Robinson Cole LLP
High Contrast Mode

Victoria C. Larson assists a variety of health care providers and health-related businesses, such as health systems, hospitals, physician groups, clinically integrated networks, and long-term care facilities, with a range of health care regulatory and transactional matters, including licensure, corporate practice of medicine requirements, privacy issues, and federal and state health care fraud and abuse compliance, including the Stark Law and Anti-Kickback Statute.

Victoria also advises companies both within and outside of the health care industry in navigating the diverse state, national, and international privacy regulations. She counsels clients on record retention and destruction policies, data use agreements, terms of use and privacy policies, privacy due diligence in corporate transactions, and data breach responses.

Victoria uses her health care regulatory knowledge to work closely with clients to evaluate the additional complexities that accompany health information security. That work entails assisting health care systems, payers, and physician practices with data privacy and security policies, obligations under the federal information blocking rules, notice of privacy practices, and other HIPAA requirements.

While in law school, Victoria interned with the Center for Children’s Advocacy, Medical-Legal Partnership Project, where she worked with medical professionals to address legal issues impacting the health care of low-income children. She has experience researching issues related to health disparities, education law, Medicaid, telehealth, and COVID-19 guidance, as well as developing strategies to improve care for low-income children.

Before entering the legal profession, Victoria worked in mental health research at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs’ VA Medical Center in Providence, Rhode Island, coordinating and managing trials at the RR&D Center for Neurorestoration and Neurotechnology. She has experience working with clinicians and investigators to advance healthcare treatments, while ensuring clinical protocols and local guidelines are followed. Victoria uses her life sciences and clinical research background to better understand her clients' needs and challenges.

Victoria holds a Certified Information Privacy Professional/United States (CIPP/US) credential given by the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP).

  • University of Connecticut School of Law (Juris Doctor, with honors)
    • CALI Excellence Award for Legal Practice: Interviewing, Counseling & Advocacy
    • Connecticut Law Review
  • Trinity College (Bachelors)
    • B.S., Neuroscience

  • Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Massachusetts Bar Association
Health Law Section Counsel (2025-2026)  

American Health Lawyers Association    

International Association of Privacy Professionals

Publications


Connecticut Governor Signs Public Health Bill: What Health Care Organizations Need to Know teaser
June 4, 2026

Connecticut Governor Signs Public Health Bill: What Health Care Organizations Need to Know

Health Law Diagnosis
New Year Brings Old Obligations with a Recent Twist: PAMA Reporting is Back teaser
February 3, 2026

New Year Brings Old Obligations with a Recent Twist: PAMA Reporting is Back

The ColLABorative Brief
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 Governor Signs Public Health Bill: What Health Care Organizations Need to Know teaser
June 4, 2026

Connecticut Governor Signs Public Health Bill: What Health Care Organizations Need to Know

Health Law Diagnosis
New Year Brings Old Obligations with a Recent Twist: PAMA Reporting is Back teaser
February 3, 2026

New Year Brings Old Obligations with a Recent Twist: PAMA Reporting is Back

The ColLABorative Brief
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
Connecticut Governor Signs Bill Codifying the Right of Minors to Consent to Reproductive Health Care Services teaser
June 10, 2025

Connecticut Governor Signs Bill Codifying the Right of Minors to Consent to Reproductive Health Care Services

Health Law Diagnosis
U.S. Supreme Court Denies DSH Hospitals’ Attempts to Seek Higher Medicare Payments teaser
May 7, 2025

U.S. Supreme Court Denies DSH Hospitals’ Attempts to Seek Higher Medicare Payments

Health Law Diagnosis
May 6, 2024

Massachusetts Attorney General Artificial Intelligence Guidance: What Healthcare Providers and Health IT Developers Need to Know

Read the article here.

August 11, 2023

Comparing US and EU Approaches to Health AI Regulation

Read the article here. 

September 2021

Building a Sustainable Mental Health Parity Compliance Program

Compliance Today


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
Connecticut Governor Signs Bill Codifying the Right of Minors to Consent to Reproductive Health Care Services teaser
June 10, 2025

Connecticut Governor Signs Bill Codifying the Right of Minors to Consent to Reproductive Health Care Services

Health Law Diagnosis
U.S. Supreme Court Denies DSH Hospitals’ Attempts to Seek Higher Medicare Payments teaser
May 7, 2025

U.S. Supreme Court Denies DSH Hospitals’ Attempts to Seek Higher Medicare Payments

Health Law Diagnosis
May 6, 2024

Massachusetts Attorney General Artificial Intelligence Guidance: What Healthcare Providers and Health IT Developers Need to Know

Read the article here.

August 11, 2023

Comparing US and EU Approaches to Health AI Regulation

Read the article here. 

September 2021

Building a Sustainable Mental Health Parity Compliance Program

Compliance Today

Events


Past

Information Blocking: Practical Challenges for Providers

Feb 12 2025
Boston Bar Association
Past

Enhancing Privacy in the Post-Dobbs Era: Focused State and Federal Efforts to Secure and Shield Certain Patient Care and Health Information

Dec 18 2024
MHA Hot Topic Webinar Series
Past

Information Blocking: Practical Challenges for Providers

Feb 12 2025
Boston Bar Association
Past

Enhancing Privacy in the Post-Dobbs Era: Focused State and Federal Efforts to Secure and Shield Certain Patient Care and Health Information

Dec 18 2024
MHA Hot Topic Webinar Series
Past

The Impact of the Chevron Decision on Health Care

Sep 12 2024
MAHP Webinar
Past

Information Blocking: What Providers Need to Know

Mar 21 2024
MHA Hot Topic Webinar Series
Past

The Impact of the Chevron Decision on Health Care

Sep 12 2024
MAHP Webinar
Past

Information Blocking: What Providers Need to Know

Mar 21 2024
MHA Hot Topic Webinar Series

Health Law Diagnosis


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

Connecticut Governor Signs Public Health Bill: What Health Care Organizations Need to Know

On May 14, 2026, Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont signed Public Act No. 26-13, “An Act Concerning Various Revisions to the Public Health Statutes” (the “Act”) into law. The Act contains numerous revisions to State public health and health care laws, and several provisions deserve close attention from health care organizations, including hospitals and health systems, campus clinics, behavioral health providers, EMS providers, nurse’s aides, dentists, and other licensed professionals. We summarize key changes under the Act below. New Flexibility for Campus Clinics (§1) Effective October 1, 2026, an infirmary operated by an educational institution may provide care not only to enrolled students, faculty, and employees, but also to dependent family members of those groups when the family members are enrolled in the institution’s health plan. This change may be significant for colleges, universities, and other educational institutions that operate infirmaries and sponsor health plans covering dependents. Under prior law, these infirmaries were generally limited to evaluating and treating routine health problems, and in some cases providing short-term overnight accommodations, only for students, faculty, and employees. Increased Regulatory Focus on Managed Residential Communities (§2) Effective July 1, 2026, the Act requires the Commissioner of Public Health to establish a working group to advise DPH on managed residential communities where assisted living services agencies provide assisted living services to residents. The working group must also evaluate whether DPH licensure of those managed residential communities would help DPH and the communities improve residents’ health, safety, and overall well-being. The working group must include representatives from managed residential communities, assisted living services agencies, residents receiving assisted living services in managed residential communities, relatives of those residents, and an association of aging services organizations in Connecticut. Organizations that operate managed residential communities or contract with assisted living services agencies should monitor the working group’s recommendations because they may influence future licensure or regulatory oversight of these communities, which are already subject to a number of regulatory regimes in Connecticut depending upon the specific services each community provides. New Patient Notice Requirements for Medical Records Retention and Access (§4) As of January 1, 2027, health care providers in Connecticut must notify each patient in writing, at initial intake, about the laws governing how long the provider must maintain patient medical records and how the patient may request copies of those records. Providers should therefore review intake packets, electronic registration workflows, patient portal messaging, and medical records request policies to confirm that they give patients the required written notice at initial intake. As a reminder, under Connecticut law, providers are generally required to maintain medical records for not less than seven years (for individual providers) and not less than 10 years (for hospitals), but in certain circumstances and for certain types of records shorter or longer retention periods may apply (and longer retention may nonetheless be advisable in light of certain statutes of limitations extending to 10+ years). Additional Data for Community Health Needs Assessments (§11) Effective October 1, 2026, when conducting a community health needs assessment, the Act requires hospitals to consider including the nutritional needs of community members with diabetes and congestive heart failure. To the extent federal law permits, hospitals must include those nutritional needs in the hospital’s community health needs assessment. Before starting the next community health needs assessment, hospitals should evaluate whether existing community health data, population health analytics, community benefit materials, or care management information identify nutrition-related needs among community members with diabetes or congestive heart failure. Hospitals Get New Opioid Treatment Bridge Tools (§12) Beginning January 1, 2027, the Act permits hospitals to administer buprenorphine or methadone to a patient who presents to the emergency department with symptoms of opioid use disorder without admitting the patient solely for that purpose. The hospital may do so only when (i) such administration is clinically indicated, and (ii) the patient consents. At discharge, the Act also permits hospitals to offer the patient a prescription for, or supply of, an opioid antagonist, such as naloxone hydrochloride or another similarly acting and equally safe FDA-approved drug for overdose treatment. If the patient accepts, the hospital may provide the prescription or dispense the opioid antagonist. Hospitals may also refer the patient to one or more community providers or opioid treatment programs that can provide continuity in buprenorphine prescribing or methadone administration. If a hospital administers buprenorphine, the hospital must provide a bridging prescription for buprenorphine for the anticipated period while the patient awaits treatment from the referred community provider, if permitted by federal law (e.g., the Controlled Substances Act). Finally, the Act directs that if a hospital administers or dispenses methadone to a patient as permitted by the Act, the hospital must provide a last-dose letter for the patient to give to the local opioid treatment program to which the hospital refers the patient. A “last-dose letter” is a formal, sealed document confirming the exact date, time, and amount of the last methadone dose administered to the patient. Student Safety Plans Get a Secure Pathway to Schools (§19) Beginning April 1, 2027, health care providers that prepare a safety plan for a minor following receipt of inpatient behavior health care treatment for at least 12 consecutive days are required to review the safety plan with the minor patient, if the provider believes review is medically appropriate. The provider must also ask whether the minor patient or minor patient’s parent or legally authorized representative consents to sharing the safety plan with the minor patient’s school, and must obtain written consent before transmitting the safety plan to the school (from the patient’s parent or legal representative, or from the minor patient if the patient is 16 years or older). If the required consent is given, the health care provider must transmit the safety plan to the minor’s school district or school using a secure messaging system or another HIPAA-compliant form and manner. The Act defines a safety plan as a written document created collaboratively between a health care provider and patient that outlines coping strategies, activities, and support networks the patient can access to prevent or manage a potential mental health crisis. The Act also connects this safety-plan framework to Connecticut’s statewide health information exchange, known as Connie, by making it a goal of the exchange to provide secure messaging organizational accounts to school districts or schools for receiving minor patient safety plans, and to provide access to those organizational accounts for designated employees at no cost. Notably, the Act also expressly provides that it does not require health care providers to release information to parents or legal representatives of a minor patient “if, pursuant to state or federal law, a minor patient may withhold such information” from a parent or legal representative.  The Act gives, as examples of such information that may be subject to heightened protections, “information regarding pregnancy, abortion, contraceptives, human immunodeficiency virus or other sexually transmitted disease testing or treatment, mental health treatment or any other area of care that a health care provider has promised a minor patient that the health care provider will keep confidential...”  This last cited criterion is particularly notable because it potentially raises the question of whether the Act could be construed as a state law giving heightened protection to any types of health information related to a minor patient if the provider “promise[s]” to keep it confidential. Nurse’s Aide Oversight Expands (§23) The Act makes several changes related to the oversight of the practice of a nurse’s aide that take effect October 1, 2027. The Act revises the definition of “nurse’s aide” to include a registered nurse’s aide who provides nursing or nursing-related services through employment or contract with an “institution.” This change expands DPH’s nurse’s aide registry to cover nurse’s aides working with any DPH-licensed health care institution, not only nursing homes. Individuals who are otherwise licensed or certified by DPH as health professionals and individuals who volunteer to provide those services without monetary compensation remain excluded from the definition of “nurse’s aide.” The Act expands DPH’s authority to receive, investigate, and prosecute complaints against individuals who provide services as nurse’s aides in any DPH-licensed institution. The grounds for complaint include illegal, incompetent, or negligent conduct in the provision of nursing or nursing-related services; abuse of a resident, patient or client; neglect of a resident, patient, or client; misappropriation of resident, patient, or client property; and fraud or deceit in obtaining or attempting to obtain registration as a nurse’s aide. The Act defines “abuse” and “neglect” by reference to 42 CFR § 483.5, which sets out the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services definitions for long-term care facilities. DPH may now summarily suspend a nurse’s aide’s ability to practice before final adjudication of a complaint or during the appeals process if DPH finds that the nurse’s aide would pose a clear and immediate danger to public health and safety if allowed to continue practicing. DPH may also discipline a nurse’s aide by revoking or suspending a credential; censuring the violator; issuing a letter of reprimand; placing the nurse’s aide on probationary status; or imposing a civil penalty of up to $25,000. Finally, the Act updates terminology under the nurse’s aide training requirements by replacing references to “residents” and “residents’ rights” with “patients” and “patients’ rights.” Connecticut Moves Toward EMS Licensure Portability (§28) Effective October 1, 2026, Connecticut adopts the Recognition of Emergency Medical Services Personnel Licensure Interstate Compact, but the state will not actually enter the compact earlier than one year after Massachusetts, New York, or Rhode Island enacts it. The compact is designed to enhance access to EMS services by facilitating day-to-day movement of EMS personnel across state lines and allowing state EMS offices to provide immediate legal recognition to EMS personnel licensed in another member state. At a high level, the compact applies to EMS personnel such as EMTs, advanced EMTs, and paramedics. The compact may be relevant for EMS organizations and health systems with multistate emergency services operations because it creates a framework for qualifying EMS personnel licensed in one member state to practice in another member state under the compact’s privilege to practice model. Because Connecticut’s participation cannot begin until at least one year after Massachusetts, New York, or Rhode Island enacts the compact, EMS organizations should monitor neighboring-state adoption before treating the compact as operational in Connecticut. Dentists Enter the Cosmetic Injection Space (§34) Effective October 1, 2026, the Act allows Connecticut-licensed dentists to administer cosmetic injections to a patient’s face if the dentist satisfies specified training and insurance requirements. A “cosmetic injection” is defined under the Act as a nonsurgical procedure involving the injection of a substance, including botulinum toxin or dermal filler, to alter or enhance a person’s physical appearance. To qualify, the dentist must successfully complete in-person, hands-on training in the administration of cosmetic injections through a continuing education provider or program approved by the Commissioner of Public Health or accredited by a national professional accrediting body. The dentist must also maintain professional liability insurance that covers cosmetic injection procedures. Additionally, dentists may not delegate cosmetic injections to dental hygienists, dental assistants, or other auxiliary personnel. The Act still imposes limits on the type of cosmetic procedures dentists are allowed to perform. Dentists cannot administer injections into the tear trough, infraorbital hollow, eyelids, medial canthal region, or other orbit-adjacent soft tissue for periocular volumization or under-eye hollow correction. The Act also does not authorize dentists to administer injections into the forehead, glabella, or eyebrows for improved cosmesis. The Act, however, does allow dentists to administer a neuromodulator to the lateral canthal region, including for treatment of lateral canthal rhytids (a/k/a, crow’s feet). It also permits injections for management of orofacial pain, temporomandibular disorders, or other oromandibular conditions, or dermal filler to the malar, zygomatic, or midface region when the primary intended treatment site is the cheek or midface and the injection site remains inferior to the infraorbital rim. Key Takeaways from the Act Health care providers should prepare to give patients written medical records retention and access notices at initial intake by January 1, 2027. Managed residential communities, assisted living services agencies, and senior living campus operators should monitor the DPH working group’s recommendations and the commissioner’s February 1, 2027 report to the Public Health Committee, and consider opportunities for their representatives to participate as part of the working group. Hospitals should review their community health needs assessment processes to determine whether available data warrant including nutritional needs for community members with diabetes and congestive heart failure. Hospitals should review emergency department opioid use disorder protocols before January 1, 2027, including buprenorphine and methadone administration, opioid antagonist offers, referrals, bridging prescriptions, and last-dose letters. Educational institutions that operate infirmaries should evaluate whether their clinical operations and health plan arrangements will extend services to dependent family members enrolled in the institution’s health plan, and consider how that will impact other operations and compliance programs (including records protections and processes under FERPA and/or HIPAA). Hospitals and pediatric behavioral health providers should assess how they will obtain consent, transmit safety plans securely, and coordinate with schools when a minor patient receives at least twelve consecutive days of inpatient behavioral health care treatment. Institutions that employ or contract with nurse’s aides should prepare for the October 1, 2027 expansion of DPH’s registry, complaint, discipline, and training framework. EMS providers and organizations with cross-border operations should monitor whether Massachusetts, New York, or Rhode Island enacts the EMS compact because Connecticut’s participation cannot begin earlier than one year after one of those states does so. Dentists that want to administer cosmetic injections should assess training, professional liability insurance, site-of-service limits, nondelegation requirements, and any future DPH regulations.

Visit Blog

New Year Brings Old Obligations with a Recent Twist: PAMA Reporting is Back

After uncertainty over the last few months, the last few weeks saw potential changes to the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 (PAMA) under section 6226 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2026. On January 20, 2026, the House Appropriations Committee released the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2026, which included several healthcare extenders, among them revisions to the upcoming PAMA rate cuts and reporting deadlines. The Senate passed the bill on January 30, 2026, and went back to the House on February 3, 2026, at which point it has been set for President Trump’s signature.   First, there are no additional Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule (CLFS) rate cuts scheduled for 2026.  The act then extends the phase-in of the rate reductions for an additional year, delaying this until 2027, 2028, and 2029. The act also updates the data collection period to use 2025 rather than 2019 data, and shifts the reporting period to May 1, 2026, through July 31, 2026.  While there is still possibility around the Reforming and Enhancing Sustainable Updates to Laboratory Testing Services Act (RESULTS) which was introduced in September 2025, it has not yet passed. As such, laboratories must prepare for PAMA with the changes implemented by the passage of the Continuing Resolution. PAMA requires independent, hospital outreach, and physician office laboratories to report private payor rate information and volumes every three years (or annually for Advance Diagnostic Laboratory Tests). CMS used this data to calculate rates under the Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule (CLFS) to align Medicare payment with commercial market rates by developing a weighted median of the reported private payor rates. Due to underreporting (less than one percent of all laboratories reported data) and underrepresentation of key segments such as hospital outreach and physician office labs, the initial reporting cycle resulted in steeper payment cuts between 2018 and 2020 for laboratories than anticipated. Current rates are based on 2016 data that was reported in 2017. Congress has postponed reporting six times, and with the passage of the CR, the next reporting cycle will be May 1, 2026, through July 31, 2026, resetting the time period for applicable data and relieving labs from the burden (or near impossibility) of reporting 2019 data. What you need to know about PAMA Who must report? “Applicable laboratories” must report private payor rates to CMS. Applicable laboratory means a laboratory under 42 C.F.R. § 493.2 (the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments definition of a laboratory) that: Bills Medicare Part B under its own NPI or for hospital outreach laboratories, bills Medicare Part B on the Form CMS-1450 under type of bill (TOB) 14x; Meets the “majority of Medicare revenue” threshold in a data collection period. Meaning that the laboratory receives more than 50% of its Medicare revenue (Parts A, B, & D including any applicable co-pays/deductibles) under the CLFS and/or Medicare Physician Fee Schedule; and Receives at least $12,500 in CLFS revenue during the data collection period. Entities that do not meet the definition of “applicable laboratory” are not permitted to report. Who is a private payor? A private payor includes any of the following: A health insurance issuer as defined in § 2791(b)(2) of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act; A group health plan as defined in § 2791(a)(1) of the PHS Act; A Medicare Advantage Plan under Part C as defined in § 1859(b)(1) of the Social Security Act (SSA); or A Medicaid Managed Care Organization as defined in § 1903(m) of the SSA. What is reported? An applicable laboratory must collect and report “applicable information” received during the data collection period for each laboratory test code subject to the data collection requirements. Applicable information includes: 1) the specific Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) code for the test; 2) each private payor rate for which final payment has been made during the data collection period; and 3) the associated volume tests performed for each private payor rate. “Zero dollars,” payments that cannot be identified at the HCPCS level (i.e., bundled payments), payments that were under appeal during the data collection period, and tests billed with miscellaneous/NOC code are not to be reported. How to report? CMS has released a list of applicable HCPCS codes that are subject to PAMA’s data reporting and collection requirements. Additionally, CMS has released a spreadsheet template that an applicable laboratory may use to collect and report the applicable information for each test subject to reporting. The spreadsheet includes information on the HCPCS code, payment rate, volume at the payment rate, and NPI. This spreadsheet may be uploaded to the CMS Enterprise Portal. What happens if an applicable laboratory fails to report? If the Secretary determines that an applicable laboratory has failed to report or has made a misrepresentation or omission of reporting information, the Secretary may apply a civil monetary penalty of up to $10,000 per day for each failure to report or each misrepresentation or omission. Beyond civil money penalties, failure to accurately report can negatively impact the weighted median of private payor rates leading to disproportionate CLFS rate cuts. Important Dates Data Reporting Period: May 1 – July 31, 2026 With the reporting period fast approaching, laboratories should determine whether they are an applicable laboratory and begin preparing the required 2025 private payor data carefully. As the reporting period approaches, CMS plans to issue additional fact sheets to assist labs in the data submission. Laboratories may want to consider consulting with knowledgeable legal counsel to ensure compliance and strategy alignment.

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 Codifying the Right of Minors to Consent to Reproductive Health Care Services

On June 9, 2025, Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont signed into law Public Act No. 25-28, “An Act Concerning Access to Reproductive Health Care” (the Act). The Act codifies under Connecticut state law the ability of minors to access reproductive health care services without the need to obtain parental consent, including services related to pregnancy and pregnancy prevention. While minors were previously not explicitly prohibited from receiving such services without parental permission, state law was silent on the issue. The Act now provides an assurance to minors and to health care providers that minor patients in Connecticut are permitted to consent to certain reproductive health care services without the involvement of a parent or guardian. The Act is effective as of its passage, and includes the following specific provisions: Minor Consent for Reproductive Health Care Individuals under the age of 18 in Connecticut may now give consent for services, examination, or treatment related to pregnancy and pregnancy prevention without the consent or notification of the minor’s parent or guardian. The services that the Act allows a minor to consent to without parental/guardian consent or notification are all services, examinations, or treatment related to pregnancy and pregnancy prevention, which include but are not limited to contraceptive counseling and services, prenatal care, and appropriate care and pain management during labor and delivery (including without limitation epidural administration). However, the Act expressly carves out and does not include an allowance for a minor to consent to sterilization thereunder. Privacy Protections The Act provides that if a minor patient consents to contraceptive or pregnancy-related care, physicians and other health care providers are prohibited from sharing information about such services with the minor’s parent or guardian without the minor patient’s express consent, including by sending a bill for the services to the parent or guardian. This privacy protection under the Act aligns with federal privacy regulations under HIPAA, which stipulate that where a minor patient is permitted by state law to consent to a health care service, health information related to such service cannot be disclosed to the minor’s parent or guardian without the patient’s authorization. Provider Reporting Obligations Remain The Act expressly states that it does not affect a physician’s or other health care provider’s reporting obligations under state law, such as mandatory reporting to the Connecticut Departments of Public Health or Children and Families.  No Parental Liability for Cost of Services The Act further states that where a minor patient consents to reproductive health care under the Act, and the minor’s parent or guardian is not informed of the provision of such care, the parent or guardian will not be liable for the costs of such care. Takeaways The Act is likely to provide welcome clarity for health care providers and facilities in the state, as well as for minor patients, as to when minors are permitted to consent to treatment and services related to reproductive health care. The Act also expands the circumstances recognized under Connecticut law in which a minor patient may consent to the receipt of certain treatment or services, which prior to the Act’s passage included without limitation treatment of sexually transmitted diseases, alcohol and drug treatment, HIV testing and HIV/AIDs treatment, abortion and abortion counseling, and outpatient mental health treatment if certain criteria are met.

Visit Blog

U.S. Supreme Court Denies DSH Hospitals’ Attempts to Seek Higher Medicare Payments

On April 29, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion upholding the formula the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) utilized to calculate Medicare hospitals’ disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payment adjustments, denying a challenge brought by hospitals seeking higher DSH reimbursement. In Advocate Christ Medical Center v. Kennedy, No. 23-715 (S. Ct. Apr. 29, 2025), the Court held, based on a highly technical analysis, that the DSH formula endorsed by HHS was consistent with congressional intent, and accordingly rejected an argument from the hospitals premised on how DSH adjustments are calculated arising from a hospital’s treatment of patients eligible for social security benefits. Background on Disproportionate Share Hospital Rate Adjustments Under Medicare, hospitals that treat a disproportionate share of low-income Medicare patients are entitled to a rate adjustment above the fixed Medicare amount for each Medicare patient treated, which is calculated by adding two fractions: the “Medicare fraction” plus the “Medicaid fraction.” This dispute arose when over 200 hospitals claimed that HHS miscalculated the hospitals’ DSH adjustments from 2006 to 2009 due to the department’s misinterpretation of the “Medicare fraction” calculation. The numerator used to calculate the “Medicare fraction” is defined by statute as “the number of [a] hospital’s patient days’ attributable to patients ‘who (for such days) were entitled to benefits under [Medicare] Part A’ and ‘entitled to supplementary security income [SSI] benefits. . . under subchapter XVI.” HHS interpreted the phrase “entitled to [SSI] benefits” to mean patients who are entitled to receive an SSI payment during the month they were hospitalized. Conversely, the hospitals argued that the phrase includes all patients enrolled in the SSI system at the time of their hospitalization, even if they were not entitled to an SSI payment during their month of hospitalization. The net result of the hospitals’ position would’ve been to expand the number of patients in that numerator, thus increasing the “Medicare fraction” and correspondingly increasing the DSH rate adjustment for such hospitals. After the hospitals were repeatedly unsuccessful in administrative challenges and federal district court, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held for HHS, stating that SSI benefits are “about cash payments for needy individuals” and that “it makes little sense to say that individuals are ‘entitled’ to the benefit in months when they are not even eligible for [a payment].” Supreme Court Analysis and Holding The Supreme Court upheld the D.C. Circuit ruling in favor of the government, rejecting the hospitals’ position. The Court clarified that the relevant text stipulates that SSI benefits are cash benefits and that eligibility for such benefits is determined monthly. Due to these eligibility requirements, an individual is considered “entitled to [SSI] benefits for purposes of the Medicare fraction when she is eligible for such benefits during the month of [their] hospitalization.” The Court declined the hospitals’ characterization of SSI benefits as including non-cash benefits such as vocational rehabilitation services and continued Medicaid coverage. In examining the description of an SSI benefit, the Court concluded that non-cash benefits are not identified under subchapter XVI of the Social Security Act. Turning to the hospitals’ inclusion of individuals with continued Medicaid coverage during periods of ineligibility for SSI benefits, the Court determined that this also does not create an SSI benefit but rather aids in administering the Medicaid program. Notably, two Justices dissented from the Court’s majority holding. They observed that the ultimate goal of the DSH formula is to “provide hospitals that serve the neediest among us with the appropriate level of critical funds” before concluding that the Court’s holding “arbitrarily undercounts a hospital’s low-income patients.” Takeaways This decision stops the hospitals’ ability to seek higher reimbursement via an enhanced DSH rate adjustment for the challenged claims. Moreover, HHS methodology for calculating the DSH rate was affirmed; therefore DSH hospitals will receive a DSH rate adjustment based in part on the number of patients treated who are receiving a cash payment under an SSI program during the month of treatment, and not based on the number of such patients who are just eligible for SSI benefits. Though the provision at issue was highly technical, the impact of this decision is potentially significant for DSH hospitals at a time of funding and reimbursement challenges, as more patients seek access to critical services often provided by such DSH hospitals. We will continue to follow key reimbursement and funding developments for hospitals and other health care providers.

Visit Blog