Nebraska Regents Restructure Medicine Board Amid Legal Controversy

Jan 25, 2026, 2:23 AM
Image for article Nebraska Regents Restructure Medicine Board Amid Legal Controversy

Hover over text to view sources

The University of Nebraska Board of Regents has announced a significant restructuring of the Nebraska Medicine Board of Directors, replacing nearly all its members in light of a lawsuit and ongoing negotiations regarding a major buyout deal with Clarkson Regional Health Services. This decision is part of a move towards sole ownership of Nebraska Medicine by the University of Nebraska and Clarkson, aimed at enhancing the operational stability and governance of the medical provider.
This restructuring follows the regents' recent vote to purchase Clarkson's shares for $800 million, a transaction which has drawn scrutiny from various stakeholders, including state lawmakers and the Nebraska Attorney General's Office. The regents cited "serious concerns" regarding the previous board's actions, which they believe threatened the organization's mission and stability.
The newly appointed interim board consists of four voting members: Dr Jeffrey Gold, University of Nebraska president; Dr Dele Davies, interim chancellor of the University of Nebraska Medical Center (UNMC); Dr William Lydiatt, CEO of Clarkson Regional Health Services; and Stephanie Moline, a current Clarkson board member. Only Davies was part of the previous board[^1][^2].
The regents indicated that the lawsuit filed by Nebraska Medicine's board against its owners was a critical factor in their decision to replace the board members. The lawsuit, which aims to block the buyout deal, claims that the terms of the transaction are unfavorable and have raised questions about the board's fiduciary duties. The regents characterized the lawsuit as an “extraordinary action,” further justifying their need to take decisive steps to protect the organization’s future.
In response to the changes, lawmakers have expressed various concerns. State Senator Brad von Gillern remarked that the board's restructuring was akin to a "nuclear option" that could alienate significant donors and leaders within the Omaha community, who were previously part of the Nebraska Medicine board. He suggested that the regents should have prioritized communication over confrontation in handling the situation.
Furthermore, State Senator Tony Sorrentino has introduced Legislative Bill 1125, which would require legislative approval for any future hospital deals exceeding $100 million. He noted that there is growing attention to this legislative measure in light of the recent developments, indicating a potential shift towards greater oversight of such significant transactions by state lawmakers.
The regents have emphasized that once the buyout deal is finalized, which is expected to occur by June 30, Nebraska Medicine will establish its own physician-led governance structure, aimed at improving care and organizational effectiveness. The interim board's composition reflects a commitment to leadership stability and healthcare expertise, with a majority of its members being seasoned healthcare executives.
This situation has highlighted the tensions between governance, healthcare management, and legislative oversight in Nebraska. The implications of these changes will likely unfold in the coming weeks as the buyout progresses and the legal challenges continue to develop. The Nebraska Medicine board’s earlier pushback against the regents' actions, labeling them as a state takeover, further complicates the discourse surrounding the restructuring and its potential impact on healthcare delivery in the region.
As this story develops, both the University of Nebraska and Nebraska Medicine face the challenge of navigating the complexities of governance, legal scrutiny, and community trust, all while aiming to fulfill their respective missions to provide quality healthcare in Nebraska.

Related articles

CT Health Commissioner Supports Pediatric Vaccine Guidelines Over CDC

Connecticut Health Commissioner Manisha Juthani has endorsed the American Academy of Pediatrics' vaccine recommendations, diverging from recent changes made by the CDC. This decision reflects a broader movement among several states to prioritize evidence-based vaccine policies amid federal uncertainties.

Oklahoma Lawmakers Must Embrace Evidence-Based Medicine

Oklahoma's legislative choices often undermine modern medicine, as seen in recent proposals that prioritize ideology over evidence. Lawmakers are called to support health initiatives grounded in science to improve public health outcomes and trust in medical professionals.

NU Regents Reshape Nebraska Medicine Board Amid Lawsuit

The University of Nebraska Board of Regents has restructured the Nebraska Medicine Board of Directors in response to a lawsuit challenging an $800 million acquisition deal with Clarkson Regional Health Services. The changes aim to safeguard the organization’s future and reputation as negotiations continue.

Top CDC Vaccine Adviser Challenges Polio Shot Necessity Amid Policy Shifts

Kirk Milhoan, chair of the CDC's vaccine advisory panel, has called for a reevaluation of longstanding vaccination recommendations, including the polio vaccine. His remarks raise concerns about public health policy and vaccine hesitancy as the committee shifts focus towards individual autonomy.

Public Health Groups Sue Over CDC Vaccine Policy Changes

Several prominent medical organizations have filed a lawsuit against Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr over recent changes to COVID-19 vaccine recommendations. The lawsuit claims these changes undermine public trust in vaccines and violate federal law governing vaccine policy.