Ownership / CPOM — by State
20 of 51 states restrict med-spa ownership to physicians (CPOM)
20 of the 51 US jurisdictions (50 states plus the District of Columbia) restrict med-spa ownership to physicians (CPOM); the remaining 31 do not. The table below gives each state's rule in its own words, with the statute or board rule it comes from.
Ownership / CPOM in all 51 US jurisdictions
| State | Ownership / CPOM |
|---|---|
| Alabama | Alabama does not enforce a strict corporate-practice-of-medicine ban at the operating-business level: a non-physician-owned business (general business corporation, LLC, MSO) may employ a licensed physician to provide medical services, provided the business exercises no control over the manner in which the physician delivers care and the physician retains independent, final authority over all medical judgment and treatment decisions. This 'employment model' was established by the joint Medical Licensure Commission / Alabama Board of Medical Examiners Declaratory Ruling of October 21 and 28, 1992 (In re Brookwood Health Services, Inc. and Brookwood Primary Care Centers, Inc., MLC/BME Ruling 2-1195), which held that a business corporation employing a licensed physician under those conditions does not commit unlicensed practice of medicine or illegal fee-splitting, and was reaffirmed November 6, 1995 in the Commission's Morpheus, Inc. ruling on the same facts. This is distinct from forming a medical professional corporation (PC) under the Alabama Professional Corporation Act: if the entity rendering medical services is itself organized as a PC, its stock may be issued or transferred only to 'qualified persons' -- individuals (or wholly physician/osteopath-owned partnerships, PCs, or LLCs) authorized by Alabama law to render the licensed professional service the PC was formed to provide (Ala. Code §§10A-4-3.01(a), 10A-4-1.03(6)). The Alabama Board of Medical Examiners' own rule for medical PCs requires compliance with that Act and explicitly imposes a physician/osteopath-shareholder requirement on foreign medical PCs practicing in Alabama (Ala. Admin. Code r. 540-X-9-.01(2), (7)(a)). |
| Alaska | Alaska does not recognize a corporate-practice-of-medicine doctrine; nothing in the Medical Practice Act (AS 08.64) bars a non-physician from owning a medical or med-spa business. If owners elect to form a professional corporation under Alaska's Professional Corporation Act (AS 10.45.050), all shareholders must be licensed in the same profession, but that entity form is optional and no statute mandates physician-only ownership of medical practices generally. Physician-only ownership is therefore not required. |
| Arizona | Arizona does not enforce a strict corporate practice of medicine doctrine. A.R.S. § 32-3230.01 expressly permits a licensed health professional to practice 'in any form of business entity in this state or as an employee of any form of business entity in this state,' so a med spa need not be physician-owned and non-licensees may own the business. (Two caveats: the Department of Health Services may still require a health-care-institution license for facilities not wholly owned by licensed professionals, and optometry has a separate profession-specific ownership restriction.) |
| Arkansas | By statute, only persons licensed under the Arkansas Medical Practices Act may form, own, or control a medical corporation or professional LLC that provides medical services: a medical corporation may be formed and staffed only by such licensees (A.C.A. § 4-29-305), all officers, directors, and shareholders must be so licensed, and no unlicensed person may participate in ownership, management, or control (A.C.A. § 4-29-307). The Board of Nursing's own overview notes the Nurse Practice Act is silent on entity ownership and that many Arkansas clinics are in fact owned and operated by APRNs, creating a documented regulatory gray area rather than clear permission. |
| California | California strictly enforces the corporate practice of medicine: corporations and unlicensed persons have no professional rights, privileges, or powers (BPC 2400), and a med spa offering medical procedures must be physician-owned. A professional medical corporation must be at least 51% owned by licensed physicians (remaining shares only to other licensed health professionals), so non-physician entrepreneurs typically use a management services organization (MSO) that contracts with the physician-owned corporation. |
| Colorado | Colorado follows the corporate practice of medicine doctrine. Under C.R.S. 12-240-138, a professional entity organized to practice medicine must be owned by Colorado-licensed physicians (physician assistants may be minority shareholders only if physicians retain majority ownership), and lay directors, officers, and heirs may not exercise any authority over a physician's independent medical judgment; the statute states plainly that 'corporations shall not practice medicine.' Med spas therefore commonly pair a physician-owned professional medical entity with a management services organization (MSO) that handles non-clinical business functions. |
| Connecticut | Connecticut has no med-spa-specific ownership rule, and § 19a-903c expressly lets an establishment 'employ or contract' the required provider, so a med spa is not required by statute to be physician-owned. However, only licensed persons may diagnose, treat, or prescribe (CGS § 20-9), and a professional corporation that renders medical services may have as shareholders only individuals licensed to render that same service (CGS § 33-182a), so an entity that itself practices medicine cannot be lay-owned; Connecticut's corporate-practice-of-medicine enforcement is generally regarded as moderate rather than strict. |
| Delaware | Delaware has no corporate-practice-of-medicine statute and no codified doctrine barring non-physician ownership of a medical practice or med spa; the Medical Practice Act (24 Del.C. Ch. 17) contains no ownership restriction. Non-physicians may own a med spa, but only appropriately licensed professionals may perform or supervise the medical services, and a lay owner cannot direct clinical judgment. No primary source establishes a physician-only ownership rule. |
| District of Columbia | The Board of Medicine's Aesthetic Medicine Policy defines a 'medical spa' as an entity that is owned by — or of which the majority of shares are held by — a physician(s) licensed in the District that provides aesthetic medical services. DC therefore effectively requires physician ownership/control of a med spa, though this appears in a Board policy that is expressly 'directive in nature and not mandatory' rather than in a codified corporate-practice-of-medicine statute. |
| Florida | Florida does not enforce a strict corporate-practice-of-medicine prohibition, so non-physicians may own a medical/aesthetic practice. The constraint is the Health Care Clinic Act: an entity that provides health-care services and tenders charges for reimbursement must hold a health care clinic license unless it is exempt as a sole proprietorship, group practice, partnership, or corporation wholly owned by one or more licensed health care practitioners (or a physician and immediate family) (400.9905); a non-exempt clinic must operate under a medical director (400.9935). |
| Georgia | Georgia has no med-spa-specific ownership statute and does not actively enforce a standalone corporate-practice-of-medicine ban (its former CPOM statute was repealed in 1982), so a non-physician may own the med-spa business entity — physician ownership is not strictly required. However, a professional corporation organized to render medical services may issue or transfer shares only to persons licensed to practice that profession (O.C.G.A. 14-7-5), and a physician may not be the employee of an APRN (or PA) he or she is required to supervise except in limited statutory settings (O.C.G.A. 43-34-25(n); Rule 360-32-.04(5)). The Board reads that employment bar broadly to reach any monetary or non-monetary compensation paid by an APRN or APRN-owned company for the supervising role, including third-party 'collaborating physician' matching arrangements. (The repeal/non-enforcement conclusion rests partly on secondary commentary; the cited sources establish the shareholder and supervision-employment constraints.) |
| Hawaii | Hawaii has no medical-spa ownership statute and does not codify a corporate-practice-of-medicine prohibition; the Medical Practice Act (HRS chapter 453) regulates who may practice medicine, not who may own a practice, so a non-physician may own a med spa. The only ownership restriction is optional and form-dependent: if the business is organized as a professional corporation under HRS chapter 415A, all shareholders must be licensed in the profession the corporation renders (HRS 415A-9); a med spa may instead operate as an ordinary business entity. |
| Idaho | Idaho does not impose a blanket physician-only ownership requirement on med-spa or medical businesses; the state has no codified corporate-practice-of-medicine (CPOM) statute. The Idaho Medical Practice Act (Title 54, Ch. 18) requires only that individuals who actually perform medical acts be licensed — its unlicensed-practice section, Idaho Code § 54-1804, addresses who may or may not personally engage in medical acts without a license, and neither that section nor any other section in Chapter 18 restricts who may own the business entity. In March 2016 the Idaho State Board of Medicine formally disavowed and rejected the corporate-practice-of-medicine doctrine — previously grounded only in the 1952 case Worlton v. Davis, never itself codified — declaring that it 'will not discipline physicians or physician assistants solely because they practice medicine in association with or for unlicensed entities or persons.' As a result, non-physicians and corporate/lay entities may lawfully own a med spa, provided medical services are actually delivered and supervised by appropriately licensed practitioners; physicians/PAs remain independently subject to discipline for aiding unlicensed practice or ceding control over medical judgment (Idaho Code § 54-1814). One narrow caveat: if a business voluntarily organizes AS an Idaho 'professional entity' — a professional corporation, PLLC, or PLLP formed under Idaho Code § 30-21-901 for the specific purpose of rendering a licensed professional service — ownership interests in that particular entity must be held by individuals licensed in the same profession. That restriction is elective, tied to the choice of entity type, and does not apply to med spas organized as ordinary corporations or LLCs that employ or contract with licensed medical staff — the structure the 2016 Board action was understood to clear the way for. |
| Illinois | Illinois aggressively enforces the corporate practice of medicine. A medspa must be owned and operated by physicians, and for services within their scope may be owned by APRNs; only physicians may organize under the Medical Corporation Act, and physicians or APRNs may organize under the Professional Service Corporation or Professional Limited Liability Company Acts. A person who is not a physician or an APRN cannot be a shareholder, member, officer, director, or manager, so laypersons are barred from ownership and may only provide non-clinical services through a management services organization (MSO). |
| Indiana | Indiana does not strictly prohibit corporate/non-physician ownership of a medical practice: IC 25-22.5-1-2 recognizes health care organizations and provides that an entity's employment of or contract with a licensed physician is not the unlawful practice of medicine so long as the entity does not direct or control the physician's independent medical acts, decisions, or judgment (IC 25-22.5-1-2(c)). SB 282 regulates med spas through registration and a responsible practitioner rather than by restricting ownership, and imposes no physician-ownership rule. |
| Iowa | Iowa does not require a medical spa to be physician-owned: rule 653—13.8 defines a medical spa as 'any entity, however organized,' requiring only a physician medical director, so non-physicians may own the spa entity. However, Iowa's corporate-practice-of-medicine framework (Iowa Code 496C.7) requires that a professional corporation which itself practices medicine act only through shareholders, directors, and officers licensed in that same profession, and non-physician owners may not control clinical medical judgment — so how the entity is structured matters. |
| Kansas | Kansas follows the corporate practice of medicine doctrine. K.S.A. 65-2867 makes it unlawful for any person who is not licensed under the Healing Arts Act to open or maintain an office for the practice of the healing arts, and the Professional Corporation Law (K.S.A. 17-2707) limits ownership of a professional corporation/LLC rendering healing-arts services to 'qualified persons' — natural persons licensed to practice that same profession (with narrow trust/retirement and healing-arts-school-clinic exceptions). A lay-owned general business entity therefore cannot own the medical practice or employ physicians to deliver medical services. |
| Kentucky | Kentucky has no med-spa ownership statute and no absolute physician-only ownership rule, but it recognizes a corporate-practice-of-medicine principle: neither a business nor a business owner may lawfully exercise control over the independent professional clinical judgment of a licensed healthcare professional, and only licensed practitioners may practice medicine. Because injectables, laser, and IV therapy are the practice of medicine, clinical decisions must rest with licensed practitioners (a physician, or an APRN/PA within their authority) rather than a lay owner directing care; professional-service-corporation ownership is generally restricted to licensees of the relevant profession. |
| Louisiana | Louisiana enforces a corporate-practice-of-medicine doctrine: a business corporation cannot itself practice medicine, and only a Professional Medical Corporation (owned and governed exclusively by physicians) is authorized to practice medicine. However, the LSBME's Dec 2024 position holds that a physician's employment by a non-professional corporation is not per se unlawful, provided the entity does not control or interfere with the physician's independent medical judgment — so lay/non-physician ownership of a med-spa entity is permissible with autonomy safeguards, and strict physician-only ownership is not required. |
| Maine | Maine does not enforce a strict corporate-practice-of-medicine doctrine, and no statute restricts ownership of a medical practice to licensed physicians only. The Maine Professional Service Corporation Act (13 MRS Ch. 22-A) is an optional form; where used, shares may be held by any 'qualified person,' defined to include individuals and entities authorized to provide the professional service, not physicians exclusively. |
| Maryland | Maryland enforces the corporate practice of medicine doctrine. Only an individual licensed by the Board may practice medicine in Maryland (Health Occ. §14-301), and a corporation may render professional (medical) services only through individuals licensed to render them (Corps. & Assns. §5-105); a lay corporation therefore cannot practice medicine or employ physicians to deliver clinical care, and a medical practice entity must be a physician-owned professional corporation (limited hospital/HMO exceptions aside). Ownership of the medical practice is effectively restricted to licensed physicians. |
| Massachusetts | Massachusetts enforces the corporate-practice-of-medicine doctrine. M.G.L. c. 156A §5 provides that a professional corporation may render professional services 'only through its officers, employees and agents who are duly licensed to render such professional services,' and 243 CMR 2.07(22) limits how a licensee may organize a practice (a PC under c. 156A, an LLC, a partnership, or a nonprofit). Ownership of a medical practice is therefore restricted to licensed clinicians — physicians for a medical professional corporation, and NPs with full practice authority for their own practices — rather than lay/corporate owners; it is not strictly physician-only. |
| Michigan | Michigan follows the corporate-practice-of-medicine doctrine. Under MCL 450.1284, a professional corporation providing a service subject to Article 15 of the Public Health Code must have every shareholder licensed to provide that same service — so a medical practice (and thus a med spa offering medical services) must be owned by physicians (MD/DO), with only limited co-ownership by other listed licensees such as physician's assistants (and only alongside a physician). Lay investors and unlicensed managers cannot hold equity; LARA's position statement confirms medical/laser services must be organized as a PC or PLLC. |
| Minnesota | Minnesota does not have a strict, codified corporate-practice-of-medicine ban requiring med spas to be physician-owned; only licensed individuals may actually practice medicine, but nothing in the Medical Practice Act flatly prohibits lay corporate ownership of the business. If the entity elects to organize as a professional firm under Chapter 319B, ownership interests are restricted to licensed professionals (or enumerated related holders such as other professional firms, partnerships, and certain trusts). Practically, the medical services themselves must be performed or supervised by appropriately licensed providers regardless of who owns the business. |
| Mississippi | Mississippi does not enforce a strict corporate-practice-of-medicine prohibition: MSBML Policy 3.02 states the Board will 'not concern itself with the form or type of business arrangements' a licensee enters, provided the physician retains sole and absolute discretion over patient treatment and medical judgment, controls billing/fees, and avoids kickbacks. However, per Miss. Code Ann. 79-10-31 a professional corporation rendering medical services may have only licensed physicians as shareholders, so while non-physician management/business structures are permitted, a lay person cannot own the medical professional corporation itself. |
| Missouri | Missouri does not enforce the corporate practice of medicine (CPOM) doctrine. RSMo section 334.010 (the Medical Practice Act) makes it unlawful only for a person who is not a registered physician to practice medicine or surgery; the statute's full text contains no restriction on who may own, invest in, or hold equity in an entity that employs or contracts with licensed physicians. Missouri courts settled this over a century ago: in State ex inf. Sager v. Lewin, 128 Mo. App. 149, 106 S.W. 581 (Mo. Ct. App. 1907), the St. Louis Court of Appeals held that a corporation could lawfully contract with and employ a licensed physician to furnish medical and surgical treatment, and that the fact the treating physician was also the corporation's principal stockholder and manager 'does not alter the legal status of the corporation or show it has violated the terms of its charter.' A 2024 Missouri State Medical Association journal analysis confirms this remains the law today, stating that 'Missouri currently lacks any restriction on the corporate practice of medicine' and that, as of 1967, Missouri and Nebraska were the only two states permitting it. Lay, corporate, or private-equity ownership of an entity that employs physicians (e.g., a med-spa) is therefore not barred by Missouri statute or case law. |
| Montana | Montana does not bar lay ownership of a medical spa — the Board of Barbers and Cosmetologists expressly states that 'a person not licensed by a professional licensing board may own a medical spa.' There is no strict corporate-practice-of-medicine ownership prohibition applied to med spas; the operative limits are that only appropriately licensed professionals may perform or supervise the medical services and that no one may impersonate or falsely advertise as a licensed physician or nurse. |
| Nebraska | Nebraska has no statute confining medical-entity or med-spa ownership to physicians alone, and Nebraska has never adopted a strict corporate-practice-of-medicine bar (an early Nebraska Supreme Court line of authority upheld corporations rendering medical services through duly licensed physicians under contract). Where the practice is organized under the Nebraska Professional Corporation Act, shareholders, directors, and officers must be 'duly licensed to render the same professional services as those for which the corporation was organized' (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 21-2216), but the Act defines 'professional service' so that 'those professions pertaining to the diagnosis, care, and treatment of humans shall be considered to be of the same profession' (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 21-2202(2)-(3)) -- meaning physicians and other human-treatment licensees, such as nurse practitioners, satisfy the same-profession requirement and may jointly own a professional corporation. (A Nebraska professional LLC organized under § 21-190 is separately limited to rendering only one type of professional service without that same-profession umbrella, so entity choice can affect multi-discipline ownership.) |
| Nevada | Nevada follows the corporate practice of medicine doctrine. A professional entity organized to practice medicine (NRS ch. 630/633) may issue ownership interests only to a natural person licensed to render that same professional service (NRS 89.070), and a medical professional entity may be composed only of licensed physicians and enumerated practitioners (NRS 89.050(2)(b)); a med spa practicing medicine must therefore be physician-owned, with non-physician capital typically entering through an MSO/management-services structure rather than ownership. |
| New Hampshire | New Hampshire has no codified corporate-practice-of-medicine prohibition; the Medical Practice Act (RSA 329) contains no restriction on non-physician or corporate ownership of a medical practice. Professional services may be delivered through a professional corporation organized under RSA 294-A, but the state does not require a med spa to be physician-owned. (Absence of a prohibiting statute is confirmed by the governing acts; confidence is medium because it rests on the absence of any CPOM statute rather than an affirmative permissive provision.) |
| New Jersey | New Jersey enforces a robust corporate-practice-of-medicine prohibition: under N.J.A.C. 13:35-6.16(f) a medical practice must be owned solely by licensed health care professionals, and in 2013 the Board of Medical Examiners denied a petition that would have let non-physician corporations employ physicians, reaffirming that non-licensees may not hold decision-making control over a medical practice. Lay or corporate ownership of a practice that provides medical (aesthetic) services is not permitted. |
| New Mexico | New Mexico does not enforce a corporate-practice-of-medicine doctrine. The Medical Practice Act contains no prohibition on non-physician or corporate ownership of a medical practice, and in the 2025 session the Legislature considered SB 450, a proposed 'Corporate Practice of Medicine Act' that would newly bar healthcare entities from interfering with providers' clinical judgment — confirming no such statute presently exists. Non-physicians (including lay owners and full-practice-authority APRNs) may therefore own a med spa, provided they do not control the professional judgment of licensed clinicians. |
| New York | New York enforces the corporate practice of medicine doctrine. A professional service corporation or PLLC that practices medicine may be organized and owned only by individuals licensed to render that professional service — i.e., licensed physicians — under Business Corporation Law §1503; lay individuals and ordinary business corporations may not own a medical practice or employ physicians to practice medicine, and permitting/aiding unlicensed practice is misconduct under Education Law §6530(11). There is no med-spa exception. |
| North Carolina | North Carolina enforces the corporate practice of medicine doctrine. Per the Medical Board, businesses practicing medicine must be owned in their entirety by holders of active NC licenses, and the owners must be Board licensees or one of the combinations permitted in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 55B-14; lay ownership of a medical practice can lead to discipline and injunctive relief. A med spa offering injectables/lasers (practice of medicine) must therefore be physician-owned. Limited nuance: § 55B-14 allows certain combinations of licensed professionals to co-own a professional corporation, and an APP-owned practice may not employ a physician to provide medical services (only to contract for supervision). |
| North Dakota | North Dakota follows the corporate-practice-of-medicine doctrine: a professional corporation, PLLC, or PLLP rendering a licensed service may have as owners only individuals licensed to render that same professional service (NDCC 10-31-01(7)-(9)), and medicine is not among the professions the statute authorizes to have non-licensed 'minority' owners (NDCC 10-31-04(3), limited to accountancy and architecture/engineering). Separately, only a licensed hospital, nonprofit entity, or charitable trust may employ a physician to practice medicine while preserving the physician's independent judgment (NDCC 43-17-42), and fee-splitting/kickbacks are grounds for discipline (NDCC 43-17-31(1)(r)) — so a lay-owned for-profit corporation cannot own a medical practice, though a PA or APRN may own an entity rendering their own scope of service. |
| Ohio | Ohio does not enforce a corporate-practice-of-medicine prohibition. ORC 4731.226 authorizes physicians to render professional services through corporations, LLCs, partnerships, professional associations, or other business entities, and permits multi-disciplinary entities co-owned by physicians and other listed licensed professionals (including nurses). Non-physicians may therefore own a med spa, provided the medical services are ordered and performed/delegated by appropriately licensed clinicians; the narrow exception is pain-management clinics, which must be physician-owned and are not med spas. |
| Oklahoma | Oklahoma has no enforced corporate-practice-of-medicine (CPOM) doctrine barring non-physician ownership of a med spa. 59 O.S. §510 requires firms/associations/corporations practicing medicine to report to the county clerk the names and addresses of physicians practicing under the entity's name, and provides that 'each and every member of such firm, association or corporation so practicing medicine and surgery thereunder' must be duly licensed — this licensure clause governs the members actually rendering medical care under the entity, not equity ownership of a management/holding company as such. Consistent with this, the Allopathic Act (59 O.S. §492(B)) lets a hospital or related institution employ licensed physicians without itself being deemed to practice medicine, and the Professional Entity Act (18 O.S. §801 et seq.) only imposes a physician-ownership rule on entities that voluntarily organize AS a 'professional entity': §810 requires every manager of such an entity to be duly licensed, and §811 provides a professional entity 'may render professional services in this state only through its owners, managers, employees and agents who are duly licensed.' Physicians are not required to use the professional-entity form — they may instead be employed by hospitals, LLCs, or other entities — so a med spa may lawfully use a non-physician-owned management/holding structure (MSO model) as long as clinical services are rendered by licensed practitioners and, if a 'professional entity' under Title 18 is used for the clinical side, its owners/managers rendering services are licensed. Oklahoma healthcare counsel (McAfee & Taft) states this directly: 'Oklahoma law does not prohibit the corporate practice of medicine.' |
| Oregon | Oregon follows the corporate-practice-of-medicine doctrine. In a professional corporation organized to practice medicine, Oregon-licensed physicians must hold the majority of each voting class of shares, be a majority of the directors, and hold all officer positions except secretary/treasurer (ORS 58.375). A parallel statute, ORS 58.376, lets physicians, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners jointly own a 'health care services' professional corporation, provided licensees (as defined to include those three roles) hold the majority of voting shares and a majority of directors; no employee or owner may direct or control a licensee's professional judgment. Senate Bill 951 (2025), signed into law June 9, 2025, further strengthens Oregon's CPOM doctrine by barring management services organizations (and their shareholders, directors, officers, and employees) from owning or controlling a majority interest in a professional medical entity they manage, from holding board seats or proxy votes over one, and from exercising 'de facto control' over its clinical or key business decisions. |
| Pennsylvania | Pennsylvania follows the corporate-practice-of-medicine doctrine: a business providing medical (including cosmetic-medical) services must be a professional entity owned by licensed practitioners, and lay individuals or ordinary corporations may neither own the medical practice nor control clinical decisions. Under 49 Pa. Code § 16.21 a physician may form a professional corporation only with other physicians or with other health-care practitioners who are independently licensed to provide the services without supervision or referral; non-clinical investors must use a management-services arrangement rather than ownership. |
| Rhode Island | Rhode Island's Medical Spas Safety Act (RIGL ch. 23-105) does not address ownership at all: § 23-105-1(8) merely defines 'medical spa' as 'a licensed establishment in which cosmetic medical procedures are performed' and is silent on who may own one. RI's actual ownership posture instead comes from the professional-service-corporation statute (RIGL ch. 7-5.1) and RIDOH licensing guidance, and it does NOT require physician-exclusive ownership. Under § 7-5.1-3, a professional service corporation may be owned by any combination of the professions enumerated in § 7-5.1-2 -- physicians, dentists, registered nurses, physician assistants, podiatrists, optometrists, chiropractic physicians, physical therapists, psychologists, and midwives/nurse-midwives -- provided every officer, director, and shareholder is a licensed individual actually practicing in the corporation. Per RIDOH guidance, forming such a PSC can exempt a medical spa from needing a separate organized ambulatory care facility (OACF) license, but only if at least one PSC owner is licensed to actually perform the services offered (e.g., a PSC composed only of nurses offering Botox would not qualify for the exemption, since RNs cannot examine, diagnose, prescribe, or administer Botox -- the PSC would need a physician, PA, or CNP owner). An unlicensed owner, or a PSC lacking a qualified performer-owner, must instead hold an OACF license. Regardless of ownership structure, neither the business nor its owner may exercise control over the manner in which the physician, PA, or CNP provides medical services or interfere with the practitioner's independent medical judgment, and 'leasing' a PSC to a management company that actually runs the business triggers OACF licensure and possible discipline against the PSC members' licenses. (A bill introduced in the January 2026 session would newly impose an affirmative physician-ownership/majority-control mandate and ban unlicensed ownership outright; as of this review that bill has not been enacted and does not reflect current law.) |
| South Carolina | South Carolina does enforce a corporate-practice-of-medicine (CPOM) restriction — the flagged record's 'no strong CPOM prohibition / lay ownership permitted' framing is wrong. The restriction rests on common law rather than a single statute named 'CPOM,' but it is well established: the SC Supreme Court has repeatedly held a corporation or business entity cannot practice medicine merely by employing licensed practitioners, because a licensed professional 'cannot properly act in the practice of his vocation as an agent of a corporation or business partnership whose interests in the very nature of the case are commercial in character' (Ezell v. Ritholz, 188 S.C. 39, 198 S.E. 419, 424 (1938)); see also Wadsworth v. McRae Drug Co., 203 S.C. 543, 28 S.E.2d 417 (1943); McMillan v. Durant, 312 S.C. 200, 439 S.E.2d 829 (1993). Baird v. Charleston County, 333 S.C. 519, 511 S.E.2d 69 (S.C. 1999), reaffirms flatly that 'South Carolina has a common law prohibition against the corporate practice of medicine,' citing all three cases. The Medical Practice Act backs this with a criminal penalty: unlicensed practice of medicine is a misdemeanor, and 'the provisions of this chapter apply to a person or entity aiding and abetting in a violation of this chapter' (S.C. Code Ann. § 40-47-200, Title 40, Ch. 47). Statutorily, a medical practice organized as a corporation must be formed as a Professional Corporation under the SC Professional Corporation Supplement, and a PC rendering a licensed 'professional service' may issue shares only to individuals licensed to render that service, partnerships composed of qualified/licensed persons, or other qualifying PCs — not to lay individuals or ordinary business entities (S.C. Code Ann. §§ 33-19-103, 33-19-200, Title 33, Ch. 19). The cited IV-therapy joint advisory opinion does not authorize lay/entity ownership; read in full, it flags 'business entities that are not owned by physicians, [PAs], or [APRNs]' operating retail IV clinics as the very compliance problem the opinion is addressing, and it reiterates that no business or business owner may control the licensed practitioner's independent medical judgment. Non-physician investors in SC med spas typically participate only through a management-services-organization (MSO) that owns non-clinical assets and back-office functions while a physician-owned PC holds the clinical practice itself and all treatment decisions — the record's 'physician_only: false' conclusion is not supported by authority and is contradicted by it. |
| South Dakota | SDCL 36-4-8.1 declares it the public policy of South Dakota that a corporation may not practice medicine or osteopathy, except professional corporations organized under chapter 47-11. A corporation may employ a licensed physician provided the arrangement does not supplant or regulate the physician's independent medical judgment, does not profit the corporation from the practice of medicine itself, and the employment agreement is renewed at least every three years. South Dakota thus follows a corporate-practice-of-medicine doctrine but does not require strict physician-only ownership — a non-physician may own the business entity so long as clinical judgment remains with the licensed provider. |
| Tennessee | Tennessee follows the corporate-practice-of-medicine doctrine: only licensed physicians (or the narrowly enumerated healthcare-professional combinations authorized by T.C.A. Sec. 48-101-610) may form and own shares of a medical professional corporation or PLLC that renders medical services, and no owner may exercise more authority over a physician's diagnosis, treatment, or referral decisions than an 'employing entity' may under T.C.A. Sec. 63-6-204(f). A cosmetic medical practice must therefore be physician-owned and physician-controlled. |
| Texas | Texas enforces the corporate practice of medicine doctrine: corporations, entities, and non-physicians generally may not practice medicine, own/control a medical practice, or employ physicians to practice medicine. A med spa offering medical services must therefore be owned through a physician professional entity (PA/PLLC), commonly paired with a management-services organization; only narrow statutory exceptions (e.g., certain hospitals) apply. |
| Utah | Utah does not impose a corporate-practice-of-medicine ownership restriction on med-spa entities. Utah Code § 58-67-802(1) affirmatively lists the lawful forms in which the practice of medicine may be conducted, and these expressly include (f) 'a lawfully organized business corporation' and (g) 'any other form of organization recognized by the state which is not prohibited by division rule' — not merely a professional corporation limited to physician-shareholders. The only ownership/share restriction in Utah law, § 16-11-7 of the Professional Corporation Act ('a professional corporation may issue ... shares ... only to persons who are duly licensed to render the same specific professional services...'), by its own terms applies solely to entities that voluntarily elect professional-corporation status under Title 16, Chapter 11 — it does not reach business corporations, LLCs, or other entity forms § 58-67-802(1)(e)-(g) equally authorizes. The one substantive condition Utah law imposes, § 58-67-802(2), is that regardless of entity form, the actual practice of medicine within it be performed by an individual licensed under § 58-67-301 (or § 58-68-301 for osteopathic physicians) — a licensure-of-the-practitioner requirement, not an ownership-of-the-entity requirement. Consequently, a non-physician may lawfully own a med spa organized as an ordinary business corporation or LLC, provided the licensed medical/aesthetic services are actually performed by (or supervised under applicable scope-of-practice rules by) an appropriately licensed provider whose independent clinical judgment is not compromised. Utah therefore does not enforce a strict CPOM ownership prohibition. |
| Vermont | Prior to mid-2026, Vermont had no corporate-practice-of-medicine (CPOM) doctrine: 26 V.S.A. ch. 23 (the Medical Practice Act) regulates individual licensee conduct, not entity ownership, and 26 V.S.A. § 1354(21) — 'permitting one's name or license to be used by a person, group, or corporation when not actually in charge of, responsible for, or actively overseeing the treatment or other health care services provided' — is solely an individual unprofessional-conduct provision; it does not itself impose, and was never intended to establish, an ownership rule. That gap has now been closed by statute. H.583 was signed by Governor Scott on June 15, 2026 as 2026 Act No. 133 and adds 18 V.S.A. chapter 233, effective July 1, 2026 (already in force as of this review). New § 9531 makes it unlawful for an individual, corporation, partnership, or other entity without a license under 26 V.S.A. ch. 23 or 33 to own a medical practice or otherwise practice medicine, and bars any permitted employer-entity from interfering with a licensee's professional judgment or clinical decisions. New § 9532 permits a medical practice to employ physicians only if: (1) Vermont-licensed physicians hold the majority of each class of voting shares; (2) Vermont-licensed physicians comprise a majority of the directors; and (3) all officers except the secretary and treasurer are Vermont-licensed physicians (narrow carve-outs exist for hospitals, FQHCs, and similar entities). New § 9533 bans 'straw ownership' (each licensee-owner must show 'meaningful ownership' — be Vermont-based and substantially engaged in delivering or managing care) and restricts dual ownership/interests between a medical practice and its MSO. A related, narrower requirement — an ownership-disclosure report to the Green Mountain Care Board for MSOs with private-equity/hedge-fund investment as of June 1, 2026 — is due by March 1, 2027; that reporting deadline should not be confused with the Act's general effective date. Bottom line: Vermont has moved from a non-CPOM state to a physician-ownership/physician-control state as of Act 133's July 1, 2026 effective date. A med-spa's medical-practice entity must now be majority physician-owned and physician-governed; MSOs may still provide non-clinical administrative/business services but may not hold controlling equity, board seats, or officer roles in the practice itself, nor direct clinical decisions. |
| Virginia | Virginia has no blanket corporate-practice-of-medicine prohibition, but a professional entity rendering medical services must be owned by individuals (or professional business entities) duly licensed or otherwise legally authorized to provide those services under Va. Code § 13.1-543. That statute groups healing-arts practitioners, advanced practice registered nurses, and related licensees as rendering the 'same professional service,' so ownership is restricted to licensed professionals but is not limited to physicians only (an NP or other authorized licensee may co-own). |
| Washington | Washington does not impose physician-only ownership on med spas or clinics. Under the Professional Service Corporation Act, physicians (RCW 18.71), physician assistants (RCW 18.71A), and advanced registered nurse practitioners (RCW 18.79) are each independently listed among the licensed health professionals who may organize and hold shares in a professional service corporation that renders health care services (RCW 18.100.050). Physician assistants are further and explicitly authorized to own their own practice or clinic under RCW 18.71A.120(8), which states outright that 'nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting physician assistants from owning their own practice or clinic.' This reflects ownership flexibility among licensed independent providers (physicians, ARNPs, and PAs) rather than a physician-only rule. It does not establish that unrestricted lay/non-clinician ownership of the clinical practice is settled: Washington DOH guidance to med spa operators cautions that any ownership structure must still navigate prohibitions on fee-splitting, rebating, and the corporate practice of medicine, and that authority over diagnosis, treatment, and prescribing must remain with the licensed provider regardless of who holds the business entity. |
| West Virginia | West Virginia strictly enforces the corporate practice of medicine. Under W. Va. Code §30-3-15(a) it is unlawful for any corporation to practice or offer to practice medicine without a Board of Medicine certificate of authorization, and §30-3-15(b) provides the Board issues that certificate only on 'satisfactory proof... that each shareholder of the proposed medical or podiatry corporation is a licensed physician.' A med spa providing medical services must therefore be owned by licensed physicians (physician assistants, and for out-of-state corporations podiatric physicians, may also be shareholders); if any shareholder ceases to be licensed, the corporation must stop practicing medicine (§30-3-15(h)). |
| Wisconsin | Wisconsin follows the corporate-practice-of-medicine doctrine: the Attorney General has opined that a for-profit business corporation may not practice medicine or hire licensed physicians to practice for it, and Wisconsin's professional service corporation law permits only professionals licensed in the same field to own the entity that renders those services. This flows from Wis. Stat. 448.03(1) (only licensed persons may practice medicine) and 448.08 (fee-splitting bar; only physicians/qualifying service corporations may bill for medical services), so a med spa's medical services must be owned/controlled by a physician (or physician-owned service corporation), not by lay investors. |
| Wyoming | Wyoming has not codified a corporate-practice-of-medicine prohibition, and no statute requires a medical practice or med spa to be physician-owned. However, only licensed individuals may practice medicine (W.S. 33-26-301(a)) and aiding or abetting unlicensed practice is both a crime (W.S. 33-26-410(a)) and a ground for physician discipline (W.S. 33-26-402(a)(ix)), so a lay-owned entity may not itself furnish medical services or direct clinical judgment. |
Methodology & sources
Every entry is compiled from that state's own statutes, medical- and nursing-board rules, and official guidance, and each state page links the primary source behind its wording. Last reviewed 2026-07-21. Download the full dataset as CSV.
Citing this page? Use: MedSpa Standards, "Ownership / CPOM by State for Med Spas," retrieved 2026-07-21, https://medspastandards.com/med-spa-regulations-by-state/who-can-own-a-med-spa
Build a compliant med spa faster
Board-ready SOPs and compliance checklists mapped to these requirements.
This information is provided for general educational purposes only and is not legal advice. Regulations change — verify current requirements with your state medical/nursing board before acting.