This is the sixth and final installment in a six-part series on incentive design, deal structure, and how these issues surface in transactions and enforcement. Other relevant topics will be discussed in our upcoming presentation, Physician Owner Mindset, Compliance Guardrails: Growth Without the Gotchas, to be given at the American Alliance of Orthopaedic Executives on Tuesday, April 21.
This is the fifth in a six-part series on incentive design, deal structure, and how these issues surface in transactions and enforcement. Other relevant topics will be discussed in our upcoming presentation, Physician Owner Mindset, Compliance Guardrails: Growth Without the Gotchas, to be given at the American Alliance of Orthopaedic Executives on Tuesday, April
Earlier this month, Judge Rakoff of the Southern District of New York issued a first-of-its-kind ruling in United States v. Heppner. The case involved a criminal defendant, Heppner, who used a public generative AI platform (Claude) to “prepare reports that outlined his defense strategy (what he might argue with respect to the facts and the law that [his attorneys] anticipated that the government might be charging”). Although the defendant prepared the documents on his own, he later shared them with his attorneys. Heppner argued that these AI-generated documents should be protected by attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine.
This is the first in a six-part series on incentive design, deal structure, and how these issues surface in transactions and enforcement. Other relevant topics will be discussed in our upcoming presentation, Physician Owner Mindset, Compliance Guardrails: Growth Without the Gotchas, to be given at the American Alliance of Orthopaedic Executives on Tuesday, April 21.
This is the fourth in a series of articles designed to provide SXSW and LSI USA ’26 attendees and other MedTech professionals with practical considerations for efficiently executing mission-critical life science deals.
Many MedTech companies begin with one important relationship.
A health system agrees to test the product.
A strategic customer agrees to move first.
A commercial partner helps validate the market.
That is often how the first traction happens.
This is the second in a series of articles designed to provide SXSW and LSI USA ’26 attendees and other MedTech professionals with practical considerations for efficiently executing mission-critical life science deals.
Collaborations often start with a simple premise: build something together, share the risk, and create value.
The complexity shows up later when investors or buyers ask who actually owns the platform.
In co-development structures involving devices and software, ownership and control are rarely binary. They are defined by layered licensing arrangements, regulatory allocations, manufacturing dependencies, and IP assignments that were often negotiated quickly to get a deal done.
The Colorado General Assembly is back in session and has introduced legislation (SB26-041) that, if enacted, would create new notification requirements and antitrust review processes for healthcare transactions. While Colorado already requires state-level notification of transactions that trigger federal notifications under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act and notification of certain hospital transactions under the Hospital Transfer Act (“HTA”) of 2023, the proposed bill would create new notification requirements for a broader set of healthcare transactions, and would authorize the Colorado attorney general (“COAG”) to block or delay closing of transactions. The proposed bill also expands the scope of hospital transactions that must be reported under the HTA.
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.
CMS has extended its Provisional Period of Enhanced Oversight (PPEO) and its Expanded Prepayment Review (EPR) enforcement efforts to Georgia and Ohio. The enhanced enforcement efforts can lead to the revocation of a hospice’s Medicare billing privileges, termination of Medicare/Medicaid enrollment, and/or the prepayment review of 100% of a hospice’s claims.