Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Ohio Recovery Housing Operators Beware: House Bill 58 Seeks to Make Major Changes

Client Alert

On February 18th, Ohio State Representatives Justin Pizzulli (R-District 90)  and Dontavius Jarrells (D-District 1) introduced House Bill (HB) 58, which proposes sweeping changes to Ohio’s current recovery housing landscape. HB 58 gives local Alcohol, Drug Addiction, and Mental Health (ADAMH) Boards (and their designees) authority to inspect recovery residences and investigate complaints levied against recovery residences (by residents, staff, or the public).

HB 58 also requires the Ohio Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services (OMHAS) to begin to issue Certificates of Need (CONs) to recovery homes seeking to engage in a “reviewable activity”.

Reviewable activities include but are not limited to:

    • Establishment, development, or construction of a new building that will be operated as a recovery housing residence;
    • Replacement of an existing building that is operated as a recovery housing residence or purchase or any other form of acquisition of an existing building that will be operated as a recovery housing residence;
    • Renovation of or addition to an existing building that is operated as a recovery housing residence that involves a capital expenditure of $500,000 or more, not including expenditures for equipment, staffing, or operational costs;
    • An increase in bed capacity at a recovery housing residence; and
    • Relocation of recovery housing residence beds from one physical building or site to another.

Under HB 58, as proposed, OMHAS will administer the CON program for recovery housing residences, approving or denying reviewable activities and issuing CONs if the reviewable activity is approved.

OMHAS will consider the following criteria (among others) when deciding whether to issue a CON to an operator:

    • The impact of the reviewable activity on the cost and quality of recovery housing in the relevant service area, including the historical and projected utilization of the services to which the application pertains and the effect of the reviewable activity on utilization of other providers of similar services;
    • The quality of the services to be provided as a result of the activity, as evidenced by the historical performance of the persons that will be involved in providing the services;
    • The impact of the reviewable activity on the availability and accessibility of the type of services proposed in the application to the population of the relevant service area;
    • The activity's short-term and long-term financial feasibility and cost-effectiveness; and
    • The impact of the activity on all other providers of similar services in the relevant service area, including the impact on their utilization, market share, and financial status.

To obtain a CON, operators will be required to submit an application and pay a non-refundable application fee to OMHAS. Further, when OMHAS grants a CON, it will monitor the activities of the recovery residence for up to five years after implementation of the reviewable activity for which the certificate was granted to ensure compliance.

Last, HB 58 requires establishment of a recovery housing residence fund funded by CON application fees and penalties assessed against operators. Alcohol, Drug Addiction, and Mental Health Boards will use the fund to pay for conducting inspections and investigations of recovery residences.

If you have questions about HB 58 or Ohio’s current regulations surrounding recovery homes, please contact BMD Member Daphne Kackloudis at dlkackloudis@bmdllc.com

or BMD Attorney Jordan Burdick at jaburdick@bmdllc.com.


January 2025 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Brings Notable Changes to HIPAA Security Rule

In January 2025, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services proposed amendments to the HIPAA Security Rule, aiming to enhance cybersecurity for covered entities (CEs) and business associates (BAs). Key changes include mandatory compliance audits, workforce training, vulnerability scans, and risk assessments. Comments on the proposed rule are due by March 7, 2025.

Corporate Transparency Act Effective Again

The federal judiciary has issued multiple rulings on the enforceability of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), which took effect on January 1, 2024. Previously, enforcement was halted nationwide due to litigation in Smith v. U.S. Department of the Treasury. However, on February 18th, the court lifted the stay, reinstating the CTA’s reporting requirements. Non-exempt entities now have until March 21, 2025, to comply. Businesses should act promptly to avoid civil penalties of $591 per day and potential criminal liability.

Status Update: Physician Noncompete Agreements in Ohio

Noncompete agreements remain enforceable in Ohio if they meet specific legal requirements. While the AMA and FTC have challenged these restrictions, courts continue to uphold reasonable noncompete provisions for physicians. Recent cases, like MetroHealth System v. Khandelwal, highlight how courts may modify overly restrictive agreements to balance employer interests with patient care. With ongoing legal challenges to the FTC’s proposed ban, Ohio physicians should consult a healthcare attorney before signing or challenging a noncompete agreement.

Immigration Orders and Their Economic Impact on Small Business: Insights from Attorney and Former Immigration Judge Rob Ratliff

President Trump's recent executive orders, targeting immigration policies, could significantly impact small businesses in Ohio, particularly those owned by undocumented immigrants. With stricter visa vetting, halted refugee admissions, and potential deportations, these businesses face uncertainty, workforce disruption, and closures. Ohio's immigrant-owned businesses, especially in food services and transportation, contribute billions to the state economy, and any disruption could result in economic ripple effects.

Corporate Transparency Act Ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled on the enforceability of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), lifting an injunction previously imposed by the Fifth Circuit. However, a separate nationwide injunction remains in effect, meaning businesses are still not required to comply with the CTA’s reporting requirements. FinCEN continues to accept voluntary reporting while enforcement remains paused.