*This post was authored with Paul Palma, law intern at Robinson+Cole. Paul is not admitted to practice law.
On March 3, 2025, Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont signed a law establishing a new process for hospitals in bankruptcy to apply for an “emergency certificate of need” (CON) to approve a transfer of ownership. The law, titled
On February 25, 2025, President Donald Trump issued an Executive Order titled “Making America Healthy Again by Empowering Patients with Clear, Accurate, and Actionable Healthcare Pricing Information” (the 2025 Order). The 2025 Order directs federal agencies to take various actions to prioritize enforcement of healthcare price transparency requirements for hospitals and health plans “to support
*This post was co-authored by Paul Palma, legal intern at Robinson+Cole. Paul is not admitted to practice law.
In November 2024, the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (OIG) published the results of its audit assessing hospital compliance with the federal Hospital Price Transparency Rule (HPT Rule). OIG determined that 37
*This post was co-authored by Paul Palma, legal intern at Robinson+Cole. Paul is not admitted to practice law.
On September 30, 2024, Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida issued an order in United States ex rel. Clarissa Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, holding that the
*This post was co-authored by Paul Palma, legal intern at Robinson+Cole. Paul is not admitted to practice law.
On September 18, 2024, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced a settlement with Dunes Surgical Hospital and United Surgical Partners International, Inc. (USPI), an entity holding a partial ownership interest in Dunes, in connection with alleged violations
On May 9, 2024, Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont signed into law Public Act No. 24-4, “An Act Concerning Emergency Department Crowding,” (The Act). The Act requires all Connecticut hospitals with an emergency department to, no later than January 1, 2025, and annually thereafter until January 1, 2029, analyze certain data with the goals of:
On May 9, 2024, Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont signed into law Public Act No. 24-6, “An Act Concerning the Reporting of Medical Debt,” (The Act). The Act prohibits health care providers from reporting medical debt to credit rating agencies and makes various updates to existing laws regarding the reporting of medical debt already applicable
On November 1, 2023, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published a proposed rule titled “21st Century Cures Act: Establishment of Disincentives for Health Care Providers That Have Committed Information Blocking” (the Proposed Rule). The Proposed Rule, if finalized, would create disincentives for health care providers that the HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) determines have committed “information blocking” (as defined at 45 C.F.R. § 171.103).Continue Reading HHS Proposes Disincentives for Providers that Commit Information Blocking
On October 13, 2023, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) published Advisory Opinion 23-07 (Advisory Opinion), in which the OIG issued a favorable opinion regarding a physician group employer’s proposal to pay bonuses to its employed physicians based on net profits derived from certain procedures performed by the physicians at ambulatory surgery centers.Continue Reading OIG Issues Favorable Opinion Regarding Physician Group’s Proposal to Pay Bonuses to its Employed Physicians Based on Net Profits
This post was co-authored by Ben Jensen, member Robinson+Cole’s Technology Industry Team.
On July 25, 2023, the Connecticut Supreme Court issued an opinion in High Watch Recovery Center, Inc. v. Dept. of Public Health that addresses the subject of the right to file an appeal of a Certificate of Need (CON) decision under the Connecticut Uniform Administrative Procedure Act (APA). High Watch involved a case where a party was allowed to intervene in a CON proceeding after the state CON agency had already elected to hold a discretionary hearing on the application at issue. A trial court declined to hear the appeal, and the Appellate Court affirmed that declination, on the basis that there was no “contested case” and no right to appeal the decision in Superior Court because the intervenor never expressly requested a hearing. The Supreme Court reversed this holding, concluding that intervention in opposition to the application was sufficient to render the case contested without need for the intervenor to request a hearing that was already scheduled. The ruling is significant in that it rejects a rigid application of the statutes governing CON procedures and instead focuses on the substance of the public hearing at issue in assessing whether a contested case is presented. Understanding the distinction between mandatory and discretionary hearings is an essential consideration for parties to CON proceedings to avoid foreclosing potential appellate rights.Continue Reading Connecticut Supreme Court Addresses Contested Case Issue in Ruling on Certificate of Need Appeals