It’s the latest development illustrating a growing tension between AI’s promise to improve access to mental health support and the alleged perils of unhealthy reliance on AI chatbots by vulnerable individuals. This tension is evident in recent reports that some users, particularly minors, are becoming addicted to AI chatbots, causing them to sever ties with supportive adults, lose touch with reality and, in the worst cases, engage in self-harm or harm to others.

While not yet reflected in diagnostic manuals, experts are recognizing the phenomenon of “AI psychosis”—distorted thoughts or delusional beliefs triggered by interactions with AI chatbots. According to Psychology Today, the term describes cases in which AI models have amplified, validated, or even co-created psychotic symptoms with individuals. Evidence indicates that AI psychosis can develop in people with or without a preexisting mental health issue, although the former is more common.

Although the FTC’s decision to abandon its non-compete ban appeal may appear to favor employers, its recent warning letters to health care organizations make clear that regulatory scrutiny is far from over.

In this episode, Epstein Becker Green attorneys E. John Steren and David J. Clark discuss the FTC’s concerns for health care employers, offer guidance on revising non-compete agreements to withstand legal challenges, and explore alternative strategies to protect business interests.

1. What Is Old Is New: Get Your Health Plan Governance in Order

Employers that sponsor self-funded health plans have a host of complicated obligations. There are greater potential legal, regulatory, and fiduciary risks than in years past with managing health plans because of increased congressional legislation, increased Department of Labor (DOL) focus on group health plan compliance, and increased group health plan litigation, often by the same plaintiffs’ firms that have been suing 401(k) plans in fee litigation the past 20 years or more.

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.

As awareness grows, so too does legal scrutiny and the push for new regulations and enforcement. In these seemingly critical times, what should health care employers be thinking about and incorporating into their comprehensive strategies to prevent and address workplace violence?

On this episode, Epstein Becker Green attorneys Sharon Peters, Eric Neiman, and Avery Schumacher dissect the legal landscape surrounding health care workplace violence, examining the steps being taken at various levels of government and what they mean for health care providers and institutions. Join us as we explore the legal frameworks, emerging policies, and broader compliance implications for health care employers.

In full, the MDE Regulations and the accessibility standards they incorporate stand well in excess of 100 pages. To help our clients more readily understand what the MDE Regulations do and do not require, we are answering some of the most commonly asked questions here.

• Federal courts are no longer required to defer to federal agencies’ reasonable regulatory interpretation of ambiguous federal statutes under the 1984 Chevron
• In this new Loper landscape, increased engagement at all points of the federal legislative and federal regulatory process is more important than ever, especially for those in the heavily regulated health care industry.

I. What Did the Supreme Court Do? What Changed with the Loper decision?

In a 6-3 decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court overruled the longstanding Chevron doctrine—under which federal courts would defer to federal agencies’ interpretation of their own statutes if the underlying statute was ambiguous and the interpretation was reasonable. The Court determined that this Chevron deference was inconsistent with the Administrative Procedure Act’s (APA) tasking to federal courts the duty to interpret federal statutes. Although the Court overruled the original decision in Chevron, the Court went out of its way to state that it “does not call into question prior cases that relied on the Chevron framework. The holdings of those cases that specific agency actions are lawful—including the Clean Air Act holding of Chevron itself—are still subject to statutory stare decisis despite the Court’s change in interpretive methodology.”

As stated in an amicus brief authored by prominent advocates, and as discussed at oral arguments, health care, as one of the most regulated industries, will be significantly impacted by the end of Chevron deference.

Federal regulatory agencies may have to alter their use of existing statutes to address new concerns under the post-Chevron landscape. Federal agencies also may have to go back to Congress to address new, emerging regulatory concerns not yet considered by statute.

This ruling has significant implications for employers and other entities in the health care and life sciences industries, as it changes the way courts are likely to interpret and apply regulations issued by federal agencies.

On this episode, Epstein Becker Green attorneys George Breen, Stuart Gerson, Rob Wanerman, and Paul DeCamp analyze the fallout of this monumental decision, discuss what it means for entities seeking to challenge ambiguous statutes and regulations, and assess how to proceed from here.

The new law will ...

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 ...

In this post ...

In Mosby v. Ingalls Memorial Hospital, the Illinois Supreme Court delved ...

The Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) generally requires covered employers to pay non-exempt employees overtime for all hours worked over 40 hours in a work week. However, the FLSA provides an exception for certain employers in the health care industry, who are instead permitted to adopt a fixed work period of 14 consecutive days and pay overtime for all hours worked: (a) over 8 hours in a single day, or (b) over 80 hours in a 14-day work period.

Under the 8 and 80 overtime system, for example, an employee who works a 12-hour shift would be entitled ...

While buyers tend to focus on several things as part of those transactions, securing key employees post-closing is an important but sometimes overlooked issue.

What are some important factors to consider when entering a transaction in a human capital-intensive industry like health care?