Happy new year! Welcome to 2026. On behalf of my colleagues at Saul Ewing and our Health Care Group, we are pleased to share with you our fearless predictions of trends and topics that will impact our nation's health care delivery system in 2026 from AI through Taxes, with many other important areas of health care law including telehealth, antitrust, bankruptcy, hemp, senior living, employment, patents and intellectual property, HIPAA and consolidation.
Members of our group regularly write and speak about health care legal and business developments and we will continue to do so throughout the year ahead.
We thank each of our current clients for entrusting Saul Ewing with your legal needs, and we look forward to expanding our existing relationships and creating new relationships in 2026.
Please let us know how we can be a resource.
We wish you a successful 2026!
Bruce Armon, Chair, Health Care Group
AI Agents
By: Matthew Kohel
Current health care systems require providers to complete large volumes of paperwork, such as medical records, bills, and communications, with insurance companies. This administrative bottleneck is why AI agents will increasingly be integrated into the AI programs of clinics and hospitals during 2026. Perhaps the most urgent problem AI agents can solve in clinical health care is a simple one – saving clinicians time. An AI agent is an autonomous software system that perceives its environment, reasons, and executes a multi-step plan to achieve a goal. AI agents act as autonomous digital helpers. They can perceive the conversation, plan the necessary actions, and execute complex tasks like writing the clinical note, optimizing billing codes, or managing staff schedules.
AI agents were a buzzword in 2025, but the technology is reaching a tipping point where it is good enough to be trusted with basic, yet critical, tasks. This technological leap, however, brings significant legal and ethical risks that health care organizations must address when implementing an AI agent. On the patient safety front, there is the risk of algorithmic bias. For example, if an AI agent is trained on insufficient or otherwise flawed data, it might misdiagnose a condition or make an erroneous recommendation about a patient from a specific demographic group, which may lead to legal liability. In addition, the independent nature of AI agents may create accountability confusion within a health care organization. Companies that deploy AI agents should set clear policy guidelines on post-implementation management so it's clear who is responsible for monitoring the AI agent's access to and use of highly sensitive information.
Takeaways for Health Care Leaders in 2026:
Explainability (The "Why"): You must demand that your AI vendor provides tools to clearly explain why an AI agent reached a specific decision (e.g., suggesting a certain treatment or denying a claim). If you can't explain the decision, how can you defend it?
Data Security & Privacy: Since AI agents would handle vast amounts of Protected Health Information (PHI) across systems, cybersecurity risks increase significantly. Treat AI agents as a new and critical attack surface. Ensure AI software contracts mandate the highest level of HIPAA compliance, establish well-defined rules internally on what data the agent can and cannot access, and monitor and have a plan in place to audit the agent's access.
Governance & Human Oversight: Implement a clear policy defining the non-negotiable points where a human clinician must review and approve the agent's actions and document decisions where a human overruled the AI agent's actions or recommendations. This establishes a clear line of supervision and helps mitigate liability.
Health Care and Antitrust in 2026
By: Michael Finio
What to watch for?
Arguably, there is an across-the-industry point of focus, and that is on the growth of private equity-backed consolidation and vertical integration. Across-the-industry means scrutiny on those outcomes in physician practices and hospital / health systems due to the potentially monopolistic compression and potential for resulting consumer harm. Roll-ups in the physician practice arena are being scrutinized due to the potential for a reduction in competition, increase in prices and a reduction in the quality of care due to PE investor concerns and focus on financial returns in the short term. In practice, this can mean that roll-ups that do not trigger Hart-Scott-Rodino filings due to not meeting size thresholds are being looked at by federal regulators when the PE backers are the same or closely affiliated deal-to-deal. And, at times, that federal scrutiny is in collaboration with state-level scrutiny (see below).
Similarly, the FTC has indicated that it intends to challenge vertical health care mergers which are creating cross-market giants that have insurers, pharmacies, necessary data platforms, hospitals and health systems operating under common ownership because that kind of vertical integration can limit the ability of a patient to choose due to a reduction in competition.
Finally, watch for changes in state-level antitrust enforcement in the health care space generally, via new legislation that would capture for review transactions that do require a Hart-Scott-Rodino filing, akin to what has occurred and been implemented in California, New York and Massachusetts. While existing law allows for federal-state cooperation in antitrust enforcement, the existence of separate state law requirements presents a separate risk that is likely to continue to expand given the often-political concerns that accompany transactions, particularly as market activity impacts more rural geographies.
What Will 2026 Hold for the Hemp-Derived THC Market
By: Jonathan Havens, Zack Kobrin, and Adam Fayne
As we discussed in a client alert several weeks ago, on November 12, 2025, as part of the spending package to reopen the federal government (H.R. 5371), Congress enacted significant changes to the federal definition and regulation of hemp. These amendments amount to the most consequential shift in federal hemp policy since the 2018 Farm Bill legalized hemp and hemp-derived cannabinoids. The legislation drastically narrows what qualifies as federally legal hemp, effectively prohibiting most intoxicating hemp products currently sold in the U.S. marketplace (e.g., hemp-derived tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) gummies and beverages). Among other things, the legislation contains a cap of 0.4 milligrams (mg) of total THC per package. Although the law includes a one-year transition period (i.e., the ban does not go into effect until November 2026), some stakeholders have already begun preparing for significant operational, financial, and regulatory changes.
One of the major questions coming out of this ban is: Will it actually be enforced? As many in industry know, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has been saying since before the 2018 Farm Bill was enacted that adding THC to food and beverage products is illegal. However, absent aggravating circumstances like making robust therapeutic claims, marketing to children, or copycatting popular food product brands, most hemp-derived THC brands have not heard from FDA. It remains to be seen whether the federal government will enforce this new ban or, if similar to the marijuana industry, regulation and enforcement will be left to the states. It is not only stakeholders raising this question. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service – which serves the Congress throughout the legislative process by providing comprehensive and reliable legislative research – said as much in its December 3rd report ("it remains unclear if and how federal law enforcement will enforce the new prohibitions").
Additionally, as we discussed in a more recent client alert, on December 18, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order (EO) directing the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to expedite the completion of the rescheduling of marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III, and calling for the establishment of guidance on an upper-limit of hemp-derived tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) per serving. Through the EO, President Trump is directing the Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff for Legislative, Political, and Public Affairs to work with Congress to "update the statutory definition of final hemp-derived cannabinoid products." Per the President, Americans will benefit from access to "appropriate full-spectrum CBD [cannabidiol] products while preserving the Congress's intent to restrict the sale of products that pose serious health risks." It remains to be seen which products are determined to pose serious health risks." Further, the President is ordering the development of a regulatory framework for hemp-derived cannabinoid products, including development of guidance on an "upper limit on milligrams of THC per serving with considerations on per container limits and CBD to THC ratio requirements." One question coming out of these provisions of the EO is how the recently-enacted intoxicating hemp ban, included in the spending package to reopen the federal government in November, will be impacted. Said differently, it seems possible that the previously established limit of 0.4 milligrams of THC per container could be revisited.
Adding even more uncertainty into the mix, there are already legislative efforts to compel active regulation of hemp-derived products federally rather than ban them, while also permitting states that already regulate or wish to regulate these products to do so as long as certain conditions are met. For example, Sens. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR) recently introduced the Cannabinoid Safety and Regulation Act which would, if adopted:
- Require businesses selling hemp-derived products for human consumption to register with FDA.
- Restrict sales of such products to those 21 years of age or older.
- Subject these products to federal labeling requirements, including bearing an internationally recognized symbol and statement identifying products as containing cannabinoids.
- Establish a federal "backstop" THC limit for states that do not have or enact their own limits, capping THC at 5 milligrams per serving and 50 milligrams per container for all non-beverage products. Hemp drinks would be capped at 10 milligrams of THC per container.
- Give the Agency authority to implement and enforce marketplace safety standards (e.g., not marketing to children) and to promulgate regulations on the production and sale of hemp-derived products if such requirements are aimed at protecting public health.
- Preserve the rights of states to establish more stringent regulations, including banning products if they so choose. If states actively regulate these products, they would need to ensure adherence to federal labeling and packaging rules
- Ban synthetically-derived cannabinoids.
The Wyden/Merkley proposal is just that, a proposal. It is nearly identical to a bill the pair of Senators introduced in the last Congress (which was not enacted), save for the inclusion in this version of the THC limits discussed above. Whether the looming federal ban will spur the U.S. Senate to take up and pass the measure this go around remains to be seen; it also remains to be seen how the hemp-related language in President Trump's EO changes the course of the ban. Even if the ban moves forward as enacted, it is similarly unclear how, if at all, federal regulators will enforce it, how states that already actively regulate these products will respond, and how industry will react to and navigate it all. Despite these and many other unanswered questions, what seems clear is that come next November, there will still be intoxicating hemp products on the market, at least in certain jurisdictions that already regulate and permit them.
Distressed Health Care in 2026
The health care industry was among the top industries experiencing distress in 2025, with notable bankruptcy filings that included Prospect Medical Holdings, Inc. (Bankr. N.D. Tex.), Genesis Healthcare (Bankr. N.D. Tex.) and Lifescan Global (Bankr. S.D.Tex.), among others.
We expect this trend to continue in 2026, as many of the issues plaguing hospitals, skilled nursing and other care facilities persist. Rural and safety-net hospitals face particular risk, with challenges caused by, inter alia, staffing challenges, increased labor costs, stagnating reimbursement rates from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and other payors, high interest rates, heightened antitrust scrutiny, Medicare denials and Medicaid enrollment disruptions. Such challenges are likely to be exacerbated by uncertainties related to the implementation of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) passed in July 2025, with enhanced premium Affordable Care Act tax credits expiring in 2025 and provisions impacting Medicaid eligibility and reductions in federal funding beginning in 2026.
In an effort to address such challenges and avoid abrupt closures and disruptions to patients and residents, recent bankruptcy filings for such facilities have involved, where possible, extremely expedited sale processes on shortened notice in order to transition facilities to new ownership with minimal disruption to residents, with sales free and clear of burdensome tax obligations and assessments. That said, health care bankruptcy filings actually decreased in 2025, as many troubled entities turned to other alternatives, like receiverships and out-of-court workouts, which involve negotiations with state agencies, taxing authorities and other key constituents to manage debt and create sustainable paths forward. We expect continued heightened use of these mechanisms in 2026 as challenges continue.
Federal Research Funding Turbulence: Ongoing Risks for Universities and Academic Medicine
By: Anamika R. Moore
Federal grant disruptions and proposed funding reductions for biomedical research that took place in 2025 will continue to create challenges and uncertainty for universities and academic medicine more broadly. Medical research grants are largely funded by federal agencies such as National Institutes of Health (NIH). However, changes in grant policies — including abrupt terminations of awards and substantial proposed budget reductions — have led to delays and cancellations of existing research efforts and clinical trials and disproportionately affected universities. Research infrastructure at universities, which depend on both direct research funding and associated institutional reimbursements for facilities and compliance, face financial pressure causing institutions to reassess research priorities, tighten budgets, and attempt to find stability amid evolving federal priorities. These changes are in turn impacting university hiring decisions for research and research-adjacent positions, graduate program admissions, and the viability of existing clinical trials. Courts intervened to stay some of the more disruptive policy changes in 2025, including some NIH grant terminations, but the overall legal and political environment remains volatile as institutions continue to have to stay abreast of further federal cuts and budget negotiations in Congress.
FTC's Continued Pressure on Listing of Pharmaceutical Patents in FDA's "Orange Book"
By: Alex Callo
As I've written the last couple of years (see 2024 and 2025 Health Care Predictions), branded drug companies have been on notice that the FTC has increased its focus on Orange Book patent listing practices. Notwithstanding the new administration's vastly different priorities over the last administration (e.g., as to immigration, foreign policy, etc.), and despite the changing of the guard at the FTC (from Chairwoman Lina Khan to Chairman Andrew Ferguson), one rare area of agreement between the two administrations is that the FTC should continue to scrutinize how/if branded drug companies leverage the Orange Book to gain an unfair advantage in the highly competitive pharmaceutical marketplace. See id.
Indeed, on May 21, 2025, the FTC again sent renewed warning letters to numerous branded pharmaceutical companies that disputed the propriety of more than 200 patent listings across 17 different brand-name drugs. In response, several of the companies, such as Teva, ultimately removed the challenged patent listings from the Orange Book. While it remains to be seen whether the FTC will continue to step up its scrutiny of Orange Book listing practices in 2026, I doubt that the FTC will take its foot off the gas here, especially given this administration's repeated emphasis on enabling public accessibility to pharmaceuticals (see, e.g., May 12, 2025 Executive Order (Delivering Most-Favored-nation Prescription Drug Pricing to American Patients)) and tailwinds in federal court (see Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Prods. R&D, Inc. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC, 124 F.4th 898 (Fed. Cir. 2024)). Accordingly, branded pharmaceutical companies should continue to pay close attention to their Orange Book-listing practices.
The Coming Inflection Point for Life Plan Community Expansion
By: Kimberly Min
It is well documented that the availability of units in senior housing, which includes life plan/continuing care retirement communities (CCRCs), is dramatically insufficient to cover the demand for senior housing that will not crest for decades, not only because the baby boomer population is aging in the coming years, but also because longevity is extending for many people. Life plan communities make up a substantial majority of the supply of senior housing and services. Life plan communities are typically either single site or part of a larger affiliation. While larger affiliations have long been expanding through affiliation, that expansion does not result in an increase to the supply. More recently, single site CCRCs have been exploring expansion opportunities, either through affiliation or acquisition, or through expansion campuses. The expansion campuses typically add independent living units to the inventory and anchor them to the main campus through the provision of the assisted living and skilled nurses services. This helps back-stop the demand for the segments of the life plan communities that are many times experiencing lower occupancy levels. Alternatively, new community development is only a small percentage of the growth in life plan communities. The net result is there are not enough new senior living units being added to meet the demand.
When considering affiliation, acquisition or expansion (whether solely through independent living or through a new standalone campus), there are several considerations to be made on the legal front. The current governance structure and risk appetite of the board of directors of the CCRC is commonly the gatekeeping decision that many times is deferred for a long period of time as the risks are considered and boards made up of volunteer members are hesitant to leverage the success of the existing CCRC. If the decision is made to grow, the existing financing documents need to be consulted to determine what restrictions exist for additional debt, transfer of assets and governance reorganization. If consents are needed, the CCRC has to engage with its bank or the bond market. The financing documents for publicly traded debt typically will have formulas for the circumstances in which debt can be incurred for additional projects and, presuming the economics are sufficient, consent by the bondholders is not needed. The bank consent or the bond document limitations can be overcome by refinancing out the debt, but in many cases that is not economically feasible in today's interest rate environment. Finally, the state licensing bodies will have a regulatory process to navigate to expand, build a new campus or acquire/affiliate. Internally, the CCRC needs to understand its existing management capacity and decide whether it is able to meet the operational demands of the expansion. Throughout this process, Saul Ewing LLP can assist with advising on the legal requirements, the ways to limit liability and create flexibility, and the means by which to evolve the governance of the organization.
Telehealth in 2026: Implications for Health Care Systems
By: Brenda Abrams
Telehealth will operate less as an emergency accommodation and more as a regulated, operationally integrated service in 2026. Federal actions taken in 2025, particularly congressional extensions of Medicare telehealth coverage, reduce policy instability in the short term, despite stopping short of permanent legislation, and signal the need for health care systems to plan for telehealth as a core service.
Telehealth has proven effective in reducing unnecessary emergency department visits and hospitalizations, making the overall system more efficient and cost-effective and improving access to care for patients with transportation or mobility limitations. The continuation, at least through January 30, 2026, of home-based telehealth, relaxed geographic requirements, and audio-only coverage preserves critical tools for health care systems to manage demand for telehealth services. Health care systems should expect sustained patient use of telehealth and correspondingly align their infrastructure for delivering telehealth services.
From a financial perspective, the 2025 CMS policy clarifications have added reimbursement predictability, especially for behavioral health, chronic care management, and evaluation and management services delivered through telehealth. Although payment parity at the Federal level remains subject to future rulemaking, the current framework should reduce uncertainty enough to support continued investment in telehealth platforms.
Telehealth services in 2026 will be subject to increased regulatory emphasis on compliance, documentation, and data security. The reinforcement of HIPAA standards and CMS documentation expectations will require operational oversight of vendor selection, cybersecurity controls, and clinical compliance programs. While policymakers debate longer-term statutory changes for the delivery of telehealth services, health care systems will benefit from treating telehealth as a permanent part of their infrastructure.
Downstream Effects of Government's Reduced Support of Certain Therapeutic Intervention Modalities
By: Domingos Silva
In 2026 we will likely observe ripple effects of the government's increased scrutiny and de-monetization of certain therapeutic intervention modalities, such as mRNA and CAR-T technologies, as well as of the entire vaccination field. Across-the-board reductions in Federal support for such therapeutic approaches will undoubtedly reduce the existing research budgets, which may lead to research project terminations and scientific headcount reductions.
Therapeutic innovations in the U.S. take place at universities, research institutions, and companies (ranging from biotechnology start-ups to established pharmaceutical companies). Such cutting-edge research has been heavily supported by a combination of Federal funds and government institutional support. Faced with the government's sudden skepticism about the efficacy and safety of these high-profile approaches, companies may be less inclined to develop them from the lab bench to the market, because of decreased research funding and higher likelihood of approval delays and barriers. That may lead to an overall reduction of innovative and effective therapies reaching the general population. The issue is particularly worrisome for the vaccine industry, which is characterized by rather slim profit margins and may not weather the current government policy. In particular, the deemphasis in broad population vaccination may cause once-conquered infectious diseases to once again become a grave public concern. It remains to be seen if foundations and individual donors will step up and help build the budget gap to allow these therapeutic intervention modalities to be further developed.
Tax Outlook for For-Profits and Nonprofits
By: Richard Frazier
For-Profits
2025 was a year of unprecedented upheaval at the IRS, and we expect that to continue into 2026. The One Big Beautiful Bill had something for just about everybody, and the IRS will be stretched to provide guidance on all of the new provisions. The major incentive for businesses was the extension of the bonus depreciation provisions which allow for a 100% write off of many capital expenditures. That guidance will be at the top of the priority list at Treasury. While not a "tax" issue per se, the emergence of the private equity model in the personal service industry (accounting, law, medicine) may change the landscape of how those personal services are rendered. We are now beginning to see that effect.
Nonprofits
In the tax-exempt field, Treasury intends to issue guidance under section 4960 regarding excess compensation paid by tax-exempt organizations, including the expanded definition of "covered employee" and the section 4968 excise tax placed on the investment income of certain private universities. It remains to be seen whether the IRS will attempt to revoke the tax-exempt status of certain institutions based upon what the administration considers to be policies which it deems to be inconsistent with their exempt purpose.
2026 Trends and Predictions in Health Care Noncompete Agreements
The legal landscape of noncompete agreements in health care is undergoing significant transformation as we head into 2026, driven by regulatory challenges, state-level reforms, and evolving workforce dynamics.
Federal Regulation
In 2024, the Federal Trade Commission announced a sweeping ban on most noncompete agreements. Federal courts initially blocked the rule's implementation and, although the litigation continued, in early September 2025, the FTC voted to withdraw from its defense of the rule. However, one week later, on September 10, 2025, the FTC sent letters to several large health care employers and staffing firms notifying them that "[t]he FTC is focusing resources on enforcing Section 5 of the FTC Act against unlawful noncompetes, particularly in the health care sector." The letter and the press release announcing the letter urged all health care employers, not just those receiving the letters, "to conduct a comprehensive review of your employment agreements –including any noncompetes or other restrictive covenants—to ensure they comply with applicable laws and are appropriately tailored to the circumstances." The letter further "strongly encouraged" health care entities to immediately discontinue restrictive covenants that are unfair and anticompetitive under the FTC Act and to notify affected employees that the restrictions have been discontinued.
State-Level Action Accelerates
State legislation restricting or outright banning noncompete restrictions for health care providers dramatically increased in 2025. For example, on August 5, 2025, Arkansas banned noncompete agreements that restrict the right of a physician to practice within the physician's scope of practice; effective August 6, 2025, noncompete and nonsolicitation covenants that restrict the practice of medicine, advanced practice registered nursing, and dentistry became void in Colorado with the sole exception for individuals who own a minority share in the business; Indiana passed a new law banning noncompete agreements between a physician and a hospital and hospital-related entities that are entered into on or after July 1, 2025; in Maryland, noncompete agreements entered into on or after July 1, 2025 for licensed medical professionals who provide direct patient care and earn less than $350,000 annually are unlawful and for those providers who earn more than $350,000, the geographical and temporal scope of noncompete provisions are limited to a 10-mile radius and one year, respectively; Montana banned post-employment non-compete provisions and patient non-solicitation provisions in physician contractual agreements made or renewed after January 1, 2026; on June 9, 2025 a new Oregon law declared non-competition agreements between medical licensees and a person, management services organization, hospital, or hospital-affiliated clinic void and unenforceable, with limited exceptions for shareholders and members of the business; Texas enacted legislation limiting the geographical scope of a noncompete agreement to a 5-mile radius and temporally to one year after termination of employment for agreements entered into or renewed after September 1, 2025, and further requiring that such agreements provide for a buyout option capped at the physician's total annual salary; and effective July 1, 2025, any provision that restricts a physician's practice after their termination of employment is void in Wyoming.
The Rise of Alternative Restrictive Covenants
As traditional noncompete clauses face mounting legal challenges, health care employers are pivoting to alternative restrictions. Expect to see more sophisticated nonsolicitation agreements, and longer notice periods. Garden leave provisions, where departing employees receive full pay during a restricted period (a common practice in Europe), may gain traction as a more defensible alternative. These approaches attempt to protect legitimate business interests while avoiding the blanket competition restrictions that have drawn regulatory scrutiny.
Practical Implications for Health Care Organizations
Health care employers should conduct thorough audits of their existing noncompete agreements in early 2026, assessing enforceability under current and potential future legal frameworks. Geographic scope, duration, and the specific interests being protected will face heightened scrutiny. Organizations may benefit from developing tiered approaches—maintaining stronger restrictions for truly sensitive positions while relaxing or eliminating them for roles where enforcement seems unlikely to survive legal challenge.
The ability to attract and retain talent may increasingly depend on offering competitive packages without onerous restrictions, particularly for physicians and advanced practice providers who have leverage in tight labor markets.
Looking Ahead
Health care noncompete agreements in 2026 will likely exist in a state of flux, with significant variation by state and ongoing federal uncertainty. Organizations that approach these arrangements with flexibility, focusing on legitimate business protection while respecting workforce mobility, will be best positioned to navigate whatever regulatory environment ultimately emerges. The days of broad, automatically enforceable noncompetes appear to be waning, replaced by a more nuanced approach that balances employer interests with provider autonomy and patient access to care.
The Impact of Challenges to DEI in the Health Care Industry Will Increase
By: Rob Duston
The various Executive Orders on "DEI" have resulted in many investigations and claims in higher education and post-secondary schools. What has received less attention is the widespread impacts on the Health Care industry. During 2026 we expect the Department of Health and Human Services to increase actions against health care providers, including those holding HHS contracts. There is extensive guidance about what the Administration deems to be "illegal DEI." Gender identity protections, including treatment of gender dysphoria, is just one example.
A major focus of the Administration is on employment practices, including any efforts at "affirmative action," and the content of training programs. Investigations by various agencies have focused on reverse discrimination against white employees and men; Christians (including free expression in the workplace), and antisemitism. But the impacts of the changes also affect public-facing practices for patients and members of the public.
The non-discrimination provisions of ACA Section 1557 were already on life-support as a result of prior litigation. We can expect those regulations to largely disappear. Federal contractors will be asked to certify that they do not engage in illegal practices as defined by the Executive Orders.
All entities in the Health Care Industry, if they have not already done so, need to assess their risk tolerance to potential challenges from the federal government and private litigants, critically consider the purposes and goals of your policies and practices, and decide whether to make changes to reduce the risk. For more details, see the Alert we published in September 2025 here.
Further Consolidation is Inevitable; HIPAA Challenges
By: Bruce Armon
The only constant in the health care delivery system is change. Health care systems will continue to look for opportunities to increase slim profit margins. Private equity will seek to sell underperforming assets and be active in industries where there are significant EBITDA margins. Medical practices will need to determine if they can continue on their own, sell to a community hospital or academic medical center, merge with another practice or be tempted to align with private equity. Because of the profound shortage of certain physician specialties and health care deserts in various locations around the country, midlevel providers will seek to fill the void of providing patient care, telehealth opportunities will increase (as long as there if funding for these initiatives) and state legislatures will become increasingly involved in ensuring adequate access within their communities.
As change occurs, ensuring the integrity, privacy and security of Protected Health Information will take on additional importance. The Trump Administration has continued to investigate and settle alleged instances of HIPAA noncompliance by covered entities and business associates. While the focus of these settlements has been primarily with respect to the HIPAA Security Rule and data breaches, the HIPAA Privacy Rule cannot be ignored. The beginning of a new calendar year presents a wonderful opportunity to review HIPAA policies and procedures, ensure business associate agreements are in place, and be mindful of what is and is not covered by your organization's insurance with respect to HIPAA and data security issues.
******************
Saul Ewing attorneys and our Health Care Group stand ready to assist you and your organization navigate the challenges and changes within the health care delivery system, ensure compliance, create new opportunities and help you achieve your business objectives.
Here's to a successful 2026!
