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.
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.
Last fall, private equity and hedge fund investors were given a reprieve from the prospect of increased oversight of healthcare transactions when California Governor Gavin Newsom unexpectedly vetoed Assembly Bill 3129 (AB 3129). That bill would have required review and approval by the California Attorney General of certain healthcare transactions involving private equity groups and hedge funds and imposed limitations on contractual relationships between investors and healthcare providers. On February 12, 2025, Senator Christopher Cabaldon (D-Sacramento) introduced Senate Bill 351 (SB 351), which revives aspects of AB 3129 relating to relationships between private equity groups and hedge funds and physician and dental practices, reinforcing California’s existing corporate practice of medicine and corporate practice of dentistry bars.
On August 31, the last day of its 2024 Legislative Session, the California Legislature approved Assembly Bill 3129 (Wood), which provides for notification to and review by the Attorney General of health care transactions involving private equity groups and hedge funds. This bill has been subject to intense lobbying, and its scope changed significantly in the month leading up to its passage. Governor Newsom is expected to sign the legislation in September. It is worth a comprehensive look at the final version of the bill, which will have a significant impact on future private equity transactions in California.
Exiting a business, whether you are a serial entrepreneur looking to move on to the next project or a healthcare provider like a physician or therapist who has nurtured your practice for decades, can be difficult. After all, corporate transactions are complex affairs that often hang on small details. That’s to say nothing of the emotions that business owners sometimes experience when stepping away from an enterprise into which they have poured their sweat and passion.
For those in the healthcare industry, the complexities only get tougher to tackle. As one of the most heavily regulated industries, healthcare embodies a level of regulatory risk—from merely annoying to existential—that most businesses don’t have to contemplate, making succession and exit plans hard to develop and harder still to execute.
On February 27, 2023, a jury in Minnesota federal court rendered a verdict in favor of the United States and against a surgical product distributor following a False Claims Act jury trial that lasted six weeks.[1] The jury identified $43 million in Medicare payments flowing from 64,575 kickback-procured claims.
Widespread COVID-19 vaccination is considered critical for many employers to return employees to work safely and resume normal business operations in the future. As such, many employers have been asking whether they can require, incentivize or encourage employees to get vaccinated, and what liabilities they may face if they choose any of these options.