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

HIPAA Omnibus Rule: Checklist for Compliance

March 1, 2013/in HIPAA

by Kim Stanger, Holland & Hart LLP

The new HIPAA omnibus rule modifies the privacy and security rules for covered entities (including health care providers and health plans), and their business associates. Although the new rules are effective March 26, 2013, covered entities and business associates generally have until September 23, 2013 to comply.1 Before then, covered entities and business associates need to do the following:

  1. Business Associates: Implement HIPAA Policies, Procedures and Safeguards. The HIPAA privacy and security rules now apply directly to business associates of covered entities.2 “Business associates” are those outside entities that create, receive, maintain or transmit protected health information in the course of performing functions on behalf of a covered entity, including contractors, consultants, data storage companies, health information organizations, and subcontractors of business associates.3 Business associates must now implement many of the same policies, procedures and safeguards that have been required of covered entities for years, including the following:
    1. Security Rule. Business associates will need to conduct and document a risk assessment of their information technology systems and implement the specific administrative, technical and physical safeguards specified in the Security Rule.4 The Office of Civil Rights’ website contains helpful guidance for Security Rule compliance: http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/administrative/securityrule/securityruleguidance.html.
    2. Privacy Rule. Most of the privacy rule provisions do not apply directly to business associates, but because business associates cannot use or disclose protected health information in a manner contrary to the limits placed on covered entities,5 business associates will need to implement many of the same policies and safeguards that the Privacy Rule mandates for covered entities, including rules governing uses and disclosure of protected health information and patient rights concerning their information.6 Those are typically outlined in the business associate’s agreement with the covered entity. Since business associates are now directly liable for HIPAA violations, they should ensure they understand and train their employees concerning HIPAA Privacy and Security Rule requirements.
    3. Breach Notification. If a business associate becomes aware of a breach of unsecured health information, they must notify the covered entity and assist the covered entity in responding to the breach.7
  2. Identify New Business Associates and Execute Agreements. Covered entities are required to have business associate agreements with their business associates before allowing them to use or disclose protected health information. The omnibus rule expanded the definition of “business associates” to include entities that provide data transmission services and require routine access to information such as health information organizations.8 Covered entities should identify any such business associates and execute appropriate agreements with them. Business associates must execute appropriate business associate agreements with their own subcontractors if the subcontractor creates, receives, maintains or transmits protected health information for the business associate.9
  3. Review and, If Necessary, Amend Business Associate Agreements. Covered entities and business associates must ensure that their existing and future agreements contain the elements required by 45 CFR § 164.314(a) and .504(e). In addition to previous requirements, the agreement must require the business associate to:
    1. Comply with the security rule.
    2. Execute business associate agreements with their subcontractors.
    3. To the extent the business associate carries out on obligation of a covered entity, comply with any HIPAA rule applicable to such obligation.
    4. Report breaches of unsecured protected health information to the covered entity.

    The OCR has published updated sample business associate language at http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/coveredentities/contractprov.html. The omnibus rule confirms that covered entities are liable for the misconduct of business associates if the business associate is acting as the agent of the covered entity.10 To minimize their exposure, covered entities and business associates should ensure their agreements confirm that their business associates and subcontractors are acting as independent contractors and not as the agents of the covered entity or business associate, and that the agreements do not give the covered entity too much control over day-to-day operations of the business associate.11 Covered entities may also want to include indemnification or similar clauses to protect themselves. Covered entities have up to September 22, 2014 to modify business associate agreements if (1) the agreement they had in place on January 25, 2013, complied with the HIPAA rules as of that date, and (2) the agreement does not expire or renew (other than through evergreen clauses) prior to September 22, 2014.12

  4. Update Privacy Policies. Covered entities should update their privacy policies to comply with the new omnibus rules, including the following as applicable to the covered entity:
    1. Deceased Persons. Covered entities may now disclose protected health information to family members or others who were involved in the decedent’s health care or payment for their care prior to the decedent’s death so long as the disclosure is relevant to the person’s involvement and is not inconsistent with the decedent’s prior expressed wishes.13
    2. Patient Access to Electronic Information. If a patient requests an electronic copy of their information, covered entities must generally produce it in the form requested if readily producible.14 If the patient directs the covered entity in writing to transmit a copy of the electronic information to another person, the covered entity must generally comply.15
    3. Response to Request for Access. Covered entities must generally respond to a patient’s request to access their information within 30 days; the omnibus rule eliminated the provision that gave covered entities extra time to respond if records were maintained offsite.16
    4. Limits on Disclosures to Insurers. Covered entities cannot disclose information about a patient’s care to an insurer if (1) the insurer seeks the information for treatment or payment purposes; (2) the patient or someone on the patient’s behalf paid for the care to which the information pertains; and (3) the patient requests that the information be withheld from the insurer.17 Good luck implementing this requirement. Developing a workable solution may take some advance preparation. Fortunately, the limit only applies if a patient requests nondisclosure; most patients will not request this restriction unless asked, so covered entities should not raise the issue with the patient. If a patient does request nondisclosure, covered entities should require that such requests be directed to a central person who can coordinate the efforts among billing, medical records, IT, and other relevant departments to ensure the protected data is sequestered.
    5. School Immunizations. Covered entities may now disclose information about immunizations to a school if (1) state law requires such information for school enrollment; and (2) the patient or their personal representative consents to the disclosure. The consent may be oral.18
    6. Sale of Information. Covered entities must obtain written authorization to sell a patient’s information, and the authorization must disclose that the sale will result in remuneration to the covered entity.19
    7. Marketing. Covered entities must obtain written authorization to use the patient’s information for marketing purposes, including most non-face-to-face communications for treatment purposes if the covered entity receives financial remuneration to make the communication.20 If remuneration is involved, the marketing authorization must disclose that fact.
    8. Fundraising. The new rule allows covered entities to disclose more information to institutionally related foundations to assist with fundraising, but fundraising communications must explain how the recipient may opt out of receiving such communications and the opt out method cannot be burdensome.21
    9. Research. If the covered entity engages in research, it should review new standards applicable to research as described in 45 CFR § 164.508(b).
  5. Update Breach Notification Policies. The omnibus rule modified the standard for reporting breaches of unsecured health information. Under the new standard, the unauthorized acquisition, access use or disclosure of protected health information in violation of the Privacy Rule is presumed to be a reportable breach unless (1) the covered entity or business associate demonstrates there is a low probability that the information has been compromised based on a risk assessment of certain factors, or (2) the breach fits within certain exceptions.22 Covered entities must ensure that their policies incorporate and that they apply this new, arguably lower standard. For more information about the breach notification standard, see my recent Healthcare Update at http://www.hollandhart.com/pubs/uniEntity.aspx?xpST=PubDetail&pub=2094. Given the lower standard, covered entities and business associates may want to consider encrypting records to the extent possible to avoid reportable breaches.
  6. Modify Notice of Privacy Practices. Covered entities must update their notices of privacy practices to add the following:
    1. A description of the types of information that require an authorization, i.e., psychotherapy notes, marketing, and sale of information.23
    2. A statement that other uses or disclosures not described in the notice will require an authorization.24
    3. A statement that the recipient of fundraising materials may opt out.25
    4. A description of the individual’s right to limit disclosures to insurers if the patient paid for the relevant care.26
    5. A statement that the covered entity must notify the patient of a breach of unsecured protected health information.27
  7. Train Employees. Covered entities and business associates must train their employees concerning the new rules.28
  8. Review HIPAA Compliance. Given the new, lower breach notification standard, covered entities will likely to be required to self-report more breaches. Those reports may result in more patient complaints and government investigations. Accordingly, it is a good time to review and, as necessary, improve your compliance with all the HIPAA rules, not just the new omnibus rules. Doing so may help you avoid reportable breaches and, if a breach occurs, sidestep HIPAA penalties, which can range from $100 to more than $50,000 per violation. Having the required policies and safeguards in place coupled with prompt action to correct any breach will likely establish an affirmative defense to any penalties. For suggested steps to avoid penalties, see my recent Healthcare Update at http://www.hollandhart.com/pubs/uniEntity.aspx?xpST=PubDetail&pub=1898.

Resources. To assist clients in complying with the new omnibus rule and HIPAA in general, I have prepared sample Privacy Rule policies, forms, and agreements. If you would like to obtain a set of the sample documents, please contact me at kcstanger@hollandhart.com.


145 CFR § 160.105
2Id. at § 164.104(b)
3Id. at § 164.103
4Id. at §§ 164.302 to .316
5Id. at § 164.502(a)(3)
6Id. at § 164.502 to .528
7Id. at § 164.410
8Id. at § 164.103
9Id. at § 164.314(a)(2) and .502(e)(1)
10Id. at § 164.402(c)
11See 78 FR 5581
1245 CFR § 164.532(e)
13Id. at § 164.510(b)(5)
14Id. at § 164.524(c)(2)(ii)
15Id. at § 164.524(c)(3)(ii)
16Id. at § 164.524
17Id. at § 164.522(a)(1)(vi)
18Id. at § 164.512(b)(1)(vi)
19Id. at § 164.502(a)(5)(ii) and .508(a)(4)
20Id. at § 164.501 and .508(c)
21Id. at § 164.514(f)
22Id. at § 164.402
23 Id. at § 164.520(b)(1)(ii)(E)
24Id. at § 164.520(b)(1)(ii)(E)
25Id. at § 164.520(b)(1)(iii)
26Id. at § 164.520(b)(1)(iv)(A)
27Id. at § 164.520(b)(1)(V)(A)
28 Id. at § 164.530(b)


For questions regarding this update, please contact
Kim C. Stanger
Holland & Hart, U.S. Bank Plaza, 101 S. Capitol Boulevard, Suite 1400, Boise, ID 83702-7714
email: kcstanger@hollandhart.com, phone: 208-383-3913

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.

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 admin2013-03-01 11:17:042013-03-01 11:17:04HIPAA Omnibus Rule: Checklist for Compliance

HHS Issues New HIPAA Omnibus Rule

January 18, 2013/in HIPAA

by Kim Stanger, Holland & Hart LLP

HHS issued the new HIPAA omnibus rule yesterday. The new rule contains important changes for health care providers and their business associates. For example, the new rule:

  • Modifies the standard for reporting breaches to patients and HHS. HHS replaced the former “no harm, no foul” rule with a new standard: a breach is presumed unless the covered entity can demonstrate a low probability that the protected health information has not been compromised. This requires an assessment of specified factors and will likely increase the number of reportable breaches.
  • Confirms HIPAA requirements for business associates and their subcontractors. Business associates are subject to HIPAA penalties if they fail to comply. The definition of “business associates” was expanded to include entities that provide data transmission services for protected health information and require routine access to the information.
  • Confirms providers are liable for their business associate’s violations if the business associate is acting as the agent for the provider. The rule’s commentary contains a helpful analysis for determining whether an agency relationship exists.
  • Makes it easier for family members to obtain information about decedents. The rule also confirms that HIPAA does not apply to information 50 years after the decedent’s death.
  • Expands patients’ right to obtain electronic copies of their records.
  • Prohibits providers from disclosing information to health insurers if the patient pays for the treatment and requests that the information not be disclosed to insurers. Implementation will create significant practical problems for practitioners.
  • Prohibits the sale of protected health information unless certain conditions are satisfied.
  • Imposes additional requirements for the use of protected health information for marketing or fundraising. Among other things, an authorization is required to disclose information for treatment purposes if the provider is receiving remuneration for the disclosure.
  • Requires new provisions to be added to providers’ Notice of Privacy Practices, including a description of disclosures that require authorizations and notice of a patient’s right to receive notice of HIPAA breaches.

The new rules take effect March 23, 2013, but covered entities and business associates will have until September 23, 2013 to comply. Before then, providers will need to take certain actions to remain compliant, including:

  • Modify their Notice of Privacy Practices.
  • Update and/or execute new business associate contracts, including contracts for subcontractors and health information organizations. Existing compliant contracts do not need to be modified until September 2014.
  • Revise privacy, security and breach notification policies to incorporate the new requirements.
  • Modify authorizations and other forms as necessary to track the new rules.
  • Ensure their electronic medical records programs have the functionality to address the new regulatory requirements.
  • Take even greater care to protect patient information given the new standard for evaluating whether breaches are reportable.

Business associates will also need to implement HIPAA privacy and security policies and safeguards applicable to business associates. HHS estimates that complying with the new requirements will cost affected parties a total of $114 million to $225 million during the first year. The new rule can be accessed at: http://www.ofr.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2013-01073_PI.pdf. HHS’s press release can be accessed at www.hhs.gov/news/press/2013pres/01/20130117b.html.


For questions regarding this update, please contact
Kim C. Stanger
Holland & Hart, U.S. Bank Plaza, 101 S. Capitol Boulevard, Suite 1400, Boise, ID 83702-7714
email: kcstanger@hollandhart.com, phone: 208-383-3913

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.

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 admin2013-01-18 08:46:002013-01-18 08:46:00HHS Issues New HIPAA Omnibus Rule

Who May Consent to Health Care under Idaho Law?

January 15, 2013/in Consent

by Kim Stanger, Holland & Hart LLP

I am frequently asked how an Idaho health care provider may determine whether a person is competent to consent to their own healthcare.  Idaho Code § 39-4503 establishes the general standard for medical consents:

Persons who may consent to their own care. Any person who comprehends the need for, the nature of and the significant risks ordinarily inherent in any contemplated hospital, medical, dental, surgical or other health care, treatment or procedure is competent to consent thereto on his or her own behalf. Any health care provider may provide such health care and services in reliance upon such a consent if the consenting person appears to the health care provider securing the consent to possess such requisite comprehension at the time of giving the consent.

(Emphasis added).  If the health care provider believes that an adult patient currently lacks the requisite comprehension, the provider should determine whether the patient executed an advance directive or otherwise conveyed his or her wishes while competent.  (See I.C. § 39-4509).  If there is no such prior direction from the patient or if the patient is an unemancipated minor, the healthcare provider should generally obtain consent from one of the persons identified in Idaho Code § 39-4504(1), i.e., in decreasing order of priority:  a court-appointed guardian; person with durable power of attorney for healthcare; spouse; adult child; parent; person identified in delegation of parental authority; other appropriate relative; or other person who is responsible for the patient’s care.  With limited statutory exceptions, the general rule is that unemancipated minors probably lack capacity to consent to their own health care.  (See I.C. § 39-4504(1)).  Idaho Code § 39-4504(3) generally protects providers who, in good faith, obtain consent from a person who appears to have the requisite authority to give consent.


For questions regarding this update, please contact:
Kim C. Stanger
Holland & Hart, 800 W Main Street, Suite 1750, Boise, ID 83702
email: kcstanger@hollandhart.com, phone: 208-383-3913

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.

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 admin2013-01-15 09:51:162013-01-15 09:51:16Who May Consent to Health Care under Idaho Law?

Hospital Faces Religious Discrimination Claims for Firing Vegan Employee Who Refused a Flu Shot

January 14, 2013/in Nondiscrimination, Interpreters and Translators

by Kim Stanger, Holland & Hart LLP

Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, like many others around the nation, has adopted a policy requiring employees to get a flu shot. A federal court in Ohio just decided that the religious discrimination lawsuit brought by a vegan employee should go forward, at least for now. The ruling allows former employee, Sakile Chenzira, to proceed with her case against the Hospital alleging that the Hospital discriminated against her based on her religious beliefs when it discharged her for refusing a flu vaccination. Chenzira v. Cincinnati Children’s Hosp. Med. Ctr., No. 1:11-CV-00917 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 27, 2012).

Refusing vaccine leads to termination. Chenzira had worked as a customer service representative for the Hospital for more than ten years. As a practicing vegan, Chenzira does not ingest any animal or animal by-products. Chenzira claims that prior to 2010, the Hospital accommodated her request not to receive flu vaccinations because they contained animal by-products. In December of 2010, however, the Hospital terminated Chenzira for refusing the flu vaccine.

Vegan Files Lawsuit Alleging Religious Discrimination and Wrongful Discharge. Chenzira alleges that the Hospital discharged her based on her religious and philosophical convictions as a vegan. She filed a lawsuit in federal court in Ohio asserting three claims, including religious discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Hospital Argues Veganism is Not a Protected Religion. The Hospital asked the Court to dismiss Chenzira’s claims in their entirety. As to the religious discrimination claims, the Hospital argued that veganism is not a religion and therefore, cannot be the basis for a discrimination claim. In the Hospital’s view, veganism is a dietary preference or social philosophy. In fact, it found no other cases in which veganism was the basis for a religious discrimination claim. Chenzira, however, argued that her vegan practice constituted a moral and ethical belief that she sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views. On a motion to dismiss, Chenzira was not required to “prove” her case, but only allege a claim that was plausible on its face. The Court ruled that it was plausible that Chenzira could believe in veganism to the extent necessary to equate to a traditional religious belief. The Court denied the Hospital’s request to throw out the religious discrimination claims.

Defense of Religious Discrimination Claims Will Proceed. The Hospital may have lost the first battle on the religious discrimination claims but it hasn’t lost the war. Chenzira must actually establish that her belief in vegan practices rises to the level of a traditional religious belief. In addition, as the Court pointed out, the Hospital may justify its termination of Chenzira based on patient safety or other overriding reasons. The Court’s ruling, however, keeps Chenzira’s religious discrimination claims based on her veganism alive – at least for now.Hospitals and other health care employers have regularly defeated employee lawsuits challenging mandatory immunization policies, primarily because the employers have carefully crafted those policies to recognize religious and disability-based exceptions. We will continue to watch the Cincinnati Children’s case and let you know if veganism gets a shot in the arm from this federal court.


For questions regarding this update, please contact:
Kim C. Stanger
Holland & Hart, 800 W Main Street, Suite 1750, Boise, ID 83702
email: kcstanger@hollandhart.com, phone: 208-383-3913

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.

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 admin2013-01-14 09:43:002013-01-14 09:43:00Hospital Faces Religious Discrimination Claims for Firing Vegan Employee Who Refused a Flu Shot

Paying for Call Coverage

November 13, 2012/in Contracts & Transactions, Fraud and Abuse

by Kim Stanger, Holland & Hart LLP

Hospitals increasingly pay physicians and other practitioners to participate in call coverage for emergency services. Last week, the Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) issued Advisory Opinion No. 12-15, which reminds providers of fraud and abuse parameters applicable to call coverage agreements.

Permissible Arrangements. Federal law does not require compensation for call coverage, nor does it prohibit paying for call so long as the compensation is not offered to improperly induce referrals for federal healthcare program business. The OIG recognizes that paying for call may be necessary to obtain services that may otherwise be unavailable because of, e.g., the lack of specialty services in an area or local physicians’ reluctance to take call because of practice demands, time commitments, or the probability of rendering uncompensated care. The key is to ensure that any call compensation paid (1) represents fair market value for actual and necessary services, (2) does not take into account the volume or value of referrals or other business generated between the parties, and (3) was not intended to maintain or generate future referrals from the physician for non-emergency patients. Common payment structures include hourly or “per diem” payments to be available for call, payment for time or services actually provided in response to call in exchange for assignment of the physician’s professional fees, etc.

 

Problematic Arrangements. Call compensation that exceeds fair market value or pays physicians for unnecessary or illusory services may amount to illegal kickbacks and/or Stark law violations. According to the OIG, suspect arrangements include:

  • “lost opportunity” or similarly designed payments that do not reflect bona fide lost income;
  • payment structures that compensate physicians even though no identifiable services are provided;
  • aggregate on-call payments that are disproportionately high compared to the physician’s regular medical practice income;
  • payment structures that compensate physicians for professional services for which the physician receives separate payments from patients or third party payors, thereby resulting in duplicate payment for the same services; or
  • payments made in response to threats that the physician will refuse to continue to use the hospital or refer non-emergency patients to the hospital unless call payments are provided.

Regulatory Compliance. Whatever its terms, the arrangement must be structured to satisfy Stark and Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”) technical requirements. For example, if the compensation is to be paid to a physician who is not employed by the hospital, the arrangement must satisfy the following:

  • The agreement must be documented in a written contract fully executed by the parties before any payments are made.
  • The compensation must represent fair market value for legitimate, needed services actually provided, and not offered to maintain, induce or reward the physician’s referrals to the hospital.
  • The compensation must not vary with the volume or value of referrals or other business generated by the physician except for services personally performed by the physician.
  • The compensation formula must be set in advance and be objectively verifiable.
  • Compensation-related terms may not change during the first year of the arrangement. If the agreement is terminated within a year, the parties may not enter a new agreement with different compensation terms within that year.
  • To avoid unintentional lapses, it is usually wise to include an auto-renewal or “evergreen” clause so that the agreement automatically renews unless terminated by the parties.

(See 42 C.F.R. §§ 411.357(d) and (l), and 1001.952(d)). Most call coverage arrangements will not satisfy an applicable AKS safe harbor because, e.g., the aggregate compensation is not set in advance. It is important that the parties consider and document the legitimate reasons for the call coverage arrangement, e.g., the hospital’s need for the contracted services, the financial or professional burden on physicians absent call compensation, and the physician’s reluctance to provide needed coverage absent call compensation that reflects fair market value for services actually provided.


For questions regarding this update, please contact:
Kim C. Stanger
Holland & Hart, 800 W Main Street, Suite 1750, Boise, ID 83702
email: kcstanger@hollandhart.com, phone: 208-383-3913

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.

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 admin2012-11-13 09:02:262012-11-13 09:02:26Paying for Call Coverage
Page 46 of 49«‹4445464748›»

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