Health Law Advisor

Since day one, a policy priority of the Administration has been to discourage and prevent gender-affirming care for children and adolescents that involves surgery or medication. Recent actions show a concerted effort across multiple federal agencies to achieve this goal.

Among the earliest actions by the Administration were two Executive Orders directed at transgender health care: EO 14168, “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” and EO 14187, “Protecting Children From Chemical and Surgical Mutilation.” These Executive Orders immediately were challenged in federal courts. Ultimately, permanent injunctions were entered in the Western District of Washington and the District of Maryland against portions of the Executive Orders. Those injunctions are on appeal in the Ninth and Fourth Circuits.

Nevertheless, the Administration has continued to pursue its policy objectives through a mix of agency actions and communications, often disclaiming reliance on the Executive Orders and referring to other legal sources as the basis for a variety of agency actions.

Hospitals and health systems are familiar with traditional medical malpractice cases, but as healthcare is increasingly seen as a business, healthcare providers need to understand the potential for, and limitations of claims brought under the guise of consumer protection laws. 

Consumer protection laws can be tempting causes of action for individuals who believe they have been wronged by the healthcare system. Unlike medical malpractice claims, which require expert testimony and may include damages caps, consumer protection statutes often include treble damages, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. Consumer protection laws may also offer injunctive relief as a remedy, do not require a plaintiff to prove causation or damages, and have the potential for class action lawsuits. To prevent plaintiffs from reframing a negligence case to sidestep the limitations of medical malpractice cases, some courts and states have drawn boundaries between consumer protection and medical malpractice cases.

Oregon Governor Tina Kotek has signed SB 951—which, as we noted on June 4, 2025, disrupts historically accepted corporate practice of medicine (CPOM) structures by banning arrangements that are inherent to friendly PC models and placing limitations on Management Service Organizations (MSOs). SB 951 is now Oregon law, with staggered effective dates. 

The new law will be the strictest in the nation when it comes to limiting health care ownership and influence, and it seems certain to affect corporate investment in the state’s medical sector.

Yet in an unusual twist, the Oregon legislature is now poised to pass related legislation, HB 3410A, that would amend portions of SB 951 in the course of the same legislative session.

SB 951, which bolsters existing Oregon law prohibiting the corporate practice of medicine (CPOM), passed the state House of Representatives on May 28 and now awaits the signature of Governor Tina Kotek.

As EBG noted in a recent blog, the majority of states have some form of CPOM restriction. Oregon’s doctrine stretches back to 1947, when the state supreme court in State ex. rel. Sisemore v. Standard Optical Co. of Or. banned corporations from owning medical practices, practicing medicine, or employing physicians.^[1]

Since then, however, Oregon has sought to strengthen its CPOM rules legislatively, as entities have “sought to circumvent the ban through complex ownership structures, contracting practices, and other means,” as SB 951 states.

On April 22, 2025, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi issued a memorandum entitled “Preventing the Mutilation of American Children” (“the AG Memorandum”). Directed to all Justice Department employees, the AG Memorandum sets forth steps that the Department will take to counteract gender affirming care to treat gender dysphoria. This is the most recent step in a series of actions that the Administration has taken targeting care for transgender children and represents a significant escalation in the Administration’s enforcement efforts. 

Background

On January 20, 2025, as one of his first official acts, the president signed Executive Order 14168 entitled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government” (the “Gender Ideology EO”). Eight days later, the president issued Executive Order 14187, entitled “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation” (the “Surgical Mutilation EO”) Broadly, the two Executive Orders (EOs) target laws and practices related to the role of transgender individuals in American society. The Surgical Mutilation EO specially addresses medication and surgical treatment for gender dysphoria and states, “[I]t is the policy of the United States that it will not fund, sponsor, promote, assist, or support the so-called ‘transition’ of a child from one sex to another, and it will rigorously enforce all laws that prohibit or limit these destructive and life-altering procedures.”

While we wait for long-anticipated federal regulations from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) addressing the issue of workplace violence in health care, activity continues at the state level.

California and North Carolina are among those currently filling the gaps—with the latter bringing law enforcement officers into hospital emergency departments to address the problem, and the former legislating to keep weapons out (through screening devices).

These laws are the latest developments in the national landscape of initiatives designed to address workplace violence in health care facilities. Though a federal OSHA standard is slated to issue by year-end, it remains to be seen whether that will happen and what effect, if any, the 2024 presidential election might have on those plans.

Negative online reviews are a concern for many businesses—but they present a unique challenge for healthcare providers, who are restricted by federal and state privacy laws in how to respond. Is the answer to have patients sign a form agreeing in advance of treatment not to make or post negative comments? According to a recent decision by a federal judge in Washington State, the approach tried by one plastic and cosmetic surgery practice runs afoul of a little-known federal law called the Consumer Review Fairness Act (“CRFA”). The case presents a cautionary tale for doctors and ...

We recently wrote about proposed Oregon legislation that would have addressed workplace violence in healthcare settings but failed to move forward in the legislature due to concerns about a provision that would have made assault on a hospital worker punishable as a felony.

This was not a concern that troubled the Kentucky legislature, which on March 27, 2024, signed and delivered to the state governor a bill relating to workplace violence against healthcare workers. The Kentucky legislation expands the offense of assault in the third degree perpetrated against a variety of ...

Oregon’s HB 4088A, introduced in the state legislature during the 2024 session, died in the Joint Ways and Means Committee when the legislature adjourned on March 7. The legislation was intended to strengthen Oregon’s workplace violence prevention laws by adding regulatory requirements and enhancing the criminal repercussions for assault of hospital workers. While most of the bill had bipartisan support, section 6 of the proposed legislation, which would have made the assault of a hospital worker a felony instead of a misdemeanor, garnered strong opposition.

In this post ...