Can a non-physician own a med spa, state by state
The same question, answered for 51 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 8, 2026.
Ownership · part of The Practice Perimeter
| State | What its rule says | Cited to |
|---|---|---|
| Alabama | The cited rules do not settle this — they only require the Board to keep files on professional corporations incorporated by physicians, and make laser and energy treatments the practice of medicine; no rule here permits or bars non-physician ownership. | Ala. Admin. Code r. 540-X-1 (Board duties — professional corporations) Sep 4, 2026 |
| Alaska | The cited rules do not settle this — no corporate-practice-of-medicine bar appears in the chapters surveyed, but a professional corporation's shareholders must all be licensed, and a non-practitioner shop owner must employ a practitioner manager. | 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 | Arizona’s grounds for discipline were surveyed and forbid no non-physician ownership, and a professional corporation may issue up to 49% of its voting shares to non-licensees unless its licensing authority sets a different percentage. | Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1401(27)(v) Sep 2, 2026 |
| Arkansas | The board treats it as an ethical violation for a physician to fail to disclose to a patient that the physician holds an ownership interest in a facility or service, outside the physician’s own practice, to which the physician refers that patient. | 17 CAR § 140-2601(3) (Ethical violations for physicians) Sep 4, 2026 |
| California | California strongly bars the corporate practice of medicine. | Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 650(a) Sep 2, 2026 |
| Colorado | Not directly — it is unprofessional conduct for a physician to practice as the partner, agent, or employee of, or in joint venture with, an unlicensed person or any corporation other than a professional service corporation for the practice of medicine. | Colo. Rev. Stat. § 12-240-121(1)(g)(I) Sep 2, 2026 |
| Connecticut | The cited rules do not settle this — they only require a med spa to employ or contract a physician, PA, or APRN, and, where the entity is organized as a professional corporation, limit shareholders to people licensed to render that same professional service. | Conn. Gen. Stat. §33-182c(a) (Organization) Sep 3, 2026 |
| Delaware | Only outside a professional corporation — a Delaware PC may have as shareholders only those licensed to render the same service (medicine, or medicine plus podiatry), so a non-physician can't hold shares in a medical PC; other entity forms aren't addressed. | 8 Del. C. §603(2) Sep 3, 2026 |
| District of Columbia | Not if it's organized as a professional corporation — only individuals licensed in the service rendered may be shareholders (a solo owner's secretary need not be licensed), and unlicensed staff may be employed but not perform it. Other forms aren't addressed. | D.C. Code §29-505(a) (Purpose for organization; powers authorized) Sep 3, 2026 |
| Florida | Yes — Florida has no corporate-practice-of-medicine ban; ownership falls under the Health Care Clinic Act, so a med spa billing for services needs an AHCA clinic license per location unless it is wholly owned by physicians or other licensed practitioners. | Fla. Stat. § 456.054(2) Sep 2, 2026 |
| Georgia | Not through a professional corporation: Georgia lets only licensed professionals who actively practice in it hold its shares, and its president and at least one director must be licensed. | O.C.G.A. §14-7-2 Aug 17, 2026 |
| Hawaii | The cited rules do not settle this — they make medical care a "professional service" that only "qualified persons" may hold shares in a professional corporation for, but never define who qualifies or address non-physician ownership of other entity types. | Haw. Rev. Stat. § 415A-2 ("Professional service"; "Qualified person") Sep 8, 2026 |
| Idaho | The cited rules do not settle this — none of them addresses who may own a med spa. They establish only that Idaho's Professional Service Corporations chapter is listed as repealed and that practicing medicine without a license is a felony. | Idaho Code tit. 30, ch. 13 (chapter index — REPEALED) Sep 3, 2026 |
| Illinois | Only if they're licensed — fee-splitting is barred, referral or not, and the entity exception requires every owner to be licensed under the Medical Practice Act; state guidance allows APRN ownership for some services, but leaves no route for a lay investor. | 225 ILCS 60/22.2(a) Sep 2, 2026 |
| Indiana | The cited rules do not settle this — the physician-employment safe harbor covers only hospitals and licensee-owned health care organizations that don't control medical judgment, and PC shares may go only to licensees or a qualified trust's trustee. | Ind. Code §25-22.5-1-2(c) Jul 26, 2026 |
| Iowa | The cited rules do not settle this — the med spa definition covers any entity "however organized" and states no owner licensure requirement; only if you organize as a professional corporation must shares stay with individuals licensed in that profession. | Iowa Admin. Code r. 481—655.6(1) (definition of “Medical spa”) Sep 4, 2026 |
| Kansas | The Kansas rules cited here don't settle ownership. A professional corporation generally offers one type of licensed service, and fees for services not personally rendered are barred except through lawful professional entities. | Kan. Stat. Ann. §17-2710 Sep 3, 2026 |
| Kentucky | No — for medical services: an unlicensed person may not open or maintain a place of business for the practice of medicine, and the fee-sharing carve-out reaches only licensed practitioners, so a lay owner can't take a share of the professional fees. | Ky. Rev. Stat. §311.560(1) Sep 3, 2026 |
| Louisiana | The cited rules do not settle this — they define a physician as a licensed MD or DO and bar any unlicensed person from practicing medicine, but they set no rule on who may own a med spa. | La. Rev. Stat. §37:1262(2) Sep 3, 2026 |
| Maine | The cited rules do not settle ownership — they establish only that a professional corporation must render professional services through individuals licensed in Maine, so medical treatments must be performed by licensed practitioners whoever owns the entity. | 13 M.R.S. §734(1) Sep 3, 2026 |
| Maryland | The cited rules do not settle this — they establish only that a Maryland professional corporation may render services within a single profession, and that only Board licensees may practice medicine; they set no ownership test for non-physicians. | Md. Code, Corps. & Ass’ns §5-102(a)(1) Sep 3, 2026 |
| Massachusetts | Not through a professional corporation — its shares may go only to natural persons licensed to render the service in its articles, or to entities authorized to render it; a lay individual isn't on that list, and a majority of directors must be licensed too. | Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 156A, § 10(a) Sep 1, 2026 |
| Michigan | The cited rules do not settle this — Michigan issues no med spa license; if the business is a professional corporation, shareholders must be licensed persons or entities owned only by them, and splitting fees for referrals is a disciplinary ground. | Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.16221(d)(i)–(ii) Sep 2, 2026 |
| Minnesota | The cited rules do not settle this — no flat ban; the licensed-owners-only rule applies only if the firm elects professional-firm status in its organizational document, and a non-practitioner owner can never be the one dispensing drugs for profit. | Minn. Stat. § 147.091, subd. 1(p)(4) Sep 2, 2026 |
| Mississippi | The cited rules do not settle this — they only cover professional corporations, which may issue shares to individuals licensed to render the service or to anyone the licensing board expressly authorizes; other entity forms aren't addressed. | Miss. Code Ann. § 79-10-5(h) Sep 8, 2026 |
| Missouri | Not through a professional corporation — a PC may issue shares only to natural persons licensed to render the service named in its articles, so a non-physician can't hold stock in a medical PC; the cited rules don't say which entity form a med spa must use. | Mo. Rev. Stat. §356.111.1(1) Sep 3, 2026 |
| Montana | The cited rules do not settle this — they define a professional service as one only licensees may render and require a professional corporation to deliver it through licensed people, but they set no flat bar on who may own the business. | Mont. Code Ann. § 35-4-109(5)-(6) Sep 8, 2026 |
| Nebraska | The cited rules do not settle this — they cover only professional corporations, where listed owners and officers (other than the secretary and assistant secretary) must be licensed or legally authorized for the service or an ancillary one. | Neb. Rev. Stat. §21-2213 Sep 3, 2026 |
| Nevada | The cited rules do not settle this — a professional corporation or PLLC may issue owner's interest only to natural persons licensed in its own professional service, but nothing cited says a med spa must take that form or which service it renders. | Nev. Rev. Stat. §89.070(1)(a) Sep 3, 2026 |
| New Hampshire | The cited rules do not settle this — they only require a professional corporation to render services within a single profession and its shares to be held by persons eligible under that chapter; no bar on non-physician ownership is stated. | N.H. Rev. Stat. §294-A:2, I (Permissible Purposes of Professional Corporations) Sep 3, 2026 |
| New Jersey | Not directly — a physician may practice only in an entity of licensed professionals in the same or closely allied fields; a lay owner can hold only a limited partner interest via a business corporation supplying non-professional services alone. | N.J.A.C. 13:35-6.17 Sep 2, 2026 |
| New Mexico | New Mexico's Medical Practice Act doesn't restrict who may own a medical practice; it regulates licensee conduct, including fee splitting. Ownership rules elsewhere in New Mexico law were not checked here. | N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 61-6-1 to 61-6-35 (Medical Practice Act), read in full — absence claim Sep 4, 2026 |
| New York | Not directly — the cited rules attach to practitioners and acts, not premises: only a person licensed under the medicine article may practice medicine, and a professional service corporation may be formed only by individuals licensed in that same service. | N.Y. Educ. Law §6522 Aug 17, 2026 |
| North Carolina | North Carolina is a strict corporate-practice state and says so in plain terms: the Medical Board’s position is that a business practicing medicine must be owned in its entirety by people holding active North Carolina licenses. | NCMB Position Statement 10.1.2 (adopted March 2016, amended September 2025) Aug 17, 2026 |
| North Dakota | The cited rules do not settle this — they only bar paying or receiving fees for services not personally rendered or for referrals, and limit a professional corporation's shareholders to same-service licensees, nonlicensed employees and minority owners. | N.D.C.C. § 43-17-31(1)(r) (Fee-splitting, rebates and payment for referrals) Sep 5, 2026 |
| Ohio | Generally yes: Ohio lets physicians work through or for a corporation or other business entity, and the State Medical Board says the corporate-practice doctrine no longer exists in Ohio. | Ohio Rev. Code § 4731.22(B)(17) Sep 2, 2026 |
| Oklahoma | The cited rules do not settle this — an entity may employ licensed Oklahoma physicians without itself practicing medicine, but in a professional entity shareholders must be individuals licensed for the same or related services, and managers licensed too. | Okla. Stat. tit. 59, § 492 (An entity providing medical care may employ physicians) Sep 5, 2026 |
| Oregon | An Oregon professional corporation may render its professional services ONLY through persons licensed or otherwise authorized in this state to render them. | Or. Rev. Stat. §58.156(1) (Method by which professional corporation to render services) Sep 3, 2026 |
| Pennsylvania | Not directly — the cited rule only lets a physician form a professional corporation with other MDs or with PA-licensed practitioners who treat patients without referral or supervision, and only where those boards agree; it says nothing about lay ownership. | 49 Pa. Code §16.21 Aug 17, 2026 |
| Rhode Island | Not directly — a professional corporation rendering medicine must have every officer, director, and shareholder licensed in that profession, though physicians, nurses, PAs and other listed professions may combine; other entity forms aren't addressed. | R.I. Gen. Laws §7-5.1-3(a) Sep 3, 2026 |
| South Carolina | Not if the med spa is a professional corporation — shares may go only to individuals licensed to render the professional service in the articles, or to qualifying partnerships or professional corporations; the cited rules don't address other entity forms. | S.C. Code §33-19-200(a) Sep 3, 2026 |
| South Dakota | Not if the entity is a medical corporation — every shareholder, officer and director of a corporation formed to diagnose and treat patients must be licensed under the Medical Practice Act; the cited rules don't cover esthetics-only salons. | S.D. Codified Laws §47-11-3 Sep 3, 2026 |
| Tennessee | The cited rules do not settle this — they bar non-physicians from holding shares in a Medical Professional Corporation, but a med spa may be "any entity, however named or organized," and registration requires only a licensed Tennessee medical director. | Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0880-02-.20(1)(b) Sep 2, 2026 |
| Texas | The cited rules do not settle ownership — they establish only that no unlicensed person may practice medicine, and that an unlicensed individual or ordinary corporation cannot practice medicine or employ physicians in a way that controls medical judgment. | Tex. Occ. Code § 102.001(a) Sep 2, 2026 |
| Utah | The cited rules do not settle this — they bar an owner with a financial interest from substantially interfering with a physician's practice, and in a professional corporation limit shares and officer/director seats to persons the licensing act allows. | Utah Code § 58-67-501(1)(c) (Unlawful conduct) Sep 4, 2026 |
| Vermont | The cited rules do not settle this — they define medical care as a "professional service" an ordinary Title 11A corporation may not render, and they bar unlicensed practice of medicine, but none states who may hold ownership of a med spa. | Vt. Stat. tit. 11, §817(6) Sep 3, 2026 |
| Virginia | The cited rules do not settle this — Virginia's referral-payment ban only stops practitioners taking remuneration for referrals to a defined facility, institution, or hospital, with federal safe harbors excluded, and says nothing about med spa ownership. | Va. Code § 54.1-2962.1 Sep 2, 2026 |
| Washington | The cited rules do not settle this — no ownership rule is given; they establish only that a professional corporation's shareholders must be licensed to render the same service, and that profit tied to referrals or to prescribed drugs or services is unlawful. | Wash. Rev. Code § 19.68.010(1) Sep 2, 2026 |
| West Virginia | The cited rules do not settle this — they establish only that a corporation may not practice medicine without a board certificate of authorization, issued only where every shareholder is licensed under the medical, PA, or osteopathic articles. | W. Va. Code §30-3-15(a) Sep 3, 2026 |
| Wisconsin | The cited rules do not settle this — ch. 448 and Med 10 carry no ownership rule, but the business still can't hold itself out as authorized to practice medicine, and no licensee may pay or take fees for services they didn't perform or direct. | Wis. Stat. § 448.08(1m) Sep 2, 2026 |
| Wyoming | The cited rules do not settle this — a professional corporation must state that all shareholders are and remain licensed in the profession it is formed for, but no cited rule addresses non-physician ownership through other entity forms. | Wyo. Stat. Ann. §17-3-104 Sep 3, 2026 |
Every state, in its own words
Alabama
⚠️ ALABAMA REGULATES THE PROFESSIONAL ENTITY BY REGISTERING IT AND BY NAMING WHICH ENTITIES MAY EMPLOY A DELEGATE. The Board of Medical Examiners records and maintains a permanent file on all professional corporations incorporated by physicians and osteopaths. And to qualify for registration a physician assistant must be employed by a qualified physician, or by a PARTNERSHIP, MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION OR PHYSICIAN PRACTICE FOUNDATION that also employs a qualified supervising physician, or by an entity the Board has approved. Ownership restrictions elsewhere in Alabama law were not surveyed here.
Ala. Admin. Code r. 540-X-1 (Board duties — professional corporations) · verified Sep 4, 2026
The full Alabama answer, with the rest of the section → · Every Alabama rule on ownership & corporate practice of medicine →Alaska
No corporate-practice doctrine, but a real ownership restriction. Alaska’s professions statutes and the Medical Board’s regulations state no corporate-practice-of-medicine doctrine — see the claim below for the chapters read. The restriction Alaska does impose sits in Title 10: a professional corporation may be incorporated only by persons licensed to render the professional service, and a certificate from the profession’s regulatory board that every incorporator, director and shareholder is licensed must be filed with the articles.
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’s grounds for discipline were surveyed and forbid no non-physician ownership, and a professional corporation may issue up to 49% of its voting shares to non-licensees unless its licensing authority sets a different percentage. The money is reached where the ownership is not: dividing a professional fee for patient referrals is unprofessional conduct, and that ground closes on “a contractual arrangement that has the same effect” — so a management or marketing fee is judged by what it does, not what it is called.
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 →Arkansas
⚠️ ARKANSAS REGULATES THE OWNERSHIP INTEREST THROUGH DISCLOSURE. The board treats it as an ETHICAL VIOLATION for a physician to fail to disclose to a patient that the physician holds an ownership interest in a facility or service, outside the physician’s own practice, to which the physician refers that patient. Delegation is separately bounded by who the employee is: a MEDICAL ASSISTANT is defined as an employee who has been delegated tasks and who has NOT been licensed or specifically authorized to perform them. AND THE MEDICAL CORPORATION ACT IS AS ABSOLUTE AS THIS CORPUS GETS. All of the officers, directors and shareholders of a corporation subject to that subchapter must at all times be licensed under the Arkansas Medical Practices Act, and “No person who is not so licensed shall have any part in the ownership, management, or control of the corporation, nor may any proxy to vote any shares of the corporation be given to a person who is not so licensed.” OWNERSHIP, MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL ARE NAMED SEPARATELY, so leaving the shares in licensed hands while moving control elsewhere is reached by the same sentence. Licensed people form the entity under the ordinary Business Corporation Act, only licensed employees may treat, and the corporation needs a certificate of registration from the Arkansas State Medical Board. These claims survey §§ 4-29-305 to 4-29-309 and two board rules; they do not survey the rest of Arkansas’s entity law.
17 CAR § 140-2601(3) (Ethical violations for physicians) · verified Sep 4, 2026
The full Arkansas answer, with the rest of the section → · Every Arkansas rule on ownership & corporate practice of medicine →California
California strongly bars the corporate practice of medicine. This is the opposite of a permissive-ownership state.
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 NAMES THE CORPORATE PRACTICE OF MEDICINE DOCTRINE IN ITS STATUTE and expressly refuses to let its own professional-corporation provisions be read as an exception to it. Ownership sits with licensed physicians; a PA may hold shares only while physicians keep MAJORITY ownership; and lay directors are barred from touching medical judgment.
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 12-240-121(1)(g)(I) · verified Sep 2, 2026
The full Colorado answer, with the rest of the section → · Every Colorado rule on ownership & corporate practice of medicine →Connecticut
Connecticut confines a professional service corporation to rendering the professional service it was incorporated for, permits it to render that service only through licensed officers, employees and agents, and restricts who may hold its stock or its voting power. It also reaches control, though narrowly: persons licensed in ANOTHER JURISDICTION may not be shareholders, directors or officers if they unlawfully practice here or direct or control a Connecticut licensee’s delivery of professional services or exercise of professional judgment.
Conn. Gen. Stat. §33-182c(a) (Organization) · verified Sep 3, 2026
The full Connecticut answer, with the rest of the section → · Every Connecticut rule on ownership & corporate practice of medicine →Delaware
Delaware’s cited restriction runs through the PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION form. A corporation organized under Chapter 6 of Title 8 exists for the sole and specific purpose of rendering a single professional service, and its shareholders may be only individuals who are themselves licensed or otherwise legally authorized to render that same service. The chapter permits exactly one combination — medicine and podiatry — and expressly leaves untouched the professional relationship, the contract and tort liabilities, and the standards for professional conduct of the person rendering the service. These claims survey Chapter 6 alone and do not report on requirements elsewhere in Delaware law. The Board of Medical Licensure and Discipline’s regulation then names the arrangement among its enumerated unprofessional conduct: PAYMENT OF A FEE by a physician to another physician who referred the patient, unless the fee is in proportion to work actually performed by the referring physician, and willful failure to disclose to a patient that a referring physician holds a financial interest in an outside ancillary testing or treatment facility.
8 Del. C. §603(2) · verified Sep 3, 2026
The full Delaware answer, with the rest of the section → · Every Delaware rule on ownership & corporate practice of medicine →District of Columbia
THE DISTRICT REQUIRES EVERY SHAREHOLDER, DIRECTOR AND OFFICER TO BE LICENSED — AND THEN EXPRESSLY DECLINES TO REQUIRE THEM TO WORK THERE. A professional corporation may be organized solely to render professional services through its shareholders, directors, officers, employees or agents who are themselves licensed, and a person may not be a shareholder, director or officer, or render professional services on its behalf, unless they are an individual licensed to render a professional service for which the corporation is organized — with one narrow exception, that a single-shareholder corporation’s secretary need not be licensed, and must not perform professional services if they are not. The definition says the same from the other direction: shareholders may be only individuals duly licensed to render THE SAME professional service as the corporation. But §29-508(c) is the provision to read before structuring anything: nothing in the chapter requires a shareholder or incorporator to have a present or future EMPLOYMENT relationship with the corporation, or actively to participate in any capacity in the production of its income or the performance of its professional services. Licensure is required; labor is not. The Health Occupations Revision Act then reaches the arrangement from the disciplinary side: paying or agreeing to pay anything of value to, or splitting or dividing fees for professional services with, any person for bringing or referring a patient is a ground for disciplinary action.
D.C. Code §29-505(a) (Purpose for organization; powers authorized) · 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 has no strict corporate-practice-of-medicine ban. Non-physician ownership is instead gated by the Health Care Clinic Act.
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 reaches the ownership question through its PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ACT. The Act limits who may hold shares, requires the professional service to be delivered by licensed people, and fixes who must sit on the board.
O.C.G.A. §14-7-2 · verified Aug 17, 2026 · read at FindLaw Codes
The full Georgia answer, with the rest of the section → · Every Georgia rule on ownership & corporate practice of medicine →Hawaii
HAWAII’S LINE ON WHO MAY OWN A MEDICAL PRACTICE IS DRAWN BY THE PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ACT AND THE LICENSING STATUTES’ UNLICENSED-PRACTICE GROUNDS. The Act defines a professional service as one that may lawfully be rendered only by persons licensed under the named chapters, medicine, nursing, and pharmacy among them, restricts share ownership to qualified persons, organizes professional corporations for a single profession, allows services to be rendered only through licensed individuals, requires not less than one-half of the directors and all officers other than the secretary and treasurer to be qualified persons, and confines the corporation to the profession in its articles. The medical practice act makes employing any person to solicit patients, and knowingly permitting an unlicensed person to perform activities requiring a license, grounds for discipline; the uniform licensing statute reaches aiding an unlicensed person and employing any unlicensed person where licensure is required, and fines a licensee who acts as the agent, partner, or associate of an unlicensed person with intent to evade the licensing laws. None of the sections cited here addresses the division of fees or a percentage arrangement with a non-clinical owner.
Haw. Rev. Stat. § 415A-2 ("Professional service"; "Qualified person") · verified Sep 8, 2026
The full Hawaii answer, with the rest of the section → · Every Hawaii rule on ownership & corporate practice of medicine →Idaho
IDAHO’S PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATIONS CHAPTER IS REPEALED. The official Title 30 chapter index — the document surveyed for this claim — lists Chapter 13, PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATIONS, as REPEALED. That is a statement about that one chapter, not about the whole of Idaho law. The Business Corporation Act now applies to domestic corporations incorporated under any general for-profit statute of the state where the power to amend or repeal was reserved. these claims do not survey the Medical Practice Act, board rules or Idaho case law for a corporate-practice doctrine, and do not establish that no professional-corporation provision exists elsewhere — so a repealed chapter should not be read as permission to have a non-physician own a medical practice. What IS on record from the medical side is economic: 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 discipline, as is giving or receiving, or aiding or abetting the giving or receiving of, rebates, directly or indirectly.
Idaho Code tit. 30, ch. 13 (chapter index — REPEALED) · 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 is among the strictest corporate-practice states, and its regulators say so in a document written for med spas specifically: a med spa is a medical practice, so it must be owned by physicians — or, for the services within their scope, by APRNs. There is no room for a non-clinical shareholder in the entity that delivers care.
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
THIS SECTION SAID INDIANA WAS “comparatively permissive” WITH NO STRICT CORPORATE-PRACTICE BAN. THE CLAIMS BENEATH IT SAY THE OPPOSITE, AND THEY ARE WHAT THE STATUTE SAYS. The employment safe harbor in the medical practice act is not general: it reaches only “an entity described in subsection (a)(21) through (a)(22)” — a hospital licensed under IC 16-21 or IC 12-25, or a health care organization whose members, shareholders or partners are themselves licensed providers — and even for those the entity must not direct or control the physician’s independent medical acts, decisions or judgment. Separately, a professional corporation may issue shares only to licensed individuals, to general partnerships whose partners are all licensed, to other professional corporations, or to the trustee of a qualified trust. A lay-owned company is outside both lists. These claims survey IC 25-22.5-1-2, IC 23-1.5-3-1 and chapter 25-1-9; they do not survey the whole of Indiana’s entity law.
Ind. Code §25-22.5-1-2(c) · verified Jul 26, 2026
The full Indiana answer, with the rest of the section → · Every Indiana rule on ownership & corporate practice of medicine →Iowa
⚠️ IOWA DEFINES THE MEDICAL SPA BY WHAT IT HOLDS ITSELF OUT AS, NOT BY WHO OWNS IT — AND THEN CARVES ONE OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE BACK OUT. A medical spa is any entity, HOWEVER ORGANIZED, that is advertised, announced, established or maintained for the purpose of providing medical aesthetic services; the definition expressly excludes a dermatology practice WHOLLY OWNED AND CONTROLLED by one or more Iowa-licensed physicians where at least one owner is actively practicing at each location. On the conduct side, knowingly aiding, assisting, procuring or advising a person in the unlawful practice of medicine is a ground for discipline, as is accepting remuneration for referring a patient in violation of law or medical ethics. THE ENTITY LAW ANSWERS THE STRUCTURE QUESTION SEPARATELY: a professional corporation may be organized only to practice one specific profession, or professions that could lawfully be combined by a licensed individual — medicine and surgery, osteopathic medicine and surgery, and practice as a physician assistant are deemed such a combination, without expanding the physician assistant’s scope — and no shareholder may voluntarily transfer shares except to the corporation or to an individual licensed to practice a profession the corporation is authorized to practice. These claims survey chapter 496C and the two rules cited; they do not survey the rest of Iowa’s entity law.
Iowa Admin. Code r. 481—655.6(1) (definition of “Medical spa”) · verified Sep 4, 2026
The full Iowa answer, with the rest of the section → · Every Iowa rule on ownership & corporate practice of medicine →Kansas
KANSAS CONFINES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION TO ONE TYPE OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE. A professional corporation may be organized ONLY for the purpose of rendering one type of professional service and service ancillary to it, and shall not engage in any other business — except that the statute permits certain named combinations of the professional types it lists, identified by their item numbers in the definitions section. That definitions section enumerates the professions, including an osteopathic physician or surgeon, a physician, surgeon or doctor of medicine, and a registered professional nurse, each paragraph constituting one type. Separately, 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 — is unprofessional conduct.
Kan. Stat. Ann. §17-2710 · 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'S LICENSING PROHIBITION REACHES THE PREMISES AND THE HOLDING OUT, NOT ONLY THE TREATMENT. No person shall engage or attempt to engage in the practice of medicine or osteopathy within the state, OR OPEN, MAINTAIN, OR OCCUPY AN OFFICE OR PLACE OF BUSINESS within the state for engaging in practice, or IN ANY MANNER ANNOUNCE OR EXPRESS A READINESS to engage in practice, unless the person holds a valid and effective license or permit issued by the board. Violating or attempting to violate, directly or indirectly, or assisting in, abetting or conspiring to violate any provision of the medical practice act — including the code of conduct promulgated by the board — is itself a ground for discipline. These claims survey the Medical Practice Act; Kentucky's business-entity and professional-service-corporation statutes are NOT surveyed here, so confirm the entity form with counsel.
Ky. Rev. Stat. §311.560(1) · verified Sep 3, 2026
The full Kentucky answer, with the rest of the section → · Every Kentucky rule on ownership & corporate practice of medicine →Louisiana
LOUISIANA DEFINES A PHYSICIAN AS A NATURAL PERSON, AND THAT IS WHERE THE OWNERSHIP ANALYSIS STARTS. “Physician” means a NATURAL PERSON holding an allopathic or osteopathic degree who holds a license, permit, certification or registration issued by the board to engage in the practice of medicine in Louisiana — a corporation cannot itself be one. The economic rule is stated as a cause for discipline and it names entities directly: 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. Knowingly employing a physician's assistant whose conduct includes any of the enumerated causes is a further ground. On the cosmetology side, the statute states that the Board of Cosmetology shall constitute a PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION within the meaning of Article VII, Section 9 of the Louisiana Constitution. These claims survey the Medical Practice Act and that one cosmetology definition; Louisiana's professional corporation and business-entity statutes are NOT surveyed here, so confirm the entity form with counsel.
La. Rev. Stat. §37:1262(2) · verified Sep 3, 2026
The full Louisiana answer, with the rest of the section → · Every Louisiana rule on ownership & corporate practice of medicine →Maine
Maine’s professional corporation rule is narrower than it first reads. A professional corporation may render professional services in Maine only THROUGH individuals licensed or otherwise authorized to render them — but the same section says this does not require an individual employed by the corporation to be licensed to perform services for it where a license is not otherwise required. The corporation is confined to the professional service authorized by its articles and services or businesses reasonably related to it, while its funds may be invested in real estate, mortgages, securities or any other type of investment. These claims survey chapter 22-A of Title 13 and do not report on restrictions elsewhere in Maine law.
13 M.R.S. §734(1) · verified Sep 3, 2026
The full Maine answer, with the rest of the section → · Every Maine rule on ownership & corporate practice of medicine →Maryland
Maryland confines a professional corporation to a single profession and to the professional service named in its articles, and its Medical Practice Act contemplates a physician practicing within or as a professional corporation — so the corporate form is available, but it is not a route to mixing a medical practice with an unrelated business. Maryland’s self-referral law is the financial-arrangement rule on record: except as the section itself provides, a health care practitioner may not refer a patient, or direct an employee or contractor to refer a patient, to a health care entity in which the practitioner or the practitioner with immediate family owns a beneficial interest, in which immediate family owns 3 percent or more, or with which any of them has a COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENT — defined as any agreement or system involving any remuneration between the practitioner or an immediate family member and a health care entity. Whether a particular med spa owner is a “health care entity” under that law, and whether any of its exceptions apply, is not surveyed by these claims.
Md. Code, Corps. & Ass’ns §5-102(a)(1) · verified Sep 3, 2026
The full Maryland answer, with the rest of the section → · Every Maryland rule on ownership & corporate practice of medicine →Massachusetts
Massachusetts’ PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION CHAPTER decides who may own the practice: shares may issue only to licensed natural persons, to partnerships every partner of which is one, or to entities themselves authorized to render the service — and a MAJORITY of the directors must be licensed, as must all officers except the treasurer, clerk, secretary and their assistants.
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 156A, § 10(a) · verified Sep 1, 2026
The full Massachusetts answer, with the rest of the section → · Every Massachusetts rule on ownership & corporate practice of medicine →Michigan
Michigan runs professional corporations through the Business Corporation Act, and its shareholder rule reaches through holding companies rather than stopping at the first entity.
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
⚠️ CHAPTER 319B IS OPT-IN. It restricts ownership of a professional firm to licensed professionals — but a Minnesota firm may furnish professional services WITHOUT electing into the chapter, so long as no other Minnesota statute, rule or TENET OF COMMON LAW requires the election. That common-law question is not answered here.
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 →Mississippi
MISSISSIPPI’S LINE ON WHO MAY OWN A MEDICAL PRACTICE IS DRAWN BY THE PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ACT, AND THE LICENSING STATUTES CITED HERE REACH THE USE OF UNLICENSED PEOPLE. A professional corporation may issue shares only to individuals authorized to render the professional service in its articles, to professional corporations and partnerships so authorized, or to others the licensing authority expressly permits; it exists solely to render professional services within a single profession, renders them only through licensed individuals, and may not render any service outside its articles. The medical practice act makes knowingly assisting an unlicensed person to practice medicine unprofessional conduct. None of the sections cited here addresses the division of fees or a percentage arrangement with a non-clinical owner.
Miss. Code Ann. § 79-10-5(h) · verified Sep 8, 2026
The full Mississippi answer, with the rest of the section → · Every Mississippi rule on ownership & corporate practice of medicine →Missouri
Missouri’s Professional Corporation Law restricts WHO MAY HOLD SHARES. A professional corporation may issue shares, fractional shares, rights or options to purchase shares, and other securities only to natural persons authorized by law — in Missouri or another US jurisdiction — to render a professional service permitted by the corporation’s articles of incorporation, and to trustees of revocable trusts on the conditions the section sets out. The Law defines a “disqualified person” to reach not only individuals but corporations, partnerships, limited liability companies, fiduciaries, trusts, associations, governmental agencies and other entities that are or become ineligible to own shares. These claims survey sections 356.011 to 356.261 and do not report on restrictions elsewhere in Missouri law.
Mo. Rev. Stat. §356.111.1(1) · verified Sep 3, 2026
The full Missouri answer, with the rest of the section → · Every Missouri rule on ownership & corporate practice of medicine →Montana
MONTANA’S LINE ON WHO MAY OWN A MEDICAL PRACTICE IS DRAWN BY THE PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ACT AND ONE RULE OF THE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS. The Act defines a professional service as one that may lawfully be rendered only by licensed persons and may not lawfully be rendered by an ordinary business corporation, restricts share ownership in a professional corporation to qualified persons, requires at least one-half of the combined directors and officers to be qualified persons, and allows a professional corporation to render professional services only through natural persons permitted to render them. The Board’s unprofessional-conduct rule then reaches the employment relationship directly: it is unprofessional conduct for a physician or physician assistant to practice as the partner, agent, or employee of, or in joint venture with, a person who does not hold an equivalent license, unless the licensee is incorporated as a professional entity or is practicing with a licensed health care facility or provider under a written agreement that the relationship may not affect the licensee’s independent judgment. The uniform licensing statute makes aiding a person to circumvent a licensure law, assisting unlicensed practice, and allowing another person or organization to practice by use of the licensee’s license unprofessional conduct. None of these sections addresses the division of fees; the Board’s rule speaks to the employment relationship and the independence of judgment, not to how revenue is shared.
Mont. Code Ann. § 35-4-109(5)-(6) · verified Sep 8, 2026
The full Montana answer, with the rest of the section → · Every Montana rule on ownership & corporate practice of medicine →Nebraska
Nebraska verifies that every director, officer, shareholder and professional employee of a professional corporation (bar the secretary and assistant secretary) is duly licensed OR OTHERWISE LEGALLY AUTHORIZED to render the professional service the corporation is organized for, or a service ancillary to it, and it forces a disqualified holder OUT: on becoming legally disqualified, that person must sever all employment with and financial interests in the corporation forthwith, and the corporation’s failure to require this is a ground for forfeiting its articles of incorporation and dissolution.
Neb. Rev. Stat. §21-2213 · verified Sep 3, 2026
The full Nebraska answer, with the rest of the section → · Every Nebraska rule on ownership & corporate practice of medicine →Nevada
Nevada restricts ownership of a professional entity to natural persons licensed to render the very services the entity was formed to provide, and extends the restriction to voting agreements and transfers so that control cannot be separated from licensure. It reaches CONTROL as well as ownership: an officer, director or manager must themselves be licensed to render those services, and a professional entity that fails to require compliance with those officer, director and manager duties is subject to forfeiture of its charter. The Medical Practice Act adds the money rules: directly or indirectly receiving from any person, corporation or other business organization any fee, commission, rebate or other form of compensation intended or tending to influence the physician’s objective evaluation or treatment of a patient is a ground for discipline or denial of licensure, and so is DIVIDING A FEE BETWEEN LICENSEES except where the patient is informed of the division and it is made in proportion to the services personally performed and the responsibility assumed by each licensee.
Nev. Rev. Stat. §89.070(1)(a) · verified Sep 3, 2026
The full Nevada answer, with the rest of the section → · Every Nevada rule on ownership & corporate practice of medicine →New Hampshire
A New Hampshire professional corporation may be organized only to render professional services within a SINGLE PROFESSION — subject to the carve-out the statute itself makes at RSA 294-A:2, II, which these claims do not reach. The chapter defines a professional service by reference to what may lawfully be rendered only by named licensed professionals — physicians and surgeons, physician associates and registered professional nurses among them — and which may not lawfully be rendered by an ordinary business corporation, and it defines a qualified person as one eligible under the chapter to own shares issued by a professional corporation.
N.H. Rev. Stat. §294-A:2, I (Permissible Purposes of Professional Corporations) · verified Sep 3, 2026
The full New Hampshire answer, with the rest of the section → · Every New Hampshire rule on ownership & corporate practice of medicine →New Jersey
New Jersey restricts practice entities to licensed professionals, and then spells out exactly how an outside business may take part — by two routes and no others. It may hold a LIMITED PARTNER interest while supplying back-office services only, with every clinical and pricing decision left with the licensee; or it may directly employ a licensee, but only in five enumerated settings.
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
⚠️ THE MEDICAL PRACTICE ACT WAS READ END TO END AND IT REGULATES THE PRACTICE, NOT THE COMPANY. Sections 61-6-1 through 61-6-35 contain no professional-corporation requirement and no restriction on who may hold an ownership interest in a medical practice — the words "corporation", "shareholder", "partnership" and "limited liability" do not appear in the Act at all. What the Act does control is licensee conduct: procuring, aiding or abetting an illegal procedure is unprofessional conduct, and so is fee splitting. So what this Act constrains is who performs and directs the medicine, not how the business holding it is owned. Ownership rules elsewhere in New Mexico law were not surveyed and are not answered here.
N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 61-6-1 to 61-6-35 (Medical Practice Act), read in full — absence claim · 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 is a strict corporate-practice state. Only a licensed person may practice medicine or use the title “physician”, and a PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION may be organized only by individuals authorized to render that same service. ⚠️ The separate EMPLOYMENT offense has a count in it — knowingly aiding or abetting THREE OR MORE unlicensed persons, or employing them. Fee-sharing is separately misconduct, subject to named exceptions including an authorized professional subcontractor or consultant and a supervised trainee.
N.Y. Educ. Law §6522 · verified Aug 17, 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 is a strict corporate-practice state and says so in plain terms: the Medical Board’s position is that a business practicing medicine must be owned in its entirety by people holding active North Carolina licenses. The Professional Corporation Act carries that into company law — a professional corporation’s ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION must carry its licensing board’s certification that the shareholding requirements are met.
NCMB Position Statement 10.1.2 (adopted March 2016, amended September 2025) · verified Aug 17, 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 chapter read does not state a corporate-practice doctrine, but it does regulate the money directly, in the disciplinary grounds. Paying or receiving any fee, commission, rebate or other compensation — directly OR INDIRECTLY — for medical services not actually or personally rendered, or for patient referrals, is a ground for discipline. And the same paragraph expressly preserves what it does not reach: the prohibition does not affect the lawful distributions of professional partnerships, corporations, limited liability companies or associations. These claims establish the fee-splitting and referral limits and that professional entities may lawfully distribute. Who may own the entity is answered in a different chapter, which is also cited here: a professional corporation may have as shareholders only individuals licensed or otherwise legally authorized to render the same professional service, together with the nonlicensed employees and minority owners that chapter allows, and may be created only to render one specific type of professional service and services ancillary to it, or two or more kinds of professional service that the licensing laws specifically authorize to be practiced in combination.
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 answers the ownership question the other way round from most of this corpus. The statute expressly authorizes a physician to practice through a corporation, an LLC, a partnership or a professional association — and then says that list is not exhaustive.
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
OKLAHOMA WRITES AN EXPRESS EMPLOYMENT CARVE-OUT. An entity whose principal purpose or function is providing hospital or medical care may employ one or more persons duly licensed to practice medicine WITHOUT ITSELF BEING REGARDED AS PRACTICING MEDICINE, and the employment does not, in and of itself, count as unprofessional conduct by the physician employed. Separately, obtaining or offering to accept any fee or other remuneration on the assurance that a manifestly incurable disease can or will be cured is unprofessional conduct. AND THE PROFESSIONAL ENTITY ACT ANSWERS OWNERSHIP IN THE OTHER DIRECTION. No person may be a MANAGER of a professional entity who is not duly licensed for the same or a related profession, and “No person may be a shareholder of a professional corporation who is not an INDIVIDUAL duly licensed” for it — a natural person, not another entity. The entity may render professional services only through owners, managers, employees and agents who are licensed, with clerks, secretaries, bookkeepers, technicians and other assistants expressly outside the term “employee” for that purpose. So the employment carve-out governs who may EMPLOY a physician; the Professional Entity Act governs who may OWN and MANAGE the entity, and the two answers differ.
Okla. Stat. tit. 59, § 492 (An entity providing medical care may employ physicians) · verified Sep 5, 2026
The full Oklahoma answer, with the rest of the section → · Every Oklahoma rule on ownership & corporate practice of medicine →Oregon
An Oregon professional corporation may render its professional services ONLY through persons licensed or otherwise authorized in this state to render them. The chapter also says expressly that it does not affect the professional relationship with the patient or the standards of professional conduct, and it keeps a shareholder personally liable for their own negligent or wrongful acts and for those of anyone under their direct supervision and control.
Or. Rev. Stat. §58.156(1) (Method by which professional corporation to render services) · verified Sep 3, 2026
The full Oregon answer, with the rest of the section → · Every Oregon rule on ownership & corporate practice of medicine →Pennsylvania
For a professional corporation formed by MEDICAL DOCTORS, the State Board of Medicine’s test for a co-owner has two parts: the co-owner must be a health care practitioner who treats human ailments and is licensed in Pennsylvania to provide health care WITHOUT receiving a referral or supervision from another practitioner, AND the boards regulating those practitioners must themselves permit the corporation to be formed. On the money rather than the ownership, the Medical Practice Act of 1985 was read in full and prohibits no fee splitting — an absence in that Act, not in Pennsylvania law as a whole.
49 Pa. Code §16.21 · verified Aug 17, 2026 · read at Cornell Legal Information Institute
The full Pennsylvania answer, with the rest of the section → · Every Pennsylvania rule on ownership & corporate practice of medicine →Rhode Island
IN A RHODE ISLAND PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION, EVERY OFFICER, DIRECTOR AND SHAREHOLDER MUST BE A LICENSED PRACTITIONER — AND MUST BE EMPLOYED BY THE CORPORATION IN THAT PRACTICE. A corporation organized under that chapter may render the professional services of NOT MORE THAN ONE of the enumerated professions, provided that every officer, director and shareholder is an individual authorized to practice that profession and is employed by the corporation in it; and no individual may be an officer, shareholder, director or employee of any other corporation practicing the same profession without the prior written approval of the applicable regulatory agency. The chapter then names the combinations it permits, the first of which groups physicians, dentists, registered nurses, podiatrists, optometrists, physician assistants, chiropractic physicians, physical therapists, psychologists, midwives and nurse-midwives. Investment is left open — the chapter does not prohibit such a corporation from investing its funds in real estate, mortgages, stocks, bonds or any investment not otherwise prohibited. And the eligibility rule has teeth: if a shareholder BECOMES ineligible they must transfer their shares to an eligible person or offer them to the corporation for redemption at fair-market value, and where transfer is blocked by the articles or bylaws the corporation SHALL redeem them and compensate the holder in full. Dividing fees, or agreeing to split or divide fees received for professional services with any person FOR BRINGING TO OR REFERRING A PATIENT, is unprofessional conduct.
R.I. Gen. Laws §7-5.1-3(a) · 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 limits who may hold shares in a professional corporation to individuals authorized to render the professional service the corporation was formed for, together with qualifying partnerships and professional corporations, and lets the licensing authority for a profession restrict that further where it considers this necessary to prevent violation of the profession’s ethical standards.
S.C. Code §33-19-200(a) · verified Sep 3, 2026
The full South Carolina answer, with the rest of the section → · Every South Carolina rule on ownership & corporate practice of medicine →South Dakota
SDCL §47-11-3 CLOSES THE OBVIOUS WORKAROUND, AND IT IS THE SENTENCE TO READ FIRST. All of the officers, directors, and shareholders of a medical corporation shall AT ALL TIMES be persons licensed pursuant to the Medical Practice Act. NO PERSON WHO IS NOT SO LICENSED SHALL HAVE ANY PART IN THE OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL of such corporation — and no proxy to vote any shares may be given to a person who is not so licensed, which closes the route of leaving title with a physician while moving the votes elsewhere. In a corporation formed under the chapter, one or more persons may act as the SOLE stockholders, directors or officers. And persons licensed under the Medical Practice Act, corporations formed under chapter 47-11, or any combination of them, may form a LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY to own, operate and maintain an establishment for the study, diagnosis and treatment of human ailments and injuries. Chapter 36-4 then names the arrangement itself among the acts that are unprofessional or dishonorable conduct: SPLITTING FEES, or giving to any person furnishing a patient any portion of the fees received from the patient, or paying or giving any person consideration of any kind for furnishing a patient — and, separately, employing what is known as cappers or steerers.
S.D. Codified Laws §47-11-3 · verified Sep 3, 2026
The full South Dakota answer, with the rest of the section → · Every South Dakota rule on ownership & corporate practice of medicine →Tennessee
Tennessee runs medical practices through Medical Professional Corporations, and its share-ownership rule follows ownership through intermediate entities rather than stopping at the first one.
Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0880-02-.20(1)(b) · verified Sep 2, 2026
The full Tennessee answer, with the rest of the section → · Every Tennessee rule on ownership & corporate practice of medicine →Texas
Texas follows the corporate-practice-of-medicine doctrine, derived from the Medical Practice Act’s licensure requirement rather than a single titled statute.
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
UTAH REACHES THE OUTSIDE OWNER THROUGH INTERFERENCE. Section 58-67-501 puts within “unlawful conduct” the act of SUBSTANTIALLY INTERFERING with a licensee’s lawful and competent practice of medicine by any person or entity that MANAGES, OWNS, OPERATES, OR CONDUCTS A BUSINESS having a direct or indirect financial interest in that practice. It reaches contracts too: entering a contract that limits a licensee’s ability to advise patients fully about treatment options is itself unlawful conduct. And the fee rule carves out the legitimate structures by name — nothing in it precludes the legal relationships within lawful professional partnerships, corporations or associations. AND THE PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ACT RESTRICTS OWNERSHIP DIRECTLY, NOT ONLY THROUGH INTERFERENCE. A person may not be an officer, director or shareholder of a professional corporation unless licensed to render the same specific professional services — medicine and osteopathic medicine count as the same service, so an M.D. and a D.O. may hold shares in one entity — and the single exception is that a nonlicensed person may serve as secretary or treasurer. Shares may be issued or voluntarily transferred only to those licensed persons, or to others to the extent the applicable licensing act allows, and “Any shares issued in violation of this section are void.” The corporation may render professional services only through licensed officers, employees and agents. These claims survey Title 58 chapter 67, one division rule and §§ 16-11-7 to 16-11-9; they do not survey the rest of Utah’s entity law.
Utah Code § 58-67-501(1)(c) (Unlawful conduct) · verified Sep 4, 2026
The full Utah answer, with the rest of the section → · Every Utah rule on ownership & corporate practice of medicine →Vermont
Vermont defines a professional service as one that may lawfully be rendered only by a licensed person and MAY NOT lawfully be rendered by an ordinary business corporation. It separately defines a qualified person — an individual or general partnership eligible under the chapter to be issued shares by a professional corporation — and a licensing authority as the body empowered to authorize the rendition of a professional service. These are the chapter’s definitions; the operative share-issue restriction sits elsewhere in the chapter and is not quoted here. The Medical Practice Act also names the arrangement itself: division of fees, or agreeing to split or divide the fees received for professional services with any person for bringing or referring a patient, is unprofessional conduct.
Vt. Stat. tit. 11, §817(6) · verified Sep 3, 2026
The full Vermont answer, with the rest of the section → · Every Vermont rule on ownership & corporate practice of medicine →Virginia
Virginia’s professional corporation must state a SOLE AND SPECIFIC purpose in its articles.
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 channels ownership through the Professional Service Corporation Act: shares may be held by the people licensed to render the service the corporation was organized to render.
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
West Virginia does not leave the corporate practice question to a general corporations statute — the Medical Practice Act itself makes it UNLAWFUL for any corporation to practice or offer to practice medicine, surgery or podiatric medicine, or to perform medical acts through one or more physician assistants, without a certificate of authorization issued by the Board of Medicine designating it an authorized medical corporation. To obtain one, an in-state applicant must furnish satisfactory proof that EACH SHAREHOLDER is a licensed physician under the Medical Practice Act article or under the two other articles the provision cross-references by citation. For a corporation formed outside the state, the claim on record here is the shareholder test: it may be designated a foreign medical corporation on furnishing proof that ALL its shareholders are licensed physicians, podiatric physicians or physician assistants in one or more states, with a complete list submitted. The section’s other conditions for foreign corporations are not surveyed by these claims.
W. Va. Code §30-3-15(a) · verified Sep 3, 2026
The full West Virginia answer, with the rest of the section → · Every West Virginia rule on ownership & corporate practice of medicine →Wisconsin
Wisconsin’s constraint on who may own a practice runs through the LICENSE: the entity may not do what only a licensed person may do.
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 →Wyoming
WYOMING PUTS THE OWNERSHIP RULE INTO LANGUAGE THE ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION MUST ACTUALLY CONTAIN. A professional practice corporation incorporated after the act must carry this sentence in its articles, immediately after the provision on authorized shares: “All shareholders of the corporation are, and will continually be, licensed in the profession for which the corporation is formed, and no professional service will be offered by the corporation except by or under the supervision of licensed stockholders or licensed employees.” Two things follow that a med spa should read carefully — the shareholder requirement is CONTINUING (“and will continually be”), not merely a condition at formation; and services may be offered by or UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF licensed stockholders or licensed employees. The corporate name must end with “A Professional Corporation” or the initials “P.C.”. These claims survey the professional corporation provisions of Title 17 and do not report on restrictions elsewhere in Wyoming law.
Wyo. Stat. Ann. §17-3-104 · verified Sep 3, 2026
The full Wyoming answer, with the rest of the section → · Every Wyoming rule on ownership & corporate practice of medicine →Which states this covers
51 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 — the changes that touch your practice, the what-to-do wherever a change calls for one, and the review checklists, in one document you can print and hand over. Kept current by watching your state daily, plus federal and nationally-significant alerts. 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).