the District Court’s injunction. However, last week, the Supreme Court changed its mind and, in a per curiam decision, concluded that it had improvidently agreed to take the case and sent the matter back to the lower courts for further proceedings. In so doing, the Supreme Court vacated its order staying the District Court injunction, thereby restoring the injunction, which effectively, if temporarily, allows Idaho hospitals to perform abortions in EMTALA cases. A copy of the Supreme Court’s decision is available here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-726_6jgm.pdf. Read more

Idaho Medical Lien Statute: Important Changes

/in

By Kim Stanger

Since 2020, healthcare providers have struggled to reconcile Idaho’s medical lien law with the Idaho Patient Act (IPACT). The lien statute allows healthcare providers who render treatment to a person injured by the acts of a third party to file a lien against the liable third party to recover their fees; to be effective, the lien had to be filed within 90 days of the last date of services.1 But filing a medical lien constituted an “extraordinary collection action” under IPACT, and IPACT generally prohibited taking such actions until after the 90-day period for filing the medical lien expired.2 Net result: providers had to choose between the lien or potential IPACT penalties.

Effective March 28, 2024, the Idaho legislature resolved the dilemma by permitting compliant medical liens so long as they are filed under new time limits in the lien statute. Read more