The Court ruled that California may not compel the clinics with religious concerns to promote or advertise abortion options.
When can the government require speech? While many people think of the recent Supreme Court decision involving family clinics in California as an abortion case, the analysis of the case centers on free speech.
The Court concluded that the state of California was not allowed to require certain crisis pregnancy centers to post a notice describing services available to pregnant women, nor could it require unlicensed clinics to warn women of the center’s unlicensed status.
This raises a question: Will the principles articulated in this case be applied more broadly to other disclosure requirements imposed on healthcare professionals? I haven’t seen any articles raising this question, but this is a topic that merits attention.
The healthcare industry is replete with situations where professionals are required to make statements to patients. For example, under Stark, if a physician group wants to qualify for the in-office ancillary exception, it must provide notice to patients who receive advanced imaging like MRI’s, CT and PET, notifying them of other suppliers that provide the services.
In most states, when a physician has a financial interest in certain ancillary services ranging from surgery centers to durable medical equipment (DME) supplies, the physician is required to disclose the financial relationship to the patient.
At this point, it is not entirely clear whether this opinion will transfer to other disclosure requirements. The opinion contains some reasoning that seems quite weak.
The decision is premised on the conclusion that professional speech is not a separate category of speech and that professionals are entitled to constitutional protection of their speech, but it also notes that professionals can be made to disclose “purely factual and uncontroversial information.” The portion of the analysis that seems most suspect is the assertion that if there is a way that the state could communicate information to the patients, it is improper for the state to require professionals to communicate it.
It is difficult to envision a situation where the only way that information could be communicated is via the professional. If the availability of other means of communication is truly the test, this decision would seem to prohibit nearly all state requirements of disclosure. After all, the state could always advertise, drop leaflets, or rent the Goodyear blimp as a means to communicate. Yet the decision seems to say that the availability of alternate communication means that the state should not force professionals to speak.
Justice Clarence Thomas also addressed another fact: The disclosure requirements only applied to a subset of clinics rather than applying more broadly. That caused the Court to conclude that the government was supporting a particular position. The court often believes that government-imposed speech should be “viewpoint neutral.”
If one were to focus on that portion of the Court’s analysis, there would be less reason to think that the opinion would apply to purely economic disclosures. However, the discussion about the fact that state could have accomplished its goal through other means of communication gives hope to a physician who wishes to challenge notices that the Court may be receptive to the argument.
Program Note:
Listen to David Glaser every Monday on Monitor Mondays, 10-10:30 a.m. EDT.
As the federal government shutdown drags on, an alarming message began circulating across the healthcare community: “physicians won’t get paid until the government reopens.” The
If you employ licensed professionals, it is nearly inevitable that at some point, one of those individuals will fail to properly renew their license. It
Please log in to your account to comment on this article.
Accurately determining the principal diagnosis is critical for compliant billing, appropriate reimbursement, and valid quality reporting — yet it remains one of the most subjective and error-prone areas in inpatient coding. In this expert-led session, Cheryl Ericson, RN, MS, CCDS, CDIP, demystifies the complexities of principal diagnosis assignment, bridging the gap between coding rules and clinical reality. Learn how to strengthen your organization’s coding accuracy, reduce denials, and ensure your documentation supports true medical necessity.
Denials continue to delay reimbursement, increase administrative burden, and threaten financial stability across healthcare organizations. This essential webcast tackles the root causes—rising payer scrutiny, fragmented workflows, inconsistent documentation, and underused analytics—and offers proven, data-driven strategies to prevent and overturn denials. Attendees will gain practical tools to strengthen documentation and coding accuracy, engage clinicians effectively, and leverage predictive analytics and AI to identify risks before they impact revenue. Through real-world case examples and actionable guidance, this session empowers coding, CDI, and revenue cycle professionals to shift from reactive appeals to proactive denial prevention and revenue protection.
Sepsis remains one of the most frequently denied and contested diagnoses, creating costly revenue loss and compliance risks. In this webcast, Angela Comfort, DBA, MBA, RHIA, CDIP, CCS, CCS-P, provides practical, real-world strategies to align documentation with coding guidelines, reconcile Sepsis-2 and Sepsis-3 definitions, and apply compliant queries. You’ll learn how to identify and address documentation gaps, strengthen provider engagement, and defend diagnoses against payer scrutiny—equipping you to protect reimbursement, improve SOI/ROM capture, and reduce audit vulnerability in this high-risk area.
Only ICD10monitor delivers what you need: updates on must-know changes associated with the FY26 IPPS, including new ICD-10-CM/PCS codes, CCs/MCCs, and MS-DRGs, plus insights, analysis and answers to your questions from two of the country’s most respected subject matter experts.
Get clear, practical answers to Medicare’s most confusing regulations. Join Dr. Ronald Hirsch as he breaks down real-world compliance challenges and shares guidance your team can apply right away.
Federal auditors are zeroing in on Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility (IRF) and hospital rehab unit services, with OIG and CERT audits leading to millions in penalties—often due to documentation and administrative errors, not quality of care. Join compliance expert Michael Calahan, PA, MBA, to learn the five clinical “pillars” of IRF-PPS admissions, key documentation requirements, and real-life case lessons to help protect your revenue.
During this essential RACmonitor webcast Michael Calahan, PA, MBA Certified Compliance Officer, will clarify the rules, dispel common misconceptions, and equip you with practical strategies to code, document, and bill high-risk split/shared, incident-to & critical care E/M services with confidence. Don’t let audit risks or revenue losses catch your organization off guard — learn exactly what federal auditors are looking for and how to ensure your documentation and reporting stand up to scrutiny.
Learn how to navigate the proposed elimination of the Inpatient-Only list. Gain strategies to assess admission status, avoid denials, protect compliance, and address impacts across Medicare and non-Medicare payors. Essential insights for hospitals.
Happy National Doctor’s Day! Learn how to get a complimentary webcast on ‘Decoding Social Admissions’ as a token of our heartfelt appreciation! Click here to learn more →
CYBER WEEK IS HERE! Don’t miss your chance to get 20% off now until Dec. 2 with code CYBER24
