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. Each entry links to its own statute or board rule and dated source check. Latest individual source check: Sep 7, 2026.
Ownership · part of The Practice Perimeter
| State | What its rule says | Cited to |
|---|---|---|
| Alaska | ⚠️ Alaska states no corporate-practice-of-medicine doctrine in its professions statutes or the medical board’s regulations. | 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) Sep 5, 2026 |
| Arizona | The cited rules do not settle this — they only bar dividing a professional fee for patient referrals among providers or institutions, or a contract with the same effect, exempting only FDA clinical-trial payments; lay-owner pay isn't addressed. | Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1401(27)(v) Sep 2, 2026 |
| California | Yes — a percentage-of-revenue fee is lawful if it pays for services other than patient referrals and is commensurate with the value of those services or the fair rental value of premises or equipment; paying for referrals stays unlawful even among co-owners. | Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 650(a) Sep 2, 2026 |
| Colorado | The cited rules do not settle this — they bar dividing a fee as pay for sending, bringing or recommending patients (a misdemeanor and grounds to suspend or revoke a license), but expressly allow per-patient pay to an independent marketing agent. | Colo. Rev. Stat. § 12-240-132(2) Sep 2, 2026 |
| Delaware | The cited rules do not settle this — Delaware's fee-splitting rule only bars a physician paying a referring physician a fee out of proportion to work actually performed, and nothing cited addresses paying a non-clinical owner or manager a revenue share. | 24 Del. Admin. Code § 1700-8.1.9 (Board of Medical Licensure and Discipline — unprofessional conduct: payment of a fee to a referring physician) Sep 7, 2026 |
| District of Columbia | Not directly — the cited rules bar paying anything of value to, or splitting fees with, anyone for bringing or referring a patient; they don't otherwise address revenue-share pay, but professional corporation shares are limited to licensed practitioners. | D.C. Code §3-1205.14(a)(14) Sep 3, 2026 |
| Florida | The cited rules do not settle this — none caps owner pay, and non-physician ownership isn't barred; the kickback ban reaches only payments made to induce patient referrals that aren't tax deductible as an ordinary and necessary business expense. | Fla. Stat. § 456.054(2) Sep 2, 2026 |
| Georgia | The cited rules do not settle this — they only bar a licensee from dividing fees received for professional services with any person, firm, or corporation for bringing or referring a patient; a revenue share not tied to referrals is not addressed. | O.C.G.A. § 43-34-8(a)(9) Sep 2, 2026 |
| Idaho | The cited rules do not settle this — dividing fees in exchange for referral, and giving or receiving rebates directly or indirectly, are both physician discipline grounds; no cited rule says when a non-clinical owner's or manager's revenue share is allowed. | Idaho Code §54-1814(8) Sep 3, 2026 |
| Illinois | “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… | 225 ILCS 60/22.2(a) Sep 2, 2026 |
| Indiana | The cited rules do not settle this — Indiana's practitioner discipline chapter has no fee-splitting or kickback ground, but that silence is not a permission; separately, a lay investor cannot hold shares in a professional corporation. | Ind. Code ch. 25-1-9 (Health Professions Standards of Practice), read in full Sep 2, 2026 |
| Iowa | The cited rules do not settle this — they bar only remuneration accepted for referring a patient where law or ethics forbid it, and confine professional-corporation shares to licensees of the profession practiced; a manager's revenue-share pay is unaddressed. | Iowa Admin. Code r. 481—661.1(19) (Grounds for discipline) Sep 4, 2026 |
| Kansas | Not directly — a licensee giving or receiving a share of fees for professional services not actually and personally rendered commits unprofessional conduct, unless it flows through a lawful professional partnership, corporation, LLC or association. | Kan. Stat. Ann. §65-2837(a)(19) Sep 3, 2026 |
| Kentucky | No — paying anyone a fee, commission or rebate for referrals or for professional services not actually and personally rendered is a disciplinary ground for the physician; the carve-out allowing fees to be pooled and divided covers licensed practitioners only. | Ky. Rev. Stat. §311.595(19) (fee, commission or rebate for a referral — and the sharing carve-out is licensees only) Sep 7, 2026 |
| Louisiana | The cited rules do not settle this — they only let the medical board discipline its own licensees for soliciting, accepting, or receiving value in return for and based on patient referrals; nothing addresses paying a non-clinical owner a revenue share. | La. Rev. Stat. §37:1285(A)(19) Sep 3, 2026 |
| Maryland | The cited rules do not settle this — Maryland's self-referral law only bars a health care practitioner from referring patients to an entity they own or have a compensation arrangement with; it says nothing about paying a non-clinical owner or manager. | Md. Code, Health Occ. §1-302(a) (Referrals by health care practitioners — prohibited) Sep 7, 2026 |
| Massachusetts | The cited rules do not settle this — they only criminalize remuneration paid in return for ordering, arranging or recommending a service billed to a health care insurer, which a referral-linked share could be; they say nothing about profit shares generally. | Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 175H, § 3(a) Sep 2, 2026 |
| Michigan | The cited rules do not settle this — Michigan only bars dividing fees for patient referrals and accepting kickbacks on services, appliances or medications, as a licensee disciplinary ground; nothing here addresses revenue-share pay untied to referrals. | Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.16221(d)(i)–(ii) Sep 2, 2026 |
| Minnesota | The cited rules do not settle this — the fee-splitting carve-out covers only a partnership, group practice, nonprofit or professional corporation paying its partners, shareholders, members or employees from fees for physician or physician-supervised work. | Minn. Stat. § 147.091, subd. 1(p)(4) Sep 2, 2026 |
| Nebraska | The cited rules do not settle this — the only fee-split ban covers fees divided for bringing or referring a consumer, and it excepts a partner or employee, a landlord paid rent on gross receipts, or a former partner. Ordinary revenue share is not addressed. | Neb. Rev. Stat. §38-179(2) Sep 3, 2026 |
| 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… | Nev. Rev. Stat. §630.305(1)(a) Sep 7, 2026 |
| New Jersey | The cited rules do not settle this — they establish only that an outside corporation may hold a limited partner interest supplying non-professional services, with the licensee keeping sole discretion over patient fees; they set no rule on revenue-share pay. | N.J.A.C. 13:35-6.17 Sep 2, 2026 |
| New Mexico | Not directly — nothing in the cited rules bars non-clinical ownership, but fee splitting is unprofessional conduct that can cost a licensee their license, and the rules never define it, so a cut of clinical fees is exposed. | N.M. Stat. Ann. § 61-6-15(D)(16) (Unprofessional or dishonorable conduct) Sep 4, 2026 |
| New York | No — fees may be shared only with a partner, employee, associate in the professional firm, a subcontractor or consultant authorized to practice medicine, or a supervised trainee; percentage space, staffing or management fees are expressly barred. | N.Y. Educ. Law § 6530(19) Sep 2, 2026 |
| North Carolina | The cited rules do not settle this — they bar a provider from compensating anyone, in any form, for recommending or securing patients, so any share tied to bringing patients in is out; a share of general revenue is not addressed. | N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-401 Sep 2, 2026 |
| North Dakota | The cited rules do not settle this — they make it a discipline ground for a physician to pay or receive compensation for medical services not personally rendered or for referrals, and leave lawful professional-entity distributions unaffected. | N.D.C.C. § 43-17-31(1)(r) (Fee-splitting, rebates and payment for referrals) Sep 5, 2026 |
| Ohio | The cited rules do not settle this — none authorizes non-clinical profit sharing; what they do say is that dividing fees for patient referrals, or taking a thing of value for a specific referral, is a disciplinary ground against the licensee. | Ohio Rev. Code § 4731.22(B)(17) Sep 2, 2026 |
| Oklahoma | The cited rules do not settle this — they contain no fee-splitting rule, but they do bar anyone not licensed in the profession from being a manager or shareholder of a professional entity, so a non-clinical person cannot hold that ownership role at all. | Okla. Stat. tit. 59, § 509 (Fees promised on a cure — both 2019 versions) Sep 5, 2026 |
| Pennsylvania | The cited rules do not settle this — the Medical Practice Act contains no fee-splitting or kickback prohibition at all, which is an absence rather than permission; separately, only licensed practitioners may co-own a medical professional corporation. | Medical Practice Act of 1985 (63 P.S. §§ 422.1–422.53), read in full Sep 2, 2026 |
| Rhode Island | The cited rules do not settle this — they establish that splitting fees for bringing or referring a patient is unprofessional conduct, and that every officer, director and shareholder of a professional corporation must be licensed in that profession. | R.I. Gen. Laws §5-37-5.1(12) Sep 3, 2026 |
| South Carolina | The cited rules do not settle this — the surveyed chapters contain no fee-splitting ban, but only licensed individuals may hold shares in a professional corporation, and the board's unprofessional-conduct ground is still applied 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) Sep 7, 2026 |
| South Dakota | No — splitting fees, or giving any portion of the patient's fees to a person who furnished the patient, is unprofessional conduct that can cost the physician's license; the rule reaches revenue shares but is silent on flat, non-revenue-based pay. | S.D. Codified Laws §36-4-30(10) (Acts considered unprofessional conduct — splitting fees) Sep 7, 2026 |
| Tennessee | The cited rules do not settle this — no rule bans revenue-share pay outright, but physician discipline reaches giving or receiving rebates directly or indirectly, undefined and not limited to referrals, so a fee returning part of a treatment price is exposed. | Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-214(b)(16) Sep 2, 2026 |
| Texas | The cited rules do not settle this — they don't address owner or manager pay; they only bar knowingly paying or accepting remuneration for securing patients or patronage to or from a state-licensed health care provider, with federal safe harbors allowed. | Tex. Occ. Code § 102.001(a) Sep 2, 2026 |
| Utah | The cited rules do not settle this — they make it unprofessional conduct for a licensee to give or receive compensation for professional services not personally provided or supervised, but preserve lawful professional entity and supervisor relationships. | Utah Admin. Code R156-67-502(4) (Unprofessional conduct — fees and professional entities) Sep 4, 2026 |
| Vermont | The cited rules do not settle general revenue sharing — they only make it unprofessional conduct for a physician to split fees for professional services with anyone for bringing in or referring a patient, so referral-tied pay is barred. | Vt. Stat. tit. 26, §1354(a)(12) Sep 7, 2026 |
| Virginia | The cited rules do not settle this — Virginia's remuneration ban only bars a healing arts practitioner from being paid for referring patients to a defined facility, institution, or hospital, and it excludes anything the federal anti-kickback law permits. | Va. Code § 54.1-2962.1 Sep 2, 2026 |
| Washington | The cited rules do not settle this — they only bar pay tied to patient referrals or to the sale of prescribed drugs, goods or services, and they allow a disclosed financial interest given written disclosure, an alternatives list, an option and an assurance. | Wash. Rev. Code § 19.68.010(1) Sep 2, 2026 |
| West Virginia | Not directly — the cited rule disciplines a physician only for paying or receiving a commission or share of profit for patient referrals; it doesn't settle a revenue share untied to referrals, and a medical corporation's shareholders must all be physicians. | W. Va. Code §30-3-14(c)(6) Sep 3, 2026 |
| Wisconsin | The cited rules do not settle this — they bar a licensee from giving or receiving compensation for referrals or for professional services the licensee did not render or direct; the statute's contract exceptions are not reproduced and no ownership rule exists. | Wis. Stat. § 448.08(1m) Sep 2, 2026 |
Every state, in its own words
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 → · Every Alaska rule on ownership & corporate practice of medicine →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 → · Every Arizona rule on ownership & corporate practice of medicine →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 → · Every California rule on ownership & corporate practice of medicine →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 → · Every Colorado rule on ownership & corporate practice of medicine →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 → · Every Delaware rule on ownership & corporate practice of medicine →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 → · Every District of Columbia rule on ownership & corporate practice of medicine →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 → · Every Florida rule on ownership & corporate practice of medicine →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 → · Every Georgia rule on ownership & corporate practice of medicine →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 → · Every Idaho rule on ownership & corporate practice of medicine →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 → · Every Illinois rule on ownership & corporate practice of medicine →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 → · Every Indiana rule on ownership & corporate practice of medicine →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 → · Every Iowa rule on ownership & corporate practice of medicine →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 → · Every Kansas rule on ownership & corporate practice of medicine →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 → · Every Kentucky rule on ownership & corporate practice of medicine →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 → · Every Louisiana rule on ownership & corporate practice of medicine →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 → · Every Maryland rule on ownership & corporate practice of medicine →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 → · Every Massachusetts rule on ownership & corporate practice of medicine →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 → · Every Michigan rule on ownership & corporate practice of medicine →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 → · Every Minnesota rule on ownership & corporate practice of medicine →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 → · Every Nebraska rule on ownership & corporate practice of medicine →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 → · Every Nevada rule on ownership & corporate practice of medicine →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 → · Every New Jersey rule on ownership & corporate practice of medicine →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 → · Every New Mexico rule on ownership & corporate practice of medicine →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 → · Every New York rule on ownership & corporate practice of medicine →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 → · Every North Carolina rule on ownership & corporate practice of medicine →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 → · Every North Dakota rule on ownership & corporate practice of medicine →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 → · Every Ohio rule on ownership & corporate practice of medicine →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 → · Every Oklahoma rule on ownership & corporate practice of medicine →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 → · Every Pennsylvania rule on ownership & corporate practice of medicine →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 → · Every Rhode Island rule on ownership & corporate practice of medicine →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 → · Every South Carolina rule on ownership & corporate practice of medicine →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 → · Every South Dakota rule on ownership & corporate practice of medicine →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 → · Every Tennessee rule on ownership & corporate practice of medicine →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 → · Every Texas rule on ownership & corporate practice of medicine →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 → · Every Utah rule on ownership & corporate practice of medicine →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 → · Every Vermont rule on ownership & corporate practice of medicine →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 → · Every Virginia rule on ownership & corporate practice of medicine →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 → · Every Washington rule on ownership & corporate practice of medicine →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 → · Every West Virginia rule on advertising rules →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 → · Every Wisconsin rule on ownership & corporate practice of medicine →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 →Just one state?
Solo-State — your state, watched.
A dated, source-linked Compliance Brief for your state — published changes, an action where one is warranted, and review checklists in a document you can print and discuss with your medical director. Monitoring covers your state plus federal and nationally-significant alerts; it does not determine that your practice is compliant. Upgrade to All-Access anytime.
or $390/yr (2 months free)
Every plan includes all federal FDA, FTC & Federal Register coverage. The label is what we hold that is specific to that state — we scan all 50 state legislatures daily and add state items as they surface.
Scoped to your state · cancel anytime · secure Stripe checkout
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: it summarizes public laws, regulations and agency actions and links each to its source. It is not legal, medical, or compliance advice, and using it creates no attorney-client relationship. A summary can lag its source or leave out detail, and monitoring itself can be interrupted — so an absence of alerts means nothing reached you, not that nothing happened. Read the cited source, check its effective date, and confirm any change to your operations or clinical practice with qualified health-law counsel and your medical director. Legislative data via LegiScan (CC BY 4.0).