Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

SCOTUS to Weigh In on Medicaid Beneficiaries’ Right to Choose their Provider

Client Alert

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) recently granted a petition filed by the state of South Carolina to determine whether Medicaid recipients have the right to choose their provider without state interference. Section 1902(a)(23) of the Social Security Act generally requires state Medicaid programs to permit Medicaid beneficiaries to seek care from any institution, agency, community pharmacy, or provider that is qualified and willing to deliver care to beneficiaries.

South Carolina filed its petition in response to a Fourth Circuit ruling that prevented South Carolina’s Medicaid program from terminating its provider agreement with Planned Parenthood. In the Fourth Circuit case, Planned Parenthood South Atlantic argued that Section 1902(a)(23) of the Social Security Act gives Medicaid beneficiaries the right to seek care from any qualified and willing provider and that it was not Congress’ intent for states to intrude on a Medicaid patients’ personal decisions about medical care. Arguments will take place this spring; SCOTUS will consider the merits of the case and issue a decision by the end of the summer.

If you have questions about the Supreme Court’s decision to determine whether a Medicaid beneficiary has an enforceable right to challenge a state’s determination that a provider is unqualified, please contact Member Daphne Kackloudis at dlkackloudis@bmdllc.com, Attorney Jordan Burdick at jaburdick@bmdllc.com, or Attorney Kate Crawford at khcrawford@bmdllc.com.


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.

Lead Paint Contamination and Resources for Ohio Landlords

Children are exposed to lead-based paint, which was used in most homes until it was banned in the US in 1978 and “can severely damage the brain and central nervous system causing coma, convulsions and even death.” Property owners and landlords should educate themselves on regulations and resources to mitigate their own liability.