Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

The $70 Billion Question – CARES Act Provider Relief Fund Helping Hardest Hit Hospitals First

Client Alert

HHS finally unveiled its preliminary plan for disbursement of the remaining $70 billion of CARES Act Provider Relief Funds. The initial $30 billion was disbursed to providers based on 2019 Medicare fee-for-service payments. HHS indicated that the remaining $70 billion would be disbursed to (1) providers that incurred COVID-19 expenses, (2) rural providers, (3) providers that primarily receive payments from other sources (such as Medicaid), and (4) providers that treat uninsured Americans.

How will the funds be distributed?

First, $10 billion will go to hospitals that have been impacted hardest by COVID-19. This will be based upon the total number of admitted patients who tested positive for COVID-19. Hospitals will have until April 23, 2020 at midnight to apply and should have received an email with a link to the portal (there is no website similar to the payment attestation).

Providers will need to submit the following information (HHS estimates this should take 5 minutes):

  • Tax Identification Number
  • National Provider Identifier
  • Total number of Intensive Care Unit beds as of April 10, 2020
  • Total number of admissions with a positive diagnosis for COVID-19 from January 1, 2020 to April 10, 2020

Second, an additional $20 billion will be rolled out based on overall patient revenue. There will likely be an application or reporting mechanism. Payments will be issued on a rolling basis. Stay tuned for updates on application release or additional information.

Third, an additional $30 billion is set aside for SNFs, dentists, and providers that only service Medicaid providers.

More information can be found by following the link below.

https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2020/04/22/hhs-announces-additional-allocations-of-cares-act-provider-relief-fund.html

For questions, contact your primary BMD Healthcare or Hospital Law attorney.


Enhancing Privacy Protections for Substance Use Disorder Patient Records

On February 8, 2024, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) finalized updated rules to 42 CFR Part 2 (“Part 2”) for the protection of Substance Use Disorder (“SUD”) patient records. The updated rules reflect the requirement that the Part 2 rules be more closely aligned with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) privacy, breach notification, and enforcement rules as mandated by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act of 2020.

Columbus, Ohio Ordinance Prohibits Employers from Inquiries into an Applicant’s Salary History

Effective March 1, 2024, Columbus employers are prohibited from inquiring into an applicant’s salary history. Specifically, the ordinance provides that it is an unlawful discriminatory practice to:

The Ohio Chemical Dependency Professionals Board’s Latest Batch of Rules: What Providers Should Know

The Ohio Chemical Dependency Professionals Board has introduced new rules and amendments, covering various aspects such as CDCA certificate requirements, expanded services for LCDCs and CDCAs, remote supervision, and reciprocity application requirements. Notable changes include revised criteria for obtaining a CDCA certification, expanded services for LCDCs and CDCAs, and updated ethical obligations for licensees and certificate holders, including non-discrimination, confidentiality, and anti-sexual harassment measures.

Governor Mike DeWine and The Ohio State University Introduce the SOAR Study on Ohio Mental Illness

On January 19, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine and The Ohio State University announced a new research initiative, the State of Ohio Adversity and Resilience (“SOAR”) study, which will investigate all factors influencing Ohio’s mental illness and addiction epidemic.

CHANGING TIDES: Summary and Effects of Burnett et. al. v. National Ass’n of Realtors, et. al.

In April 2019, a class-action Complaint was filed in federal court for the Western District Court for Missouri arguing that the traditional payment agreements employed by many across the United States amounted to conspiracy resulting in the artificial increase in brokerage commissions. Plaintiffs, a class-action group comprised of sellers, argued that they paid excessive brokerage commissions upon the sale of their home as a result of the customary payment structure where Sellers agree to pay the full commission on the sale of their property, with Seller’s agent notating the portion of commission they are willing to pay to a Buyer’s agent at closing on the MLS or other similar system.