Print Page   |   Sign In   |   Join
July 2017 Newsletter
Share |

 Illinois Healthcare Law
 IAHA Monthly Newsletter

 July 2017
Sam Siegfried
The Membership Committee hosted the IAHA Summer Networking Event July 18 at South Branch in the Chicago Loop. The Networking Event was a success with over 50 IAHA members in attendance. There was much socializing, camaraderie, and relaxation. Thanks to all who attended.

The Membership Committee invites feedback on this event. Member feedback helps IAHA plan and host events IAHA members want to attend. Please email feedback to

The Illinois Association of Healthcare Attorneys (IAHA) is pleased to offer a 12-month Fellowship opportunity to a second year law student.  The Fellow will gain valuable experience on the workings of a non-profit board of directors and leadership of a bar association, as well as an incredible networking opportunity to connect with leaders in health law.  The Fellow will be an independent contractor and will receive a stipend in the amount of $1,500 during the term of the Fellowship.  In addition, the Fellow will receive complimentary membership in the IAHA and admission to the IAHA Annual Symposium and other IAHA events during the term of the Fellowship. 

The IAHA serves the informational and educational needs of attorneys representing the health care industry, from hospitals and physicians to medical device and pharmaceutical manufacturers ( 

To learn more about the position and the application process, click here.
Candidate applications are due Thursday, August 31, 2017.



IAHA is seeking sponsors for the 35th Annual Health Law Symposium.  
The sponsorship fee is $750 and includes:

  • Sponsor’s name listed in the online monthly issue of our newsletter
  • Sponsor’s name will be included on the Symposium event web page
  • Sponsor name will appear in the Symposium brochure
  • Sponsor name will be displayed on signage at the Symposium
  • If the commitment form and payment are received by Monday, May 1, Sponsor’s logo and a URL link to Sponsor’s website (landing page of their choice) will be included in the newsletter and on the IAHA website.

Your support is greatly appreciated!

Click Here to become a Sponsor. 

Thanks to those sponsors who have already committed to
sponsoring the 2017 Symposium!
Anderson, Rasor & Partners, LLP
McGuireWoods LLP
Much Shelist
Arnstein & Lehr LLP
Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP
Beazley Institute for Health Law and Policy
Pinnacle Healthcare Consulting
Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
Greensfelder, Hemker &
Gale, P.C.
Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen
PWC Forensic Healthcare Services
Hinshaw & Culbertson
Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren S.C.
Hogan Marren Babbo & Rose, LTD
Reyes Kurson, Ltd.
Jones Day
Roetzel & Andress, LPA
Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
The Health Law Consultancy
K&L Gates LLP
McDermott Will & Emery


The Second Annual Telehealth Law Forum invites those new to and those already working in telehealth to attend the second program of the Multi-Disciplinary Telehealth Bootcamp Series. 

September 12, 2017
Offered by Broadband Illinois -
Partnership for a Connected Illinois
To register and learn more - Click HERE

The Education Committee welcomes your suggestions/ideas for future educational programming - lectures, webinars, and podcasts.  

Is there a topic you think we should cover?  Send your thoughts to


35th Annual Health Law Symposium
November, 12, 2017
Healthcare Investing Under the Trump Administration

Deborah Gersh, Ropes & Gray, and
Earl Barnes, General Counsel, Advocate Health Care
This presentation will provide a brief overview of the key health care regulatory trends that emerged under the ACA, and discuss how these trends - and the health care landscape in general - are likely to change under the Trump administration. These questions will be examined from the unique perspective of each segment of the health care industry, including payors, providers, pharmaceutical and medical device companies, and health information technology companies.




Have you gotten a promotion lately, changed firms,
want to 
toot your horn? 
Send us your news, click here

This is your newsletter!


By: Kathleen Pankau 
The Joint Commission

The United State Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, has held that an exclusive contract between a dominant hospital in a market served by two hospitals and several insurance plans did not violate the Sherman Act even though it meant the second hospital could not obtain a sufficiently high volume of patients to enable it to invest in quality-improving projects. Methodist Health Services Corp. v OSF Healthcare System, 859 F.3d 408 (7th Circ. 2017).
The dominant hospital had entered into exclusive contracts with health insurance plans that used restricted-provider networks. Plan members were encouraged to use the dominant hospital because it was in-network. Going out of networker meant the member would be charged higher prices or the treatment would not be covered at all.  As a result of its exclusion from more than half of the market of commercially insured patients in the area, an out of network hospital brought an antitrust case against the dominant hospital. But, the appellate court agreed with the lower court’s summary judgment in favor of the dominant hospital because the dominant hospital provided special healthcare services that other hospitals did not, the exclusive contracts were of a short, fixed duration of one to two years rather than indefinite, and when the contracts expired, the insurance companies would be free to strike deals with other hospitals, including the one that brought the antitrust case. The court also claimed that the plaintiff hospital could duplicate the special services that the dominant hospital provided, making itself more attractive to the plans. Then, it could try to outbid the dominant hospital in the next go-round, which, according to the court, was a form of competition protected by antitrust laws.


By: Coco Arima
DePaul University College of Law

On June 22, the Illinois Appellate Court, Fourth District, ruled on a consolidated appeal concerning a medical malpractice complaint against two physicians and a clinic after the two physicians negligently failed to diagnose the plaintiff who suffered a heart attack as a direct result of the physicians’ negligence. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint after finding the two physicians immune from liability under the Good Samaritan Act, and the clinic consequently immune from liability on the plaintiff’s vicarious liability claim. Carroll v. Community Health Care Clinic, Inc., 2017 IL App (4th) 150847.

The issue on appeal was whether the circuit court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint was proper. Under the Good Samaritan Act, a medical professional providing medical services on behalf of a free clinic and not receiving compensation from that source is not liable for damages resulting from his or her conduct in providing those services. The plaintiff argued that the Act does not grant the physicians immunity because the Act only applies to those who do not receive any compensation for the service they provide at a free clinic. Conversely, the physicians argued that they qualify for immunity under the Act because the Act applies to those who do not receive compensation directly from the free clinic for their services. After reviewing the statute’s construction, the court held that It clearly and u should be interpreted as referring to compensation derived directly from the clinic itself.

Even so, the plaintiff continued to assert that the two physicians were not immune under the Act and presented to the court a Lease Agreement between a hospital and the clinic. Under the Agreement, the hospital provided a portion of their employees to the clinic and, in return, the clinic paid the hospital an amount equal to the employees’ salaries. The Agreement stated that the leased employees were to remain employees of the hospital, with the hospital retaining power over their salaries. The plaintiff argued that the Agreement indicated the physicians were in fact being compensated for their services at the clinic, with the hospital merely serving as an intermediate to route the compensation through. The court ultimately determined that the physicians’ compensation did not come from the clinic. The court reasoned that the clinic paying the hospital an amount equal to the physicians’ salaries was inconsequential because it did not change the fact that the compensation derived from the hospital. Accordingly, the court ruled that the physicians are immune from liability under the Good Samaritan Act.

Due to the fact both physicians were found immune from liability, the clinic was subsequently immune from liability under the theory of vicarious liability. Therefore, since the clinic and both physicians are immune from liability, the circuit court’s dismissal was proper. 


By: Mallory Abel,
Northwestern Pritzker School of Law

On June 23, the Illinois Appellate Court, Second District, ruled on an interlocutory appeal involving a suburban hospital that had been held in contempt for refusing to provide quality control reports pertaining to a case on trial. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s finding that the hospital’s quality control reports were not privileged under the Medical Studies Act, but the appellate court vacated the trial court’s contempt finding due to the defendant’s good faith reasoning behind the appeal. Nielson v. Swedish American Hospital, 2017 IL App (2d) 160743 (6/23/17).

The issue on appeal is whether the trial court properly granted the patient’s (“plaintiff”) motion to compel three quality control reports from the hospital (“defendant). Under the Medical Studies Act, documents initiated, created, prepared, or generated by quality-assurance committees or their designees with the purpose of improving medical care are to be privileged documents. The defendant required any employee, student, volunteer, visitor or physician involved in observing a medical occurrence to complete a quality control report. Due to this requirement, the defendant’s staff created three quality control reports in response to the incident at issue in the lawsuit. While the trial court found that quality control reports were created as a part of the hospital’s quality-assurance process, it found that they were not protected by the Medical Studies Act.

The appellate court vacated the trial court’s holding that the quality control reports were initiated, created, prepared, or generated for the sole purpose of the defendant’s quality-assurance process. The appellate court determined that the quality control reports served the dual purpose of supporting the quality-assurance committee and the risk-management department. The court explained that despite the documents being designated privileged in advance, the quality control reports were not initiated, created, prepared, or generated for the sole purpose of quality-assurance, and therefore not protected under the Medical Studies Act.

There were a few reasons for the appellate court’s findings. First, the defendants required quality control reports to be filled out and sent to the respective quality-assurance committee immediately after any reportable occurrence. The defendant defined a reportable occurrence as an occasion that “is not consistent with quality health care or normal operations, reflects recurring concerns or problems, or indicates the potential for a claim or lawsuit.” The language referring to the potential of a lawsuit was disparate with the assertion that these documents were initially created for the sole purpose of quality-assurance. Second, the defendant’s risk-management department reviewed all quality control reports. The quality control reports were to be sent to the risk-management department at the same time they were sent to the respective quality-assurance committee. This requirement made it appear as though the quality control reports were created for the risk-management department just as much as they were for the quality-assurance committee. Finally, the appellate court used case law to find that the Medical Studies Act was not meant to protect documents created in advance of a quality-assurance investigation.

While the appellate court found that the quality control reports were not privileged under the Medical Studies Act, it vacated the trial court’s holding of contempt due to the defendant’s good faith appeal.

By: Kathleen Pankau,
The Joint Commission

On June 30, 2017, the Governor Rauner signed HB 3703, creating the “Out-of-State Person Subject to Involuntary Admission on an Inpatient Basis Mental Health Treatment Act.” Public Act 100-0012. The Act creates a two year reciprocal pilot arrangement between courts in Rock Island, Illinois and courts in five counties in the Eastern Iowa Mental Health Region that order commitment for inpatient treatment of a mental illness. The Act permits a mental health facility located in Rock Island, Illinois to accept an involuntary admission of a resident from one of the five Iowa counties while allowing the Iowa court that ordered the admission to retain jurisdiction over the Iowa resident being treated in Illinois. The law also contemplates that Illinois residents from Rock Island could be ordered for treatment at a mental health facility in one the five Iowa counties. The laws, rules, and regulations of the “sending” state relating to the length of commitment, reexaminations, and extensions of commitment or recommitment apply in the “receiving” or treating state, but the receiving state’s emergency use of psychotropic medications and forced psychotropic medications apply to the person while in the receiving or treating state. Illinois mental health facilities must send a report to the Illinois Department of Human Services with information about the pilot project, including whether any Illinois residents were denied services because the facilities treated Iowa residents.



Associate/Senior Associate General Counsel for Healthcare and Litigation
Southern Illinois University -  Click here to learn more and apply.

Illinois Register

The links to each Illinois Register go to the cover page.
It is not possible to link to individual pages within the Register. Use the search function
 within the PDF to search for the Register page that you wish to review.

June 23, 2017





Hospital Licensing Requirements

77 Ill. Adm. Code 250........................................................................................................7154


June 30, 2017





Medical Payment

89 Ill. Adm. Code 140.......................................................................................................7526


July 7, 2017





Children's Behavioral Health

89 Ill. Adm. Code 139......................................................................................................7754


July 14, 2017





Long-Term Care Insurance Partnership Program (Repealer)

89 Ill. Adm. Code 260......................................................................................................8187


Board and Care Homes Registration (Repealer)

89 Ill. Adm. Code 290.....................................................................................................8192



Maternal and Child Health Services Code

77 Ill. Adm. Code 630.....................................................................................................8212


July 21, 2017





Laboratory Service Fees

77 Ill. Adm. Code 475..................................................................................................10210





Click here for past Newsletter editions!
Association Management Software Powered by YourMembership  ::  Legal