Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

House Bill 249: Key Updates to Involuntary Hospitalization Law for Mental Health Providers

Client Alert
May 23, 2024

New amendments aim to expand the conditions for involuntary hospitalization of individuals with mental illness. The House Behavioral Committee’s fifth hearing on this proposed legislation was held on May 21, 2024, following its introduction on August 1, 2023. These changes are encapsulated in House Bill 249 (HB 249), which proposes modifications to Ohio Revised Code (ORC) Sections 5122.01 and 5122.10.

Changes to ORC Section 5122.01: Definitions and Criteria
The proposed bill expands the definition of “person with a mental illness subject to court order” to now include a person with a mental illness who, because of the person's illness, represents a substantial risk of harm to self or others as manifested by evidence that indicates all of the following: (a) the person's judgment is impaired by a lack of understanding of having an illness or a need for treatment, or both; (b) the person refuses treatment or is not adhering to prescribed treatment; (c) the person has been diagnosed with one or more of the following conditions: (i) Schizophrenia; (ii) Schizoaffective disorder; (iii) Bipolar disorder; (iv) Delusional disorder; (v) Major depressive disorder; and (d) if not treated, the person is reasonably expected to suffer mental deterioration.

Changes to ORC Section 5122.10: Custody and Examination Procedures
HB 249 also adds state highway patrol troopers to the list of individuals who may take a person into custody and immediately transport them to a hospital if the trooper has reason to believe the person has a mental illness subject to court order and represents a substantial risk of physical harm to self or others. Further, the bill introduces new requirements for personnel transporting persons with mental illness. Under the bill, the individual authorized to transport the person with mental illness must specify, in addition to their written statement describing the circumstances under which the person was taken into custody, any available information about the person's history of mental illness, if that information has a reasonable bearing on the decision to transport the person. The additional information should include information from anyone who has provided mental health or related support services to the person being transported, information from one or more family members of the person being transported, or information from the person being transported or anyone designated to speak on the person's behalf. Service providers should carefully consider the implications of how this information will be managed and shared to ensure the privacy and dignity of individuals with mental health disorders. 

Additionally, if a licensed professional (including a licensed physician, clinical psychologist, psychiatrist, or health officer) determines that the hospitalized person does not meet the criteria for court-ordered mental health treatment, then the person may be discharged or released if they are medically stable, unless there is a court order for temporary detention. HB 249 also allows general hospitals to continue providing care to a person if the person is not medically stable at the end of the initial 24-hour period, until the person is stable enough for transfer to a hospital or inpatient unit licensed by OhioMHAS. If a general hospital cannot find a licensed behavioral health hospital to accept the person within 24 hours, then the general hospital can continue to provide care until a transfer is possible.

Please contact BMD Healthcare Member Daphne Kackloudis at dlkackloudis@bmdllc.com or Attorney Jordan Burdick at jaburdick@bmdllc.com with any questions.

Health LawInvoluntary HospitalizationHealthcare PolicyHealthcareDaphne KackloudisJordan Burdick
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