Disclaimer
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.
Privacy Policy
View our privacy policy.
Idaho Abortion Laws: Frequently Asked Questions
/in Idaho Healthcare LawBy Kim Stanger
If you are struggling to understand Idaho abortion law in the wake of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, you are not alone. For years, the Idaho legislature has enacted a patchwork of overlapping and sometimes conflicting statutes in response to or in anticipation of federal abortion cases. Dobbs has suddenly given those statutes life, forcing healthcare providers (and their attorneys) to sort through how they interact and their net effect on Idahoans. To complicate matters, two of the most potent criminal and civil statutes are subject to pending lawsuits before the Idaho Supreme Court. While we anxiously await the Court’s decisions as well as future guidance or legislation resolving the confusion, we hope these FAQs give Idaho healthcare providers some direction. But stay tuned… Read more
Small Win for Healthcare Providers: CMS Issues New Guidance under No Surprise Billing Rules and DHHS’ Appeal
/in ProvidersBy Allison (Ally) Kjellander and Kim Stanger
On April 12, 2022, CMS issued new guidance1 for the independent dispute resolution (“IDR”) process under the No Surprise Billing Rules (“Rules”) in response to a U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas judge vacating an insurer-friendly provision,2 handing a small win to healthcare providers. Read more
New Guidance on Self-Pay Patients Under No Surprise Billing Rules
/in Hospitals & Health SystemsBy Kim Stanger and Allison (Ally) Kjellander
HHS has issued helpful FAQs that answer common questions concerning the No Surprise Billing Rules and self-pay patients, available here. The FAQs confirm the following: Read more
Idaho Patient Act Changes
/in Idaho Healthcare LawBy Kim Stanger and Allison (Ally) Kjellander
Idaho has enacted limited changes to the Idaho Patient Act (IPA) that make it somewhat easier for healthcare providers and facilities to jump through the IPA hoops before pursuing collection actions against patients. A copy of HB778 showing the changes is available here. The changes are generally effective for collection actions initiated on or after March 25, 2022.
IPA violations limit healthcare providers’ ability to recover collection costs and related charges (including attorneys’ fees) and may subject the provider to civil penalties, all of which may make medical debt collection financially impractical. (I.C. § 48-305).1 Accordingly, this article summarizes key IPA provisions as well as the recent amendments. Read more
Telehealth in Idaho: Regulations Withdrawn
/in Idaho Healthcare Law, TelehealthBy Kim Stanger
As part of Governor Little’s initiative to reduce nonessential regulations, Idaho licensing boards (including the Idaho Board of Medicine) have withdrawn their rules implementing the Idaho Telehealth Access Act for healthcare providers, including physicians, physician assistants, dentists, and psychologists. (See, e.g., former IDAPA 24.33.03.201 et seq.). Consequently, physicians and most other healthcare providers need only comply with the Act, which requires the following: Read more