Proskauer's perspective on health care law and business
This article was initially published as a Bulletin for the AHLA’s Physician Organizations Practice Group.
California Assembly Bill 3129[1] (“AB3129”), which targeted for regulatory review a variety of health care transactions involving “private equity groups” and “hedge funds,” was vetoed by Governor Gavin Newsom on September 28, 2024.[2]…
On August 31, 2024, the California State Assembly and State Senate passed Assembly Bill 3129 (“AB 3129”). If signed by Governor Newsom, AB 3129 would establish a comprehensive transaction review law that (i) targets private equity firms and hedge funds, and (ii) grants the Attorney General explicit consent rights over…
Update as of 3/13/24:
House Bill 4130 died on March 4, 2024, after it failed to reach the Senate Floor. Representative Ben Bowman, the Bill’s chief sponsor, pledged to reintroduce the Bill as soon as the opportunity arises. The Bill garnered national attention as the latest state-led effort to regulate…
Following New York State Governor Kathy Hochul’s proposal in February of this year (see our previous alert), the New York legislature passed and Governor Hochul signed a law on May 3, 2023, which significantly increases the state’s focus and visibility into physician practice management change‑of‑control transactions.[1] New York’s statute reflects a growing trend of states taking note of transactions that previously were not regulated by state administrative agencies. As we await the promulgation of regulations from the New York State Department of Health (“DOH”), we examine here how New York’s law compares to similar laws in other states, and describe precautions that operators in the physician management space — as well as those who do businesses with such operators — should take to safeguard themselves against major disruptions to operations.
On July 27, 2023, California’s Office of Health Care Access and Information (the “Office”) released its long-awaited proposed regulations on the notice requirements for material health care transactions in California. The anticipated regulations follow the passing of SB 184 on June 30, 2022, which, in part, created the Office and granted it the authority to collect and analyze data related to health care costs, specifically via monitoring mergers and acquisitions in the health care industry. Following the lead of states like New York, whose wide-range health care transaction requirements were discussed in a previous blog post, California seeks to address the increasing costs of health care services by imposing significant notice and review requirements for mergers and acquisitions beginning in 2024.
On February 1, 2023, New York Governor Kathy Hochul announced the 2024 Executive Budget. As alluded to in the Governor’s State of the State address, and as described in an earlier Proskauer Health Care Law Brief article, the Governor is proposing to adopt a wide-ranging approval requirement for health care transactions that appears to target investor-backed physician practices.
The legislative proposals related to health care, as contained in the Governor’s budget, were introduced as Senate Bill 4007 and Assembly Bill A3007. The bills propose to amend the Public Health Law (“PHL”) to introduce a new Article 45-A, named “Review and Oversight of Material Transactions.” See 2023 New York Senate-Assembly Bill S4007, A3007, Part M § 5.
We previously noted that the regulations implementing the No Surprises Act (“NSA”) appeared to be inconsistent with the NSA because they seemed to establish the qualifying payment amount (“QPA”) as the appropriate payment amount to be used in arbitrations by certified IDR entities (viz. the regulation-established independent dispute resolution (“IDR”) process) between plans and providers, and that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (“Texas District Court”) vacated portions of the NSA regulations relating to the QPA for purposes of the IDR process. The Federal government recently responded to the Texas District Court—by removing such portions of the NSA regulations.
A variety of conditions may be conspiring against businesses in certain segments of the health care industry. These include reduced patient census at skilled nursing and other long-term care facilities, COVID regulations that limit the ability of providers to give (or patients to receive) various forms of treatment and patients…
In an advisory opinion posted November 10, 2021 (AO 21-15), the Office of the Inspector General of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (OIG) appeared to soften a disturbing position that it had taken in 2012 regarding the employment safe harbor.
The issue is the…
In the last few years, we have seen an uptick in behavioral health groups focused on psychedelic treatments. There are now at least five (5) psychedelic-assisted therapy platforms traded on NASDAQ with numerous others listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange and elsewhere.[1] Ketamine treatments, in particular, have garnered considerable attention from patients, providers and investors. Treatment models range from more traditional psychotherapy and infusion services similar to those offered by Columbia University[2] to telemedicine-enabled psychotherapy coupled with mail-delivered tablets of ketamine under the Mindbloom model.[3] However, despite the growth in adoption, Ketamine remains a controlled substance and ketamine behavioral health remains an industry with material regulatory risks.
We have set forth certain key considerations for various stakeholders involved with ketamine behavioral health.
Proskauer and our platform provider LexBlog each use cookies to personalize content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyze traffic. Each of us also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners. If you are happy for us to store these cookies on your device please click ‘Accept Cookies.' For more information, please see here and here.
