Idaho Complete Abortion Ban Set to Take Effect

By Kim Stanger

On Tuesday, July 26, the United States Supreme Court formally issued its judgment in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization; accordingly, Idaho’s complete abortion ban is triggered and set to take effect on August 25, 2022, unless stayed by the Idaho Supreme Court.  The statute prohibits all abortions of a clinically diagnoseable pregnancy except (i) as necessary to save the life of the mother, or (ii) in the case of rape or incest provided that the rape or incest is reported to law enforcement and a copy of the report is given to the physician before the abortion.  (Idaho Code 18-622).  Violations may result in criminal penalties of at least $5,000, from 2 to 5 years in prison, and suspension or revocation of the physician’s license. Read more

Medical Decision-Making for Incapacitated Adult Patients Under Utah Law

By Kristy M. Kimball and Lisa Carlson

Healthcare providers generally are required to have an adult patient’s consent before they can administer any type of medical care, which raises the question: Who has the authority under Utah state law to make medical decisions on behalf of an unconscious (or otherwise incapacitated) adult patient. In treating patients with COVID-19, this concern is particularly relevant, as an intubated patient will be sedated and unable to participate in their own medical decision-making. Therefore, it is critical that healthcare providers determine who holds such authority under the applicable state laws. Read more

Utah Enacts Healthcare Provider Immunity Law to Address COVID-19 Pandemic

By Kristy M. Kimball

On Wednesday, April 22, 2020, Utah Governor Gary Herbert signed into law S.B. 3002, which provides heightened immunity for healthcare providers delivering treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, during a declared major public health emergency (as defined U.C.A. 58-85-106), the law gives civil liability immunity to healthcare providers delivering care to patients having the illness causing the health emergency (in this case, COVID-19), as long as the care is (i) provided in good faith and (ii) not grossly negligent or intentionally or maliciously conducted. Such immunity applies even where the healthcare provider is not a volunteer but is paid for their services. If the public health emergency results in a shortage of health care providers, the bill also provides the aforementioned level of immunity to healthcare providers that are practicing outside their normal scope of practice, but who are otherwise properly licensed for the level of care provided. Read more

Federal and New Mexico Surprise Billing Protections

By Little V. West and Kaitlyn Luck

Surprise billing protections are part of both state and national policy agendas this year in an effort to provide health-care transparency and consumer transparency. New Mexico’s new law now protects consumers by specifically prohibiting health care providers from balance billing, and President Trump also signed an Executive Order with the same goals. New Mexico health care providers need to be aware of federal and state level developments regarding surprise billing because of the significant changes that could result in civil penalties for noncompliance if the proposed federal regulations are adopted.

On the state level, effective January 1, 2020, New Mexico’s Surprise Billing Protection Act (SB 337) (the Act) will generally prohibit providers from submitting a surprise bill to an insured person, or a collection agency, and provides for rights for insureds to appeal a health insurance carrier’s decision regarding a surprise bill. Among other things, the Act aims to prevent insured’s receipt of “surprise bills” by: (1) requiring a health insurance carrier to pay nonparticipating providers for emergency care necessary to evaluate and stabilize a covered person if a prudent layperson would believe such treatment is necessary, without requiring a prior authorization for such services; (2) requiring health insurance carriers to pay, and relieving an insured from liability for payment for, non-emergency care by an out-of-network provider when (a) the insured received care at an in-network facility, but did not have the ability or opportunity to choose an in-network provider who is available to provide covered services, or (b) medically necessary care is unavailable within the health benefit plan’s network; and (3) in nonemergency circumstances, requiring an out-of-network provider, with advance knowledge that the out-of-network provider is out of network, to inform the insured of that fact and to advise the insured person to contact their health insurance carrier to discuss the insured’s options. Balance billing is permitted by out-of-network providers to an individual who knowingly choses to receive services from the out-of-network provider. By July 1, 2020, the Act will require licensed health care facilities to post information about consumers’ rights.

Read more

New Patient Rights Rules for Idaho Hospitals

by Kim Stanger

The Idaho Department of Health and Welfare has implemented new patient rights rules for hospitals effective July 1, 2019.  (See IDAPA 16.03.14.220 to .350).  The rules were advanced by patient advocacy groups and, to a large degree, incorporate standards that parallel—but do not exactly mirror—existing law and/or Medicare conditions of participation for hospitals.  Because many of those regulatory conditions did not apply to critical access hospitals (“CAHs”), CAHs may need to implement new policies and procedures to satisfy the rules.  All Idaho hospitals as well as providers rendering services in hospitals should check their existing policies and practices against the new rules, including the following:

Read more