Client Alerts, News Articles & Blog Posts

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Accommodating the Return to Work

It has been two months since Ohio declared coronavirus an emergency, and although it is clear things will not be fully back to "normal" anytime soon, the state of Ohio is rolling out the reopening process for businesses with a number of new guidelines and restrictions. As businesses reopen, employers and employees will face difficult decisions about returning to work, including reasonable accommodation concerns under the Americans with Disabilities Act and state law equivalents. The EEOC recently updated its question and answer document with additional guidance regarding this issue, available here.   

As explained in prior BMD client alerts, an employee's fear of coronavirus, by itself, does not provide a legal basis for accommodation or refusal to work. For a discussion of how an employee's refusal to work or return to work affects the analysis of unemployment claims, see Bryan Meek's article available here. However, if an employee has an underlying medical condition that puts them at higher risk for severe illness due to coronavirus, they may be entitled to a reasonable accommodation. For example, having an immuno-compromised condition greatly increases the risk for an employee who regularly interacts with coworkers or the public. The employee should communicate to their employer regarding the medical condition and corresponding need, and the employer may then ask questions or request medical documentation to determine if a reasonable accommodation is appropriate. Questions may include how the disability creates a limitation, how the requested accommodation will address the limitation, and whether other forms of accommodation could be effective in enabling the employee to perform essential job functions.   

The EEOC's updated Q&A provides a number of examples of accommodations for individuals at higher risk related to coronavirus, including the following:

  • additional or enhanced protective gowns, masks, gloves, or modified protective gear;
  • barriers or increased space providing separation between an employee with a disability and others;
  • elimination or substitution of particular “marginal” job functions (note that reasonable accommodation does not require elimination of "essential" job functions);
  • temporary modification of work schedules or remote work; or
  • relocating an employee's work location or station.

This is by no means a comprehensive list, and the EEOC is encouraging employers and employees to be "creative and flexible" in working out accommodations. As with any other accommodation request, employers should engage in an interactive process with their employees. There is no legal obligation to provide a particular accommodation if it poses an "undue hardship" on the employer or there is a "direct threat" to health or safety to the individual or others that cannot be eliminated by reasonable accommodation. Although coronavirus has significantly affected the analysis of reasonable accommodation and direct threat, the same framework for the interactive process remains in place and should be utilized. 

For more information, please contact Russell Rendall at 216.658.2205 or rtrendall@bmdllc.com.

Investment Training for the Second and Third Generations

Consider this scenario. Mom and Dad started the business from the ground up. Over the decades it has expanded into a money-making machine. They are able to sell the business and it results in a multimillion-dollar payday for their labors. The excess money has allowed Mom and Dad to invest with various financial advising firms, several fund management groups, and directly with new startups and joint ventures. Their experience has made them savvy investors, with a detailed understanding of how much to invest, when, and where. They cannot justify formation of a full family office with dedicated investors to manage the funds, but Mom and Dad have set up a trust fund for the children to allow these investments to continue to grow over the years. Eventually, Mom and Dad pass. Their children enjoy the fruits of their labors, and, by the time the grandchildren are adults, Mom and Dad's savvy investments are gone.

Provider Relief Funds – Continued Confusion Regarding Reporting Requirements and Lost Revenues

In Fall 2020, HHS issued multiple rounds of guidance and FAQs regarding the reporting requirements for the Provider Relief Funds, the most recently published notice being November 2, 2020 and December 11, 2020. Specifically, the reporting portal for the use of the funds in 2020 was scheduled to open on January 15, 2021. Although there was much speculation as to whether this would occur. And, as of the date of this article, the portal was not opened.

Ohio S.B. 310 Loosens Practice Barrier for Advanced Practice Providers

S.B. 310, signed by Ohio Governor DeWine and effective from December 29, 2020 until May 1, 2021, provides flexibility regarding the regulatorily mandated supervision and collaboration agreements for physician assistants, certified nurse-midwives, clinical nurse specialists and certified nurse practitioners working in a hospital or other health care facility. Originally drafted as a bill to distribute federal COVID funding to local subdivisions, the healthcare related provisions were added to help relieve some of the stresses hospitals and other healthcare facilities are facing during the COVID-19 pandemic.

HHS Issues Opinion Regarding Illegal Attempts by Drug Manufacturers to Deny 340B Discounts under Contract Pharmacy Arrangements

The federal 340B discount drug program is a safety net for many federally qualified health centers, disproportionate share hospitals, and other covered entities. This program allows these providers to obtain discount pricing on drugs which in turn allows the providers to better serve their patient populations and provide their patients with access to vital health care services. Over the years, the 340B program has undergone intense scrutiny, particularly by drug manufacturers who are required by federal law to provide the discounted pricing.

S.B. 263 Protects 340B Covered Entities from Predatory Practices in Ohio

Just before the end of calendar year 2020 and at the end of its two-year legislative session, the Ohio General Assembly passed Senate Bill 263, which prohibits insurance companies and pharmacy benefit managers (“PBMs”) from imposing on 340B Covered Entities discriminatory pricing and other contract terms. This is a win for safety net providers and the people they serve, as 340B savings are crucial to their ability to provide high quality, affordable programs and services to patients.