David M. Glaser, JD

If you perform shared visits with nonphysician practitioners or are a teaching physician, you should learn the lessons taught by a recent settlement involving Baylor University and a few other parties.

On March 5, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission held a 3-hour webinar on what it sees as the problems with private equity in health care.

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, or EMTLA, was passed to protect patients without insurance who were experiencing medical emergencies.

There has been a lot of attention about a proposed rule from the Federal Trade Commission that would prohibit many noncompetes. However, much of the discussion has been misleading, if not entirely wrong.

On Friday, Dec. 2, 2022, the government snuck out an FAQ delaying implementation of the requirement that good faith estimates under the No Surprises Act must include information from co-providers.

The No Surprises Act may be the most poorly written, difficult to understand set of regulations I have encountered in my legal career. Stark Law is easier to understand.

ASCs are a great opportunity for most orthopedic groups, but the legal issues have the potential to seem overwhelming.

CMS just issued new rules that dramatically revise the Stark regulations.

COVID-19 has accelerated the telehealth visit trend. Providing telehealth across states raises licensure, reimbursement and malpractice coverage issues. The regulatory landscape is changing but there are important considerations.

During the COVID-19 crisis, telehealth visits are safer for medical professionals and patients. However, in a recent interim final rule, CMS said the telehealth statute does not allow physical therapists, occupational therapists and speech language pathologists to “furnish” telehealth services. That is because the law authorizing telehealth services (Social Security Act Section 1834(m)) has a list of “professionals” who can provide telehealth.