Holland & Hart's Health Law Blog
  • Publications
  • Webinar Recordings
    • 2026 Webinar Recordings
    • 2025 Webinar Recordings
    • 2024 Webinar Recordings
    • 2023 Webinar Recordings
    • 2022 Webinar Recordings
    • 2021 Webinar Recordings
    • 2020 Webinar Recordings
    • 2019 Webinar Recordings
    • 2018 Webinar Recordings
    • 2017 Webinar Recordings
    • 2016 Webinar Recordings
  • Compliance Bootcamps
  • Attorneys
  • Healthcare Law
  • Employers’ Lawyers Blog
  • Click to open the search input field Click to open the search input field Search
  • Menu Menu

Sports and Student Physicals: Legal Issues

August 8, 2018/in Hospitals & Health Systems, Physician Practices

By Kim Stanger

It’s that time of year when many healthcare providers offer free or discounted sports or student physicals as a community service or marketing ploy. If you participate in such programs, make sure you consider the legal issues, including the following:

  • Confirm that your malpractice insurance covers such services. Some states have statutes that protect practitioners when providing free medical services at such community events. (See, e.g., Idaho Code § 39-7701 et seq.). If you are relying on such a statute, make sure that you comply with the conditions associated with—and beware the limits to—such protection. For example, these statutes usually do not protect the provider against intentional or grossly negligent conduct. Make sure your malpractice insurance covers any gap.
  • If the student is an unemancipated minor, you likely need effective parental consent for the exam or treatment. Effective consent requires that you provide sufficient information concerning the risks, benefits, and scope of services to ensure the consent is truly informed.
  • Ensure that the student and/or their personal representative understand the limited scope of your services. You may want to have them acknowledge in writing that you are only providing the limited services associated with the program, and that you are not undertaking to provide ongoing or follow-up care unless you expressly agree otherwise.

Read more

https://hhhealthlawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/logo_vertical-v2.png 0 0 admin https://hhhealthlawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/logo_vertical-v2.png admin2018-08-08 18:22:362018-08-08 18:22:36Sports and Student Physicals: Legal Issues

Paying Hospital-Employed Physicians for Services Performed by Others

July 9, 2018/in Reimbursement & Collections

By Kim Stanger

The Ethics in Patient Referrals Act (“Stark”) prevents hospitals from paying employed or contracted physicians in the same way that physicians are or were paid by independent physician groups.  Specifically, physician groups may generally pay physicians a share of the profits from services performed by others, but hospitals may not pay physicians in a way that varies with the volume or value of referrals for certain services payable by Medicare or Medicaid, which usually precludes paying physicians a share of profits or a percentage of fees for services referred or ordered by the physician but performed by others.

Stark Requirements.  Per Stark, if a physician (or a member of the physician’s family) has a financial relationship with an entity, the physician may not refer patients to that entity for certain designated health services1 payable by Medicare or Medicaid unless the financial arrangement is structured to fit within a regulatory safe harbor.  (42 USC § 1395dd; 42 CFR § 411.353).  Under Stark’s “group practice” safe harbors, physician groups that qualify as a “group practice” may pay physician group members based on services the physician personally performs, services billed “incident to” the physician’s personally performed services, or, subject to certain limits, a portion of the overall profits of the group, including profits from services derived from services performed by others.  (See 42 CFR §§ 411.353 and 411.355(a)-(b)).  These “group practice” safe harbors are not available to physicians who are employed by the hospital. Read more

https://hhhealthlawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/logo_vertical-v2.png 0 0 admin https://hhhealthlawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/logo_vertical-v2.png admin2018-07-09 17:28:292018-07-09 17:28:29Paying Hospital-Employed Physicians for Services Performed by Others

Utah Care-Review Privilege

May 29, 2018/in Liability & Risk Management

by Cory Talbot

Utah adopted a care-review privilege “to improve medical care by allowing health-care personnel to reduce morbidity or mortality and to provide information to evaluate and improve hospital and health care.”1 In January, the Utah Court of Appeals gave some helpful guidance about the application of this privilege in Vered v. Tooele Hospital Corporation.2

The Care-Review Privilege Generally

Before discussing the Vered case, we will go over a number of general background issues regarding the scope and application of the care-review privilege. Read more

https://hhhealthlawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/logo_vertical-v2.png 0 0 admin https://hhhealthlawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/logo_vertical-v2.png admin2018-05-29 21:58:542018-05-29 21:58:54Utah Care-Review Privilege

Want to Hire an Employee Subject to a Noncompete Agreement?

May 23, 2018/in Contracts & Transactions, Employment

by Nicole Snyder

Republished with permission from Idaho Medical Group Management Association (MGMA). Original article appeared in Idaho MGMA’s May 2018 e-newsletter.

As the healthcare industry grows, and at a time when unemployment is low, it can be very frustrating to find potential employee candidates who are bound by noncompete agreements with current or former employers.

Medical practices shouldn’t be too quick to throw in the towel before rejecting candidates on the basis of having a noncompete agreement.  Here are some pointers to help with the hiring process in these situations: Read more

https://hhhealthlawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/logo_vertical-v2.png 0 0 admin https://hhhealthlawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/logo_vertical-v2.png admin2018-05-23 19:01:012018-05-23 19:01:01Want to Hire an Employee Subject to a Noncompete Agreement?

IMGMA Q/A: Service Animals

April 10, 2018/in ADA

by Rob Low

Republished with permission from Idaho Medical Group Management Association (MGMA). Original article appeared in Idaho MGMA’s April 2018 e-newsletter.

Question: What are “Service Animals”, and to what extent (i) must they be allowed on health care facility premises, and (ii) can they be refused or removed from premises?

Answer:  Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), “Service Animals” are defined as dogs that are individually trained to do work or perform tasks for people with disabilities. This means the dog must be trained to take a specific action when needed to assist the person with a disability (e.g., a dog which is trained to guide a blind person, alert a deaf person, pull a wheelchair, alert a person with diabetes that his or her blood sugar is too high or too low).  The ADA also recognizes that, in some instances, a person with a disability may use a miniature horse that has been trained to do work or perform tasks for people with disabilities as a service animal. Under the ADA, service animals must be harnessed, leashed, or tethered, unless these devices interfere with the service animal’s work or the individual’s disability prevents using these devices. However, the ADA does not require service animals to wear a vest, ID tag, or specific harness. Read more

https://hhhealthlawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/logo_vertical-v2.png 0 0 admin https://hhhealthlawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/logo_vertical-v2.png admin2018-04-10 16:58:172018-04-10 16:58:17IMGMA Q/A: Service Animals
Page 29 of 49«‹2728293031›»

Idaho Patient Act Timeline


View our Idaho Patient Act Timeline Guide

Holland & Hart

This blog is maintained by the Health Law practice group of Holland & Hart LLP. Visit the Holland & Hart website.

Subscribe to Email Updates

Enter your Email:

Contact

If you have any questions, please contact Kim Stanger.

More COVID-19 Articles


View more COVID-related articles on our Labor & Employment Blog

Categories

Archives

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.

© Copyright 2026 | Holland & Hart LLP - Enfold WordPress Theme by Kriesi
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top