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.
New Patient Rights Rules for Idaho Hospitals
/in Hospitals & Health Systems, Idaho Healthcare Law, Legislation, State Law Updates, Uncategorizedby 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 more2019 New Mexico Legislative Update: What All Healthcare Providers Should Know
/in LegislationBy Little V. West
In 2019, the Legislature enacted several bills affecting healthcare practitioners in New Mexico. Although some bills have a general applicability to health care providers, others address more specific medical practices. Following is a summary of several bills impacting health facilities and providers. Read more
Mental Holds in Idaho
/in Idaho Healthcare LawBy Kim Stanger
In Idaho, a competent patient generally has the right to consent to or refuse their own healthcare. By statute,
Any person who comprehends the need for, the nature of and the significant risks ordinarily inherent in any contemplated health care is competent to consent thereto on his or her own behalf. Any healthcare provider may provide such health care and services in reliance upon such consent if the consenting person appears to possess such requisite comprehension at the time of giving the consent. Read more
Licensing Board Stipulations: Beware Unanticipated Consequences
/in Governanceby Kim Stanger
Physicians, dentists, and other healthcare providers who run into problems with their state medical board or other licensing agency are often offered a stipulated resolution to avoid formal proceedings, additional costs, and potentially more severe sanctions. Although such stipulations may be an appropriate and efficient way to resolve concerns, providers should beware of the unanticipated consequences of such stipulations, including the following:
1. NPDB Reports. Licensing boards are generally required to report such stipulations involving physicians or dentists to the National Practitioners Data Bank (“NPDB”). (See 45 CFR § 60.8). Hospitals and other entities are required or permitted to check the NPDB during the physician credentialing process. An NPDB report will become a black mark on the physician’s record for the rest of his or her career unless removed, and may lead to the further actions described below.
Read more2019 Utah Legislative Update: What All Healthcare Providers Should Know
/in Legislation, Pharmaceutical, State Law Updatesby Kristy Kimball
In the last Utah legislative session, several bills were passed that affect the obligations of healthcare facilities and providers. Following is a summary of three important bills that went into effect on May 14, 2019, of which all health facilities and providers should be aware.
Mandatory Reporting of Drug Diversion to Law Enforcement
House Bill 251 requires mandatory reporting to law enforcement when one has knowledge of drug diversion. Specifically, Utah law now holds that an individual is guilty of a class B misdemeanor if they: (i) know that a Practitioner is diverting 500 or more morphine milligram equivalents to another person for an unlawful purpose; and (ii) fail to report to law enforcement. The bill defines “Practitioner” as an individual who is either (i) allowed to “administer, dispense, distribute, or prescribe a drug in the course of professional practice;” or (ii) who is employed by such an individual. The law broadly applies to those involved in providing medications to patients in any manner (e.g., nurses, physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and pharmacists) as well as those working for such individuals. Utah Code Ann. § 76-10-2204.
Read more