Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

EVV Requirements for Ohio Medicaid Postponed to January 2025

Client Alert

Recently, the Ohio Department of Medicaid (ODM) announced that it is pushing back the effective date of changes to the Electronic Visit Verification (EVV) claims adjudication process to January 1, 2025. Previously, the EVV requirements were set to go into effect on October 1, 2024.

The ODM initiated its EVV program in 2018 to comply with the Federal 21st Century Cures Act, which required all state Medicaid programs to implement an EVV system to verify personal care services by January 1, 2020, and home health services, by January 1, 2023. 

EVV is an electronic system for providers to capture patient visit data and to more accurately bill ODM for home visits. In Ohio, EVV is specifically required for providers who participate in the following ODM programs:

  1. Ohio Home Care Waiver
  2. MyCare Ohio Waiver
  3. PASSPORT Waiver
  4. Individual Options Waiver
  5. SELF Waiver

The EVV system requires home health providers to enter five important data elements during eligible visits: 

  1. Who receives the service
  2. Who provides the service
  3. What service is provided
  4. Where the service is provided
  5. The date and time the service begins and ends.

Providers have three ways to capture the visit data: via a mobile app; dedicated phone line (i.e., telephony); or manual entry on a computer into the system. However, ODM only permits manual visit entry when a device app or telephony is not available or appropriate for the member’s needs.

If you have any questions regarding the EVV system and/or requirements, please contact BMD Healthcare Member Daphne Kackloudis at dlkackloudis@bmdllc.com  or Attorney Jordan Burdick at jaburdick@bmdllc.com.


Board of Pharmacy Rule Changes

Board of Pharmacy made changes to rules effective on March 4, 2024

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

The 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.

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

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

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

Effective 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.

Florida's Recent Ruling on Arbitration Clauses

Florida’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.