Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Obtaining Patient Consent

Client Alert

Patients have autonomy to choose what can and cannot be done to their bodies. Therefore, informed consent is required before any treatments or procedures commence. This is a stark contrast to the previously recognized paternalistic approach, which relies solely on the decision-making of the provider.

However, in order for patients to really choose whether or not to submit themselves to a particular healthcare service, they must actually understand what the service is. Therefore, patient consent should help the patient understand the risks and benefits, as well as any alternative treatment options.

Obtaining Consent

Merely having a patient sign an informed consent is not enough for a patient to consent. Rather, providers should have an active dialogue with patients, which starts with explaining a diagnosis, the proposed treatment including its benefits and risks, and any alternative treatment options and their benefits and risks. Providers should allow patients to ask any clarifying questions they may have. Only after this dialogue can a signed consent be obtained.

While some states recognize verbal consents as valid, others require that patients sign an authorization form to show that consent was actually obtained.

Capacity to Consent

Even if a provider engages in a dialogue with a patient clearly laying out the patient’s diagnosis, treatment options, and benefits and risks, some patients still cannot consent due to lack of capacity. If a patient cannot understand or appreciate the benefits, risks, and alternatives, or cannot demonstrate reasoning in their decision-making, the patient likely does not have capacity to give a valid informed consent. One way to determine whether a patient has capacity is to have the patient restate in their own words what they understood about the dialogue with their provider.

Further, while minor patients may seem to have capacity, they are incapable of providing informed consent (although there are some exceptions in states where the minor is emancipated or is being treated for specific illnesses, such as sexually transmitted diseases). Therefore, consent to treat minors will generally require a parent or guardian’s signature. 

Penalties

Failure to adequately obtain informed consent may result in consequences, including but not limited to medical malpractice lawsuits, loss of hospital privileges, or removal from preferred provider lists.

If you have any questions regarding patient consent in general, or whether your current process for obtaining informed consent is compliant with applicable state and/or federal law, please don’t hesitate to contact BMD Health Law Group Member Jeana M. Singleton at jmsingleton@bmdllc.com or 330-253-2001, or BMD Attorney Rachel Stermer at rcstermer@bmdllc.com or 330-253-2019.  


Corporate Transparency Act Overhauled: U.S. Entities No Longer Required to Report

The Department of Treasury has issued an interim final rule significantly altering the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA). As of March 21, 2025, all U.S.-created entities and their beneficial owners are exempt from reporting requirements. Only non-U.S. entities registered to do business in the U.S. must still report, but they are not required to disclose U.S. citizen owners. Business owners should stay informed on these changes and consult legal counsel for compliance guidance.

ODM to Implement Medicaid Work Requirements: What Providers and Medicaid Expansion Recipients Need to Know

The Ohio Department of Medicaid (ODM) has submitted a waiver to impose work requirements for Medicaid expansion recipients. If approved, the new eligibility criteria will take effect on January 1, 2026. A federal public comment period is open until April 7, 2025.

Ohio Appellate Court Rules in Favor of Gender-Affirming Care

On March 18, 2025, the 10th District Court of Appeals in Franklin County ruled that Ohio’s House Bill (HB) 68, which restricts puberty blockers and hormone therapy for minors seeking gender-affirming care, violates the Health Care Freedom Amendment and is therefore unenforceable. The court found that the law unlawfully interferes with parental rights and medical decision-making. The case, Moe v. Yost, has been remanded, and Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost intends to appeal.

HHS Revokes Public Comment Requirement on Certain Policy Changes

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has revoked the Richardson Waiver, eliminating the requirement for public notice and comment on certain policy changes. This decision allows HHS to implement new policies more quickly, potentially affecting healthcare funding rules like Medicaid work requirements. While it speeds up policymaking, it also reduces opportunities for stakeholder input, raising concerns over transparency and unintended consequences for healthcare providers, states, and patients.

Don't Get Caught Dazed and Confused: Another Florida Court Weighs in on Employer Obligations to Accommodate Medical Marijuana Use

A Florida trial court ruled in Giambrone v. Hillsborough County that employers may need to accommodate off-duty medical marijuana use under the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA). This contrasts with prior rulings and raises new compliance challenges for employers. With the case on appeal, now is the time to review workplace drug policies.