In my November 2025 blog post, I discussed the uncertainty surrounding the DEA’s then-pending telemedicine rule and its implications for ketamine clinics. At that time, the future of pandemic-era telehealth prescribing flexibilities was unclear, and clinics across the country were bracing for the possibility of a significant regulatory shift at the end of 2025.
The regulatory landscape for substance use disorder (SUD) treatment records is changing—and the impact will extend far beyond traditional addiction treatment programs. With treatment options for SUD limited, some providers are exploring ketamine as a potential therapy due to its effects on glutamatergic neurotransmission.[i] Additionally, psychedelic-assisted therapies involving certain Schedule I substances – such as psilocybin, ibogaine, and MDMA – are currently being studied by researchers as potential treatments for SUDs.[ii] While these investigational therapies are not yet available in clinical practice and the new federal privacy rules do not apply to research records, providers should be aware of the evolving treatment landscape as these therapies move closer to potential approval and clinical use.
The legal and regulatory landscape for ketamine clinics is shifting once again, as the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) prepares to release its “Fourth Temporary Extension of COVID-19 Telemedicine Flexibilities for Prescription of Controlled Medications.” While the full text of this rule is not yet public, its very existence signals that the DEA may continue the pandemic-era telehealth flexibilities that have proven vital for many clinics and patients. For owners and operators of ketamine clinics, understanding what’s at stake and how to prepare is more important than ever.
In June 2025, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (OIG) announced a new item in its Work Plan: “Medicare Payments for Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Tests in 2024.” This annual review, mandated by the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 (PAMA), focuses on analyzing the top 25 laboratory tests by Medicare expenditures for the previous calendar year. For clinical laboratories and healthcare providers, this announcement signals the need to pay close attention to billing practices, compliance programs, and potential audit risks.
On June 17, 2025, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the Commissioner’s National Priority Voucher (CNPV) program, a bold initiative designed to accelerate the review of therapies addressing critical national health priorities and potentially marking a significant shift in the U.S. regulatory landscape for drug development. For life sciences companies, this program presents both a unique opportunity and new strategic considerations; however, while the promise of a much shorter review window is enticing, life sciences innovators would be wise to proceed with caution.
Audit preparedness is essential for every clinical research site. By operationalizing compliance in your daily procedures, you can effectively mitigate risk and ensure smooth inspections. Start by thoroughly educating key personnel on current regulations and any changes, and involve them in risk identification and mitigation strategies. Foster a culture of shared responsibility through ongoing training and open communication. Keep detailed documentation of the reasoning behind your procedures and policies, and store all standard operating procedures (SOPs) in a central, easily accessible location. Finally, implement a robust system for managing data and documents to ensure that all necessary information is readily available for internal and external monitors, as well as regulatory agencies.
Artificial intelligence (AI) continues to dominate headlines—not just for its technological leaps, but also for the policies shaping its future. In a major development, a new Republican-backed tax bill, released by the House Energy and Commerce Committee on May 11, 2025, seeks to preempt states from regulating AI models for the next decade. If passed, this bill would prevent state laws governing AI systems, allowing only limited exceptions for measures that simply facilitate or streamline AI development and deployment. Laws attempting to regulate artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decisions systems would be disallowed during the 10 year period.
This proposed federal approach aligns with the current administration’s emphasis on AI innovation over regulation, reflecting a belief that a unified, national policy will spur American competitiveness in this rapidly evolving field.
A recent False Claims Act (FCA) litigation—Jensen ex rel. United States of America v. Genesis Laboratory—highlights critical compliance risks for laboratories. This case reinforces the need for laboratories to ensure adherence to federal regulations governing medical necessity, lab requisition practices, and the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS).
Throughout this series, we’ve explored the key elements of successful life sciences transactions—from structuring collaborations and securing funding to protecting intellectual property and navigating regulatory complexities.
Yet, even when companies understand these fundamentals, transactions don’t always go as planned. In our work with biotech, medtech, digital health, and research-driven companies, we’ve seen common missteps that can slow deals down, create compliance risks, or weaken long-term business outcomes.
Clinical research agreements (CRAs) and developing a regulatory strategy—particularly in connection with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)—are crucial for a company’s ability to bring innovative life sciences products to market. CRAs, which govern the conduct of clinical trials, are essential for detailing which party will comply with the regulatory requirements while facilitating the commercialization of new drugs, devices, and digital health solutions.