HOSPITAL REGULATORY INTELLIGENCE: CROSS-STATE COMPARISON TABLES

Hospital Regulatory Intelligence: Cross‑State Comparison Tables

This section provides attorneys with a structured, state‑by‑state comparison of key hospital regulatory requirements across the United States. Each table highlights statutory and administrative obligations, enforcement mechanisms, reporting timelines, and strategic considerations that impact compliance, litigation, and operational risk. Use the navigation below to jump directly to a regulatory category.

Comparison Categories

Complaint Investigation Timelines

This table compares state requirements for how quickly hospital complaints must be investigated, including statutory deadlines, administrative rules, and enforcement expectations. Attorneys can use this to assess regulatory exposure, anticipate agency action, and evaluate compliance performance.

State Investigation Timeline Citation Attorney Notes
Alabama No specific statutory timeline exists for when ADPH must begin a hospital complaint investigation. Complaints are accepted and investigated through the ADPH Bureau of Health Provider Standards, but no “start within X days” requirement is codified. ADPH complaint process for acute care facilities; no statutory deadline published. The absence of a mandated start‑time allows flexibility but also creates ambiguity. Attorneys may scrutinize delays in cases involving patient harm or repeated complaints.
Alaska No statutory or regulatory timeline is published for initiating hospital complaint investigations. The Department accepts complaints and investigates as appropriate, but no fixed “within X days” requirement appears in accessible law. Complaint form protocols exist; no statutory timelines identified. Alaska’s lack of codified timing requirements means investigation speed depends on agency discretion, which may become relevant in oversight or enforcement challenges.
Arizona ADHS maintains a formal complaint investigation process, but no statutory deadline requiring initiation within a specific number of days for hospitals appears in publicly available regulations. Complaints are prioritized by severity. ADHS complaint process guidance (operational); no statutory timeline located. Because timelines are operational rather than statutory, attorneys may focus on whether prioritization decisions were reasonable given the complaint’s severity.
Arkansas No statutory or regulatory timeframe is specified for when hospital complaint investigations must begin. The Arkansas Department of Health handles complaints, but no mandated investigation‑start window is codified. Investigation timeframes appear to be agency policy rather than statutory requirement. The absence of a defined timeline may allow attorneys to question whether delays reflect inadequate oversight or inconsistent enforcement practices.
California Immediate jeopardy complaints must be investigated within 24 hours under statute. Non‑IJ complaints are prioritized, but the commonly cited 10‑working‑day timeframe comes from CDPH guidance rather than explicit statutory language. Statutory IJ requirement (24 hours); non‑IJ timing from CDPH enforcement guidance, not statute. California’s statutory IJ requirement creates a clear enforcement benchmark. For non‑IJ complaints, attorneys may distinguish between statutory obligations and agency guidance when evaluating delays.
Colorado Colorado law authorizes complaint investigations but does not impose a specific “within X days” statutory requirement for hospitals. Complaint response is prioritized based on risk rather than fixed deadlines. Investigation authority exists; no defined statutory deadline identified. Without a codified timeline, attorneys may focus on whether the Department’s prioritization and response were reasonable given the nature of the complaint.
Connecticut Connecticut statute authorizes hospital inspections and investigations but does not specify a required number of days to initiate a complaint investigation. Actions are based on severity and agency discretion. Statutory authority exists; no explicit timeline in accessible statute/regulation. Attorneys may highlight the absence of a mandated timeline when evaluating whether the state acted promptly in cases involving significant patient‑safety concerns.
Delaware Delaware law provides general authority to investigate hospital complaints, but no statutory or regulatory requirement was located that mandates a specific investigation‑start timeframe. Complaint authority exists; no explicit deadline identified. The lack of a codified timeline may allow attorneys to question whether delays undermine the intent of state oversight or patient‑safety protections.
Florida Florida law authorizes complaint investigations for hospitals, but no statutory requirement mandates that investigations begin within a specific number of days. The commonly cited “2 business days / 15 days” relates to hospital internal risk‑management reporting, not state complaint‑investigation start times. Hospital complaint authority exists; no statutory start‑time requirement in licensure chapter. Attorneys should distinguish between internal hospital reporting deadlines and state investigation requirements when assessing compliance or enforcement issues.
Georgia No fixed statutory or regulatory “start within X days” timeline identified for hospital complaint investigations. HFRD accepts complaints against licensed hospitals, and Georgia’s hospital rules allow the Department to initiate complaint investigations in response to reportable incidents, but no numeric start deadline is set. Georgia DCH/HFRD complaint intake process; hospital rules reference investigations but do not specify timing. Because Georgia provides authority without a defined start‑time, attorneys may focus on whether the Department’s prioritization and response were reasonable given the nature of the complaint or incident.
Hawaii No fixed statutory or regulatory “start within X days” timeline identified in publicly posted OHCA hospital complaint materials. Patients file complaints with the Hawaii DOH Office of Health Care Assurance, but the published forms and contact materials do not state a numeric investigation‑initiation deadline. Hawaii DOH OHCA complaint form and contact materials; no stated timeline. Hawaii’s lack of a published timeline means investigation speed depends on OHCA prioritization, which may be relevant when evaluating state responsiveness in patient‑safety matters.
Idaho No fixed state “start within X days” timeline identified for initiation of hospital complaint investigations. Idaho hospital licensure rules require hospitals to maintain a grievance process that is “prompt” and includes its own time frames, but this does not impose a statewide numeric deadline for state investigations. Idaho hospital grievance rule requiring hospitals to specify time frames; no state investigation timeline located. Idaho’s reliance on hospital‑level grievance timelines rather than state‑mandated investigation clocks may affect how attorneys assess facility responsiveness versus state oversight obligations.
Illinois IDPH investigates hospital complaints on a priority basis. Public guidance states that investigation duration may range from days or weeks to months. No fixed “start within X days” timeline is stated for hospitals. Long‑term‑care complaint timelines do not apply to hospitals. IDPH “File a Health Care Complaint” guidance; Hospital Licensing Act page does not establish a complaint‑start clock. Because Illinois uses priority‑based initiation rather than a statutory deadline, attorneys may examine whether the assigned priority level aligned with the seriousness of the allegation.
Indiana Indiana regulations require the division to investigate all complaints under its jurisdiction and to assign priority according to division policy. Timing and immediacy depend on priority rather than a fixed statutory number of days. 410 IAC 15‑1.3‑4 (complaints investigated; priority dictates immediacy). Indiana’s priority‑driven model allows attorneys to evaluate whether the state’s urgency classification was appropriate given the nature of the complaint.
Iowa Iowa’s hospital‑related chapters confirm complaint‑investigation authority, but no hospital‑specific “initiate within X days” timeline was located. Numeric timeframes identified in Iowa Admin. Code r. 481‑50.11 apply to nursing facilities and related settings, not hospitals. Iowa Code hospital inspection/complaint authority; 481‑50.11 timelines apply to 135C facilities, not hospitals. Attorneys should distinguish between Iowa’s detailed LTC timelines and the more flexible hospital framework when assessing state responsiveness.
Kansas Kansas materials indicate that the State Survey Agency investigates certain complaints (including EMTALA‑related matters), but public KDHE complaint guidance does not specify a fixed “start within X days” timeline for hospital complaint investigations. KDHE complaint hotline guidance; investigation occurs but no numeric start deadline stated. Kansas’s absence of a published timeline means attorneys may focus on whether the state’s response time was reasonable given the nature of the allegation.
Kentucky Kentucky’s regulation for deemed hospitals requires an investigation when the agency receives a complaint or becomes aware of potential noncompliance, and investigations are unannounced. The regulation does not set a numeric “start within X days” deadline. 906 KAR 1:140 (complaint investigation for deemed hospitals; no timeframe specified). Because Kentucky mandates investigation without specifying timing, attorneys may evaluate whether the state acted promptly relative to the seriousness of the allegation.
Louisiana Louisiana law sets explicit complaint‑investigation timing requirements: (1) if the office determines grounds do not exist, it must notify the complainant within 15 work days; (2) if grounds exist, the office shall investigate within 30 days of receipt; (3) results must be communicated within 30 working days after completion of the investigation. La. R.S. 40:2009.14; LDH‑HSS complaint FAQ referencing statutory timelines and the 120‑day outdated‑report concept. Louisiana’s statutory deadlines provide clear benchmarks for evaluating state responsiveness and may be leveraged in oversight or enforcement disputes when timelines are not met.
Maine Maine’s hospital complaint investigation rule requires the hospital to complete its investigation and submit a report to the Department within 45 days. 10-144 C.M.R. ch. 112, §4 (Complaint investigation). Maine provides a clear, enforceable 45‑day facility investigation/reporting requirement, which can be used as a compliance benchmark in disputes involving delayed internal investigations.
Maryland OHCQ oversees hospital complaint investigations, but no publicly stated fixed “initiate within X days” deadline was identified in reviewed materials. MDH/OHCQ Hospitals page (complaint investigations included; no timing stated). Maryland’s absence of a published initiation deadline means investigation timing depends on OHCQ prioritization, which may be relevant in oversight or enforcement challenges.
Massachusetts MA DPH accepts hospital complaints and notes it is generally unable to investigate events older than 12 months. No fixed “start within X days” deadline is stated on the public complaint page. Mass.gov “File a complaint regarding a hospital.” Massachusetts provides a clear 12‑month lookback limit, which may affect case viability and complaint strategy even without a defined initiation clock.
Michigan Public materials primarily address administrative/professional complaints and a 12‑month filing window for certain complaints. No hospital‑specific “initiate within X days” investigation timeline was located in official sources reviewed. Michigan LARA complaint process page; Michigan Admin Code (12‑month filing rule for certain complaints). Michigan’s complaint framework emphasizes filing windows rather than investigation‑start deadlines, which may shape expectations in hospital‑related disputes.
Minnesota Minnesota MDH (Office of Health Facility Complaints) states urgent health or safety issues are investigated within two business days. MDH: “Investigating a Report or a Complaint Filed with the Office of Health Facility Complaints.” Minnesota provides a clear two‑business‑day response for urgent complaints, offering a concrete benchmark for evaluating state responsiveness in high‑risk cases.
Mississippi MSDH states that investigation response and timing depend on the information provided; no fixed initiation deadline is published. MSDH “Complaints” page. Mississippi’s triage‑based approach means attorneys may focus on whether the state’s prioritization aligned with the seriousness of the allegation.
Missouri Missouri’s “within 24 hours” language applies to facility self‑reporting of incidents, not state complaint‑investigation initiation. No clear publicly stated agency initiation deadline was identified. MO DHSS “Complaints Regarding Missouri Hospitals” (self‑report guidance). Missouri emphasizes prompt facility self‑reporting; attorneys should distinguish this from state investigation timing, which is not fixed in public materials.
Montana Montana provides a mechanism to file facility complaints, but no fixed “initiate within X days” hospital investigation timeline was identified in public complaint‑intake materials reviewed. MT DPHHS QAD complaint intake page. Montana’s lack of a published initiation deadline means investigation timing depends on agency prioritization and available information.
Nebraska Nebraska hospital regulations require facilities to investigate suspected abuse/neglect/exploitation and submit a written report to the Department within 5 working days. This is a facility‑side requirement, not a state complaint‑investigation start deadline. 175 Neb. Admin. Code ch. 9, §006.17(B). Nebraska’s 5‑day facility reporting requirement provides a clear compliance clock for internal investigations, even though state initiation timing is not specified.
New Hampshire NH hospital rules require the Department to investigate complaints against licensed (non‑CMS‑certified) hospitals when sufficient specific information is provided, but no fixed “initiate within X days” timeline appears in the surfaced rule text. NH DHHS hospital rules (He‑P 802, “Rules for Hospitals”). New Hampshire’s threshold‑based investigation requirement may be relevant when evaluating whether the Department had adequate information to act promptly.
New Jersey NJ DOH provides a 24‑hour complaint hotline and describes investigation methods, but does not publish a fixed “initiate within X days” requirement for hospital complaints in reviewed materials. NJ DOH Health Facilities complaint hotline page; NJ DOH enforcement actions page. New Jersey’s hotline and enforcement framework emphasize access and process rather than fixed initiation deadlines, which may shape expectations in oversight disputes.
New Mexico New Mexico DOH provides hospital complaint forms and references a “five‑day follow‑up report” form, but no clear statutory or regulatory “initiate within X days” requirement for hospital complaint investigations was identified. NM HCA/DOH Division of Health Improvement complaint forms/resources. New Mexico’s available materials emphasize facility follow‑up reporting rather than state investigation‑start deadlines.
New York NYS DOH hospital complaint form states that DOH investigates hospital complaints and generally only considers complaints concerning issues within the past year. No fixed initiation deadline is stated. NYS DOH facility complaint form (hospitals/D&TCs). New York’s one‑year scope constraint may affect complaint viability even without a defined investigation‑start clock.
North Carolina NC DHHS/DHSR provides hospital complaint intake and contact pathways, but no fixed “initiate within X days” requirement is stated in the reviewed materials. NC DHSR Complaint Intake page. North Carolina’s framework emphasizes intake and triage rather than fixed initiation deadlines, which may influence expectations in enforcement contexts.
North Dakota No hospital‑specific public timeline requirement for state investigation initiation was identified in the sources surfaced in this pass. No hospital‑specific timing source identified in this pass. North Dakota’s lack of publicly stated hospital investigation timing may require direct agency inquiry for case‑specific expectations.
Ohio Ohio receives and investigates complaints against healthcare facilities, but no fixed “initiate within X days” timeline for hospitals is stated on the public complaint page reviewed. Ohio Department of Health – Complaints page. Ohio’s general complaint framework does not distinguish hospital initiation deadlines, which may affect expectations in hospital‑specific disputes.
Oklahoma Oklahoma complaint materials surfaced focus on other regulated entities; the Medical Facilities Division FAQ provides contact/status guidance but no fixed hospital investigation‑start timeline. Oklahoma Medical Facilities Division FAQ (complaints). Oklahoma’s available materials emphasize communication and status checks rather than fixed initiation deadlines for hospital complaints.
Oregon Oregon’s hospital staffing complaint framework includes a stated timeline: OHA conducts an investigation within 80 days. This applies specifically to staffing‑law complaints, not all hospital care complaints. Oregon Health Authority – Hospital Staffing complaints/investigations. Oregon’s 80‑day staffing‑law investigation clock provides a clear timeline for that category of complaints, though it does not govern all hospital complaint types.
Pennsylvania No Pennsylvania Department of Health hospital complaint‑investigation “initiate within X days” rule was identified in the surfaced sources; several complaint rules that appear prominently apply to other domains, not hospital licensure investigations. PA Code excerpts surfaced are not hospital complaint‑investigation timelines. Pennsylvania’s lack of a hospital‑specific initiation deadline may require case‑specific inquiry or reliance on general oversight authority.
Rhode Island RIDOH provides complaint pathways and notes investigations can take months; no hospital‑specific state complaint‑investigation initiation deadline was identified in reviewed materials. RIDOH Licensee complaints page; RIDOH referenced in hospital patient rights materials. Rhode Island’s general complaint‑processing framework emphasizes duration rather than initiation timing, which may influence expectations in hospital‑related matters.
South Carolina No fixed public “start within X days” timeline is stated on SC DPH’s health facility complaint intake page for hospitals. SC’s reporting grid requires facility allegations under SSA 1150B to be investigated and reported to Certification within 5 working days after the initial 2‑hour/24‑hour report; this is an allegation‑handling timeline, not a general state complaint‑initiation deadline. SC DPH Health Facility Complaint intake (no numeric initiation deadline); SC DPH Reporting Grid (5‑day allegation‑handling timeline). South Carolina separates facility allegation‑handling timelines from state complaint initiation, which may matter when evaluating compliance versus oversight expectations.
South Dakota Complaints are investigated within a timeframe consistent with the seriousness of the allegations; no fixed “initiate within X days” deadline is published for hospitals. SD DOH Health Facility Complaints page. South Dakota uses a severity‑based triage model, making prioritization central to evaluating state responsiveness.
Tennessee Tennessee provides a complaint intake process for health care facilities, but the public intake page does not state a fixed investigation‑initiation deadline for hospitals. TN Health Facilities Commission complaint intake page (no numeric initiation timeline stated). Tennessee’s framework emphasizes intake and review rather than fixed initiation deadlines, which may shape expectations in hospital‑related matters.
Texas HHSC accepts complaints against regulated health care facilities, including hospitals, but does not publish a fixed “initiate within X days” timeline for hospital complaint investigations. Timelines for other license types do not apply to hospitals. HHSC “File a Complaint Against a Health Facility…” (no numeric initiation deadline stated). Texas requires distinguishing hospital complaint processes from timelines applicable to other license categories to avoid misapplication.
Utah Utah hospitals direct patients to the Utah Bureau of Health Facility Licensing and Certification to file complaints; no fixed initiation timeline is stated in the public‑facing materials located. Utah patient‑rights page referencing the Utah Bureau of Health Facility Licensing and Certification (no timing clock stated). Utah’s complaint process emphasizes access and routing rather than fixed initiation deadlines, which may affect expectations in enforcement contexts.
Vermont CMS confirms that State Survey Agencies investigate quality‑of‑care complaints for health care facilities, and Vermont is included in the SSA directory; no Vermont‑specific “initiate within X days” hospital timeline is published in the directory itself. CMS “Contact Information for State Survey Agencies” (Vermont included; no timing clock provided). Vermont relies on federal SSA processes without publishing a state‑specific initiation deadline, which may require case‑specific inquiry.
Virginia VDH Office of Licensure and Certification handles hospital facility complaints; the public complaint portal does not publish a fixed investigation‑initiation deadline for hospitals. VDH “File a Complaint” portal; VDH contact confirmation via DHP FAQ (hospital complaints directed to VDH OLC). Virginia’s framework emphasizes routing and oversight authority rather than fixed initiation deadlines, which may influence expectations in disputes.
Washington WA DOH hospital complaint process guidance states that timelines vary by complexity; investigations can take a few weeks to six months or more. This is a duration estimate, not a fixed initiation deadline. WA DOH “Complaint Process – Hospitals and Hospital Staffing” (timeline variability; duration estimate). Washington provides duration expectations rather than initiation deadlines, which may be relevant when evaluating state responsiveness.
West Virginia OHFLAC reviews and prioritizes complaints based on actual or potential harm; investigations may be onsite or offsite. No fixed initiation deadline is published for hospitals. WV OHFLAC complaint process (prioritization; no fixed initiation clock stated). West Virginia’s harm‑based prioritization model may influence how attorneys assess the adequacy of state response in hospital‑related matters.
Wisconsin Wisconsin DQA receives and investigates complaints for regulated entities, including hospitals, but the public guidance reviewed does not publish a fixed “initiate within X days” hospital timeline. WI DHS Survey Guide (complaint surveys; no numeric initiation clock); WI DHS complaint guidance hub (process; no fixed hospital initiation clock). Wisconsin’s framework emphasizes process and survey authority rather than fixed initiation deadlines, which may shape expectations in disputes.
Wyoming Wyoming publishes explicit complaint‑investigation timeframes: immediate jeopardy complaints are investigated within 2 working days; “higher‑level actual harm” complaints within 2–10 working days; and most complaints within 60 working days. WY Department of Health “Complaints” page (explicit investigation timeframes). Wyoming’s published timelines provide clear, enforceable benchmarks for evaluating state responsiveness across complaint severity levels.

Table 2B — Category 1: Hospital Adverse Event / SRE Reporting

Mandatory reporting requirements for hospital adverse events vary significantly across states. The table below provides a structured, state-by-state comparison of reporting triggers, responsible reporters, timelines, agencies, citations, and strategic notes for attorneys.

State Reportable Event / Trigger Who Must Report Reporting Deadline Reporting Destination Citation Attorney Notes / Leverage
Alabama No statewide mandatory hospital adverse-event reporting system identified in OIG’s 2008 inventory (verify whether enacted/changed since 2008). N/A (for this specific adverse-event-system category). N/A N/A Source Even without a statewide adverse-event system, hospitals may have other mandatory reporting duties (e.g., child abuse, communicable diseases, weapon injuries) and federal/contractual reporting obligations.
Back to top
Alaska No statewide mandatory hospital adverse-event reporting system identified in OIG’s 2008 inventory (verify whether enacted/changed since 2008). N/A (for this specific adverse-event-system category). N/A N/A Source Even without a statewide adverse-event system, hospitals may have other mandatory mandatory reporting duties and federal/contractual obligations.
Back to top
Arizona No statewide mandatory hospital adverse-event reporting system identified in OIG’s 2008 inventory (verify whether enacted/changed since 2008). N/A (for this specific adverse-event-system category). N/A N/A Source Even without a statewide adverse-event system, hospitals may have other mandatory reporting duties and federal/contractual obligations.
Back to top
Arkansas No statewide mandatory hospital adverse-event reporting system identified in OIG’s 2008 inventory (verify whether enacted/changed since 2008). N/A (for this specific adverse-event-system category). N/A N/A Source Even without a statewide adverse-event system, hospitals may have other mandatory reporting duties and federal/contractual obligations.
Back to top
California State-defined adverse events / serious reportable events (Modified NQF list approach per OIG; confirm current state list). Licensed hospitals (facility reporting obligation; confirm in state statute/rule). Varies by state system (confirm in controlling statute/regulation/program manual). California Department of Public Health (Office of Licensing & Certification) Source Mandatory reporting creates an external audit trail. Non-reporting or late reporting can support regulatory-noncompliance arguments and targeted discovery (incident logs, RCA/CAP timing).
Back to top
Colorado State-defined adverse events / serious reportable events (State determined list approach per OIG; confirm current state list). Licensed hospitals (facility reporting obligation; confirm in state statute/rule). Varies by state system (confirm in controlling statute/regulation/program manual). Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment (Health Facilities & EMS Division) Source Mandatory reporting creates an external audit trail. Non-reporting or late reporting can support regulatory-noncompliance arguments and targeted discovery (incident logs, RCA/CAP timing).
Back to top
Connecticut State-defined adverse events / serious reportable events (Modified NQF list approach per OIG; confirm current state list). Licensed hospitals (facility reporting obligation; confirm in state statute/rule). Varies by state system (confirm in controlling statute/regulation/program manual). Connecticut Department of Public Health Source Mandatory reporting creates an external audit trail. Non-reporting or late reporting can support regulatory-noncompliance arguments and targeted discovery (incident logs, RCA/CAP timing).
Back to top
Delaware No statewide mandatory hospital adverse-event reporting system identified in OIG’s 2008 inventory (verify whether enacted/changed since 2008). N/A (for this specific adverse-event-system category). N/A N/A Source Even without a statewide adverse-event system, hospitals may have other mandatory reporting duties and federal/contractual obligations.
Back to top
District of Columbia State-defined adverse events / serious reportable events (Modified NQF list approach per OIG; confirm current state list). Licensed hospitals (facility reporting obligation; confirm in state statute/rule). Varies by state system (confirm in controlling statute/regulation/program manual). DC Health Regulation and Licensing Administration Source Mandatory reporting creates an external audit trail. Non-reporting or late reporting can support regulatory-noncompliance arguments and targeted discovery (incident logs, RCA/CAP timing).
Back to top
Florida State-defined adverse events / serious reportable events (State determined list approach per OIG; confirm current state list). Licensed hospitals (facility reporting obligation; confirm in state statute/rule). Varies by state system (confirm in controlling statute/regulation/program manual). Florida Agency for Health Care Administration Source Mandatory reporting creates an external audit trail. Non-reporting or late reporting can support regulatory-noncompliance arguments and targeted discovery (incident logs, RCA/CAP timing).
Back to top
Georgia State-defined adverse events / serious reportable events (State determined list approach per OIG; confirm current state list). Licensed hospitals (facility reporting obligation; confirm in state statute/rule). Varies by state system (confirm in controlling statute/regulation/program manual). Georgia Department of Human Resources (Office of Regulatory Services) Source Mandatory reporting creates an external audit trail. Non-reporting or late reporting can support regulatory-noncompliance arguments and targeted discovery (incident logs, RCA/CAP timing).
Back to top
Idaho No statewide mandatory hospital adverse-event reporting system identified in OIG’s 2008 inventory (verify whether enacted/changed since 2008). N/A (for this category) N/A N/A Source Even without a statewide adverse-event system, hospitals may have other mandatory reporting duties and federal/contractual obligations.
Back to top
Illinois State-defined adverse events / serious reportable events (State determined list approach per OIG; confirm current state list). Licensed hospitals (facility reporting obligation; confirm in state statute/rule). Varies by state system (confirm in controlling statute/regulation/program manual). Illinois Department of Public Health Source Mandatory reporting creates an external audit trail. Non-reporting or late reporting can support regulatory-noncompliance arguments and targeted discovery (incident logs, RCA/CAP timing).
Back to top
Indiana State-defined adverse events / serious reportable events (State determined list approach per OIG; confirm current state list). Licensed hospitals (facility reporting obligation; confirm in state statute/rule). Varies by state system (confirm in controlling statute/regulation/program manual). Indiana State Department of Health Source Mandatory reporting creates an external audit trail. Non-reporting or late reporting can support regulatory-noncompliance arguments and targeted discovery (incident logs, RCA/CAP timing).
Back to top
Iowa State-defined adverse events / serious reportable events (State determined list approach per OIG; confirm current state list). Licensed hospitals (facility reporting obligation; confirm in state statute/rule). Varies by state system (confirm in controlling statute/regulation/program manual). Iowa Department of Inspections & Appeals Source Mandatory reporting creates an external audit trail. Non-reporting or late reporting can support regulatory-noncompliance arguments and targeted discovery (incident logs, RCA/CAP timing).
Back to top
Kansas No statewide mandatory hospital adverse-event reporting system identified in OIG’s 2008 inventory (verify whether enacted/changed since 2008). N/A (for this specific adverse-event-system category). N/A N/A Source Even without a statewide adverse-event system, hospitals may have other mandatory reporting duties and federal/contractual obligations.
Back to top
Kentucky State-defined adverse events / serious reportable events (State determined list approach per OIG; confirm current state list). Licensed hospitals (facility reporting obligation; confirm in state statute/rule). Varies by state system (confirm in controlling statute/regulation/program manual). Kentucky Cabinet for Health & Family Services Source Mandatory reporting creates an external audit trail. Non-reporting or late reporting can support regulatory-noncompliance arguments and targeted discovery (incident logs, RCA/CAP timing).
Back to top
Louisiana State-defined adverse events / serious reportable events (State determined list approach per OIG; confirm current state list). Licensed hospitals (facility reporting obligation; confirm in state statute/rule). Varies by state system (confirm in controlling statute/regulation/program manual). Louisiana Department of Health Source Mandatory reporting creates an external audit trail. Non-reporting or late reporting can support regulatory-noncompliance arguments and targeted discovery (incident logs, RCA/CAP timing).
Back to top
Maine State-defined adverse events / serious reportable events (Modified NQF list approach per OIG; confirm current state list). Licensed hospitals (facility reporting obligation; confirm in state statute/rule). Varies by state system (confirm in controlling statute/regulation/program manual). Maine Department of Health & Human Services Source Mandatory reporting creates an external audit trail. Non-reporting or late reporting can support regulatory-noncompliance arguments and targeted discovery (incident logs, RCA/CAP timing).
Back to top
Maryland State-defined adverse events / serious reportable events (Modified NQF list approach per OIG; confirm current state list). Licensed hospitals (facility reporting obligation; confirm in state statute/rule). Varies by state system (confirm in controlling statute/regulation/program manual). Maryland Office of Health Care Quality Source Mandatory reporting creates an external audit trail. Non-reporting or late reporting can support regulatory-noncompliance arguments and targeted discovery (incident logs, RCA/CAP timing).
Back to top
Massachusetts State-defined adverse events / serious reportable events (Modified NQF list approach per OIG; confirm current state list). Licensed hospitals (facility reporting obligation; confirm in state statute/rule). Varies by state system (confirm in controlling statute/regulation/program manual). Massachusetts Department of Public Health Source Mandatory reporting creates an external audit trail. Non-reporting or late reporting can support regulatory-noncompliance arguments and targeted discovery (incident logs, RCA/CAP timing).
Back to top
Michigan State-defined adverse events / serious reportable events (State determined list approach per OIG; confirm current state list). Licensed hospitals (facility reporting obligation; confirm in state statute/rule). Varies by state system (confirm in controlling statute/regulation/program manual). Michigan Department of Licensing & Regulatory Affairs Source Mandatory reporting creates an external audit trail. Non-reporting or late reporting can support regulatory-noncompliance arguments and targeted discovery (incident logs, RCA/CAP timing).
Back to top
Minnesota State-defined adverse events / serious reportable events (Modified NQF list approach per OIG; confirm current state list). Licensed hospitals (facility reporting obligation; confirm in state statute/rule). Varies by state system (confirm in controlling statute/regulation/program manual). Minnesota Department of Health Source Mandatory reporting creates an external audit trail. Non-reporting or late reporting can support regulatory-noncompliance arguments and targeted discovery (incident logs, RCA/CAP timing).
Back to top
Mississippi No statewide mandatory hospital adverse-event reporting system identified in OIG’s 2008 inventory (verify whether enacted/changed since 2008). N/A (for this specific adverse-event-system category). N/A N/A Source Even without a statewide adverse-event system, hospitals may have other mandatory reporting duties and federal/contractual obligations.
Back to top
Missouri State-defined adverse events / serious reportable events (State determined list approach per OIG; confirm current state list). Licensed hospitals (facility reporting obligation; confirm in state statute/rule). Varies by state system (confirm in controlling statute/regulation/program manual). Missouri Department of Health & Senior Services Source Mandatory reporting creates an external audit trail. Non-reporting or late reporting can support regulatory-noncompliance arguments and targeted discovery (incident logs, RCA/CAP timing).
Back to top
Montana No statewide mandatory hospital adverse-event reporting system identified in OIG’s 2008 inventory (verify whether enacted/changed since 2008). N/A (for this specific adverse-event-system category). N/A N/A Source Even without a statewide adverse-event system, hospitals may have other mandatory reporting duties and federal/contractual obligations.
Back to top
Nebraska No statewide mandatory hospital adverse-event reporting system identified in OIG’s 2008 inventory (verify whether enacted/changed since 2008). N/A (for this specific adverse-event-system category). N/A N/A Source Even without a statewide adverse-event system, hospitals may have other mandatory reporting duties and federal/contractual obligations.
Back to top
Nevada State-defined adverse events / serious reportable events (State determined list approach per OIG; confirm current state list). Licensed hospitals (facility reporting obligation; confirm in state statute/rule). Varies by state system (confirm in controlling statute/regulation/program manual). Nevada Department of Health & Human Services Source Mandatory reporting creates an external audit trail. Non-reporting or late reporting can support regulatory-noncompliance arguments and targeted discovery (incident logs, RCA/CAP timing).
Back to top
New Hampshire State-defined adverse events / serious reportable events (Modified NQF list approach per OIG; confirm current state list). Licensed hospitals (facility reporting obligation; confirm in state statute/rule). Varies by state system (confirm in controlling statute/regulation/program manual). New Hampshire Department of Health & Human Services Source Mandatory reporting creates an external audit trail. Non-reporting or late reporting can support regulatory‑noncompliance arguments and targeted discovery (incident logs, RCA/CAP timing).
Back to top
New Jersey State-defined adverse events / serious reportable events (Modified NQF list approach per OIG; confirm current state list). Licensed hospitals (facility reporting obligation; confirm in state statute/rule). Varies by state system (confirm in controlling statute/regulation/program manual). New Jersey Department of Health Source Mandatory reporting creates an external audit trail. Non‑reporting or late reporting can support regulatory‑noncompliance arguments and targeted discovery (incident logs, RCA/CAP timing).
Back to top
New Mexico No statewide mandatory hospital adverse‑event reporting system identified in OIG’s 2008 inventory (verify whether enacted/changed since 2008). N/A (for this specific adverse‑event‑system category). N/A N/A Source Even without a statewide adverse‑event system, hospitals may have other mandatory reporting duties and federal/contractual obligations.
Back to top
New York State-defined adverse events / serious reportable events (Modified NQF list approach per OIG; confirm current state list). Licensed hospitals (facility reporting obligation; confirm in state statute/rule). Varies by state system (confirm in controlling statute/regulation/program manual). New York State Department of Health Source Mandatory reporting creates an external audit trail. Non‑reporting or late reporting can support regulatory‑noncompliance arguments and targeted discovery (incident logs, RCA/CAP timing).
Back to top
North Carolina State-defined adverse events / serious reportable events (State determined list approach per OIG; confirm current state list). Licensed hospitals (facility reporting obligation; confirm in state statute/rule). Varies by state system (confirm in controlling statute/regulation/program manual). North Carolina Department of Health & Human Services Source Mandatory reporting creates an external audit trail. Non‑reporting or late reporting can support regulatory‑noncompliance arguments and targeted discovery (incident logs, RCA/CAP timing).
Back to top
North Dakota No statewide mandatory hospital adverse‑event reporting system identified in OIG’s 2008 inventory (verify whether enacted/changed since 2008). N/A (for this specific adverse‑event‑system category). N/A N/A Source Even without a statewide adverse‑event system, hospitals may have other mandatory reporting duties and federal/contractual obligations.
Back to top
Ohio State-defined adverse events / serious reportable events (State determined list approach per OIG; confirm current state list). Licensed hospitals (facility reporting obligation; confirm in state statute/rule). Varies by state system (confirm in controlling statute/regulation/program manual). Ohio Department of Health Source Mandatory reporting creates an external audit trail. Non‑reporting or late reporting can support regulatory‑noncompliance arguments and targeted discovery (incident logs, RCA/CAP timing).
Back to top
Oklahoma No statewide mandatory hospital adverse‑event reporting system identified in OIG’s 2008 inventory (verify whether enacted/changed since 2008). N/A (for this specific adverse‑event‑system category). N/A N/A Source Even without a statewide adverse‑event system, hospitals may have other mandatory reporting duties and federal/contractual obligations.
Back to top
Oregon State-defined adverse events / serious reportable events (Modified NQF list approach per OIG; confirm current state list). Licensed hospitals (facility reporting obligation; confirm in state statute/rule). Varies by state system (confirm in controlling statute/regulation/program manual). Oregon Health Authority Source Mandatory reporting creates an external audit trail. Non‑reporting or late reporting can support regulatory‑noncompliance arguments and targeted discovery (incident logs, RCA/CAP timing).
Back to top
Pennsylvania State-defined adverse events / serious reportable events (Modified NQF list approach per OIG; confirm current state list). Licensed hospitals (facility reporting obligation; confirm in state statute/rule). Varies by state system (confirm in controlling statute/regulation/program manual). Pennsylvania Patient Safety Authority Source Mandatory reporting creates an external audit trail. Non‑reporting or late reporting can support regulatory‑noncompliance arguments and targeted discovery (incident logs, RCA/CAP timing).
Back to top
Rhode Island State-defined adverse events / serious reportable events (Modified NQF list approach per OIG; confirm current state list). Licensed hospitals (facility reporting obligation; confirm in state statute/rule). Varies by state system (confirm in controlling statute/regulation/program manual). Rhode Island Department of Health Source Mandatory reporting creates an external audit trail. Non‑reporting or late reporting can support regulatory‑noncompliance arguments and targeted discovery (incident logs, RCA/CAP timing).
Back to top
South Carolina No statewide mandatory hospital adverse‑event reporting system identified in OIG’s 2008 inventory (verify whether enacted/changed since 2008). N/A (for this specific adverse‑event‑system category). N/A N/A Source Even without a statewide adverse‑event system, hospitals may have other mandatory reporting duties and federal/contractual obligations.
Back to top
South Dakota No statewide mandatory hospital adverse‑event reporting system identified in OIG’s 2008 inventory (verify whether enacted/changed since 2008). N/A (for this specific adverse‑event‑system category). N/A N/A Source Even without a statewide adverse‑event system, hospitals may have other mandatory reporting duties and federal/contractual obligations.
Back to top
Tennessee State-defined adverse events / serious reportable events (State determined list approach per OIG; confirm current state list). Licensed hospitals (facility reporting obligation; confirm in state statute/rule). Varies by state system (confirm in controlling statute/regulation/program manual). Tennessee Department of Health Source Mandatory reporting creates an external audit trail. Non‑reporting or late reporting can support regulatory‑noncompliance arguments and targeted discovery (incident logs, RCA/CAP timing).
Back to top
Texas State-defined adverse events / serious reportable events (State determined list approach per OIG; confirm current state list). Licensed hospitals (facility reporting obligation; confirm in state statute/rule). Varies by state system (confirm in controlling statute/regulation/program manual). Texas Health & Human Services Commission Source Mandatory reporting creates an external audit trail. Non‑reporting or late reporting can support regulatory‑noncompliance arguments and targeted discovery (incident logs, RCA/CAP timing).
Back to top
Utah No statewide mandatory hospital adverse‑event reporting system identified in OIG’s 2008 inventory (verify whether enacted/changed since 2008). N/A (for this specific adverse‑event‑system category). N/A N/A Source Even without a statewide adverse‑event system, hospitals may have other mandatory reporting duties and federal/contractual obligations.
Back to top
Vermont State-defined adverse events / serious reportable events (Modified NQF list approach per OIG; confirm current state list). Licensed hospitals (facility reporting obligation; confirm in state statute/rule). Varies by state system (confirm in controlling statute/regulation/program manual). Vermont Department of Health Source Mandatory reporting creates an external audit trail. Non‑reporting or late reporting can support regulatory‑noncompliance arguments and targeted discovery (incident logs, RCA/CAP timing).
Back to top
Virginia State-defined adverse events / serious reportable events (State determined list approach per OIG; confirm current state list). Licensed hospitals (facility reporting obligation; confirm in state statute/rule). Varies by state system (confirm in controlling statute/regulation/program manual). Virginia Department of Health Source Mandatory reporting creates an external audit trail. Non‑reporting or late reporting can support regulatory‑noncompliance arguments and targeted discovery (incident logs, RCA/CAP timing).
Back to top
Washington State-defined adverse events / serious reportable events (Modified NQF list approach per OIG; confirm current state list). Licensed hospitals (facility reporting obligation; confirm in state statute/rule). Varies by state system (confirm in controlling statute/regulation/program manual). Washington State Department of Health Source Mandatory reporting creates an external audit trail. Non‑reporting or late reporting can support regulatory‑noncompliance arguments and targeted discovery (incident logs, RCA/CAP timing).
Back to top
West Virginia No statewide mandatory hospital adverse‑event reporting system identified in OIG’s 2008 inventory (verify whether enacted/changed since 2008). N/A (for this specific adverse‑event‑system category). N/A N/A Source Even without a statewide adverse‑event system, hospitals may have other mandatory reporting duties and federal/contractual obligations.
Back to top
Wisconsin State-defined adverse events / serious reportable events (Modified NQF list approach per OIG; confirm current state list). Licensed hospitals (facility reporting obligation; confirm in state statute/rule). Varies by state system (confirm in controlling statute/regulation/program manual). Wisconsin Department of Health Services Source Mandatory reporting creates an external audit trail. Non‑reporting or late reporting can support regulatory‑noncompliance arguments and targeted discovery (incident logs, RCA/CAP timing).
Back to top
Wyoming No statewide mandatory hospital adverse‑event reporting system identified in OIG’s 2008 inventory (verify whether enacted/changed since 2008). N/A (for this specific adverse‑event‑system category). N/A N/A Source Even without a statewide adverse‑event system, hospitals may have other mandatory reporting duties and federal/contractual obligations.
Back to top