Robinson Cole LLP
High Contrast Mode

Nathaniel T. Arden has extensive experience advising clients on health care regulatory compliance, fraud and abuse issues, health care information technology issues, managed care arrangements and clinical trials. Nathaniel also advises clients, both within and outside of the health care field, on complex software licensing, software-as-a-service agreements and other technology outsourcing, maintenance and service arrangements and related data issues. He is a member of our firm's Health Law and Intellectual Property + Technology groups.

Health Care Regulatory, Contracting + Governance

Nathaniel advises health systems, hospitals, physician groups and accountable care organizations on general regulatory compliance matters, including Medicare and Medicaid regulations, the Stark law and federal anti-kickback statute, as well as similar state laws, information blocking laws, hospital price transparency matters, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and state privacy laws, provider and facility licensing laws, and scope of practice issues. He regularly negotiates clinical services agreements, clinical trial agreements and advises clients on related clinical research issues. 

Nathaniel has broad experience representing hospitals, health systems, clinically integrated networks and telehealth providers in negotiation of managed care agreements, including with Medicare Advantage plans.

Nathaniel’s practice also includes counseling health care entities on corporate governance issues including bylaws, certificates of incorporation, board member obligations and corporate restructurings.

Information Technology

Nathaniel focuses a significant amount of his practice on counseling health care providers, digital health companies and other software companies on information technology issues. He advises clients on enterprise software license, software as a service (SaaS), data license, reseller arrangements, mobile and digital health matters and similar information technology agreements, including matters involving electronic medical records systems, population health management tools and health information exchanges. He has experience assisting clients with licensing of artificial intelligence-supported software, as well as experience with data use and ownership issues.  He also is experienced in advising clients on the use of digital tracking technologies.

He is a contributor to our firm’s health law blog, Health Law Diagnosis

  • The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law (Juris Doctor, cum laude)
  • Case Western Reserve University (Bachelors)
    • B.A., Economics

  • State of Connecticut
  • State of New York

Selected as a Rising Star to the Connecticut Super Lawyers list from 2019 to 2022

Selected by his peers for inclusion in the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in the area of Health Care Law from 2021 to 2025

American Health Law Association

American Bar Association

Connecticut Bar Association

New York State Bar Association

Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society

Publications


Connecticut Expands Penalties for Unlicensed Health Care Operations teaser
July 1, 2026

Connecticut Expands Penalties for Unlicensed Health Care Operations

Health Law Diagnosis
Connecticut Updates its Medical Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment Program teaser
July 1, 2026

Connecticut Updates its Medical Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment Program

Health Law Diagnosis
New Connecticut Law Restricts Health Care Providers’ Offering of Third-Party Patient Financing teaser
June 25, 2026

New Connecticut Law Restricts Health Care Providers’ Offering of Third-Party Patient Financing

Health Law Diagnosis
Connecticut Expands Penalties for Unlicensed Health Care Operations teaser
July 1, 2026

Connecticut Expands Penalties for Unlicensed Health Care Operations

Health Law Diagnosis
Connecticut Updates its Medical Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment Program teaser
July 1, 2026

Connecticut Updates its Medical Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment Program

Health Law Diagnosis
New Connecticut Law Restricts Health Care Providers’ Offering of Third-Party Patient Financing teaser
June 25, 2026

New Connecticut Law Restricts Health Care Providers’ Offering of Third-Party Patient Financing

Health Law Diagnosis
Massachusetts Governor Healey Announces New Department of Insurance Regulations Intended to Streamline Prior Authorization Practices teaser
January 29, 2026

Massachusetts Governor Healey Announces New Department of Insurance Regulations Intended to Streamline Prior Authorization Practices

Health Law Diagnosis
CMS Adds New Requirements to Hospital Price Transparency Reporting teaser
November 25, 2025

CMS Adds New Requirements to Hospital Price Transparency Reporting

Health law Diagnosis
Joint Commission Releases Guidance for AI in Health Care teaser
October 13, 2025

Joint Commission Releases Guidance for AI in Health Care

Health Law Diagnosis
Connecticut Governor Signs Bill Adding Requirements for Hospitals and Expanding DPH's Enforcement Scope teaser
July 1, 2025

Connecticut Governor Signs Bill Adding Requirements for Hospitals and Expanding DPH's Enforcement Scope

Health Law Diagnosis
Connecticut Enacts Wide-Ranging Health Care Law Modifying Various Existing Rules and Laws teaser
July 1, 2025

Connecticut Enacts Wide-Ranging Health Care Law Modifying Various Existing Rules and Laws

Health Law Diagnosis
Health Law Diagnosis teaser
May 22, 2024

Health Law Diagnosis



Massachusetts Governor Healey Announces New Department of Insurance Regulations Intended to Streamline Prior Authorization Practices teaser
January 29, 2026

Massachusetts Governor Healey Announces New Department of Insurance Regulations Intended to Streamline Prior Authorization Practices

Health Law Diagnosis
CMS Adds New Requirements to Hospital Price Transparency Reporting teaser
November 25, 2025

CMS Adds New Requirements to Hospital Price Transparency Reporting

Health law Diagnosis
Joint Commission Releases Guidance for AI in Health Care teaser
October 13, 2025

Joint Commission Releases Guidance for AI in Health Care

Health Law Diagnosis
Connecticut Governor Signs Bill Adding Requirements for Hospitals and Expanding DPH's Enforcement Scope teaser
July 1, 2025

Connecticut Governor Signs Bill Adding Requirements for Hospitals and Expanding DPH's Enforcement Scope

Health Law Diagnosis
Connecticut Enacts Wide-Ranging Health Care Law Modifying Various Existing Rules and Laws teaser
July 1, 2025

Connecticut Enacts Wide-Ranging Health Care Law Modifying Various Existing Rules and Laws

Health Law Diagnosis
Health Law Diagnosis teaser
May 22, 2024

Health Law Diagnosis


News


August 15, 2024

78 Robinson+Cole Lawyers Listed in The Best Lawyers in America© 2025

(August 15, 2024) – 78 Robinson+Cole lawyers were selected by their peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America© 2025. Of the 78 lawyers from across the firm’s practice groups and offices named to the list, 56 are from Connecticut. The firm continues to have the highest number of recognized lawyers in the state. Robinson+Cole also has the highest number of listed lawyers in Connecticut in the areas of environmental law, health care law, and insurance law. Additionally, four lawyers were named Best Lawyers® 2025 “Lawyer of the Year” in the following offices, in the noted practice areas: Hartford, CT – Best Lawyers® 2025 “Lawyer of the Year” Kenneth C. Baldwin – Energy Law John L. Cordani – Trademark Law Michael R. Enright – Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law Boston, MA – Best Lawyers® 2025 “Lawyer of the Year” Kathleen M. Porter – Information Technology Law A Best Lawyers “Lawyer of the Year” designation is awarded to one lawyer in each of various high-profile specialties in large legal communities. These particular lawyers received the highest ratings among their peers for their abilities, professionalism, and integrity. The fifth edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America was also released, and includes 23 Robinson+Cole lawyers. The “Ones to Watch” recognition is given to lawyers early in their careers for their outstanding professional excellence in private practice in the United States. The firm has the highest number of lawyers to receive this designation in Hartford, Connecticut. Inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America® and Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America is determined through a comprehensive peer-review survey. The 2025 awards were created by analyzing over 27 million evaluations, including a record breaking 4.2 million responses from this year alone. Additional information regarding the Best Lawyers selection methodology may be read here. Congratulations to the following Robinson+Cole lawyers: Hartford, CT – Best Lawyers® Wystan M. Ackerman – Litigation-Insurance Kenneth C. Baldwin – Energy Law Garry C. Berman – Real Estate Law Patrick M. Birney – Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law Lisa M. Boyle – Health Care Law Dan A. Brody – Commercial Litigation; Criminal Defense: White-Collar Christine E. Bromberg – Nonprofit / Charities Law; Tax Law Dennis C. Cavanaugh – Construction Law; Litigation-Construction Stephen O. Clancy – Commercial Litigation; Litigation-Insurance Thomas P. Cody – Real Estate Law Britt-Marie K. Cole-Johnson – Employment Law-Individuals; Employment Law-Management John L. Cordani – Litigation-Intellectual Property; Trade Secrets Law; Trademark Law Frank F. Coulom, Jr. – Commercial Litigation Kevin P. Daly – Commercial Litigation Raymond T. DeMeo – Insurance Law Natale V. DiNatale – Employment Law-Management; Labor Law-Management Michael R. Enright – Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law; Litigation-Bankruptcy Gregory R. Faulkner – Construction Law; Litigation-Construction Brian C. Freeman – Environmental Law; Litigation-Environmental Stephen E. Goldman – Insurance Law Matthew J. Guanci, Jr. – Corporate Law Edward J. Heath – Commercial Litigation Frederick E. Hedberg – Construction Law, Litigation-Construction Rachel V. Kushel – Employment Law-Management; Labor Law-Management John B. Lynch Jr. – Corporate Law; Mergers and Acquisitions Law Michael F. Maglio – Banking and Finance Law; Commercial Finance Law; Equipment Finance Law; Securitization and Structured Finance Law Virginia E. McGarrity – Employee Benefits (ERISA) Law Robert S. Melvin – Environmental Law; Litigation-Environmental Joey Lee Miranda – Energy Law; Energy Regulatory Law; Environmental Law Linda L. Morkan – Appellate Practice John H. Mutchler – Copyright Law; Patent Law; Trademark Law Megan R. Naughton – Immigration Law Martin A. Onorato – Construction Law; Litigation-Construction David M. Panico – Public Finance Law Earl W. Phillips, Jr. – Environmental Law James P. Ray – Environmental Law; Litigation-Environmental Norman H. Roos – Banking and Finance Law Edward J. Samorajczyk, Jr. – Corporate Law; Securities / Capital Markets Law Jacqueline Pennino Scheib – Copyright Law; Trademark Law Emilee Mooney Scott – Environmental Law Jonathan E. Small – Insurance Law Brian R. Smith – Land Use and Zoning Law Rhonda J. Tobin – Insurance Law Theodore J. Tucci – Health Care Law; Insurance Law Abby M. Warren – Employment Law-Management Jeffrey J. White – Commercial Litigation; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions-Defendants William S. Wilson II – Construction Law; Litigation-Construction Hartford, CT - Ones to Watch Nathaniel T. Arden – Health Care Law Jason H. DePatie – Insurance Law Andrew A. DePeau – Commercial Litigation Conor O. Duffy – Health Care Law Scott T. Garosshen – Appellate Practice Peter R. Meggers – Appellate Practice; Commercial Litigation; Insurance Law Kathryn N. Mullin – Real Estate Law Abigail L. Preissler – Banking and Finance Law; Corporate Law Austin G. Provost – Real Estate Law Jonathan H. Schaefer – Energy Law; Environmental Law Jennifer L. Shanley – Immigration Law Stamford, CT – Best Lawyers®  Patrick W. Begos – Litigation-Insurance Gregory J. Bennici – Litigation-Insurance Thomas J. Donlon – Appellate Practice Steven L. Elbaum – Real Estate Law John H. Kane – Insurance Law Eric M. Kogan – Corporate Law Charles F. Martin III – Real Estate Law John F.X. Peloso Jr. – Litigation-Real Estate Patricia D. Weitzman – Health Care Law; Litigation-Health Care Stamford, CT - Ones to Watch Lisa B. Andrzejewski – Construction Law Emily C. Deans – Energy Law Anthony J. Vogel – Real Estate Law Boston, MA - Best Lawyers® Joseph A. Barra – Construction Law Kendra L. Berardi – Real Estate Law Amanda S. Eckhoff – Real Estate Law Michael S. Giaimo – Land Use and Zoning Law; Real Estate Law Kathleen G. Healy – Health Care Law E. Christopher Kehoe – Real Estate Law Matthew J. Lawlor – Land Use and Zoning Law; Real Estate Law Seth B. Orkand – Criminal Defense: General Practice, Criminal Defense: White-Collar Kathleen M. Porter – Information Technology Law Deirdre M. Robinson – Real Estate Law Boston, MA - Ones to Watch Jessica D. Bardi – Environmental Law; Litigation-Environmental Jonathan L. Cabot – Corporate Law; Public Finance Law Julianna M. Charpentier – Commercial Litigation; Litigation-Real Estate Timothy C. Twardowski – Land Use and Zoning Law; Real Estate Law New York, NY - Best Lawyers® Ian T. Clarke-Fisher – Litigation-Labor and Employment E. Evans Wohlforth, Jr. – Commercial Litigation Albany, NY - Ones to Watch Danielle H. Tangorre – Administrative / Regulatory Law; Elder Law; Health Care Law Philadelphia, PA - Best Lawyers® Laurie A. Krepto – Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law Wilmington, DE - Best Lawyers® Natalie D. Ramsey – Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law; Litigation-Bankruptcy Wilmington, DE – Ones to Watch Jamie L. Edmonson – Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law Providence, RI - Best Lawyers® William M. Daley – Commercial Litigation; Litigation-Insurance Linn F. Freedman – Commercial Litigation; Privacy and Data Security Law Dana M. Horton – Insurance Law; Litigation-Insurance; Personal Injury Litigation-Defendants Patricia J. Igoe – Commercial Finance Law Peter V. Lacouture – Energy Law Roger A. Peters II – Real Estate Law Daniel F. Sullivan – Insurance Law George W. Watson III – Energy Regulatory Law Providence, RI - Ones to Watch Kathryn M. Rattigan – Privacy and Data Security Miami, FL- Ones to Watch Audrey E. Goldman – Insurance Law Joel L. McNabney – Insurance Law

78 Robinson+Cole Lawyers Listed in <i>The Best Lawyers in America</i>© 2025 teaser
October 26, 2023

Robinson+Cole Lawyers Recognized in 2023 Super Lawyers®

Super Lawyers
August 17, 2023

78 Robinson+Cole Lawyers Listed in The Best Lawyers in America© 2024

Best Lawyers in America
78 Robinson+Cole Lawyers Listed in The Best Lawyers in America© 2024 teaser
August 15, 2024

78 Robinson+Cole Lawyers Listed in The Best Lawyers in America© 2025

(August 15, 2024) – 78 Robinson+Cole lawyers were selected by their peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America© 2025. Of the 78 lawyers from across the firm’s practice groups and offices named to the list, 56 are from Connecticut. The firm continues to have the highest number of recognized lawyers in the state. Robinson+Cole also has the highest number of listed lawyers in Connecticut in the areas of environmental law, health care law, and insurance law. Additionally, four lawyers were named Best Lawyers® 2025 “Lawyer of the Year” in the following offices, in the noted practice areas: Hartford, CT – Best Lawyers® 2025 “Lawyer of the Year” Kenneth C. Baldwin – Energy Law John L. Cordani – Trademark Law Michael R. Enright – Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law Boston, MA – Best Lawyers® 2025 “Lawyer of the Year” Kathleen M. Porter – Information Technology Law A Best Lawyers “Lawyer of the Year” designation is awarded to one lawyer in each of various high-profile specialties in large legal communities. These particular lawyers received the highest ratings among their peers for their abilities, professionalism, and integrity. The fifth edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America was also released, and includes 23 Robinson+Cole lawyers. The “Ones to Watch” recognition is given to lawyers early in their careers for their outstanding professional excellence in private practice in the United States. The firm has the highest number of lawyers to receive this designation in Hartford, Connecticut. Inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America® and Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America is determined through a comprehensive peer-review survey. The 2025 awards were created by analyzing over 27 million evaluations, including a record breaking 4.2 million responses from this year alone. Additional information regarding the Best Lawyers selection methodology may be read here. Congratulations to the following Robinson+Cole lawyers: Hartford, CT – Best Lawyers® Wystan M. Ackerman – Litigation-Insurance Kenneth C. Baldwin – Energy Law Garry C. Berman – Real Estate Law Patrick M. Birney – Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law Lisa M. Boyle – Health Care Law Dan A. Brody – Commercial Litigation; Criminal Defense: White-Collar Christine E. Bromberg – Nonprofit / Charities Law; Tax Law Dennis C. Cavanaugh – Construction Law; Litigation-Construction Stephen O. Clancy – Commercial Litigation; Litigation-Insurance Thomas P. Cody – Real Estate Law Britt-Marie K. Cole-Johnson – Employment Law-Individuals; Employment Law-Management John L. Cordani – Litigation-Intellectual Property; Trade Secrets Law; Trademark Law Frank F. Coulom, Jr. – Commercial Litigation Kevin P. Daly – Commercial Litigation Raymond T. DeMeo – Insurance Law Natale V. DiNatale – Employment Law-Management; Labor Law-Management Michael R. Enright – Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law; Litigation-Bankruptcy Gregory R. Faulkner – Construction Law; Litigation-Construction Brian C. Freeman – Environmental Law; Litigation-Environmental Stephen E. Goldman – Insurance Law Matthew J. Guanci, Jr. – Corporate Law Edward J. Heath – Commercial Litigation Frederick E. Hedberg – Construction Law, Litigation-Construction Rachel V. Kushel – Employment Law-Management; Labor Law-Management John B. Lynch Jr. – Corporate Law; Mergers and Acquisitions Law Michael F. Maglio – Banking and Finance Law; Commercial Finance Law; Equipment Finance Law; Securitization and Structured Finance Law Virginia E. McGarrity – Employee Benefits (ERISA) Law Robert S. Melvin – Environmental Law; Litigation-Environmental Joey Lee Miranda – Energy Law; Energy Regulatory Law; Environmental Law Linda L. Morkan – Appellate Practice John H. Mutchler – Copyright Law; Patent Law; Trademark Law Megan R. Naughton – Immigration Law Martin A. Onorato – Construction Law; Litigation-Construction David M. Panico – Public Finance Law Earl W. Phillips, Jr. – Environmental Law James P. Ray – Environmental Law; Litigation-Environmental Norman H. Roos – Banking and Finance Law Edward J. Samorajczyk, Jr. – Corporate Law; Securities / Capital Markets Law Jacqueline Pennino Scheib – Copyright Law; Trademark Law Emilee Mooney Scott – Environmental Law Jonathan E. Small – Insurance Law Brian R. Smith – Land Use and Zoning Law Rhonda J. Tobin – Insurance Law Theodore J. Tucci – Health Care Law; Insurance Law Abby M. Warren – Employment Law-Management Jeffrey J. White – Commercial Litigation; Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions-Defendants William S. Wilson II – Construction Law; Litigation-Construction Hartford, CT - Ones to Watch Nathaniel T. Arden – Health Care Law Jason H. DePatie – Insurance Law Andrew A. DePeau – Commercial Litigation Conor O. Duffy – Health Care Law Scott T. Garosshen – Appellate Practice Peter R. Meggers – Appellate Practice; Commercial Litigation; Insurance Law Kathryn N. Mullin – Real Estate Law Abigail L. Preissler – Banking and Finance Law; Corporate Law Austin G. Provost – Real Estate Law Jonathan H. Schaefer – Energy Law; Environmental Law Jennifer L. Shanley – Immigration Law Stamford, CT – Best Lawyers®  Patrick W. Begos – Litigation-Insurance Gregory J. Bennici – Litigation-Insurance Thomas J. Donlon – Appellate Practice Steven L. Elbaum – Real Estate Law John H. Kane – Insurance Law Eric M. Kogan – Corporate Law Charles F. Martin III – Real Estate Law John F.X. Peloso Jr. – Litigation-Real Estate Patricia D. Weitzman – Health Care Law; Litigation-Health Care Stamford, CT - Ones to Watch Lisa B. Andrzejewski – Construction Law Emily C. Deans – Energy Law Anthony J. Vogel – Real Estate Law Boston, MA - Best Lawyers® Joseph A. Barra – Construction Law Kendra L. Berardi – Real Estate Law Amanda S. Eckhoff – Real Estate Law Michael S. Giaimo – Land Use and Zoning Law; Real Estate Law Kathleen G. Healy – Health Care Law E. Christopher Kehoe – Real Estate Law Matthew J. Lawlor – Land Use and Zoning Law; Real Estate Law Seth B. Orkand – Criminal Defense: General Practice, Criminal Defense: White-Collar Kathleen M. Porter – Information Technology Law Deirdre M. Robinson – Real Estate Law Boston, MA - Ones to Watch Jessica D. Bardi – Environmental Law; Litigation-Environmental Jonathan L. Cabot – Corporate Law; Public Finance Law Julianna M. Charpentier – Commercial Litigation; Litigation-Real Estate Timothy C. Twardowski – Land Use and Zoning Law; Real Estate Law New York, NY - Best Lawyers® Ian T. Clarke-Fisher – Litigation-Labor and Employment E. Evans Wohlforth, Jr. – Commercial Litigation Albany, NY - Ones to Watch Danielle H. Tangorre – Administrative / Regulatory Law; Elder Law; Health Care Law Philadelphia, PA - Best Lawyers® Laurie A. Krepto – Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law Wilmington, DE - Best Lawyers® Natalie D. Ramsey – Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law; Litigation-Bankruptcy Wilmington, DE – Ones to Watch Jamie L. Edmonson – Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law Providence, RI - Best Lawyers® William M. Daley – Commercial Litigation; Litigation-Insurance Linn F. Freedman – Commercial Litigation; Privacy and Data Security Law Dana M. Horton – Insurance Law; Litigation-Insurance; Personal Injury Litigation-Defendants Patricia J. Igoe – Commercial Finance Law Peter V. Lacouture – Energy Law Roger A. Peters II – Real Estate Law Daniel F. Sullivan – Insurance Law George W. Watson III – Energy Regulatory Law Providence, RI - Ones to Watch Kathryn M. Rattigan – Privacy and Data Security Miami, FL- Ones to Watch Audrey E. Goldman – Insurance Law Joel L. McNabney – Insurance Law

78 Robinson+Cole Lawyers Listed in <i>The Best Lawyers in America</i>© 2025 teaser
October 26, 2023

Robinson+Cole Lawyers Recognized in 2023 Super Lawyers®

Super Lawyers
August 17, 2023

78 Robinson+Cole Lawyers Listed in The Best Lawyers in America© 2024

Best Lawyers in America
78 Robinson+Cole Lawyers Listed in The Best Lawyers in America© 2024 teaser
October 11, 2022

Robinson+Cole Lawyers Recognized in 2022 Super Lawyers®

August 18, 2022

74 Robinson+Cole Lawyers Listed in The Best Lawyers in America 2023

The Best Lawyers in America
December 8, 2021

Robinson+Cole Elects New Partners and Counsel

October 12, 2021

Robinson+Cole Lawyers Recognized by Super Lawyers®

August 19, 2021

65 Robinson+Cole Lawyers Listed in The Best Lawyers in America© 2022

November 20, 2020

Conor Duffy and Nathaniel Arden Author Article on OIG Special Fraud Alert Published in Medical Economics

Medical Economics

October 11, 2022

Robinson+Cole Lawyers Recognized in 2022 Super Lawyers®

August 18, 2022

74 Robinson+Cole Lawyers Listed in The Best Lawyers in America 2023

The Best Lawyers in America
December 8, 2021

Robinson+Cole Elects New Partners and Counsel

October 12, 2021

Robinson+Cole Lawyers Recognized by Super Lawyers®

August 19, 2021

65 Robinson+Cole Lawyers Listed in The Best Lawyers in America© 2022

November 20, 2020

Conor Duffy and Nathaniel Arden Author Article on OIG Special Fraud Alert Published in Medical Economics

Medical Economics

Events


Past

AI Governance and Adoption: Insights from one Health System’s Experiences

Mar 10 2026
MHA Hot Topic Webinar Series
Past

60-Day Rule – What Providers Need to Know About Reporting and Returning Overpayments in 2025

Dec 4 2025
HFMA / NEHIA Joint 2025 Compliance & Internal Audit Conference
Past

AI Governance and Adoption: Insights from one Health System’s Experiences

Mar 10 2026
MHA Hot Topic Webinar Series
Past

60-Day Rule – What Providers Need to Know About Reporting and Returning Overpayments in 2025

Dec 4 2025
HFMA / NEHIA Joint 2025 Compliance & Internal Audit Conference
Past

Post-Pandemic Compliance – Best Practices and Areas of Regulatory Scrutiny

Nov 30 2023
NEHIA Compliance and Internal Audit Conference
Past

Mobile Health Applications - New FTC Regulatory Guidance on Applications

Sep 29 2023
Past

No Surprises! Overview of New Surprise Billing Protections and What Hospitals Need to Know

Nov 30 2022
Healthcare Financial Management Association of Massachusetts and Rhode Island / New England Healthcare Internal Auditors “2022 In-Person Compliance & Internal Audit Conference”
Past

Telehealth Compliance Amidst COVID-19

Dec 3 2021
Healthcare Financial Management Association (HFMA) MA-RI Chapter and New England Healthcare Internal Auditors (NEHIA) 2021 In-Person Compliance & Internal Audit Conference
Past

Post-Pandemic Compliance – Best Practices and Areas of Regulatory Scrutiny

Nov 30 2023
NEHIA Compliance and Internal Audit Conference
Past

Mobile Health Applications - New FTC Regulatory Guidance on Applications

Sep 29 2023
Past

No Surprises! Overview of New Surprise Billing Protections and What Hospitals Need to Know

Nov 30 2022
Healthcare Financial Management Association of Massachusetts and Rhode Island / New England Healthcare Internal Auditors “2022 In-Person Compliance & Internal Audit Conference”
Past

Telehealth Compliance Amidst COVID-19

Dec 3 2021
Healthcare Financial Management Association (HFMA) MA-RI Chapter and New England Healthcare Internal Auditors (NEHIA) 2021 In-Person Compliance & Internal Audit Conference

Health Law Diagnosis


Below is an excerpt of the Health Law Diagnosis blog posts authored by Nathaniel.

Connecticut Expands Penalties for Unlicensed Health Care Operations

Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont recently signed into law Public Act No. 26-68 (the Act), which makes targeted but significant changes to the Department of Public Health’s (DPH) enforcement authority for health care licensure and certification violations by increasing potential fines and creating criminal liability for certain unlicensed operation of health care institutions and unlicensed provision of professional health care services. These changes take effect October 1, 2026. Expanded Penalties for Operating Without Required Licensure or Certification The Act revises the penalty framework for a person who establishes, conducts, manages or operates a health care institution (such as a hospital, urgent care center or nursing home) without the required license or certificate. Beginning October 1, 2026, such conduct will be a class D felony, and violators may be fined up to $5,000 per day, an increase from the current maximum of $100 per day. The Act creates a new penalty for property owners on whose property a health care institution is established, conducted, managed, or operated without the required license or certificate. These property owners may be fined up to $100 per day. There is a narrow exception to the above penalties for any institution that applied for a license renewal within 60 days after its license lapsed. Increased Civil Penalties The Act adds a separate civil penalty mechanism, under which DPH may, after a hearing, impose a civil penalty of up to $25,000 per day on any person establishing, conducting, managing or operating a health care institution without the required license or certificate. Under current law, DPH may, upon the advice of the Attorney General, seek an injunction to restrain the offending institution’s operation. The Act also authorizes DPH (or the applicable health care service licensing board or commission) to issue a temporary order to stop a person performing unlicensed activities while a formal order is pending if such activities pose an imminent risk to public health, safety or welfare. After a hearing, DPH may also impose a civil penalty of up to $25,000 for each day that a person provides professional health care services without the required DPH license or certificate. Key Takeaways Under the Act, DPH has much greater authority to enforce its institution and individual licensing and certification requirements. Institutions and individuals licensed or certified by DPH should review their current licenses, certificates, and renewal tracking processes before October 1, 2026.

Visit Blog

Connecticut Updates its Medical Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment Program

Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont recently signed Public Act No. 26-68 (the Act), which includes changes to the state’s medical orders for life-sustaining treatment (MOLST) program. Shortly after the Act was signed into law, the Connecticut Department of Public Health (DPH) issued policies and procedures regarding the MOLST program, which will operate as regulations in the interim until DPH promulgates final regulations. The statutory changes to the MOLST program became effective May 26, 2026, and the DPH policies and procedures became effective June 8, 2026. Background MOLST is Connecticut’s framework for documenting medical orders concerning life-sustaining treatment for individuals who are approaching the end stage of a serious, life-limiting illness or who are in a condition of advanced chronic progressive frailty. The purpose of the program is to support patients’ preferences regarding treatment at such point in their disease progression. MOLST is implemented through medical orders that can guide treatment decisions across care settings. Statutory Changes to the MOLST Program The Act redefines a “medical order for life-sustaining treatment” to now mean a set of orders established by DPH and specific to the MOLST program. Previously, a MOLST was an order made by a physician, advanced practice registered nurse (APRN) or physician assistant. The Act further specifies that a MOLST will be valid only if it is completed on a form prescribed by DPH. Pursuant to this change, DPH published a form which providers must now use to effectuate patients’ wishes for life-sustaining treatment. The Act also allows physician assistants, in addition to APRNs and physicians, to determine that a patient’s condition has progressed to the point appropriate for a MOLST. MOLST Policies and Procedures DPH’s policies and procedures operationalize the MOLST changes made by the Act. The policies include training-related requirements for providers who are authorized to execute a MOLST form. Each eligible provider must complete DPH-approved MOLST training, which will focus on conditions that qualify a patient for participation in the MOLST program. No provider may sign a MOLST form without first completing the required DPH-approved training. The new DPH policies require that a provider conduct a MOLST discussion with the patient or the patient’s legally authorized representative before executing a MOLST form. During this discussion, the provider must discuss the patient’s goals for care and treatment and the benefits and risks of various methods for documenting the patient’s wishes for end-of-life treatment. The MOLST discussion must be completed again as clinically appropriate to review goals of care and treatment preferences according to disease progression, when the patient is transferred to a different care setting or level of care, or if the patient’s preferences change. The provider must document these discussions in the patient’s medical record. Once the MOLST form is executed, it must be made available for the patient to review. The policies also address revocation, amendment and treatment requests that differ from a valid MOLST form. A patient or their legally authorized representative may request and receive treatment that differs from the patient’s valid MOLST form at any time, without revoking the MOLST form. A patient or legally authorized representative may revoke or amend a valid MOLST form at any time. Each health care provider must follow the orders on a valid MOLST form, unless instructed otherwise by the patient or legally authorized representative. The policies also provide that valid MOLST forms must be recognized by any receiving health care provider or institution. Key Takeaways The Act and related DPH policies result in a more detailed and standardized operational framework for the MOLST program, and place new training requirements on providers. Health care providers involved in end-of-life care should be aware of these new changes to the MOLST program and may need to update their processes and forms to comply with the new state-mandated MOLST program requirements.

Visit Blog

New Connecticut Law Restricts Health Care Providers’ Offering of Third-Party Patient Financing

Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont recently signed into law An Act Concerning Credit Cards and Health and Veterinary Care Services (PA 26-6; the Act). The Act restricts how health care providers may offer third-party financing products to patients and limits when health care providers can charge patients’ credit cards.  The Act is effective January 1, 2027. The Act broadly applies to all Connecticut-licensed health care providers and facilities (including their employees, agents, and independent contractors) that provide health care services to patients in Connecticut. The term “health care services” is similarly broadly defined and includes hospital, medical, surgical, dental, vision, and pharmaceutical products and services. The Act covers loans, lines of credit, and credit cards offered by third parties (“third-party financing”). Notably, third-party financing does not include lines of credit or loans offered by a health care provider where the health care provider is the creditor. Under the Act, health care providers may not advertise, market, solicit, promote, or offer third-party financing to a patient by: Including the provider’s branding on any materials used to advertise, market, solicit, promote, offer, or extend the third-party financing; Giving patients access to software, internet addresses, hyperlinks, or QR codes maintained by a third party that offers third-party financing and includes provider branding; Offering third-party financing while the patient is under anesthesia or other sedation; Offering third-party financing while the health care provider is providing health care services to the patient or in any area of a facility that is used to provide health care services, except in limited circumstances; or Completing or submitting a third-party financing application on behalf of a patient. Once the Act is effective, health care providers are also prohibited from receiving financial incentives in exchange for advertising, marketing, soliciting, promoting, or offering any third-party financing. The Act includes a notable provision that prohibits a health care provider from charging a third-party financing account “for the cost of a health care service or ... any portion of the cost of such service, before the date on which such service is provided to the patient,” unless the provider has already incurred costs related to the service prior to the date of service. This section appears to limit the ability of providers to charge patient credit cards in advance of a date of service, a relatively common practice in regard to self-pay patients or those receiving cosmetic or elective procedures. The Act also prohibits health care providers charging a third-party financing account for products ancillary to a health care service, unless the patient receives a separate receipt identifying the ancillary product and separately consents in writing to the product. If a patient does purchase an ancillary product with third-party financing, health care providers must offer a 30-day return and refund option, except in limited circumstances, such as damage to the product or customization. To the extent a health care provider decides to discuss third-party financing with patients outside of the restrictions set forth above, the provider must provide patients with a detailed disclosure as specifically set forth in Section 1(c)(1) of the Act (PA 26-6). Among other things, the disclosure explains third-party financing, that it is optional and encourages patients to carefully review the terms of the third-party financing. Any violations of the Act will be an unfair and deceptive trade practice under Connecticut law. Health care provider relationships with third-party financing vendors may need adjustments in order to comply with the Act, specifically related to how providers are promoting those third-party financing products, along with a review of policies and procedures related to credit card processing. Health care providers would be well served to review financing-related signage, update financing disclosure and consent documents, examine patient-facing materials, scripts, and vendor arrangements before January 1, 2027, and provide appropriate training to staff. We expect practices in violation of the Act will face increased scrutiny from Connecticut regulators given the legislature’s opposition to co-branded health care financing products.

Visit Blog

Massachusetts Governor Healey Announces New Department of Insurance Regulations Intended to Streamline Prior Authorization Practices

On January 14, 2026, Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey announced that the Division of Insurance (DOI) will be promulgating updates to its regulations with the intent of streamlining prior authorization practices for health insurance claims. According to the Governor, the DOI regulations “will reduce unnecessary delays and cut administrative burdens to make it easier, cheaper and faster for people to get the medications and care they need,” including by elimination of prior authorization requirements for routine and essential services. The forthcoming regulations are likely to be issued by the DOI in the coming weeks and are expected to include: Elimination of prior authorization requirements for routine and essential services, including for patients with diabetes related to any services, devices or drugs related to the chronic disease; A 24-hour response timeframe for urgent prior authorization requests; Continuity of care requirements for patients switching health plans, including honoring previously existing authorizations when a patient switches insurers; Initiatives to increase transparency and reduce provider burden when determining if a prior authorization is necessary. The announcement also included the establishment of a Health Care Affordability Working Group, composed of industry stakeholders, which will focus on identifying drivers of health care costs and issuing proposals to make health care more affordable in the commonwealth. These DOI regulations are just one of the anticipated legislative and regulatory initiatives in Massachusetts to address health care costs as the “health care industry spent $1.3 billion on administrative costs related to prior authorizations in 2023,” according to the Governor, citing a Council for Affordable Quality Healthcare report. The forthcoming DOI regulations will be important to health care providers that participate in commercial or state administered health plans in Massachusetts and may lead to changes in existing prior authorization processes, including requiring updates to existing provider participation agreements. We will issue an update when the DOI regulations are released.  

Visit Blog

CMS Adds New Requirements to Hospital Price Transparency Reporting

On November 21, 2025, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) published the CY 2026 Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS) and Ambulatory Surgical Center Final Rule (the Rule), which includes several significant changes to hospital price transparency regulations. The changes follow from Executive Order 14221, entitled “Making America Healthy Again by Empowering Patients with Clear, Accurate, and Actionable Healthcare Pricing Information,” which directs the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) to take steps to require more uniform, accurate pricing information from hospitals. Key provisions of the Rule’s new requirements are summarized below. Although these new requirements become effective on January 1, 2026, CMS is delaying enforcement until April 1, 2026. New MRF Data Reporting Requirements Allowed Amounts Currently, where a hospital’s standard charge is based on an algorithm or percentage, CMS requires hospitals to report an “estimated allowed amount” in their machine-readable file (MRF). The Rule removes this requirement and instead requires hospitals to report the following four elements: Median allowed amount (which replaces estimated allowed amount); The 10th percentile allowed amount; The 90th percentile allowed amount; and The number of allowed amounts used to calculate the prior three amounts. The median allowed amount and the 10th– and 90th-percentile allowed amounts must be calculated based on amounts the hospital has historically received from a third-party payer (less certain contractual adjustments) over the 12 to 15 months prior to posting the MRF. If an allowed amount falls between two amounts, hospitals are required to report the higher amount. To calculate these data points, hospitals must use electronic data interchange (EDI) 835 electronic remittance advice (ERA), or an equivalent, alternative source of remittance data. Hospital NPI The Rule also adds a requirement that hospitals encode in their MRF their organizational (i.e., Type 2) National Provider Identifier or NPI. Modification of MRF Attestation Statement Current regulations require each hospital to attest to the accuracy and completeness of the information encoded in its MRF. Beginning January 1, 2026, the Rule replaces the existing affirmation statement with a new, strengthened requirement at 45 C.F.R. § 180.50(a)(3)(iii) (reproduced below). To the best of its knowledge and belief, this hospital has included all applicable standard charge information in accordance with the requirements of 45 CFR 180.50, and the information encoded is true, accurate, and complete as of the date in the file. This hospital has included all payer-specific negotiated charges in dollars that can be expressed as a dollar amount. For payer-specific negotiated charges that cannot be expressed as a dollar amount in the machine-readable file or not knowable in advance, the hospital attests that the payer-specific negotiated charge is based on a contractual algorithm, percentage or formula that precludes the provision of a dollar amount and has provided all necessary information available to the hospital for the public to be able to derive the dollar amount, including, but not limited to, the specific fee schedule or components referenced in such percentage, algorithm or formula. The Rule also adds a requirement that hospitals include with the attestation statement the name of the hospital’s CEO, president, or senior official designated to oversee the data encoding process for the MRF. Changes to Civil Monetary Penalties Finally, the Rule makes available a 35% reduction to Civil Monetary Penalties (CMP) imposed for certain violations of hospital price transparency requirements, which hospitals can request in exchange for the hospital waiving its right to an administrative hearing. However, the 35% reduction will not apply if the CMP is imposed due to the hospital failing to make its MRF or any shoppable services public. Conclusion Hospitals would be well advised to proactively assess their price transparency practices and update their processes and disclosures to align with the enhanced requirements of the new Rule.

Visit Blog

Joint Commission Releases Guidance for AI in Health Care

This post is co-authored with Lauren Ludwig, legal intern at Robinson+Cole. Lauren is not admitted to practice law. The Joint Commission (TJC) and Coalition for Health AI (CHAI) recently published the Guidance on the Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare (Guidance), which outlines strategies for health care organizations to optimize their integration of health AI tools. The Guidance defines health AI tools broadly as clinical, administrative, or operational solutions that apply algorithmic methods to tasks involved in direct or indirect patient care, care support services, and care-relevant operations and administrative services. Given this inclusive definition, the Guidance identifies a wide range of potential AI-related risks, including errors, lack of transparency, threats to data privacy and security, and the overreliance on AI tools. To address these concerns, the Guidance outlines suggested practices that health care organizations can undertake in implementing AI tools. These practices are organized into seven elements, which are summarized below. While the Guidance is not limited to health care delivery organizations, the Guidance focuses primarily on these organizations. It is also important to note that the Guidance is not binding on health care organizations, although TJC indicates that a voluntary “Responsible Use of AI” certification program is forthcoming. The Seven Elements of Responsible Use of AI Tools for Health Care Organizations: AI Policies and Governance Structures. The Guidance recommends that organizations establish formal AI-usage policies and a governance structure. According to TJC and CHAI, the policies should set expectations, including rules or procedures on the use of AI, and the governance committee should be composed of qualified individuals, including representatives from compliance, IT, clinical programs, operations, and data privacy. The Guidance also suggests regular reporting on AI usage to the organization’s board of directors or other fiduciary governing body. Patient Privacy and Transparency. Organizations are encouraged to adopt specific policies on data access, use, and transparency consistent with applicable laws and regulations. To promote transparency, organizations should inform patients about AI’s role in their care, including how their data may be used and how AI may benefit their care. Organizations may also need to secure informed consent to use AI tools, if applicable. The Guidance reminds organizations that transparency with staff members on the use of AI tools cannot be overlooked. Data Security and Data Use Protections. The Guidance stresses that all uses of patient data with AI tools must comply with HIPAA. Providers can support compliance by leveraging current data protection strategies, including encrypting patient data, limiting data access, regularly assessing security risks, and developing an incident response plan. TJC and CHAI recommend that organizations enter into data use agreements that outline permitted uses, minimize data exports, prohibit re-identification, require third parties to comply with the organization’s security and privacy policies, and provide the organization with audit rights. Ongoing Quality Monitoring. In addition to privacy risks, the Guidance advises organizations to regularly monitor AI quality by looking for changes in outcomes and testing the AI tools against known standards. Externally developed AI tools may not receive consistent review, and the dynamic nature of AI renders it prone to “drift” from its intended purpose; therefore, the Guidance calls for an internal reporting system to identify risks and maintain quality of care. TJC and CHAI suggest a risk-based approach to monitoring AI tools, such that AI tools that inform or drive clinical decisions should be prioritized. Additionally, the Guidance advises that organizations create a process to report adverse events to leadership and relevant vendors. Voluntary Reporting. The Guidance urges organizations to establish a process for confidential, anonymous reporting of AI safety incidents to an independent organization. By reporting through confidential channels to third parties, such as federally listed Patient Safety Organizations, voluntary reporting may improve the quality of AI usage without compromising patient privacy. Risk and Bias Assessment. The Guidance also recommends that organizations implement processes for categorizing and documenting AI bias or risk. In clinical use, AI may be unable to generalize diseases to certain populations, leading to misdiagnosis and inefficient care. TJC and CHAI recommend that organizations verify whether AI tools are appropriately tuned to the population to which they are applied and that the AI tools were developed using representative, unbiased data sets. Education and Training. Finally, to ensure that AI benefits the organization, the Guidance advocates for education and training of health care providers and staff on the use of AI tools, including any limitations on, and risks of, their use. The Guidance directs organizations to limit AI tool access to specific roles on a need-to-use basis, and to advise all staff where to find relevant information about AI tools and organizational policies and procedures. Implications In the absence of comprehensive federal laws governing AI, the Guidance (along with existing resources such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) AI Risk Management Framework and the Bipartisan House Task Force Report on Artificial Intelligence) may help health care organizations evaluate and implement AI tools in a safe and compliant manner.  Similar to the NIST RMF AI Playbook, TJC and CHAI plan to release a series of practical “playbooks” to operationalize recommended practices in the Guidance. Health care institutions seeking actionable guidance may want to take note of these playbooks because they will inform TJC’s future AI certification program. Overall, the Guidance’s strategies can help health care organizations minimize AI risks and foster an adaptive health care environment.

Visit Blog

Connecticut Enacts Wide-Ranging Health Care Law Modifying Various Existing Rules and Laws

On June 25, 2025, Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont signed into law Public Act No. 25-97, “An Act Concerning Various Revisions to the Public Health Statutes” (the Act). The Act includes a wide range of provisions affecting patient confidentiality, hospital and provider licensure, scope of practice, civil penalties, and Connecticut’s statewide health information exchange. Significant provisions of the Act are summarized below. Changes Affecting Psychologist Patient Confidentiality Rules Effective October 1, 2025, Connecticut patient confidentiality rules for psychologists will align with those rules in place for psychiatric mental health providers. The Act repeals the previous psychologist-specific confidentiality and privileged communication rules and amends the current rules for psychiatric mental health providers to include psychologists. Under the new rules established by the Act, psychologists may disclose communications and records without a patient’s consent in specific circumstances such as: 1) when such communications and records are necessary for the diagnosis or treatment of the patient and the patient is informed; 2) when the psychologist determines there is a substantial risk of imminent physical injury or to facilitate admission to a mental health facility; 3) to collect fees for services or to contract with the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services, but such disclosure is limited; and 4) for the purposes of judicial proceedings. Changes Affecting Providers’ and Health Systems’ Operations Effective October 1, 2025, health systems and providers—including physicians, hospitals (both for-profit and non-profit), hospital-based facilities, freestanding emergency departments, urgent care centers, and any entities affiliated with a hospital or a hospital’s parent organization—will be prohibited from requiring patients to provide bank account information, credit or debit card numbers, or any other form of electronic payment method to keep on file as a prerequisite to providing services. Violation of this new prohibition constitutes an unfair trade practice under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA). Under CUTPA, courts can award damages and impose civil penalties of up to $5,000 for willful violations. This prohibition does not affect a patient’s obligation to pay for services or prohibit a provider from otherwise requesting or storing payment information. The Act makes several minor changes to the timing of reports that health care institutions with 50 or more employees must make to the Department of Public Health (DPH), with all changes effective October 1, 2025. Currently, hospitals must report to DPH every six months regarding their ongoing compliance with at least 80% of nurse staffing assignments in their nursing plans. The Act shortens the time period in which hospitals must make this report from two months to within 14 days of the end of the most recent six-month period. Additionally, the Act affects when health care employers must report workplace violence incidents. Under existing law, health care employers must report workplace violence incidents annually to DPH; health care employers can now make this report by February 1 each year instead of January 1. For this reporting requirement, a “health care employer” is any institution with 50 or more full- or part-time employees. This includes, but is not limited to, hospitals, hospice facilities, home health agencies, outpatient clinics, clinical laboratories, facilities for the care or treatment of mental illness or substance use disorders, licensed residential facilities for persons with intellectual disabilities, and community health centers. The Act increases the maximum civil penalty that the DPH or its licensing boards or commissions may impose against an individual health care provider to $25,000, up from $10,000. The Act does not create any new enforcement procedures for individual providers beyond increasing the maximum penalty cap. For details on updated DPH enforcement measures for DPH-licensed institutions, see our other blog post detailing these updates. Changes Affecting Licensure and Scope of Practice The Act removes one requirement for hospitals licensed by the DPH, effective June 25, 2025: such hospitals are no longer required to obtain Department of Children and Families (DCF) licensure to provide either inpatient or outpatient mental health services as part of DCF’s outpatient psychiatric clinic program. Under the Act, starting July 1, 2025, MRI and radiologic technicians are now able to perform certain oxygen-related patient care activities in hospitals, including: 1) connecting or disconnecting oxygen supply; 2) transporting a portable oxygen source; 3) connecting, disconnecting, or adjusting the oxygen delivery system; and 4) adjusting the oxygen flow rate pursuant to a medical order. Existing law includes these activities within the scope of practice for other licensed health care providers, as well as certified ultrasound, nuclear medicine, and polysomnographic technologists. Beginning January 1, 2026, Connecticut-licensed physical therapists must complete training on ethics and jurisprudence every two years as part of their existing continuing education requirements. Finally, the Act expands emergency medical services (EMS) personnel’s authority by permitting EMS personnel to administer epinephrine via any FDA-approved method, including nasal spray, effective July 1, 2025. Changes Affecting the Statewide Health Information Exchange The Act includes certain provisions affecting the rollout and scope of Connecticut’s Statewide Health Information Exchange, known as “Connie,” which launched in 2021. Under existing law, Connecticut health care providers (with limited exceptions) must connect to Connie to facilitate ease and simplicity of medical records sharing within the state. Beginning immediately, the Act adds a new directive for the Office of Health Strategy (OHS) to conduct a study into the cost and impact of creating a more granular opt-out system for patients, which would allow patients to opt out of sharing specific types of patient health information and medical records with specific providers. Most health care providers in Connecticut were required to begin connecting with Connie in 2023, but existing law does not require full participation in Connie until OHS promulgates policies and procedures related to such participation. OHS has not yet implemented these policies and procedures and OHS had originally targeted mid-2025 as a publication date, but the study results are not required under the Act until September 30, 2026, which may further delay publication. Starting October 1, 2025, the Act also includes Connie-related provisions aimed at protecting patient data and increasing transparency. Under the Act, if Connie experiences a breach, ransomware attack, or hacking event, Connie must notify all patients affected by the breach and perform necessary mitigation on behalf of affected providers. The Act also prohibits Connie from disclosing protected health information (as defined under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) in response to a subpoena unless the disclosure is fully compliant with applicable state and federal law.

Visit Blog

Connecticut Governor Signs Bill Adding Requirements for Hospitals and Expanding DPH’s Enforcement Scope

On June 25, 2025, Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont signed into law Public Act No. 25-96, “An Act Concerning the Department of Public Health’s Recommendations Regarding Various Revisions to the Public Health Statutes” (the Act). The Act includes several new requirements for hospitals, as well as new authority for the Department of Public Health (DPH) to oversee all health care entities. Finally, the Act adds a new licensure status for retired physicians. New Requirements for Hospitals The Act requires a hospital to notify DPH within two hours of the hospital declaring an “emergency department diversion,” which the Act defines as a hospital rerouting an incoming ambulance to another hospital because the diverting hospital lacks medical capability. The Act does not define the term “medical capability.” DPH will be providing the form and manner of such notice. Additionally, the Act adds the requirement that hospitals’ chief medical officers and chief nursing officers be licensed in their respective professions in Connecticut. Each of these new requirements become effective October 1, 2025. DPH’s Authority to Oversee and Enforce The Act expands DPH’s ability to waive inspections for licensure renewals for all DPH-licensed institutions, other than nursing homes and nursing home facilities, that are certified Medicare or Medicaid providers, starting October 1, 2025. Previously, DPH could waive inspections of institutions such as hospitals and home health agencies if the institution was a certified Medicare or Medicaid provider or had been certified within the past year. Once the Act becomes effective, an institution must be certified at the time of its renewal application for DPH to waive the inspection requirement. Because Medicare and Medicaid also conduct inspections, this change may alleviate some duplicative obligations for DPH-licensed institutions that participate in Medicare and Medicaid. The Act also broadens the set of statutes and regulations under which DPH may take disciplinary action against DPH-licensed institutions. Effective from passage, DPH can take action against institutions that substantially fail to comply with a wider range of requirements, including those specific to institution licensing statutes and regulations but also the public health statutes generally (Title 19a of the Connecticut General Statutes). This includes, for example, failure to report on opioid overdoses, failure to promptly transfer electronic health records (i.e., information blocking), and other requirements of Title 19a that were not previously within DPH’s enforcement authority. The Act does not change the options at DPH’s disposal for disciplinary action. Types of disciplinary action still include license suspension or revocation, probation, corrective action plans, or civil penalties of up to $25,000. Retired Physician License Status Finally, the Act allows retired physicians, beginning January 1, 2026, to renew or reinstate their licenses for a reduced fee, allowing them to return to practice as a volunteer physician providing unpaid services. The Act directs DPH to set parameters around what defines “retirement” for the purposes of this reduced fee, as well as the specific scope of practice for this new licensure type.

Visit Blog

Connecticut Governor Signs Bill Requiring Hospitals to Submit Reports on Policy Proposals Related to Emergency Department Crowding

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: Developing policies to reduce emergency department and admission wait times. Developing methods to improve admission efficiencies. Examining causes for delays in admission times. Hospitals with emergency departments must on their own, or in consultation with a hospital association in the state, review the following emergency department data points from the preceding calendar year in formulating these goals: The number of patients who received treatment in the emergency department. The number of emergency department patients who were admitted to the hospital. The average length of time from the patient’s first presentation to the emergency department until the patient’s admission to the hospital (for those who were admitted). The percentage of patients who were admitted to the hospital after presenting to the emergency department but were transferred to an available bed located in a physical location other than the emergency department more than four hours after an admitting order for the patient was completed. The Act also requires hospitals to submit a report to the joint standing committee for public health of the General Assembly no later than March 1, 2025, and annually thereafter until March 1, 2029. The report must include the hospital’s findings and any recommendations for achieving the above referenced goals. The Act is effective from passage.

Visit Blog

Connecticut Governor Signs Bill Prohibiting Health Care Providers from Reporting Medical Debt to Credit Reporting Agencies

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 to hospitals and collection agents. The Act defines health care providers by cross referencing the peer review statute definition at C.G.S. § 19a-17b which includes “any person, corporation, limited liability company, facility or institution operated, owned or licensed by this state to provide health care or professional services, or an officer, employee or agent thereof acting in the course and scope of his employment.” Under the Act, such health care providers are prohibited from reporting any portion of a medical debt to a credit rating agency for use in a credit report. Notably, many non-profit hospitals are subject to existing IRS extraordinary collection actions and regulations that, among other things, restrict their ability to report adverse information about an individual to a credit agency. Additionally, health care providers must include a clause in every contract entered into with a collection entity for the collection of medical debt on or after July 1, 2024, that prohibits reporting any portion of medical debt to a credit rating agency. Any medical debt reported in violation of the Act is void. Medical debt is any obligation to pay an amount related to the receipt of health care goods or services. Importantly, the term “health care goods” is broadly defined as “goods, including, but not limited to, products, devices, durable medical equipment and prescription drugs.” However, medical debt does not include debt charged to credit cards unless the credit card is issued under an open-end or closed-end credit plan offered specifically for the payment of charges related to health care goods or health care services. Additionally, the Act makes changes to existing Connecticut law that prohibits hospitals, entities owned or affiliated with hospitals, and collection agents for such entities from reporting any individual patient to credit rating agencies for one year beginning on the date the patient first receives a bill. Beginning July 1, 2024, hospitals, entities owned or affiliated with hospitals, and collection agents are prohibited from reporting any individual patient to a credit rating agency, regardless of when the patient was billed. All sections of the Act are effective July 1, 2024.

Visit Blog