Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Name, Image, and Likeness Agreements in Healthcare

Client Alert

Have you worked hard to cultivate your brand as a healthcare provider? If so, executing a Name, Image, and Likeness (“NIL”) agreement may be of interest to you. NIL agreements are contracts that allow an individual to profit from their name, image, and likeness. Specifically, these agreements protect an individual’s brand by defining how others can utilize their name, image, and likeness in advertisements, sponsorships, and endorsements, and the compensation the individual will receive as a result. NIL agreements are typically used in the context of athletics, such as enabling student-athletes to profit from their personal brand. However, NIL agreements have recently proved to be useful in other areas. For example, some healthcare providers have begun to utilize NIL agreements to promote the brand they have created through their healthcare practice.  Most recently, we have seen the most healthcare NIL activity with longevity and wellness providers, as well as orthopedics.  

Depending on who wishes to contract with a provider for NIL rights, there can be regulatory concerns.  Remember, healthcare is one of the most regulated industries in the United States!  If there is the potential to generate referrals for services that will be paid by a government health plan, NIL agreements must comply with applicable regulations that limit when and how a healthcare provider can accept payment for certain referrals, such as the Anti-Kickback Statute and the Physician Self-Referral Law, commonly known as the Stark Law. Conversely, if there are no third-party reimbursements possible (i.e. a contract with a sporting goods store), then the regulatory landscape looks different. In addition, any anecdotal information the healthcare provider chooses to share is subject to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”), meaning that all identifying patient information must be removed.  

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) also has standards that healthcare providers must follow when advertising. Healthcare providers should ensure that any NIL agreements meet the FTC standard for medical advertising, and that any statements made by the healthcare provider are true, not materially misleading, and are supported with scientific evidence.       

We recommend engaging an attorney to draft or review your healthcare NIL agreement to ensure that it complies with the complex and changing regulations, and that it ultimately protects your interests.

To learn more about how healthcare NIL agreements could impact your practice, please contact BMD Member Jeana Singleton at jmsingleton@bmdllc.com or 330-253-2001.         


Parental Consent May Soon Be Required for Minor Mental Health Services in Ohio

HB 172 proposes repealing a provision in Ohio law that allows minors age 14 and older to consent to limited outpatient mental health services without parental involvement. The bill would require parental consent for all such care and remove related language from other sections of the Ohio Revised Code.

Community Behavioral Health Providers - Supervisor Pricing Changes Begin July 1 [Corrected Date]

Effective June 16, community behavioral health providers wishing to receive reimbursement at the supervisor rate must add the HP or HT Modifier to fee-for-service (FFS) claims. Find out about the new guidelines.

CMS Rescinds EMTALA Guidance for Emergency Abortions

On June 3, 2025, CMS withdrew its 2022 guidance on emergency abortion care under EMTALA, eliminating federal protection for providers in states with abortion restrictions. This policy change could significantly impact how hospitals handle emergency care involving pregnancy complications.

Supreme Court Eliminates Higher Burden for Majority-Group Plaintiffs in Title VII Claims

In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that all Title VII plaintiffs, whether from majority or minority groups, must meet the same evidentiary standard. The decision eliminates the “background circumstances rule” and reinforces equal treatment in workplace discrimination claims.

Understanding Reasonable Fear vs. Credible Fear Interviews: A Critical Guide for Immigrants Facing Removal

In his latest article, Immigration Attorney and former Immigration Judge Rob Ratliff offers a clear breakdown of Reasonable Fear vs. Credible Fear Interviews—key procedures for noncitizens seeking protection from persecution or torture. Citing Judge Brian Murphy’s recent ruling on unlawful deportations to South Sudan, Ratliff connects these critical legal standards to current judicial developments. Read the full article at www.removal-defense.com.