The California Legislative Assembly presented a bill which would implement some of the same restrictions on investment in health care health care as AB 3129 from last year.(1) The SB 351, introduced this week, includes part of the same language of AB 3129 which would limit the authority of affiliated companies of investment capital companies when they conclude management agreements with doctors and dentists, but Do not include the language of AB 3129 requiring an opinion and consent of the California Attorney General (AG) for certain health care transactions in investment. The text of the proposed legislation is available here. While the SB 351 shows that California doubles on the arrangements of friendly doctors, it largely reflects many existing laws and requirements of California prohibiting the practice of business of medicine and dentistry.
Overview of the bill of the bill
SB 351 defines the “investment capital group” as “an investor or a group of investors who are mainly committed to the lifting or return of capital and which invests, develops or eliminates the specified assets” and does not include “Natural people or other entities that contribute, or promise to contribute, from funds to the investment capital group, but otherwise do not participate in the management of the Investment Capital Group or Group assets, or any change control of the investment capital group or group assets. “”
The current bill of the bill prohibits a investment capital group “involved in some way thatthis ”from:
- Interfere with the professional judgment of doctors or dentists in making decisions in terms of health care, including one of the following elements:
- To determine which diagnostic tests are suitable for a particular condition.
- Determine the need for references or consultation with another doctor, dentist or an approved health professional.
- Be responsible for the ultimate overall patient care, including the treatment options available for the patient.
- To determine the number of patients that a doctor or a dentist must see in a given period or how many hours of a doctor or dentist must work.
- Plying control over or being delegated the power to do, any of the following elements:
- Own or otherwise determine the content of patient medical records.
- Selection, hiring or dismissal of doctors, dentists, allied health personnel and medical assistants based, in whole or in part, in terms of competence or clinical competence.
- Defining the parameters in which a doctor, dentist or doctor or dental office must conclude contractual relations with third parties.
- Define the parameters in which a doctor or dentist must enter into contractual relations with other doctors or dentists for the provision of care.
- Make decisions about coding and invoicing procedures for patient care services.
- Approving the selection of medical equipment and medical supplies for the doctor or dental office.
In addition, SB 351 requires that any contract involving the management of a doctor or dental practice, or the sale of real estate or other assets belonging to a doctor or a dental office to a capital of investment, or any entity controlled by a key capital group, must not include any clause prohibiting a supplier of this practice to compete with this practice in the event of dismissal or resignation of this supplier of this practice, or to denigrate, opinion or commentary on this practice.
The bill also authorizes California AG to an injunction and other equitable appeals to the application of prohibitions. The bill also notes that it is not intended to restrict any existing Californian law concerning the practice of medicine or dentistry companies.
Take -out
SB 351 shows that California continues to follow a national trend of interest in regulating investment in investment in the health care industry and the strengthening or reiteration of prohibitions for the practice of medicine and dentistry. However, the bill largely reiterates existing laws regulating the practice of medicine and dentistry companies that apply beyond investment capital, including laws prohibiting the interference of professional medical judgment by people or companies without license.
Above all, the bill does not seem to prohibit most of the MSO health care arrangements If the prohibitions mentioned above are respected, a welcome depression of certain recent previous invoices also aiming for investment in investment in the care of health. Nevertheless, members of the health care sector who agree with management arrangements with affiliates of investment should examine these arrangements to ensure that they comply with the restrictions of practice of existing companies, but also for Make sure these arrangements comply with SB 351 if it was adopted in law.