Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Ohio Hospitals and Healthcare Clinics: It’s Time to Revisit Your Billing and Collection Practices

Client Alert

According to a recent Cuyahoga County case, certain healthcare entities may not be protected from liability when engaging in unfair or deceptive billing acts. This decision is consistent with the growing trend across the country to encourage price transparency and eliminate unfair surprise billing practices by health care organizations.[1] Now is the time for hospitals and other health care organizations to revisit their billing and collection policies and procedures to confirm that they are legally defensible and consistent with best practices.

New Developments

On January 14, 2021, the trial court in Cuyahoga County ruled in Brakle v. Cleveland Clinic Foundation that Ohio’s Consumer Sales Practices Act (“CSPA”) does not exclude transactions between patients and hospitals or healthcare clinics. These healthcare entities are not “physicians” as such term is defined in the CSPA and are therefore not shielded from liability stemming from consumer transactions.

Ohio’s Consumer Sales Practices Act

The CSPA prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in connection with a consumer transaction.[2] Examples of unfair or deceptive acts/practices under Ohio law include but are not limited to: (1) failing to notify a customer that the customer has a right to an estimate for any service that will cost over $25; (2) failing to provide an estimate upon request; and (3) failing to give the customer a receipt after accepting a deposit.[3] As defined, a consumer transaction means, in part, a service to an individual for purposes that are primarily personal, family, or household.[4] The law expressly carves out transactions between physicians and their patients.[5] Therefore, transactions between physicians and their patients are not subject to the rules and regulations surrounding unfair or deceptive acts or practices.

Brakle v. Cleveland Clinic Foundation

Pursuant to an order from her physician, Amanda van Brakle (“Plaintiff”) visited a Cleveland Clinic (“Defendant”) facility in 2018 for radiology services. No physician participated in administering the services. At no time prior to the services did Defendant inform Plaintiff that she was entitled to an estimate of the cost of the services nor was she given any estimate of the cost. At the appointment, Plaintiff made a small payment toward the total cost of the service and was not given a receipt for such payment. Over time, Plaintiff made additional payments toward the bill and Defendant failed to render receipts. Defendant also credited these payments to a balance owed for different services and not the radiology services. Defendant eventually sent Plaintiff’s debt to collection. Plaintiff brought suit against Defendant for violations of the CSPA for failing to notify her of her rights to a pre-service estimate, failing to provide such an estimate, and failing to provide receipts.

Defendant filed motion for summary judgment (i.e., asking the court to dismiss the case) on several grounds, but the overarching justification being the service provided to Plaintiff is not a “consumer transaction” covered by the CSPA since the law excludes transactions between physicians and their patients. The Court ultimately disagreed with Defendant and denied the motion for summary judgment. The Court found that “physician” means a person skilled in the art of healing or a practitioner of medicine; a person duly authorized or licensed to treat diseases; and one lawfully engaged in the practice of medicine.[6] Simply put, Defendant is not a human being. The Court stated it is a corporate entity clearly outside of the definition of “physician” as commonly understood.[7] As such, the transaction at issue is not protected by the CSPA, the motion for summary judgment was dismissed, and the case will proceed.

Please contact attorneys Kate Hickner at kehickner@bmdllc.com or Kevin Cripe at kmcripe@bmdllc.com should you have any additional questions about Brakle v. Cleveland Clinic Foundation, surprise billing, or other general healthcare issues.

[1] See American Medical Association High-Level Summary of the No Surprises Act (2020) https://osma.org/aws/OSMA/asset_manager/get_file/527681?ver=0

[2] Ohio Rev. Code § 1345.02(A).

[3] Ohio Admin. Code § 109:4-3-05, 07.

[4] Ohio Rev. Code § 1345.01(A).

[5] Id.

[6] Citing Chiropractic Clinic of Solon v. Kutsko, 92 Ohio App.3d 608, 611 (8th Dist. 1994).

[7] Brakle v. Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Journal Entry (Jan. 14, 2021), pg. 5., https://www.accountsrecovery.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/van-Brakle-v-Cleveland-Clinic.pdf.


The CARES Act Provider Relief Fund: What We Know So Far…

The CARES Act that was signed into law of March 27, 2020 provides for the Provider Relief Fund, which set aside $100 billion in relief funds for healthcare providers with expenses or lost revenue attributable to COVID-19. On April 9, 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) released the first round of $30 billion of funding. All healthcare providers that received Medicare fee-for-service reimbursements in 2019 should have received a distribution. Payments will be made via electronic payment. Providers that do not receive electronic payment will receive paper checks over the next few weeks.

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

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.

COVID-19 Small Business Loan Relief Guidance - Updated April 8, 2020

Economic Action Plan for Clients Our legal and business crisis response team has collaborated with lending institutions in Ohio and Florida to advise small businesses with regard to the loans available due to the COVID-19 health and economic crisis. There are several loan options that may work for you, and we have also added a section for Frequently Asked Questions. For more information, please contact your primary BMD attorney and they would be happy to assist you in developing an Economic Relief Action plan for your business.

Paid Leave for Coronavirus: Department of Labor Issues Its Temporary FFCRA Rule

The Department of Labor issued its Temporary Rules under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) pertaining to the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act (EPSLA) and the Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act (EFMLEA). The rule became operational on April 1, 2020 and was officially published on April 6, 2020.

Florida’s “Stay-at-Home” Order and What it Means for Businesses

On April 1, 2020, in response to the State’s ongoing efforts to fight the spread of COVID-19, Governor Ron DeSantis issued Executive Order 20-91, which is State-wide “Stay-at-Home” Order. The Order goes into effect Friday, April 3, 2020 at 12:01 a.m., and expires on April 30, 2020, unless extended by subsequent order (the full text of the order is available here).