Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Legal Uncertainties Remain Following Passage of Issue 1 in Ohio

Client Alert
December 11, 2023

In the November 2023 General Election, Ohio voters passed Issue 1 which, among other things, “[e]stablish[es] in the Constitution of the State of Ohio  an individual right to one’s own reproductive medical treatment, including but not limited  to abortion”. Despite passage of Issue 1, questions persist about how its codification on December 7 affects previously passed legislation restricting abortion and related pending court cases.

On the day the ballot measure became effective, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost said that Ohio’s new constitutional right to reproductive decisions overrides the state’s ban on most abortions (the previously passed “Heartbeat Law"), but that the state’s appeal of a lower court’s decision to pause enforcement of the Heartbeat Law should go forward.

On September 2, 2022, in Preterm-Cleveland v. Yost, five groups, including the American Civil Liberty Union (ACLU) of Ohio, filed a lawsuit in Hamilton County Common Pleas Court seeking to block enforcement of the Heartbeat Law. The Hamilton County Common Pleas Court held that abortion is a “fundamental right” and that the Heartbeat Law violates that right. The court issued a preliminary injunction in October 2022, preventing enforcement of the Heartbeat Law.

In response, Ohio Attorney General Yost appealed the preliminary injunction to the First District Court of Appeals, which ultimately dismissed the case. Yost appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, asking the court to rule on two important issues:

  1. Can preliminary injunctions that restrict state law be appealed by the state?
  2. Because Ohio courts lack jurisdiction to issue injunctive relief to parties who lack standing, can third parties (e.g., abortion clinics) challenge state laws (in this case, the Heartbeat Law)?

Following passage of Issue 1, the Ohio Supreme Court asked both sides to file new briefs that address the impact of Issue 1 on the case pending before it. In Attorney General Yost’s brief, he argued that the law itself is not at issue, but rather the two procedural issues described above. In his brief, Yost indicated that, substantively, Issue 1 overrides the Heartbeat Law.

In its brief submitted on behalf of the Appellees, the ACLU of Ohio argues that Issue 1 renders the Heartbeat Law unenforceable and that Yost’s prior appeal of the 2022 preliminary injunction of that law is moot, rendering the case unable to proceed. According to the brief, because the State cannot be harmed by being prevented from enforcing a law that Attorney General Yost admits violates the Ohio Constitution, there is no harm for the State to allege.

While the Supreme Court of Ohio considers both briefs, many providers of reproductive health care in Ohio are waiting on concrete legal guidance before they stop following Ohio's current abortion restrictions, including requiring patients to wait 24 hours after an initial appointment to have an abortion. The Supreme Court of Ohio’s ruling on the procedural issues stemming from Issue 1 should clarify the new legal boundaries for providers.

If you have questions about the content of this Client Alert, or the passage of Issue 1, please feel free to reach out to BMD Member Daphne Kackloudis at dlkackloudis@bmdllc.com or BMD Partner Ashley Watson at abwatson@bmdllc.com.

Issue 1AbortionReproductive Health CareAshley WatsonDaphne Kackloudis
Client Alert

Ohio Department of Health Releases Updated Charge Limits for Medical Records

March 7, 2022Under Ohio law, a healthcare provider or medical records company that receives a request for a copy of a patient's medical record may charge an amount in accordance with the limits set forth in Ohio Revised Code Section 3701.741. The allowable amounts are increased or decreased annually by the average percentage of increase or decrease in the consumer price index for all urban consumers, prepared by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, for the immediately preceding calendar year over the calendar year immediately preceding that year, as reported by the Bureau. The Director of the Ohio Department of Health makes this determination and adjusts the amounts accordingly. The list is then published, here.Client Alert

No Surprises Act Compliance (Published by NAMAS, 2/25/22)

March 7, 2022The Department of Health and Human Services published three parts to the No Surprises Act towards the end of 2021, which took effect January 1, 2022. The Act is intended to protect consumers from “balance billing,” which occurs when a patient receives a bill with a higher price than they may have anticipated because they did not have knowledge that the provider or facility was out-of-network. The purpose of this article is to note certain requirements that compliance employees will need to be aware of at their facilities, including notice and consent, good faith estimates, and public disclosures.Client Alert

No Surprises Act and You (Published in the SCMS Winter 2022 Newsletter)

March 3, 2022Legislation has been adopted by the United States Congress and the Ohio Legislature known as the “No Surprises Act” which attempts to regulate billing by professionals and facilities to patients who are not in networks with those facilities or providers at those facilities. The federal bill was triggered by some sensational news stories of patients being billed for tens of thousands of dollars for emergency care when the hospital was out of the network under the patient’s insurance plans.Client Alert

Are You Impacted by the Project Labor Agreement Executive Order?

February 28, 2022Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) are a quasi-collective bargaining agreement between employers and unions. They establish the terms and conditions of employment, including dispute resolution. They are put into place on specific projects and apply to the contractor, whether it is union or non-union. Employees hired on the project will be treated as union.Client Alert

No Surprises Act Update: Federal Judge Strikes Portions of the No Surprises Act

February 25, 2022In a win for providers, a Texas federal court granted the Texas Medical Association’s (TMA) motion for summary judgment and struck down portions of a federal rule that establishes a reimbursement rate arbitration process between payors and providers under the No Surprises Act (NSA).
Older posts
Newer posts