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.
Don’t Miss Nevada’s Workshop on New Regs for Healthcare Professional Licensing Boards
/in Medical Staff, Credentialing, and Corrective ActionBy Matt Morris and J. Malcolm (Jay) DeVoy
New regulations are forthcoming that will affect the way boards that oversee healthcare practitioners in the State of Nevada operate. On October 1, 2025, the Nevada Department of Business and Industry (Department), through its Office of Nevada Boards, Commissions, and Councils Standards (Office), issued a notice that it would conduct a workshop on October 17, 2025, at 1:00 p.m. to develop permanent regulations for the Office’s administration and oversight of professional licensing boards and commissions within its jurisdiction (each a “Board” and, collectively, the “Boards”).
These Boards under the Office’s jurisdiction include the Nevada State Board of Medical Examiners, Nevada State Board of Nursing, Board of Dental Examiners of Nevada, Nevada State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners, and Nevada State Board of Pharmacy. Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 232.8415(2). Attending this workshop and submitting written comments in advance allows businesses and individuals potentially affected by these changes to Board operations to understand, participate in, and contribute to the development of these ultimate regulations. The consequences for these Boards may change the way they operate, including the licensing, investigation, and discipline of Nevada-licensed healthcare practitioners and businesses. Read more
Correcting Stark Violations: 90-Day Grace Period
/in StarkBy Kim Stanger
Physicians and entities to which physicians refer may violate the Ethics in Patient Referrals Act (“Stark”) by mistakenly overpaying or underpaying amounts due under a compensation arrangement. For example, a hospital may undercharge a physician for rent, or a referring physician may receive payments in excess of his or her contract with a hospital due to a bookkeeping error. Because Stark is a strict liability statute, even minor unintentional mistakes can result in major penalties. Fortunately, however, Stark establishes a grace period for parties to remedy overpayments and underpayments and avoid Stark penalties.
The Stark Problem.
Stark generally prohibits a physician from referring certain designated health services (DHS) payable by Medicare or Medicaid to an entity with which the physician has a financial relationship unless the transaction is structured to fit a relevant safe harbor. (42 USC § 1395nn; 42 CFR § 411.353(a)). Stark affects many common financial relationships between physicians and DHS providers, including contracts for services, leases, directorships, loans, purchases, etc. It applies to financial relationships between the physician and other entities billing for the physician’s services, including hospitals, employers, and even their own group practices. Many of the common safe harbors applicable to such arrangements require that the compensation paid to or by the physician be set forth in a written agreement and represent fair market value. (See, e.g., 42 CFR § 411.357 (a), (b), and (d)). Problems may arise when the physician pays or is paid more or less than the contracted amount, either intentionally or by mistake. Such actions will almost certainly cause the arrangement to fall outside the applicable compensation safe harbors, thereby subjecting the parties to Stark penalties, including prohibitions on billing, repayments, civil monetary penalties, and potential False Claims Act Liability. (See 42 CFR § 411.353(b)-(d)). Read more
Navigating Utah’s Expanded Peer Review Privilege: A Roadmap for Healthcare Providers
/in ProvidersBy Kristy M. Kimball
The term “peer review privilege” generally refers to a discovery and evidentiary privilege that can be asserted by hospitals and other healthcare entities to protect the confidentiality of credentialing, quality improvement, and similar peer review activities. While the specific scope, application, and requirements of the peer review privilege vary by state, the underlying purpose is consistent: to foster a protected environment where healthcare professionals and institutions can engage in honest, constructive dialogue and conduct thorough inquiry aimed at improving patient care and clinical performance—without fear that such discussions or findings will be used against them in court.
To gain peer review privilege, healthcare institutions and professionals must ensure that their peer review processes strictly align with the requirements of their state’s peer review privilege laws. Otherwise, in a legal proceeding (e.g., a medical malpractice case involving an underlying incident for which a hospital conducted peer review), a judge may rule that peer review privilege is inapplicable and allow sensitive and unfavorable peer review information and documents to be introduced into evidence. Accordingly, it is imperative for those involved to clearly understand their state’s peer review privilege laws. Read more
Federal Court Vacates HIPAA Reproductive Health Rule
/in HIPAABy Kim Stanger
As anticipated, a Texas federal district court has vacated the HIPAA Reproductive Health Rule (the “Rule”) nationwide. (Memorandum Opinion and Order, Purl v. HHS, 2:24-CV-228-Z (N. Dist. Tex (Jun. 18, 2025), available here). Consequently, healthcare providers can now disregard the Rule’s rather burdensome requirements and unwind the actions they took to implement the Rule.
The Purl Decision. In the wake of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organizations, the Biden Administration promulgated the HIPAA Reproductive Health Rule to prohibit the disclosure of reproductive health information for purposes of investigating or prosecuting the provision of reproductive healthcare if the healthcare was legal where performed.1 In Purl, the district court held that HHS exceeded its authority and violated procedural requirements in promulgating the Rule. Consequently, the district court vacated the entire Rule as it pertains to special standards or requirements relating to reproductive health information. Although HHS could appeal the district court’s decision, it is very unlikely that HHS will do so given existing Trump Administration policies. HHS has not requested a stay of the decision, thereby signaling that it has no intention of appealing. Read more
Idaho’s Abortion Statute: EMTALA Exception Narrowed
/in EMTALABy Kim Stanger and Cameron McCue
Last week, the US District Court for the District of Idaho entered another preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement of Idaho’s Total Abortion Ban (IC § 18-622) if the abortion is necessary to stabilize a pregnant woman under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA); however, unlike the prior injunction, the current injunction is limited to St. Luke’s Health System hospitals and providers. The EMTALA exception does not currently apply to other hospitals in the state.
The Prior Statewide Injunction
As discussed more fully in our prior health law updates, in 2022, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) sued Idaho to block enforcement of Idaho’s criminal abortion statute in emergency situations covered by EMTALA. The district court initially sided with the DOJ, issuing a preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement of Idaho’s abortion ban if the abortion is necessary to stabilize the pregnant woman. Despite the state’s appeal and a rather windy path up and down the federal appellate process, the preliminary injunction was ultimately upheld.
The Injunction in the St. Luke’s Case
The status changed under the Trump Administration. Fearing that the new Administration would dismiss its lawsuit, St. Luke’s Health System filed its on lawsuit to preserve the injunction. As St. Luke’s anticipated, the DOJ did in fact dismiss its case on March 5, 2025, effectively nullifying the statewide injunction. On March 20, 2025, the district court issued its order in the St. Luke’s case preserving the EMTALA exception to Idaho’s criminal abortion statute, but because St. Luke’s was the only hospital or system that brought the case, the district court limited the scope of the injunction to St. Luke’s hospitals and physicians. Under the new injunction, St. Luke’s hospitals and providers may perform an abortion if a pregnant woman comes to a St. Luke’s hospital and the physician determines that the abortion “is … i) necessary to ‘stabilize’ a patient presenting with an ‘emergency medical condition’ as required by EMTALA….” St. Luke’s Health Sys., Ltd. v. Labrador, No. 1:25-cv-00015-BLW, at *67 (D. Idaho Mar. 20, 2025). Read more