Archive for category: Idaho Healthcare Law

By Kim Stanger

A new Idaho law gives a broad private cause of action to actual or alleged whistleblowers in the healthcare industry.  The statute will increase the risk and cost to health care employers and organizations who want to take any kind of adverse action against employees, contractors, medical staff members, or other individuals no matter how much such action is warranted.

I. Conscience Protections. The new Medical Ethics Defense Act, Idaho Code § 54-1301 et seq., generally protects the conscience rights of healthcare providers.  Under the statute, “[h]ealth care providers¹ … shall not be required to participate in … a medical procedure, treatment, or service that violates such health care provider’s conscience.” ²  (I.C. § 54-1304(1)).  Furthermore, “[n]o health care provider shall be discriminated against in any manner as a result of exercising the right of conscience….”  (Id. at § 54-1304(6)).

“Discrimination” or “discriminated against” means any adverse action taken against, or any threat of adverse action communicated to, any health care provider as a result of exercising [conscience] rights pursuant to sections 54-1304 and 54-1305, Idaho Code. Discrimination includes but is not limited to any penalty or disciplinary or retaliatory action, whether executed or threatened….

(Id. at § 54-1303(2)).  The language is quite broad:  in addition to adverse employment action, it would likely extend to adverse contract, credentialing, and other actions against contractors, medical staff members, and persons with clinical privileges. Read more

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