Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

CLIENT ALERT: Medicare Providers having multiple locations should verify and revalidate their address information to avoid claim denials

Client Alert
June 4, 2019

MLN Matters SE19007 “Activation of Systematic Validation Edits for OPPS Providers with Multiple Service Locations” notifies providers that Medicare is now requiring the exact match of all addresses for practice locations that are listed on provider claim submissions to Medicare. (See attached)

Medicare began auditing in July 2018 for purposes of reinforcing Chapter 1, Section 170 of the Medicare Claims Processing Manual “Payments on the MPFS for Providers with Multiple Service Locations.”  The exact address match will be in full and effect once the July 2019 quarterly release is implemented.

Claims that do not have an exact address match will be returned to the provider.  Providers can make corrections to their service facility address for a claim submitted in the DDE MAP 171F screen for DDE submitters.

It is recommended that providers review their Medicare enrollment record and billing practices to ensure compliance with the exact address match requirement.  Medicare recommends that all providers update their billing records to match Medicare enrollment records.  Providers should verify and submit changes through the CMS-855A or CMS-855B application through the Provider Enrollment, Chain, and Ownership System (PECOS) as soon as possible.  Changes and updates to an address or the addition of a new location typically take Medicare 30–60 days to process.

If you would like copies of the regulations, need legal assistance with updating your Medicare enrollment information, or have any questions concerning these matters, please contact Amanda Waesch at 330-253-9185 or via email at alwaesch@bmdllc.com.

MedicareAmanda L. Waesch
Client Alert

Enhancing Privacy Protections for Substance Use Disorder Patient Records

February 16, 2024On February 8, 2024, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) finalized updated rules to 42 CFR Part 2 (“Part 2”) for the protection of Substance Use Disorder (“SUD”) patient records. The updated rules reflect the requirement that the Part 2 rules be more closely aligned with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) privacy, breach notification, and enforcement rules as mandated by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act of 2020.Client Alert

Columbus, Ohio Ordinance Prohibits Employers from Inquiries into an Applicant’s Salary History

January 30, 2024Effective March 1, 2024, Columbus employers are prohibited from inquiring into an applicant’s salary history. Specifically, the ordinance provides that it is an unlawful discriminatory practice to:Client Alert

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

January 26, 2024The Ohio Chemical Dependency Professionals Board has introduced new rules and amendments, covering various aspects such as CDCA certificate requirements, expanded services for LCDCs and CDCAs, remote supervision, and reciprocity application requirements. Notable changes include revised criteria for obtaining a CDCA certification, expanded services for LCDCs and CDCAs, and updated ethical obligations for licensees and certificate holders, including non-discrimination, confidentiality, and anti-sexual harassment measures.Client Alert

Governor Mike DeWine and The Ohio State University Introduce the SOAR Study on Ohio Mental Illness

January 22, 2024On January 19, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine and The Ohio State University announced a new research initiative, the State of Ohio Adversity and Resilience (“SOAR”) study, which will investigate all factors influencing Ohio’s mental illness and addiction epidemic.Client Alert

CHANGING TIDES: Summary and Effects of Burnett et. al. v. National Ass’n of Realtors, et. al.

January 17, 2024In April 2019, a class-action Complaint was filed in federal court for the Western District Court for Missouri arguing that the traditional payment agreements employed by many across the United States amounted to conspiracy resulting in the artificial increase in brokerage commissions. Plaintiffs, a class-action group comprised of sellers, argued that they paid excessive brokerage commissions upon the sale of their home as a result of the customary payment structure where Sellers agree to pay the full commission on the sale of their property, with Seller’s agent notating the portion of commission they are willing to pay to a Buyer’s agent at closing on the MLS or other similar system.
Older posts
Newer posts