By Kim Stanger
Idaho has amended its restrictive minor consent law effective March 31, 2026.1 A redline showing the changes is available at https://legislature.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/sessioninfo/2026/legislation/H0860E1.pdf. The amendments address many of the concerns raised by the original act, but problems and questions concerning its application remain. Read more
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
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
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
By Kim Stanger
Idaho’s new parental consent law took effect July 1, 2024. Under the new law:
“‘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
This publication is designed to provide general information on pertinent legal topics. The statements made are provided for educational purposes only. They do not constitute legal or financial advice nor do they necessarily reflect the views of Holland & Hart LLP or any of its attorneys other than the author. This publication is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship between you and Holland & Hart LLP. Substantive changes in the law subsequent to the date of this publication might affect the analysis or commentary. Similarly, the analysis may differ depending on the jurisdiction or circumstances. If you have specific questions as to the application of the law to your activities, you should seek the advice of your legal counsel.
View our privacy policy.