Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupport
Contact Us
Search
Close

Navigating the Matrix of State Healthcare Approvals

By Matthew Goldman, Jordan Grushkin, Jared Nagley & Malika Levarlet on February 10, 2025
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Healthcare-Physician-Blog-Image-660x283

The outlook for federal antitrust enforcement remains murky, at best, with uncertainty about whether the new federal HSR rules, merger guidelines, and existing enforcement actions.

The forecast for state antitrust enforcement, however, is much clearer, particularly with respect to the healthcare industry.

State antitrust enforcers have taken a more active role in recent years, less willing to sit back while the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) or the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) takes the lead in investigating potential anticompetitive conduct or corporate consolidations whose effects will be felt at the state level. Given the local nature of healthcare delivery and the sector’s importance to the well-being of a state’s citizens, it is no surprise that the healthcare industry has been a particular focus of state antitrust enforcement efforts. For example, in the past few years, several states have passed laws establishing state-level transaction notification regimes – often specifically targeting healthcare transactions – based on the federal HSR Act. These notification regimes, often referred to as “Baby HSRs” or “Mini HSRs”, can impose burdens on parties to transactions that otherwise fall below HSR Act reporting thresholds or involve transactions that have limited direct connections to the state. Moreover, these state-level reporting regimes often impose different requirements on transacting parties – some more onerous – than the HSR Act itself. 

Unlike the HSR Act, these state-level regimes sometimes impose additional burdens and a higher level of scrutiny when one of the transacting parties is a private equity sponsor or is private equity backed. The rationale usually given for this private equity focus is that states are suspicious of private equity’s involvement with healthcare delivery – i.e., the profit motive will lessen the quality of the care delivered. These concerns about the profit motive lessening quality of care are also reflected in the states that have or are considering legislation to curb the friendly PC model. 

The rise of state antitrust enforcement regimes in the healthcare industry is not new, with states implementing or considering new laws and regulations requiring additional approvals for healthcare transactions.

These emerging state-level reporting regimes are tracked in our interactive map available here, which identifies states with reporting regimes and provide a high-level indication of the types of requirements that may be imposed on healthcare transactions captured by the regimes. We encourage you to bookmark the page as we will continue to update the matrix as more states adopt reporting regimes or pass new laws to expand existing ones.

Photo of Matthew Goldman Matthew Goldman

Matthew Goldman is a partner in the Corporate Practice Group in the firm’s Century City office and is a member of the firm’s healthcare practice team.

Read more about Matthew GoldmanEmail
Photo of Jordan Grushkin Jordan Grushkin

Jordan Grushkin is a partner in the Corporate Practice Group in the firm’s Century City office and is a member of the firm’s healthcare practice team.

Read more about Jordan GrushkinEmail
Photo of Jared Nagley Jared Nagley

Jared Nagley is a partner in the Antitrust and Competition Practice Group in the firm’s New York office.

Read more about Jared NagleyEmail
Photo of Malika Levarlet Malika Levarlet

Malika Levarlet is special counsel in the Corporate Practice Group in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office.

Read more about Malika LevarletEmail
  • Posted in:
    Antitrust, Competition and Trade
  • Blog:
    Healthcare Law Blog
  • Organization:
    Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo