Holly Buckley

Yeah, so last year, one of the big state laws that everyone was very focused on was the California Senate Bill 3129, which would have, if it had gone through in certain of the forms that it was proposed, would have almost prohibited kind of MSOPC, kind of the private equity investment in medical and dental businesses. And Newsom ended up vetoing that law.

It got all the way to his desk and then he didn't sign it and said, look, we already have a process for this. We're not going to kind of go this far and sign this. But now there's a new California bill that's proposed, which is Senate Bill 351. This came out in the last week or so. This is very, very watered down compared to what was proposed last year. And it's much more of a

It got all the way to his desk and then he didn't sign it and said, look, we already have a process for this. We're not going to kind of go this far and sign this. But now there's a new California bill that's proposed, which is Senate Bill 351. This came out in the last week or so. This is very, very watered down compared to what was proposed last year. And it's much more of a

corporate practice bill than it is an antitrust bill or a real kind of transaction bill. But essentially, it prohibits PE funds and hedge funds from interfering with a professional judgment of physicians or dentists in making healthcare decisions and exercising power over specified actions, including decisions on billing and coding and patient care services.

corporate practice bill than it is an antitrust bill or a real kind of transaction bill. But essentially, it prohibits PE funds and hedge funds from interfering with a professional judgment of physicians or dentists in making healthcare decisions and exercising power over specified actions, including decisions on billing and coding and patient care services.

So in a way, this bill is somewhat of a nothing burger in its current form in that Those prohibitions are already live in the, as far as the medical board goes, and this would just be giving the Attorney General power over it. And so we don't consider this to be a big deal, but it's interesting that California after kind of failing last year to get their law passed, is kind of back again.

So in a way, this bill is somewhat of a nothing burger in its current form in that Those prohibitions are already live in the, as far as the medical board goes, and this would just be giving the Attorney General power over it. And so we don't consider this to be a big deal, but it's interesting that California after kind of failing last year to get their law passed, is kind of back again.

We'll see if this evolves, if it gets modified, if it gets more prongs to it, and if it ends up creeping back towards 31-29. But really just interesting that California is back for another bite at the apple after the failing last year. And that goes with a number of other states, as we've talked about in other podcasts that are coming out with their

We'll see if this evolves, if it gets modified, if it gets more prongs to it, and if it ends up creeping back towards 31-29. But really just interesting that California is back for another bite at the apple after the failing last year. And that goes with a number of other states, as we've talked about in other podcasts that are coming out with their

AG laws to have pre-transaction filing notices and disclosure requirements, and just a lot of activity at the state level that's implicating transactions and creating a whole other level of work and time for investors.

AG laws to have pre-transaction filing notices and disclosure requirements, and just a lot of activity at the state level that's implicating transactions and creating a whole other level of work and time for investors.

Yeah, I mean, I think it, in a way, just kind of creates something else to fight about, right? So I think you're right in general. PE funds are not looking to get in the middle of professional judgment.

Yeah, I mean, I think it, in a way, just kind of creates something else to fight about, right? So I think you're right in general. PE funds are not looking to get in the middle of professional judgment.

There's very few private equity professionals that hold medical degrees, and they're really looking to streamline the back end and to use capital for growth and improvement, but it creates something else that can be used as a sword or a shield.

There's very few private equity professionals that hold medical degrees, and they're really looking to streamline the back end and to use capital for growth and improvement, but it creates something else that can be used as a sword or a shield.

And I don't necessarily think this is going to be super impactful, but I think it will continue to create a disincentive for some folks to invest in California as it continues to be a very difficult state.

And I don't necessarily think this is going to be super impactful, but I think it will continue to create a disincentive for some folks to invest in California as it continues to be a very difficult state.

The final thing I was going to flag is what I think is just a super interesting trend. And it goes with the theme of funds looking, healthcare funds looking at things to invest in that aren't direct reimbursement, direct provider services companies.

The final thing I was going to flag is what I think is just a super interesting trend. And it goes with the theme of funds looking, healthcare funds looking at things to invest in that aren't direct reimbursement, direct provider services companies.

And it's not that funds are not making those investments, but we're seeing a big trend toward diversification to invest in things in the healthcare orbit, because it's still just a very dynamic with a lot of potential and a lot of room for improvement. But one of the areas that I think is super interesting is funds investing in healthcare consulting companies.