Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

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

Client Alert
March 25, 2024

The Ohio Chemical Dependency Professionals Board recently released several new rules and proposed amendments to existing rules. A hearing for the new rules was held on February 16, 2024, but the Board has not yet finalized them.

A summary of the proposed rule changes is below. The biggest takeaway from this batch of new rules is that LCDC IIIs and LICDCs can now provide clinical supervision while they are unsupervised.

Scope of practice for licensed chemical dependency counselors III (LCDC III - OAC Rule 4758-6-04)

Under the new version of the rule, a chemical dependency counselor III (LCDC III) may provide substance use disorder counseling and diagnose substance use disorder conditions without supervision. Additionally, the amended rule removes the requirement that a LCDC III be under supervision when providing clinical supervision. Lastly, LCDC IIIs may perform family counseling in additional to individual and group counseling.

Scope of practice for licensed independent chemical dependency counselors (LICDC - OAC Rule 4758-6-05)

The new version of the rule removes the requirement that a LICDC be under supervision when providing clinical supervision. Additionally, an LICDC may perform family counseling in additional to individual and group counseling.

Scope of practice for chemical dependency counselors III (LCDC III) with gambling disorder endorsement (OAC Rule 4758-6-12)

Under the new version of the rule, an LCDC III with gambling disorder endorsement may perform family counseling in additional to individual and group counseling. Additionally, an LCDC III may supervise gambling disorder counseling without being supervised themselves.

Reciprocity with IC&RC jurisdictions (OAC Rule 4758-15-01)

The amended rule removes the language that (1) individuals holding a LCDC II, LCDC III or LICDC are reciprocal with the IC&RC alcohol drug counselor (ADC) certification; (2) individuals holding a LICDC are reciprocal with the IC&RC clinical supervisor (CS) certification; and (3) individuals holding an OCPS or OCPC are reciprocal with the IC&RC prevention specialist (PS) certification.

Under the new version of the rule, to be certified as an IC&RC alcohol drug counselor (ADC), an individual must:

  1. Submit an application and required non-refundable fee.
  2. Complete one hundred and twenty (120) hours of education specific to the ADC domains not used to obtain their original license. Previously, they had to complete 300 hours.
  3. Hold an active LCDC II, LCDC III, or LICDC. This is a new requirement under this rule.
  4. Complete four thousand hours of supervised work experience specific to the ADC domains not used to obtain their original license. Previously, they had to complete six thousand hours.

Further, to be certified as an IC&RC clinical supervisor (CS), an individual must:

  1. Submit an application and the required non-refundable fee.
  2. Hold an active LICDC-CS. This is a new requirement under this rule.
  3. Hold and maintain an IC&RC ADC certification at the IC&RC reciprocal level.
  4. Complete eight thousand hours of ADC counseling specific work experience not used to obtain original license. Previously, they had to complete ten thousand hours.

The new version of the rule further removes the requirements that (1) individuals must obtain thirty hours of education specific to the first five IC&RC clinical supervisor domains with a minimum of four hours in each and (2) individuals transferring to the state from a non-IC&RC jurisdiction may apply for and be issued a non-IC&RC reciprocal credential.

If you have questions about these proposed rules, please contact your local BMD Healthcare Member Daphne Kackloudis at dlkackloudis@bmdllc.com.

Daphne Kackloudisjordan burdickHealth LawOhio Chemical Dependency Professionals Board
Client Alert

Chemical Dependency Professionals Board Rule Changes: Part 2

April 1, 2024New rule changes for Certification of Chemical Dependency Counselor Assistants (CDCA)Client Alert

Board of Pharmacy Rule Changes

April 1, 2024Board of Pharmacy made changes to rules effective on March 4, 2024Client Alert

Counselor, Social Workers, and Marriage and Family Therapist (CSWMFT) Board Rule Changes

March 29, 2024The Counselor, Social Workers, and Marriage and Family Therapist (CSWMFT) Board has proposed changes to the Ohio Administrative Code rules discussed below. The rules are scheduled for a public hearing on April 23, 2024, and public comments are due by this date. Please reach out to BMD Member Daphne Kackloudis for help preparing comments on these rules or for additional information.Client Alert

Now in Effect: DOL Final Rule on Classification of Independent Contractors

March 21, 2024Effective March 11, 2024, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has adopted a new standard for the classification of employees versus independent contractors — a much anticipated update since the DOL issued its Final Rule on January 9, 2024, as previously discussed by BMD.  In brief, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) creates significant protections for workers related to minimum wage, overtime pay, and record-keeping requirements. That said, such protection only exists for employees. This can incentivize entities to classify workers as independent contractors; however, misclassification is risky and can be costly.Client Alert

Florida's Recent Ruling on Arbitration Clauses

March 15, 2024Florida’s recent ruling on arbitration clauses provides a crucial distinction in determining whether such clauses are void as against public policy and providers may have the opportunity to include arbitration clauses in their patient consent forms. On March 6, 2024, Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeals reversed and remanded Florida’s Fifteenth Circuit Court ruling of Piero Palacios v. Sharnice Lawson. The Court of Appeals ruled that the parties’ arbitration agreement did not contradict the Legislature’s intent of Florida’s Medical Malpractice Act (the “MMA”), but rather reflects the parties’ choice to arbitrate claims entirely outside of the MMA’s framework. Therefore, the Court found that the agreement was not void as against public policy.
Older posts