28 records across 6 jurisdictions — California, United States, Canada, United Kingdom, European Union, Australia — newest first, each with its instrument, action type, one lifecycle state, the date it took effect or issued, and the primary source it was read at.
What this issue is, and is not
A retrospective is not a news round-up. Every entry answers three questions in the same order — what happened, what it changes for a practising physician, and what it does not do — because the third question is where most reporting on health regulation fails. A proposed rule is not a duty; an indictment is not a finding; an audit report is not an enforcement action; agency guidance is not legislation; an appropriations extension is not permanence; a plan penalty is not a finding about a physician.
Records are grouped by month, not by country, because a physician's year runs in time rather than in jurisdictions. Where a foreign instrument matters to a Californian practice, the entry says how — a European transparency duty reaches a clinic through the vendor, a Canadian or Australian device rule through what that vendor can evidence, a British draft instrument through what will reach a British colleague's clinic next year. Where a development already has a standing record on this site, the entry links to it rather than restating it. Nothing here replaces an earlier page, and no URL was retired to make room for this one. Medical Board of California actions are eligible for this record from 1 January 2026 under the published selection rule.
August 2026
REGULATIONEFFECTIVEEuropean Union · European Commission
EU AI Act Article 50 transparency obligations begin to apply
Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (AI Act), Article 50
· verified
What happenedArticle 50's transparency duties apply from 2 August 2026: disclosure that a person is interacting with an AI system, machine-readable marking of synthetic content, and disclosure of emotion-recognition and biometric-categorisation use.
What it changes for physiciansThe high-risk obligations most relevant to clinical devices are deferred to a later date; the transparency layer is not. A European deployment of an ambient scribe or triage chatbot carries a disclosure duty now, independent of whether the system is ultimately classified high-risk.
What it does not doDeferral of the high-risk timetable did not defer Article 50, and no health-sector carve-out applies.
STATUTEEFFECTIVECalifornia · California Legislature
California AI Transparency Act becomes operative
Bus. & Prof. Code ch. 25 (SB 942, 2024, as amended by AB 853, 2025)
· verified
What happenedThe Act's first tranche of duties became operative. Covered generative-AI providers must offer detection tooling and attach provenance disclosures to content they generate; large online platform and capture-device duties follow on later dates set in the amended statute.
What it changes for physiciansA physician using a generative tool inside documentation or patient communication is a deployer, not a provider, and the Act does not transfer the provider's disclosure duty onto the clinician. What it does change is the evidentiary picture: provenance metadata now travels with generated text, which is discoverable.
What it does not doNothing in the Act addresses clinical standard of care or malpractice exposure.
CMS proposes to replace the 6 percent provider-tax threshold with state-specific ceilings
CMS-2452-P, 91 FR (2026-14897) — Medicaid Program; Amending the Indirect Hold Harmless Threshold of Health Care-Related Taxes; released 21 July 2026, published 23 July 2026
· verified
What happenedThe rule would implement section 71115 of Public Law 119-21 by replacing the long-standing 6 percent indirect hold-harmless threshold with thresholds based on taxes enacted and imposed as of 4 July 2025, effective 1 October 2026, with a phase-down for most permissible classes in Medicaid expansion states from 1 October 2027. It would also add services of health insurers as a new permissible class and create new reporting requirements. Comments are due 21 September 2026. The CMS Office of the Actuary estimates the rule would reduce federal expenditures by $246 billion over ten years.
What it changes for physiciansThis is a financing rule with clinical consequences: provider taxes fund a large share of the non-federal Medicaid share, and a state that loses that revenue adjusts provider rates, eligibility processing, or managed-care capitation — not its statutory obligations. For a physician seeing Medi-Cal patients, the exposure is rate and access pressure two budget cycles out, not a compliance duty.
What it does not doProposed. The 1 October 2026 statutory date belongs to section 71115, not to this rule; nothing in the proposal binds a state or a provider until a final rule issues.
What happenedDHCS updated the forms and procedures for ordering/referring/prescribing-only (ORP) enrollment. The bulletin is effective; the enforcement date for claim denials tied to an unenrolled ORP provider is phased and, on the record read, not fixed.
What it changes for physiciansA physician who never bills Medi-Cal but writes prescriptions or referrals for Medi-Cal patients is inside the enrollment requirement. The exposure is not to the physician's own billing but to the pharmacy's or laboratory's claim, which is the party that gets denied.
What it does not doThe enforcement commencement date was not verified to a dated DHCS notice and remains in the queue.
CY 2027 Physician Fee Schedule proposed rule published
CMS-1848-P, 91 FR 43842 — CY 2027 Payment Policies under the Physician Fee Schedule
· verified
What happenedPlaced on public display 14 July 2026 and published 16 July 2026; comments close 14 September 2026. Finalized policies would generally take effect 1 January 2027.
What it changes for physiciansTwo conversion factors and an efficiency adjustment carry forward as proposals for a second year, which means the CY 2026 structure is not a one-year experiment. Comment is the only stage at which a physician's operational objection is on the record.
What it does not doNo obligation arises until a final rule issues; the 2027 dates in the proposal are not duties.
LEGISLATION IN PROGRESSPROPOSEDUnited States · House Committee on Ways and Means
Ways and Means advances the Medicare Advantage prior-authorization bill to the full House
H.R. 3514, Improving Seniors' Timely Access to Care Act; full-committee markup, 15 July 2026
· verified
What happenedThe committee marked up a health package including H.R. 3514 and reported it out; the bill advances to the full House. As introduced, it would require an electronic prior-authorization programme and enrollee-protection standards for plan years beginning on or after 1 January 2028, with transparency requirements from 1 January 2027.
What it changes for physiciansThis is the legislative track running alongside the CMS interoperability rules. If it passes in this form, the API duties CMS built by rule acquire a statutory floor and a real-time-decision definition that a rule alone can revise.
What it does not doA reported bill is not law. Nothing in it binds any plan today, and committee approval does not schedule a floor vote.
CIVIL SETTLEMENTCURRENTCalifornia · Attorney General
Carbon Health settlement: structural remedy and individual liability in a friendly-PC structure
California Attorney General settlement with Carbon Health Technologies, Inc., affiliated professional medical corporations, and its co-founder and former chief executive
· verified
What happenedAnnounced 26 June 2026. The settlement reaches the corporate entity, the affiliated professional corporations, and an individual.
What it changes for physiciansThe naming of an individual is the part that changes planning. A structure that recites physician ownership on paper does not insulate the person who exercised the disputed control.
What it does not doA negotiated resolution, ordinarily without admission of liability. The amount is not a measure of proven harm and creates no precedent.
ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENTCURRENTCalifornia · Department of Managed Health Care
DMHC fines Blue Shield of California $300,000 over denied newborn-care payments
DMHC enforcement action announced 23 June 2026; Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act
· verified
What happenedThe Department announced a $300,000 administrative penalty against Blue Shield of California for denying payments for newborn care.
What it changes for physiciansNewborn care is the recurring pattern in this line of enforcement: the infant is a new enrollee whose eligibility posts after the encounter, so the claim is denied on enrollment grounds for care the plan must cover. A denial in that shape is a plan-side defect worth escalating rather than writing off.
What it does not doAn administrative penalty against a plan is not a finding about any physician or any individual claim, and it does not itself reopen denied claims.
CRIMINAL CHARGECURRENTUnited States · Department of Justice
2026 National Health Care Fraud Takedown: 455 defendants charged
DOJ 2026 National Health Care Fraud Takedown, announced 23 June 2026
· verified
What happenedDOJ announced charges against 455 defendants, including 90 doctors and other licensed medical professionals, in schemes involving over $6.5 billion in alleged false claims. Cases were brought in 56 federal districts across 45 states and territories, with all 50 state Medicaid Fraud Control Units participating, and over $182 million in assets seized. Alongside the charges, CMS suspended 1,079 providers and revoked billing privileges for 1,403.
What it changes for physiciansThe administrative half is the part physicians underestimate. A payment suspension or revocation lands before any adjudication and does not wait for a plea, a verdict, or a licensing decision — which is why the CMS numbers, not the defendant count, are the operational risk.
What it does not doEvery charge is an allegation. No finding of guilt exists until conviction or plea, and dispositions will be added to this record as they issue rather than replacing it.
Comment period closes on the drug prior-authorization proposal
CMS-0062-P — Interoperability Standards and Prior Authorization for Drugs
· verified
What happenedThe comment period closed 15 June 2026. A final rule was pending as of this record's date.
What it changes for physiciansComment is now closed, so the practical question shifts from what to say to what to prepare for: proposed compliance dates in October 2027 for most provisions.
What it does not doProposed only. The October 2027 dates are not current duties and may change or disappear in a final rule.
AUDIT / OVERSIGHT FINDINGCURRENTUnited States · HHS Office of Inspector General
OIG finds post-acute prior-authorization denial rates far above the all-services rate
OEI-09-24-00331 (skilled nursing facilities) and OEI-09-24-00330 (long-term care hospitals and inpatient rehabilitation facilities), completed 8 June 2026, posted 11 June 2026
· verified
What happenedReviewing June 2024 data from the 19 largest Medicare Advantage organizations, OIG found 12 percent of SNF admission requests denied, with plan-level rates from 0.4 to 23 percent; 18 percent of SNF denials were appealed, and 95 percent of appealed denials were overturned in the enrollee's favour. Denial rates reached 65 percent for long-term care hospital requests and 54 percent for inpatient rehabilitation, with the three largest organizations among the highest.
What it changes for physiciansA 95 percent overturn rate is an argument about initial determinations, not about appeals working. For the discharging physician it means a denial of post-acute placement is worth appealing on the clinical record you already have, and that the delay itself — days in an acute bed — is the harm to document.
What it does not doAn audit finding is not an enforcement action and establishes no violation by any named plan. OIG's data cannot separate denials that should never have issued from approvals granted on later documentation.
PROPOSED REGULATIONPROPOSEDCalifornia · Office of Health Care Affordability (HCAI)
OHCA proposes the regulations that implement AB 1415's notice regime
Proposed revisions to the material change transaction and cost-and-market-impact-review regulations (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 22, div. 7, ch. 11.5), text dated May 2026, implementing AB 1415 (Ch. 641, Stats. 2025)
· verified
What happenedOHCA published proposed regulatory text for informal comment and accepted comments until 11 June 2026. The text extends the notice framework to noticing entities — private equity groups, hedge funds, newly created entities and certain management services organizations — and carries the 90-day advance filing requirement across to them. Until regulations are enacted, OHCA's own FAQ states that noticing entities must at a minimum provide written notice under Health and Safety Code section 127507(c)(2)(A).
What it changes for physiciansThis answers the question the statute left open on 1 January: an MSO transaction closing now is already inside the notice duty, and the interim standard is written notice rather than the full filing package. Waiting for final regulations is not a compliance position.
What it does not doProposed and, on the record read, not adopted. The definitions and ownership thresholds in the draft may change before adoption, and no compliance date attaches to the draft itself.
MHRA publishes the draft Medical Devices (Amendment) Regulations 2026 for Great Britain
Draft Medical Devices (Amendment) Regulations 2026, notified on the World Trade Organisation portal 8 May 2026; stakeholder impact survey closed 19 June 2026
· verified
What happenedThe draft statutory instrument sets new pre-market requirements for medical devices and in vitro diagnostics entering the Great Britain market, replacing requirements carried over from the retained EU directives. MHRA invited comment from WTO members and, separately, from industry, approved bodies, healthcare providers and patients through a survey that closed at 23:59 on 19 June 2026.
What it changes for physiciansFor a clinician the consequence is downstream and practical: an instrument that changes classification and conformity assessment changes which devices and diagnostic software reach a British clinic, and on what evidence. Healthcare providers were named as consultees, which means the clinical view of a device's real-world performance was solicited at the drafting stage rather than after adoption.
What it does not doA draft statutory instrument. It creates no duty, and adoption requires Parliament; the timetable reported for adoption and entry into force is not part of the notified draft and is not verified here.
CIVIL SETTLEMENTCURRENTCalifornia · Attorney General
Aspen Dental settlement pairs corporate practice with a false-advertising count
California Attorney General settlement with Aspen Dental Management, Inc.
· verified
What happenedAnnounced 7 May 2026, joining a corporate-practice theory to an advertising claim.
What it changes for physiciansThe pairing matters more than either count alone: how a practice describes itself to patients becomes evidence about who actually controls it.
What it does not doNegotiated resolution, ordinarily without admission of liability.
REGULATIONEFFECTIVEEuropean Union · European Commission
Uniform procedural requirements imposed on notified bodies under MDR and IVDR
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/977 — uniform requirements for conformity assessment and notified bodies (MDR/IVDR, Annex VII), adopted May 2026
· verified
What happenedThe Implementing Regulation sets standardised procedural requirements for the conformity assessment activities of notified bodies under the Medical Devices Regulation and the In Vitro Diagnostic Regulation. It sits alongside, and is separate from, the Commission's targeted simplification proposal for MDR and IVDR published on 16 December 2025 (COM(2025) 1023 final), which remains in the ordinary legislative procedure before the Parliament and Council.
What it changes for physiciansCertification delay is the mechanism by which European device rules reach a clinic: a diagnostic or software device that cannot get through a notified body does not arrive. Standardising quotation, timeline and audit practice is aimed at that bottleneck, and it is in force now, unlike the larger revision.
What it does not doAn implementing regulation binds notified bodies, not clinicians, and it does not change the substantive safety and performance requirements of MDR or IVDR. The December 2025 simplification proposal is a proposal only; nothing in it applies. The exact adoption date within May 2026 is not verified here.
CMS proposes to extend electronic prior authorization to drugs
CMS-0062-P — Interoperability Standards and Prior Authorization for Drugs, published 14 April 2026
· verified
What happenedThe proposal would extend the framework built by CMS-0057-F to drugs under both the medical and pharmacy benefit, require impacted payers to report API endpoints and usage metrics, and adopt certain HL7 FHIR standards under HIPAA Administrative Simplification.
What it changes for physiciansDrug prior authorization is where most practices lose the most staff time. The proposal's usage-metric reporting is the part with teeth, because it makes plan behaviour comparable rather than anecdotal.
What it does not doProposed only; no duty arises from publication.
Health Canada publishes pre-market guidance for machine-learning-enabled medical devices
Health Canada, Pre-market guidance for machine learning-enabled medical devices (Class II–IV), April 2026
· verified
What happenedThe guidance sets Health Canada's expectations for machine-learning-enabled devices: the medical purpose must be stated for any Class II, III or IV device; predetermined change control plans provide a route to pre-authorise planned model changes that address a known risk; and manufacturers are expected to apply SGBA Plus, collecting and analysing disaggregated data on sub-populations across training, test and clinical data. Health Canada adopts the IMDRF terms and definitions for these devices.
What it changes for physiciansThe disaggregated-data expectation is the part a physician can use. A device authorised in Canada should be able to say how it performed in the populations a clinic actually serves, and the guidance makes that a documented submission element rather than a courtesy.
What it does not doGuidance states current thinking and is not binding law; it imposes no new statutory obligation and may be revised. Dated April 2026 on the departmental page; the exact publication day is not verified here.
AGENCY POSITIONCURRENTCalifornia · Attorney General / Court of Appeal
Attorney General files amicus brief on the power to replace a physician-owner
Amicus curiae brief of the California Attorney General, Art Center Holdings, Inc. v. WCE CA Art, LLC, No. B338625 (Cal. Ct. App., 2d Dist., Div. Three), filed 30 March 2026
· verified
Corrected 17 August 2026: filing date is 30 March 2026, previously recorded here as 1 March 2026. Verified to the Attorney General's own announcement.
What happenedThe Attorney General filed an amicus brief in an appeal from a 2024 Los Angeles Superior Court decision (No. 24SMCV01185) that had found the unlicensed practice of medicine where a management party held the discretion to move control of the practice from one physician to another of its choosing. The brief argues that a contractual right to replace a professional corporation's physician-owner gives the lay entity control over physician employment and, through it, the practice. The California Medical Association filed a competing brief on 15 April 2026 urging a facts-and-circumstances test rather than a categorical rule.
What it changes for physiciansThis is the view a practice will be litigating against, and it targets a clause that appears in a great many management agreements as boilerplate succession language.
What it does not doAn amicus position is persuasive, not binding, and two amici disagree on the standard. The appeal was pending on the record read; no appellate ruling has issued.
TGA guidance: AI is regulated by intended purpose, including generative clinical decision support
TGA guidance, Artificial intelligence (AI) and medical device software regulation, updated February 2026
· verified
What happenedThe guidance states that regulation is triggered by the manufacturer's intended purpose rather than by the presence of AI, and it names clinical decision support tools that use generative AI to give diagnostic or treatment recommendations as regulated devices. Devices must be included in the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods unless excluded or exempt, and synthetic data will generally not substitute for clinical data in meeting clinical evidence requirements.
What it changes for physiciansIntended purpose is the operative concept, so a tool marketed as an assistant is regulated on what it is for, not what it is called. Where a practice deploys a generative tool for a purpose outside its registered intended purpose, the guidance's own remedy is to cease supply or revise the purpose and re-submit — which makes off-label deployment the deploying organisation's exposure.
What it does not doGuidance interprets the Therapeutic Goods Act framework; it is not itself legislation. The exact date of the February 2026 update, and the listing of software as a medical device among the TGA's stated compliance priorities for 2026–2027, are not verified here.
ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENTCURRENTCalifornia · Department of Managed Health Care
DMHC fines Health Net plans $1.3 million for mishandling provider payment disputes
DMHC enforcement action announced 4 February 2026; Knox-Keene Act provider dispute resolution requirements
· verified
What happenedThe Department announced penalties totalling $1.3 million against Health Net plans for mishandling provider payment disputes.
What it changes for physiciansProvider dispute resolution has acknowledgment and resolution deadlines, and a plan's pattern of missing them is itself the violation — separate from whether any individual claim was payable. A practice that documents dispute dates is documenting the element the Department enforces on.
What it does not doA penalty against a plan resolves no individual dispute and makes no finding about any provider's billing. The per-plan allocation of the total was not read at source.
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026 extends Medicare telehealth flexibilities through 2027
H.R. 7148, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026 (119th Cong.), signed 3 February 2026
· verified
What happenedThe Act funds federal departments for the remainder of FY2026 and extends expiring programmes and authorities, including the Medicare telehealth flexibilities that had lapsed days earlier. The extension runs through 31 December 2027 and was applied retroactively across the gap.
What it changes for physiciansGeographic and originating-site relief, the expanded practitioner list, audio-only coverage and the deferral of the in-person requirement for tele-behavioural care all continue — but on a date certain, not permanently. Any 2028 schedule built on them is built on an authority that expires first.
What it does not doAn appropriations extension is not permanence. The same provisions have now lapsed and been restored twice in four months.
AUTHORITY LAPSEHISTORICALUnited States · Congress / CMS
Medicare telehealth flexibilities lapse for three days
Expiry of the extension enacted by the Continuing Appropriations, Agriculture, Legislative Branch, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Extensions Act, 2026 (H.R. 5371), signed 12 November 2025, which carried the flexibilities to 30 January 2026; gap closed retroactively by H.R. 7148
· verified
What happenedThe extension in force through 30 January 2026 expired, and the flexibilities lapsed until the 3 February 2026 Act restored them retroactively.
What it changes for physiciansClaims for services furnished in the gap were payable in the end, but only after the fact. The operational lesson is the one practices keep re-learning: hold rather than cancel, because a retroactive fix cannot recreate a cancelled appointment.
What it does not doRecorded as historical: accurate as of its date, superseded in effect by the 3 February statute. The pinpoint section designation within H.R. 5371 is not yet read to the enrolled text and remains in the queue; the date and the effect are verified.
ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENTCURRENTCalifornia · Department of Managed Health Care
DMHC fines Anthem Blue Cross $15 million over member-complaint failures
DMHC enforcement action announced 30 January 2026; Knox-Keene Act grievance and complaint requirements
· verified
What happenedThe Department announced a $15 million penalty against Anthem Blue Cross for what it described as longstanding and widespread failures in handling member complaints.
What it changes for physiciansIt is the largest California plan penalty of the year to date and it is about grievance handling, not medical necessity. Where a patient's grievance goes unanswered, the physician's clinical record is often the only contemporaneous account of the request — which is what makes the chart the evidence in a complaint case.
What it does not doAn administrative penalty is not a judicial finding and does not establish that any particular enrollee's care was wrongly denied.
Telemedicine prescribing of controlled substances continues through 2026, on a temporary rule
Fourth Temporary Extension of COVID-19 Telemedicine Flexibilities for Prescription of Controlled Medications, 90 FR (2025-24123), published 31 December 2025; effective 1 January 2026 through 31 December 2026
· verified
What happenedDEA, jointly with HHS, extended the pandemic-era telemedicine prescribing flexibilities for a fourth time. A DEA-registered practitioner may prescribe a Schedule II–V controlled substance following a telemedicine encounter without a prior in-person evaluation, provided the conditions in the temporary rule are met. HHS announced the extension on 2 January 2026 and stated that it buys time to finalise the proposed Special Registration for Telemedicine.
What it changes for physiciansThe date is the whole point: this authority ends on 31 December 2026, and it is the fourth time it has been extended by temporary rule rather than replaced by a permanent framework. A practice that treats tele-prescribing of controlled substances as settled policy is scheduling into an authority with a fixed expiry and no successor in force.
What it does not doA temporary rule. It changes nothing about the requirement that prescriptions issue for a legitimate medical purpose by a licensed practitioner in compliance with federal and state law, and it does not create the special registration that would replace it.
Prior-authorization decision timeframes and denial-reason duties begin
CMS-0057-F — Interoperability and Prior Authorization final rule
· verified
What happenedFrom 1 January 2026 impacted payers must meet decision timeframes and give specific denial reasons; the four required FHIR APIs follow on 1 January 2027.
What it changes for physiciansA denial without a specific reason is now a compliance failure as well as a clinical obstacle, which changes what a practice should demand in writing before starting an appeal.
What it does not doIn force for timeframes and denial reasons only; the API obligations are not yet due.
STATUTEEFFECTIVECalifornia · California Legislature / OHCA
AB 1415 takes effect: management organizations enter the pre-transaction notice regime
Assembly Bill 1415, Ch. 641, Stats. 2025, effective 1 January 2026
· verified
What happenedThe Office of Health Care Affordability's notice jurisdiction extends to management services organizations and similar entities, bringing transactions that previously sat outside the regime within it.
What it changes for physiciansDeal timelines lengthen for the entities most often used to assemble physician practices, and a transaction that was structured to avoid notice may no longer avoid it.
What it does not doIn force. Whether OHCA has adopted implementing regulations was not verified and is carried as an open item.
STATUTEEFFECTIVECalifornia · California Legislature
SB 351 takes effect: private-equity control of clinical judgment becomes a statutory violation
Senate Bill 351, Ch. 409, Stats. 2025, effective 1 January 2026
· verified
What happenedCalifornia codified its corporate-practice doctrine as applied to private-equity groups and hedge funds holding interests in physician and dental practices, drawing an express line around clinical decision-making, billing determinations and clinical staffing, with injunctive relief, equitable remedies and fees for the Attorney General.
What it changes for physiciansThe conduct is now named in statute rather than inferred from a line of authority, and the fee award changes enforcement economics. Read a management agreement for three powers specifically: override of a clinical decision, control of billing policy, and productivity-based staffing.
What it does not doIn force. Enforcement to date has proceeded by settlement, so no judicial construction of the new sections exists yet.
CY 2026 Physician Fee Schedule takes effect with two conversion factors
CY 2026 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule final rule, 90 FR (2025-19787), effective 1 January 2026
· verified
What happenedFor the first time Medicare pays under two conversion factors: $33.5675 for qualifying participants in advanced alternative payment models and $33.4009 for everyone else. The rule also applied an efficiency adjustment of −2.5 percent to the work RVUs of non-time-based services and made virtual direct supervision permanent.
What it changes for physiciansA headline increase and a code-level cut arrive together, so the net effect depends entirely on a practice's mix: procedural, non-time-based work absorbs the efficiency adjustment while time-based codes do not. The APM differential also converts model participation from a bonus question into a rate question.
What it does not doIn force. The 2.5 percent statutory increase inside the conversion factors is a one-year addition, not a new baseline.
Things a reader may assume changed in 2026, which did not. Each is verified to the instrument's own record, and each is a reason not to plan against a headline. As of .
PROPOSEDHIPAA Security Rule overhaul
The notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Federal Register on 6 January 2025 (comments closed 7 March 2025) has not been finalised. HHS states that while the rulemaking is under way, the current Security Rule remains in effect. Encryption of ePHI, multi-factor authentication and the other headline controls are proposals, not duties.
The Commission's simplification proposal of 16 December 2025 is before the Parliament and Council. Nothing in it — including the proposed treatment of AI-enabled devices under sectoral rules rather than the AI Act's high-risk regime — applies today.
The draft Medical Devices (Amendment) Regulations 2026 are a draft statutory instrument. UKCA and the existing recognition arrangements continue until Parliament acts.
Nothing below is asserted as fact. Eight are day-precision or pinpoint-citation gaps inside records that are otherwise verified; the rest are developments not yet read to their own document.
Pinpoint section designation within H.R. 5371 (Nov. 2025) for the 30 January 2026 telehealth expiry — date and effect verified, section number not yet read to the enrolled text.
Medi-Cal ORP enforcement commencement date (DHCS has not published a dated enforcement notice).
Medical Board of California August 2026 meeting agenda and any actions taken.
Individual Medical Board actions from 1 January 2026 onward — to be added as each is read to a Board-posted accusation or decision.
Exact publication dates: Health Canada MLMD guidance (April 2026) and TGA AI guidance update (February 2026).
MHRA February 2026 consultation on indefinite recognition of CE-marked devices (reported closing 10 April 2026) — not read to a GOV.UK source.
TGA listing of software as a medical device among 2026–2027 compliance priorities.
Canadian instruments reported alongside the MLMD guidance: Medical Devices Regulations amendments effective 1 January 2026, digital submission requirements, and terms-and-conditions guidance.
WHO: no publication dated within 1 January – 17 August 2026 was verified in this pass; the 2024–2025 large-multimodal-model guidance remains the current instrument.
Exact adoption date of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/977 (reported 4 May 2026).
Feedback-period dates for COM(2025) 1023 final (reported opening 7 January 2026, with rolling extension pending translations).
Timing of any HIPAA Security Rule final action — the OMB Unified Agenda entry (RIN 0945-AA22) has not been read at source.
Where these records live permanently
Enforcement Watch — the government-action records, classified by action type
Intelligence — the same developments put as questions a physician actually asks