In each state, may a non-clinical owner or manager be paid a share of revenue
The same question, answered for 40 states from each state’s own law. States disagree on this, which is the point — an answer that is right in one is wrong next door. Every entry below is a statute or board rule we verified, most recently Sep 7, 2026.
Ownership · part of The Practice Perimeter
Alaska
⚠️ Alaska states no corporate-practice-of-medicine doctrine in its professions statutes or the medical board’s regulations. A survey of the Medical Board chapter (AS 08.64), the Nursing chapter (AS 08.68), the Barbers and Hairdressers chapter (AS 08.13), the centralized licensing chapter (AS 08.01) and the corresponding regulations (12 AAC 40, 12 AAC 02, 12 AAC 09) returns no provision on corporate practice, business-entity ownership of a practice, fee-splitting, dividing a fee, or rebates. Alaska regulates WHO may perform an act and under whose supervision, not who may own the business that employs them. Anyone citing you an Alaska corporate-practice rule is describing a document these chapters do not contain.
AS 08.64 (surveyed), AS 08.68 (surveyed), AS 08.13 (surveyed), AS 08.01 (surveyed); 12 AAC 40, 12 AAC 02 and 12 AAC 09 (surveyed) · verified Sep 5, 2026
The full Alaska answer, with the rest of the section →Arizona
⚠️ ARIZONA CATCHES THE ARRANGEMENT BY ITS EFFECT, NOT ITS LABEL. Unprofessional conduct includes “CHARGING A FEE FOR SERVICES NOT RENDERED OR DIVIDING A PROFESSIONAL FEE FOR PATIENT REFERRALS AMONG HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS OR HEALTH CARE INSTITUTIONS OR BETWEEN THESE PROVIDERS AND INSTITUTIONS OR A CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENT THAT HAS THE SAME EFFECT.” That closing clause is the point — a management or marketing contract structured to do what a fee split does is inside the ground.
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1401(27)(v) · verified Sep 2, 2026
The full Arizona answer, with the rest of the section →California
⚠️ CALIFORNIA’S BAN IS BROAD AND EXPRESSLY SURVIVES CO-OWNERSHIP. The offer, delivery, receipt or acceptance by a licensee of “ANY REBATE, REFUND, COMMISSION, PREFERENCE, PATRONAGE DIVIDEND, DISCOUNT, OR OTHER CONSIDERATION, WHETHER IN THE FORM OF MONEY OR OTHERWISE, AS COMPENSATION OR INDUCEMENT FOR REFERRING PATIENTS, CLIENTS, OR CUSTOMERS” is unlawful — “IRRESPECTIVE OF ANY MEMBERSHIP, PROPRIETARY INTEREST, OR COOWNERSHIP IN OR WITH ANY PERSON TO WHOM THESE PATIENTS … ARE REFERRED”. Shared ownership is not a defense.
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 650(a) · verified Sep 2, 2026 · read at Public.Law — California Codes
The full California answer, with the rest of the section →Colorado
⚠️ COLORADO’S FEE-DIVISION RULE IS BOTH CRIMINAL AND DISCIPLINARY, AND THE SECOND HALF IS EASY TO MISS. Dividing a fee for sending or bringing a patient is a class 2 misdemeanor under § 12-240-132(1)(a) — and separately, “VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL CONSTITUTE GROUNDS FOR THE SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF A LICENSE OR THE PLACING OF THE HOLDER THEREOF ON PROBATION.” One arrangement, two forums: a criminal charge and a license action.
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 12-240-132(2) · verified Sep 2, 2026
The full Colorado answer, with the rest of the section →Delaware
Delaware’s fee-splitting rule sits among the Board of Medical Licensure and Discipline’s enumerated unprofessional conduct: 8.1.9 Payment of a fee by a physician to another physician who has referred the patient to him, unless the fee is in proportion to work actually performed by the referring physician.
24 Del. Admin. Code § 1700-8.1.9 (Board of Medical Licensure and Discipline — unprofessional conduct: payment of a fee to a referring physician) · verified Sep 7, 2026
The full Delaware answer, with the rest of the section →District of Columbia
A disciplinary action may be taken against a person who pays or agrees to pay anything of value to, or splits or divides fees for professional services with, any person for bringing or referring a patient.
D.C. Code §3-1205.14(a)(14) · verified Sep 3, 2026
The full District of Columbia answer, with the rest of the section →Florida
⚠️ FLORIDA’S KICKBACK BAN IS BROAD AND IT IS CRIMINAL IN FORM. “It is UNLAWFUL for any health care provider or any provider of health care services TO OFFER, PAY, SOLICIT, OR RECEIVE A KICKBACK, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, OVERTLY OR COVERTLY, IN CASH OR IN KIND, FOR REFERRING OR SOLICITING PATIENTS.” Four verbs and four adverbial pairs — the drafting is designed to catch arrangements dressed up as something else.
Fla. Stat. § 456.054(2) · verified Sep 2, 2026
The full Florida answer, with the rest of the section →Georgia
⚠️ GEORGIA PUTS FEE DIVISION IN THE SAME GROUND AS AIDING UNLICENSED PRACTICE, AND IT NAMES CORPORATIONS. The board may discipline a licensee who has “DIVIDED FEES OR AGREED TO DIVIDE FEES RECEIVED FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WITH ANY PERSON, FIRM, ASSOCIATION, CORPORATION, OR OTHER ENTITY FOR BRINGING OR REFERRING A PATIENT.” The trigger is what the payment is FOR — bringing or referring — not who receives it.
O.C.G.A. § 43-34-8(a)(9) · verified Sep 2, 2026 · read at FindLaw Codes
The full Georgia answer, with the rest of the section →Idaho
Dividing fees or gifts or agreeing to split or divide fees or gifts received for professional services with any person, institution or corporation in exchange for referral is a ground for medical discipline.
Idaho Code §54-1814(8) · verified Sep 3, 2026
The full Idaho answer, with the rest of the section →Illinois
⚠️ ILLINOIS HAS A DEDICATED FEE-SPLITTING SECTION AND ITS BAN IS NOT LIMITED TO REFERRALS. “A licensee under this Act MAY NOT DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY DIVIDE, SHARE OR SPLIT ANY PROFESSIONAL FEE OR OTHER FORM OF COMPENSATION FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WITH ANYONE IN EXCHANGE FOR A REFERRAL OR OTHERWISE, other than as provided in this Section 22.2.” The words “OR OTHERWISE” do the work — an arrangement with no referral in it is still inside the section unless an exception applies.
225 ILCS 60/22.2(a) · verified Sep 2, 2026
The full Illinois answer, with the rest of the section →Indiana
INDIANA’S STANDARDS-OF-PRACTICE CHAPTER WAS SURVEYED AND CONTAINS NO FEE-DIVISION GROUND. IC 25-1-9 is the chapter that supplies the grounds for disciplining a health practitioner, and it contains no prohibition on dividing or sharing a professional fee, and no use of “rebate”, “kickback” or “remuneration”. An absence in this chapter, not in Indiana law as a whole.
Ind. Code ch. 25-1-9 (Health Professions Standards of Practice), read in full · verified Sep 2, 2026
The full Indiana answer, with the rest of the section →Iowa
Acceptance of remuneration for referral of a patient to other health professionals in violation of the law or medical ethics.
Iowa Admin. Code r. 481—661.1(19) (Grounds for discipline) · verified Sep 4, 2026
The full Iowa answer, with the rest of the section →Kansas
Unprofessional conduct means directly or indirectly giving or receiving any fee, commission, rebate or other compensation for professional services not actually and personally rendered, other than through the legal functioning of lawful professional partnerships, corporations, limited liability companies or associations.
Kan. Stat. Ann. §65-2837(a)(19) · verified Sep 3, 2026
The full Kansas answer, with the rest of the section →Kentucky
⛔ KENTUCKY BANS THE KICKBACK AND THEN NAMES WHO MAY DIVIDE A FEE, WHICH IS WHAT ANSWERS A NON-CLINICAL OWNER. It is a ground for discipline to have Given or received, directly or indirectly, from any person, firm, or corporation, any fee, commission, rebate, or other form of compensation for sending, referring, or otherwise inducing a person to communicate with a person licensed under KRS 311.530 in his or her professional capacity or for any professional services not actually and personally rendered. The carve-out that follows reaches LICENSED practitioners only, permitting those who hold valid licenses and practice together under KRS Chapter 274 from pooling, sharing, dividing, or apportioning the fees and moneys received by them. A share of revenue is therefore something licensees may divide among themselves, not something a lay owner may be paid out of.
Ky. Rev. Stat. §311.595(19) (⛔ fee, commission or rebate for a referral — and the sharing carve-out is licensees only) · verified Sep 7, 2026
The full Kentucky answer, with the rest of the section →Louisiana
Soliciting, accepting, or receiving anything of economic value in return for and based on the referral of patients to another person, firm, or corporation or in return for the prescription of medications or medical devices is a cause for which the board may refuse to issue, or may suspend or revoke any license or permit.
La. Rev. Stat. §37:1285(A)(19) · verified Sep 3, 2026
The full Louisiana answer, with the rest of the section →Maryland
Under Maryland’s self-referral law, a health care practitioner may not refer a patient, or direct an employee of or person under contract with the health care practitioner to refer a patient to a health care entity: (1) In which the health care practitioner or the practitioner in combination with the practitioner’s immediate family owns a beneficial interest; (2) In which the practitioner’s immediate family owns a beneficial interest of 3 percent or greater; or (3) With which the health care practitioner, the practitioner’s immediate family, or the practitioner in combination with the practitioner’s immediate family has a compensation arrangement. The section opens with an exception clause: “Except as provided in subsection (d) of this section”.
Md. Code, Health Occ. §1-302(a) (Referrals by health care practitioners — prohibited) · verified Sep 7, 2026
The full Maryland answer, with the rest of the section →Massachusetts
⚠️ MASSACHUSETTS’ KICKBACK STATUTE IS BROAD IN CONDUCT AND NARROW IN SCOPE, AND THE SCOPE IS WHAT DECIDES A MED SPA. It punishes “ANY PERSON WHO SOLICITS OR RECEIVES ANY REMUNERATION, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, OVERTLY OR COVERTLY, IN CASH OR IN KIND IN RETURN FOR PURCHASING, LEASING, ORDERING OR ARRANGING FOR OR RECOMMENDING PURCHASING, LEASING, OR ORDERING OF ANY GOOD, FACILITY, SERVICE, OR ITEM FOR WHICH PAYMENT IS OR MAY BE MADE IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY A HEALTH CARE INSURER.” Cash-pay cosmetic work sits outside that last clause; the moment a service is billed to insurance — botulinum toxin for hyperhidrosis, say — it does not.
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 175H, § 3(a) · verified Sep 2, 2026
The full Massachusetts answer, with the rest of the section →Michigan
⚠️ MICHIGAN FILES FEE-SPLITTING UNDER “UNETHICAL BUSINESS PRACTICES”, AND NAMES THE DRUG MARK-UP. The department shall investigate and the board may sanction “UNETHICAL BUSINESS PRACTICES, CONSISTING OF 1 OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: (i) FALSE OR MISLEADING ADVERTISING. (ii) DIVIDING FEES FOR REFERRAL OF PATIENTS OR ACCEPTING KICKBACKS ON MEDICAL OR SURGICAL SERVICES, APPLIANCES, OR MEDICATIONS PURCHASED BY OR IN BEHALF OF PATIENTS.” A rebate on medications bought for patients sits in the same clause as paying for referrals.
Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.16221(d)(i)–(ii) · verified Sep 2, 2026 · read at Internet Archive snapshot — evidence of a page, not the current rule
The full Michigan answer, with the rest of the section →Minnesota
⚠️ MINNESOTA NAMES THE MED SPA BUSINESS MODEL AS FEE SPLITTING. “FEE SPLITTING” is unprofessional conduct “including without limitation … (4) DISPENSING FOR PROFIT ANY DRUG OR DEVICE, UNLESS THE PHYSICIAN HAS DISCLOSED THE PHYSICIAN’S OWN PROFIT INTEREST.” Selling a drug or a device at a mark-up is inside the fee-splitting ground unless the profit interest is disclosed — which is a different and larger duty than the § 151.37 filing.
Minn. Stat. § 147.091, subd. 1(p)(4) · verified Sep 2, 2026
The full Minnesota answer, with the rest of the section →Nebraska
Unprofessional conduct includes division of fees, or agreeing to split or divide the fees, received for professional services with any person for bringing or referring a consumer, other than with a partner or employee of the credential holder, with a landlord under a written agreement providing for rent based on gross receipts, or with a former partner or employee under a retirement plan or separation agreement.
Neb. Rev. Stat. §38-179(2) · verified Sep 3, 2026
The full Nebraska answer, with the rest of the section →Nevada
Directly or indirectly receiving from any person, corporation or other business organization any fee, commission, rebate or other form of compensation which is intended or tends to influence the physician’s objective evaluation or treatment of a patient is among the acts that constitute grounds for initiating disciplinary action or denying licensure.
Nev. Rev. Stat. §630.305(1)(a) · verified Sep 7, 2026
The full Nevada answer, with the rest of the section →New Jersey
⚠️ NEW JERSEY’S RULE IS A SELF-REFERRAL BAN WITH A 1991 CUT-OFF. “A PRACTITIONER SHALL NOT REFER A PATIENT OR DIRECT AN EMPLOYEE OF THE PRACTITIONER TO REFER A PATIENT TO A HEALTH CARE SERVICE IN WHICH THE PRACTITIONER OR THE PRACTITIONER’S IMMEDIATE FAMILY, OR THE PRACTITIONER IN COMBINATION WITH THE PRACTITIONER’S IMMEDIATE FAMILY, HAS A SIGNIFICANT BENEFICIAL INTEREST, UNLESS THE PRACTITIONER HELD THE INTEREST PRIOR TO JULY 31, 1991” and discloses it. Interests taken after that date are not curable by disclosure — they bar the referral.
N.J.A.C. 13:35-6.17 · verified Sep 2, 2026 · read at Cornell Legal Information Institute
The full New Jersey answer, with the rest of the section →New Mexico
(16) fee splitting;
N.M. Stat. Ann. § 61-6-15(D)(16) (Unprofessional or dishonorable conduct) · verified Sep 4, 2026
The full New Mexico answer, with the rest of the section →New York
⚠️ NEW YORK’S FEE RULE IS WRITTEN AS A LIST OF WHO MAY SHARE, AND A NON-CLINICAL OWNER IS NOT ON IT. Professional misconduct includes “PERMITTING ANY PERSON TO SHARE IN THE FEES FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, OTHER THAN: A PARTNER, EMPLOYEE, ASSOCIATE IN A PROFESSIONAL FIRM OR CORPORATION, PROFESSIONAL SUBCONTRACTOR OR CONSULTANT AUTHORIZED TO PRACTICE MEDICINE, OR A LEGALLY AUTHORIZED TRAINEE PRACTICING UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF A LICENSEE.” Every permitted sharer is inside the practice or licensed to practice medicine.
N.Y. Educ. Law § 6530(19) · verified Sep 2, 2026
The full New York answer, with the rest of the section →North Carolina
⚠️ NORTH CAROLINA GIVES REFERRAL FEES THEIR OWN ARTICLE, AND IT REACHES CORPORATIONS BY NAME. “A HEALTH CARE PROVIDER SHALL NOT FINANCIALLY COMPENSATE IN ANY MANNER A PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION FOR RECOMMENDING OR SECURING THE HEALTH CARE PROVIDER’S EMPLOYMENT BY A PATIENT, OR AS A REWARD FOR HAVING MADE A RECOMMENDATION RESULTING IN THE HEALTH CARE PROVIDER’S EMPLOYMENT BY A PATIENT.” “IN ANY MANNER” is the operative phrase — the form of the payment does not matter.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-401 · verified Sep 2, 2026
The full North Carolina answer, with the rest of the section →North Dakota
The payment or receipt, directly or indirectly, of any fee, commission, rebate, or other compensation for medical services not actually or personally rendered, or for patient referrals;
N.D.C.C. § 43-17-31(1)(r) (Fee-splitting, rebates and payment for referrals) · verified Sep 5, 2026
The full North Dakota answer, with the rest of the section →Ohio
⚠️ OHIO MAKES THE DIVISION OF FEES FOR REFERRAL A DISCIPLINARY GROUND, AND REACHES BEYOND MONEY. It is grounds for discipline to engage in “THE DIVISION OF FEES FOR REFERRAL OF PATIENTS, OR THE RECEIVING OF A THING OF VALUE IN RETURN FOR A SPECIFIC REFERRAL OF A PATIENT TO UTILIZE A PARTICULAR SERVICE OR BUSINESS”. “A thing of value” and “a particular service or business” together catch reciprocal arrangements that never involve a fee at all.
Ohio Rev. Code § 4731.22(B)(17) · verified Sep 2, 2026
The full Ohio answer, with the rest of the section →Oklahoma
The obtaining of any fee or offering to accept any fee, present or other form of remuneration whatsoever, on the assurance or promise that a manifestly incurable disease can or will be cured;
Okla. Stat. tit. 59, § 509 (Fees promised on a cure — both 2019 versions) · verified Sep 5, 2026
The full Oklahoma answer, with the rest of the section →Pennsylvania
⚠️ THE MEDICAL PRACTICE ACT OF 1985 WAS READ IN FULL AND CONTAINS NO FEE-SPLITTING PROHIBITION. Section 41 lists the reasons the board may discipline a practitioner, and neither that list nor any other section of the Act uses the words “fee splitting”, “division of fees”, “rebate”, “kickback” or “remuneration” — in a document that says “fee” 34 times, all of them about license and application fees. This is an absence in the Act; it is not a statement that no Pennsylvania law reaches the arrangement.
Medical Practice Act of 1985 (63 P.S. §§ 422.1–422.53), read in full · verified Sep 2, 2026
The full Pennsylvania answer, with the rest of the section →Rhode Island
Unprofessional conduct includes dividing fees or agreeing to split or divide the fees received for professional services for any person for bringing to or referring a patient.
R.I. Gen. Laws §5-37-5.1(12) · verified Sep 3, 2026
The full Rhode Island answer, with the rest of the section →South Carolina
⚠️ SOUTH CAROLINA STATES NO FEE-SPLITTING PROHIBITION IN THE CHAPTERS THAT WOULD CARRY ONE. A survey of the Board of Medical Examiners' enumerated misconduct grounds (§40-47-110(B), read in full), the definitions section of the Medical Practice Act (§40-47-20), the Professional Association Act (Chapter 19 of Title 33) and the Cosmetology chapter (Chapter 13 of Title 40) returns no provision on fee-splitting, dividing a fee, rebates, kickbacks, or paying a commission for a referral. South Carolina restricts WHO MAY OWN a professional corporation and does not separately regulate how revenue is shared with a non-clinical manager. An operator should read this as an absence in these four chapters, not as permission: §40-47-110(B)(9) still reaches "dishonorable, unethical, or unprofessional conduct", which the board applies case by case.
S.C. Code §40-47-110(B) (surveyed), §40-47-20 (surveyed), S.C. Code Title 33 ch. 19 (surveyed), S.C. Code Title 40 ch. 13 (surveyed) · verified Sep 7, 2026
The full South Carolina answer, with the rest of the section →South Dakota
The term, unprofessional or dishonorable conduct, as used in this chapter includes: Splitting fees or giving to any person furnishing a patient any portion of the fees received from the patient or paying or giving to any person consideration of any kind for furnishing a patient.
S.D. Codified Laws §36-4-30(10) (Acts considered unprofessional conduct — splitting fees) · verified Sep 7, 2026
The full South Dakota answer, with the rest of the section →Tennessee
⚠️ TENNESSEE’S FEE GROUND IS ONE LINE, AND ITS BREADTH IS THE POINT. Grounds for discipline include “GIVING OR RECEIVING, OR AIDING OR ABETTING THE GIVING OR RECEIVING, OF REBATES, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY.” The statute does not define “rebate”, does not limit it to referrals, and reaches the party who merely assists — so a marketing or management arrangement that returns part of a treatment price is judged against a term with no stated boundary.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-214(b)(16) · verified Sep 2, 2026 · read at Justia Law
The full Tennessee answer, with the rest of the section →Texas
⚠️ IN TEXAS PAYING FOR PATIENTS IS A CRIME, NOT A BOARD MATTER. “A PERSON COMMITS AN OFFENSE if the person knowingly OFFERS TO PAY OR AGREES TO ACCEPT, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, OVERTLY OR COVERTLY ANY REMUNERATION IN CASH OR IN KIND OR ANY BENEFIT OR COMMISSION TO OR FROM ANOTHER FOR SECURING OR SOLICITING A PATIENT OR PATRONAGE” for or from a person licensed by a state health care regulatory agency. “PATRONAGE” is wider than patients, and “any benefit” is wider than money.
Tex. Occ. Code § 102.001(a) · verified Sep 2, 2026
The full Texas answer, with the rest of the section →Utah
directly or indirectly giving or receiving any fee, commission, rebate, or other compensation for professional services not actually and personally provided or supervised; however, nothing in this section shall preclude the legal relationships within lawful professional partnerships, corporations, or associations or the relationship between an approved supervising physician and physician assistants or advanced practice nurses supervised by them;
Utah Admin. Code R156-67-502(4) (Unprofessional conduct — fees and professional entities) · verified Sep 4, 2026
The full Utah answer, with the rest of the section →Vermont
The Board shall find that the following constitutes unprofessional conduct: division of fees or agreeing to split or divide the fees received for professional services for any person for bringing to or referring a patient
Vt. Stat. tit. 26, §1354(a)(12) · verified Sep 7, 2026
The full Vermont answer, with the rest of the section →Virginia
⚠️ VIRGINIA’S REMUNERATION BAN IS REAL BUT NARROWLY TARGETED — READ THE OBJECT OF THE REFERRAL. “No practitioner of the healing arts shall KNOWINGLY AND WILLFULLY SOLICIT OR RECEIVE ANY REMUNERATION DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, IN CASH OR IN KIND, IN RETURN FOR REFERRING AN INDIVIDUAL OR INDIVIDUALS TO A FACILITY OR INSTITUTION as defined in § 37.2-100 OR A HOSPITAL as defined in § 32.1-123.” It reaches referrals to those defined places, not every payment between a practice and a marketer.
Va. Code § 54.1-2962.1 · verified Sep 2, 2026
The full Virginia answer, with the rest of the section →Washington
⚠️ WASHINGTON’S REBATE BAN REACHES THE SALE OF THE DRUG ITSELF, NOT JUST REFERRALS. It is unlawful to pay or allow, or for a licensee to request or receive, “DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, A REBATE, REFUND, COMMISSION, UNEARNED DISCOUNT OR PROFIT BY MEANS OF A CREDIT OR OTHER VALUABLE CONSIDERATION IN CONNECTION WITH THE REFERRAL OF PATIENTS … OR … ON THE SALE, RENTAL, FURNISHING OR SUPPLYING OF … DRUGS, MEDICATION, OR MEDICAL SUPPLIES, OR ANY OTHER GOODS, SERVICES OR SUPPLIES PRESCRIBED FOR MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS, CARE OR TREATMENT.”
Wash. Rev. Code § 19.68.010(1) · verified Sep 2, 2026
The full Washington answer, with the rest of the section →West Virginia
The board may discipline a physician or podiatrist adjudged unqualified due to requesting, receiving, or paying directly or indirectly a payment, rebate, refund, commission, credit, or other form of profit or valuable consideration for the referral of patients to any person or entity in connection with providing medical or other health care services or clinical laboratory services, supplies of any kind, drugs, medication, or any other medical goods, services, or devices used in connection with medical or other health care services.
W. Va. Code §30-3-14(c)(6) · verified Sep 3, 2026
The full West Virginia answer, with the rest of the section →Wisconsin
⚠️ WISCONSIN’S FEE-SPLITTING BAN HAS TWO LIMBS AND THE SECOND IS THE ONE A MED SPA TRIPS OVER. No licensee “may GIVE OR RECEIVE, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, to or from any person, firm or corporation ANY FEE, COMMISSION, REBATE OR OTHER FORM OF COMPENSATION OR ANYTHING OF VALUE FOR SENDING, REFERRING OR OTHERWISE INDUCING A PERSON TO COMMUNICATE WITH A LICENSEE IN A PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY, OR FOR ANY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES NOT ACTUALLY RENDERED PERSONALLY OR AT HIS OR HER DIRECTION.” Paying anyone out of professional fees for work the licensee neither performed nor directed is fee splitting, referral or no referral.
Wis. Stat. § 448.08(1m) · verified Sep 2, 2026
The full Wisconsin answer, with the rest of the section →Which states this covers
40 of the 51 states for which we publish statute-cited rules. That is not every state, and nothing above should be read as describing one that is not listed — the answer genuinely differs, so a neighbouring state is not a guide. We monitor all 50 state legislatures plus the FDA and the Federal Register daily; the cited rule set is narrower than the monitoring and is growing on its own timetable.
What we track in every state →Get regulatory changes as they publish
We scan all 50 state legislatures daily, plus the FDA and the Federal Register. Free weekly Brief — what changed, in plain language, with the source.
Free · unsubscribe in one click · we never sell your address
MedSpaRadar is regulatory monitoring and reference, not legal, medical, or compliance advice. Verify against the linked primary source and consult qualified counsel before acting — rules change and turn on your specific facts. Legislative data via LegiScan (CC BY 4.0).