Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

CMS Requires Providers to Use an Updated Advance Beneficiary Notice (ABN) Form by May 12, 2026

Client Alert

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has issued an UPDATED version of the Advance Beneficiary Notice of Noncoverage (ABN), Form CMS‑R‑131, which providers and suppliers must begin using no later than May 12, 2026.  A copy of the form can be found here

An ABN is a written notice provided to traditional Medicare beneficiaries to inform them that the items services that they are receiving will likely be denied by Medicare as non-covered.  This must be provided by the provider to the Medicare beneficiary in advance of the items or services so that the beneficiary can decide whether to proceed with the items or services, which will most likely require the beneficiary to pay out of pocket.

What Has Changed?

The revised ABN does not substantially alter Medicare coverage policy or when an ABN must be issued. All previous rules and guidance remain in effect.  Instead, CMS has focused on improving the clarity and usability of the form, including:

  • Simplified, plain‑language instructions to better communicate potential financial liability to patients;
  • Streamlined formatting and improved layout for readability; and
  • Revised beneficiary option language to make decision-making clearer.

The updated form is approved for use through March 31, 2029.

Critical Compliance Deadline

CMS has permitted a limited transition period; however, all providers must discontinue use of prior versions of the ABN after May 12, 2026.

Failure to use the current ABN form on or after this date may render the notice invalid, which can prevent providers from charging the patient if Medicare denies the claim and the provider attempts to collect payment from the patient.   

Key Reminders for Providers:

  • The ABN must be issued prior to furnishing items or services when coverage is expected to be denied.
  • It applies to traditional Medicare (fee‑for‑service) beneficiaries, not Medicare Advantage plans.
  • Providers must ensure the form is properly completed, signed, and retained to support billing compliance.
  • Ensure all forms are updated (including paper and electronic versions). 
  • Ensure all staff members are properly trained. 

For questions regarding the updated ABN requirements or assistance with compliance and implementation, please contact Vice President and Akron Managing Partner Amanda Waesch at alwaesch@bmdllc.com or Paralegal Tracy Miller at trmiller@bmdllc.com.


Parental Consent May Soon Be Required for Minor Mental Health Services in Ohio

HB 172 proposes repealing a provision in Ohio law that allows minors age 14 and older to consent to limited outpatient mental health services without parental involvement. The bill would require parental consent for all such care and remove related language from other sections of the Ohio Revised Code.

Community Behavioral Health Providers - Supervisor Pricing Changes Begin July 1 [Corrected Date]

Effective June 16, community behavioral health providers wishing to receive reimbursement at the supervisor rate must add the HP or HT Modifier to fee-for-service (FFS) claims. Find out about the new guidelines.

CMS Rescinds EMTALA Guidance for Emergency Abortions

On June 3, 2025, CMS withdrew its 2022 guidance on emergency abortion care under EMTALA, eliminating federal protection for providers in states with abortion restrictions. This policy change could significantly impact how hospitals handle emergency care involving pregnancy complications.

Supreme Court Eliminates Higher Burden for Majority-Group Plaintiffs in Title VII Claims

In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that all Title VII plaintiffs, whether from majority or minority groups, must meet the same evidentiary standard. The decision eliminates the “background circumstances rule” and reinforces equal treatment in workplace discrimination claims.

Understanding Reasonable Fear vs. Credible Fear Interviews: A Critical Guide for Immigrants Facing Removal

In his latest article, Immigration Attorney and former Immigration Judge Rob Ratliff offers a clear breakdown of Reasonable Fear vs. Credible Fear Interviews—key procedures for noncitizens seeking protection from persecution or torture. Citing Judge Brian Murphy’s recent ruling on unlawful deportations to South Sudan, Ratliff connects these critical legal standards to current judicial developments. Read the full article at www.removal-defense.com.