What shows up once the story must survive the terms
At the outset of life sciences transactions, there is usually a strong sense of alignment. Founders and investors tend to agree on the importance of discipline, focus, capital efficiency, and long-term value. That was evident throughout JPM Healthcare Week and in conversations around RESI 2026, where many of the same themes surfaced across different rooms and discussions.
A federal judge has issued a preliminary injunction halting the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) 340B Rebate Model Pilot Program, which was scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2026. The December 29, 2025 ruling temporarily prevents implementation of the rebate program that would have fundamentally changed how safety-net hospitals and clinics purchase discounted drugs under the 340B Drug Pricing Program.
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 Wyoming Supreme Court began the year 2026 with a landmark decision in State v. Johnson, 2026 WY 1, delivering a ruling with implications that extend far beyond its immediate outcome. While headlines will focus on the Court’s decision to strike down Wyoming’s comprehensive abortion restrictions—the Life is a Human Right Act (“Life Act”)[1] and the Medication Ban[2]—as unconstitutional, the true significance lies elsewhere. The Court held that Wyoming’s constitutional amendment guaranteeing adults the right to make their own healthcare decisions is a fundamental right protected by the highest level of judicial scrutiny.
This holding may ultimately have more far-reaching consequences, setting the stage for future challenges to a wide range of healthcare regulations across Wyoming.
California Governor Gavin Newsom has signed a pair of highly anticipated bills that will affect healthcare transactions involving private equity groups and hedge funds, effective January 1, 2026. The new legislation will expand the authority of the California Office of Health Care Affordability (“OHCA”) to review transactions previously excluded from reporting for their impact on healthcare costs and markets and will reinforce prohibitions on lay interference with the delivery of physician and dental services under the California’s corporate practice of medicine laws.
On August 8, 2025, Governor Tony Evers signed Senate Bill 14, now 2025 Wisconsin Act 22, which establishes new informed consent requirements for pelvic examinations. This Act requires hospitals to obtain written informed consent from a patient prior to performing a pelvic examination solely for educational purposes while the patient is under general anesthesia or otherwise unconscious. This legislation also mandates that hospitals implement written policies and procedures for obtaining informed consent prior to performing pelvic exams on unconscious patients.
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.
Recently, Attorney General Pam Bondi purportedly issued an internal memorandum in response to Executive Order 14187 (“Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation”) concerning the treatment of transgender minors by medical practitioners, hospitals, clinics, and pharmaceutical companies. The memo set forth guidance for all Department of Justice (DOJ) employees to investigate individuals and entities who provide gender-affirming care to minor patients. To be clear, the memorandum—which has been posted in various locations on the internet and widely reported on by various media outlets but has not been verified as authentic by Husch Blackwell—is an internal policy statement directed to DOJ personnel and is not law. While it purports to issue “guidelines” pursuant to an executive order from the President, that executive order is itself under scrutiny (and has been partially enjoined).
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.
On February 20, 2025, the ERISA Industry Committee (ERIC) announced that its legal counsel submitted a letter to the U.S. Departments of Labor (DOL), Health and Human Services (HHS) and Treasury, requesting a stay of enforcement of the September 2024 Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) Final Rule. In the letter, ERIC urged the Departments to exercise their authority under 5 U.S.C. § 705 to postpone the effective date of the Final Rule while litigation challenging its validity is ongoing. This request marks a significant development in the legal landscape surrounding mental health parity laws and could have far-reaching implications for employers, health plans, and other stakeholders in the health insurance industry.