Indiana ownership & cpom for med spas

Ownership & corporate practice of medicine in 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.

• Indiana’s employment safe harbor is not general — it names the entities it covers, and a lay-owned company is not one of them. “An employment or other contractual relationship between an entity described in subsection (a)(21) through (a)(22) and a licensed physician does not constitute the unlawful practice of medicine or osteopathic medicine under this article if the entity does not direct or control independent medical acts, decisions, or judgment of the licensed physician.” Subsection (a)(21) is “A hospital licensed under IC 16-21 or IC 12-25”, and (a)(22) is “A health care organization whose members, shareholders, or partners are individuals, partnerships, corporations, facilities, or institutions licensed or legally authorized by this state to provide health care or professional services as” a physician, a psychiatric hospital, a hospital, a health maintenance organization, a health facility, a dentist, a registered or licensed practical nurse, a midwife, an optometrist, a podiatrist, a chiropractor, a physical therapist or a psychologist. The no-control condition is a SECOND requirement on those entities, not a route for any other kind of owner.

  Ind. Code §25-22.5-1-2(c) · verified Jul 26, 2026

• 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

• Indiana closes the cap table of a professional corporation to four kinds of holder, and a lay investor is not among them. Except as provided in IC 25-2.1-5, “a professional corporation may issue shares, fractional shares, and rights or options to purchase shares only to: (1) individuals who are authorized by Indiana law or the laws of another state to render a professional service permitted by the articles of incorporation of the corporation; (2) general partnerships in which all the partners are authorized by Indiana law or the laws of another state to render a professional service permitted by the articles of incorporation of the corporation; (3) professional corporations authorized by Indiana law or the laws of another state to render a professional service permitted by the articles of incorporation of the corporation; and (4) the trustee of a qualified trust.” A licensing authority may by rule further restrict, condition or abridge that authority where necessary to prevent violations of the profession’s ethical standards.

  Ind. Code § 23-1.5-3-1(a)-(b) (Professional corporations — shares; issuance; transfer) · verified Sep 8, 2026

Recent Indiana changes

• Source qualification pendingMar 5, 2026