Client Alerts, News Articles & Blog Posts

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

CLIENT ALERT: Medicare Providers having multiple locations should verify and revalidate their address information to avoid claim denials

MLN Matters SE19007 “Activation of Systematic Validation Edits for OPPS Providers with Multiple Service Locations” notifies providers that Medicare is now requiring the exact match of all addresses for practice locations that are listed on provider claim submissions to Medicare. (See attached)

Medicare began auditing in July 2018 for purposes of reinforcing Chapter 1, Section 170 of the Medicare Claims Processing Manual “Payments on the MPFS for Providers with Multiple Service Locations.”  The exact address match will be in full and effect once the July 2019 quarterly release is implemented.

Claims that do not have an exact address match will be returned to the provider.  Providers can make corrections to their service facility address for a claim submitted in the DDE MAP 171F screen for DDE submitters.

It is recommended that providers review their Medicare enrollment record and billing practices to ensure compliance with the exact address match requirement.  Medicare recommends that all providers update their billing records to match Medicare enrollment records.  Providers should verify and submit changes through the CMS-855A or CMS-855B application through the Provider Enrollment, Chain, and Ownership System (PECOS) as soon as possible.  Changes and updates to an address or the addition of a new location typically take Medicare 30–60 days to process.

If you would like copies of the regulations, need legal assistance with updating your Medicare enrollment information, or have any questions concerning these matters, please contact Amanda Waesch at 330-253-9185 or via email at alwaesch@bmdllc.com.

El Contrato Escrito: La Herramienta Predilecta

No existe mejor herramienta a una disputa contractual que un documento firmado por las partes en el cual se expongan las obligaciones y acuerdos entre éstas.

New State Budget Institutes Licensure Requirement for Ohio’s Hospitals

On July 1, 2021, Governor Mike DeWine signed Ohio’s final budget codified at Ohio Revised Code 3722.01 et seq., which includes a new licensing requirement for Ohio’s hospitals. For years, Ohio was the only state in the country that did not license its hospitals. This approach will now be replaced with new, detailed requirements that will require careful review and compliance. Here are some of the highlights concerning these new changes:

Healthcare Provisions in the Ohio FY 22-23 Budget

Governor Mike DeWine signed Ohio’s Fiscal Year 2022-2023 budget bill (HB 110) into law on July 1, 2021. At almost 1,000 pages and 74.1 billion dollars, the budget lays out the State’s spending for the next two years. Below are a few highlighted provisions from the budget that will be important for the healthcare industry in Ohio

Interim Final Rule for Surprise Billing

In an effort to implement the new bipartisan No Surprises Act, on July 1, 2021, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), along with the Departments of Labor and Treasury, issued an interim final rule to safeguard patients against unforeseen medical bills arising from out-of-network care.

President Biden Seeks to Limit Non-Compete Agreements

Today, President Biden announced he would issue an Executive Order that calls on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to adopt rules to curtail worker non-compete agreements. Interestingly, a week ago, the FTC approved changes to its Rules of Practice to modernize and expedite the way it issues Trade Regulation Rules. If you have followed our alerts, we predicted the elimination of non-competes would probably happen. In 2016, then-Vice President Biden was a vocal opponent against non-compete agreements. He led the Obama administration’s initiative seeking to limit or eliminate non-compete agreements. In his presidential campaign, Biden promised to “work with Congress to eliminate all non-compete agreements, except the very few that are absolutely necessary to protect a narrowly defined category of trade secrets . . ..”