This is an interesting question. The end-of-life care provision was suggested by a Republican congressman who, I believe, had dealt with his own aged mother's wishes. Doctors traditionally ask a close relative (spouse or life partner, for example) if someone severely injured (and unable to speak for him/herself) wants heroic measures taken to prolong life (the Shaivo case comes to mind). When there is no Living Will, the decision is oftentime guesswork for relatives, who may not be privy to the patient's wishes. Some people like to have a Living Will before anything is actually wrong, just to be certain their wishes are documented should anything catastrophic occur. All the provision allows for is that doctors who participate in a consult with patients to discuss end-of-life options be paid for this participation. The patient gets to choose preferred options on their own, contrary to what right-wing extremists would have us think. Supposedly, the doctors are simply sharing a full list of options in a noncommital way, so that the patient is made fully aware of all possible choices available (like hospice, or in-home care instead of a hospital stay), and then answering any questions the patient might have without coercion or bias. Would a Notary be sufficient to authenticate the Living Will?