N.Y. Pub. Health Law Article 45-A, “Disclosure of Material Transactions,” took effect on August 1, 2023, and requires “health care entities” involved in a “material transaction” to provide written notice to the NYSDOH at least 30 days prior the proposed closing of a transaction. As our colleagues wrote at the time, the legislation grew out of concerns with the “proliferation of large physician practices being managed by entities that are investor-backed” (e.g., private equity).

These concerns have only increased in the past two years; more than a dozen states including New York have enacted health care transaction notice requirements. Currently, several state legislatures are attempting to either amend existing requirements or create new ones. New York is one state that is potentially amending its existing notice requirement. As we noted in March, proposed legislative changes to the New York law would include an extension of the notice deadline to 60 days; a statement as to whether any party to the transaction owns any other health care entity that within the past three years has closed operations, is in the process of closing operations, or has experienced a substantial reduction in services; and a statement as to whether a sale-leaseback agreement, mortgage or lease, or other payments associated with real estate are a component of the proposed transaction.

Background

D.C.’s CON requirements were originally established in 1980 to ensure that access to health care services is available to all D.C. residents and to contain the costs of such health care services. D.C. regulators have more recently argued that D.C. was experiencing an overabundance of primary care providers, which has led regulators to apply the CON process in an overly broad manner to prevent a doctor on every block.^[1] The CON requirements have been applied in an inconsistent manner such that similarly situated providers may or may not have a CON depending on enforcement by regulators. Stakeholders within the D.C. community have contested the overly broad interpretation and enforcement of the CON law in D.C. and have argued that such interpretations are in fact creating provider shortages, increasing health care costs, and decreasing access to care.

In addition, the time and expense of complying with the CON requirements is enough of a barrier to potentially send independent physician practices across the border into Maryland and Virginia.^[2] Stakeholders have asserted that rather than decrease health care costs and increase access to care, the CON laws have had the opposite effect.

Lastly, the current requirements for institutional and physician providers to apply for a CON for even routine projects or activities is unnecessary and overly burdensome. For example, hospitals must wait months to a year following the CON process to get non-patient improvements like heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC). Furthermore, under the current interpretation by regulators, a physician group could subject itself to requiring a CON simply by hiring a non-owner physician or maintain a separate room to perform non-surgical procedures.

While much of the early language regarding MSOs seems to have been shed from the bill, some ambiguity remains regarding whether, and in what contexts, sponsored MSOs will need to give pre-transaction notice to, or obtain the consent of, the California Attorney General (AG).  A later section of the bill highlights what will likely be CPOM enforcement priorities and is worth the close attention of all MSOs operating in the state.

S. 4804 was introduced by Senator Edward D. Markey (D-Mass), chair of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee on Primary Health, and Retirement Security, before being referred to the Committee on Finance. H.R. 9156 was introduced by Representative Pramila Jayapal (WA-07), member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions.

In March 2024, the state of Rhode Island introduced S 2870, the Medical Spas Safety Act, providing (within the definition of “cosmetic medical procedure”) that:

• The performance of cosmetic medical services is the practice of medicine and surgery; and
• A cosmetic medical service shall be performed by a qualified licensed or certified non-physician only if the services have been delegated by a medical director, supervising physician, supervising physician’s assistant (PA) or supervising advanced practice registered nurse (APRN) who is responsible for onsite supervision of services performed.

Before opening or investing in a medical spa there are several key elements to be considered:

Corporate Structure

One of the first elements to consider when opening a medical spa is the corporate structure and ownership of the medical spa. Many jurisdictions have “Corporate Practice of ...

The measure, effective July 1, 2024, adds a new Chapter 8.5 to the Indiana Code providing in Section 4(a) that “[a]n Indiana health care entity that is involved in a merger or acquisition with another health care entity with total assets, including combined entities and holdings, of at least ten million dollars ($10,000,000) shall, at least ninety (90) days prior to the merger or ...

Raised HB 5319, sponsored by Sen. Jeff Gordon (R) and Sen. Saud Anwar (D), was referred to the state’s Joint Committee on Public Health. A public hearing was held on March 6.

This legislation, and related bills around the country, are ...

H.F. No. 4206, authored by state Rep. Jessica Hanson and referred to the Commerce, Finance, and Policy Committee, would also prohibit private equity or REITs from acquiring or increasing any operational or financial control those entities have over a provider, after ...

While many transactions involving health care entities will already face the notice requirements of SB 184, AB 3129, introduced by California Assembly Member ...

For those opposing the measure, the victory may only be temporary. The ...