Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

CARES Act Offers Additional Funds to Healthcare Providers Offering Care, Diagnoses, or Testing Related to COVID-19

Client Alert
April 8, 2020

In order to help prevent, prepare for, and respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, a $100 billion fund, run through the Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund (PHSSEF), has been made available to cover non-reimbursable costs attributable to COVID-19 under the CARES Act. This fund has been designed to get money into the health care system as quickly as possible. As such, applications will be reviewed, and payments will be made, on a rolling basis. HHS has been given significant flexibility in determining how the funds are to be allocated, as opposed to operating under a mandated formula or process for awarding the funds. While the Secretary of HHS has not yet released guidance on the application process, this is expected in the near future. BMD will provide updates as soon as this information becomes available.

Who is eligible under the PHSSEF Fund?

Eligible entities include hospitals, public entities, and Medicare- or Medicaid-enrolled suppliers and providers that provide COVID-19 related diagnosis, care, or testing.

What expenses qualify for funding?

This funding is meant to cover non-reimbursable costs and expenses related to COVID-19. Examples include:

  • Building or retrofitting new ICUs
  • Increased staffing or training
  • Leasing of properties, medical supplies, and equipment, including personal protective equipment and testing supplies
  • Building of temporary structures
  • Forgone revenue from cancelled procedures

It is important to note that expenses reimbursed or obligated to be reimbursed by insurance or other mechanisms are not eligible. The Secretary of HHS has been instructed to establish a reconciliation process under which payments will have to be returned to the fund if other sources provide reimbursement for expenses.  

BMD will continue to educate health care providers as additional information and further guidance on COVID-19 become available. For questions, contact any Member of BMD's Healthcare & Hospital Law group.

CARES ActProvidersHealthcareHealthcare LawCOVID-19PHSSEF Fund
Client Alert

Board of Pharmacy Rule Changes

April 1, 2024Board of Pharmacy made changes to rules effective on March 4, 2024Client Alert

Counselor, Social Workers, and Marriage and Family Therapist (CSWMFT) Board Rule Changes

March 29, 2024The Counselor, Social Workers, and Marriage and Family Therapist (CSWMFT) Board has proposed changes to the Ohio Administrative Code rules discussed below. The rules are scheduled for a public hearing on April 23, 2024, and public comments are due by this date. Please reach out to BMD Member Daphne Kackloudis for help preparing comments on these rules or for additional information.Client Alert

Latest Batch of Ohio Chemical Dependency Professionals Board Rules: What Providers Should Know

March 25, 2024The Ohio Chemical Dependency Professionals Board recently released several new rules and proposed amendments to existing rules over the past few months. A hearing for the new rules was held on February 16, 2024, but the Board has not yet finalized them.Client Alert

Now in Effect: DOL Final Rule on Classification of Independent Contractors

March 21, 2024Effective March 11, 2024, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has adopted a new standard for the classification of employees versus independent contractors — a much anticipated update since the DOL issued its Final Rule on January 9, 2024, as previously discussed by BMD.  In brief, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) creates significant protections for workers related to minimum wage, overtime pay, and record-keeping requirements. That said, such protection only exists for employees. This can incentivize entities to classify workers as independent contractors; however, misclassification is risky and can be costly.Client Alert

Florida's Recent Ruling on Arbitration Clauses

March 15, 2024Florida’s recent ruling on arbitration clauses provides a crucial distinction in determining whether such clauses are void as against public policy and providers may have the opportunity to include arbitration clauses in their patient consent forms. On March 6, 2024, Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeals reversed and remanded Florida’s Fifteenth Circuit Court ruling of Piero Palacios v. Sharnice Lawson. The Court of Appeals ruled that the parties’ arbitration agreement did not contradict the Legislature’s intent of Florida’s Medical Malpractice Act (the “MMA”), but rather reflects the parties’ choice to arbitrate claims entirely outside of the MMA’s framework. Therefore, the Court found that the agreement was not void as against public policy.
Older posts
Newer posts