Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

HHS Accessibility Requirements for Medical Diagnostic Equipment: What Health Care Providers Need to Know

Client Alert
July 8, 2026

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), through its Office for Civil Rights, has adopted updated accessibility requirements for medical diagnostic equipment under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.[1] These requirements are intended to reduce barriers to care for individuals with disabilities and to ensure that covered providers offer services in a manner that is accessible and nondiscriminatory.

For health care providers that receive federal financial assistance, including providers participating in Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, or other HHS-funded programs, the rule creates specific obligations regarding accessible medical diagnostic equipment (MDE), staff preparedness, and program accessibility. In practice, the rule is aimed at ensuring that patients with disabilities can receive routine examinations and diagnostic services using equipment that is accessible and usable.

Key takeaways from the updated rule include the following:

  • The rule adopts accessibility standards for medical diagnostic equipment, including examination tables, examination chairs, weight scales, mammography equipment, and certain radiological equipment.
  • Providers must ensure that their services are accessible in practice, even if a particular office or location does not yet have all required accessible equipment in place. If needed, the provider may need to arrange care at a hospital or another accessible practice location.
  • Covered entities must have qualified staff who can operate accessible equipment and assist patients with transfers and positioning as needed.
  • The rule also strengthens broader disability nondiscrimination protections affecting digital accessibility and other health and human services activities. 

Under the rule, each covered provider that uses examination tables and weight scales must have at least one accessible examination table and one accessible weight scale in place by July 8, 2026. Beyond that baseline requirement, covered providers generally must ensure that at least 10% of each type of medical diagnostic equipment is accessible, with a minimum of one accessible unit. For providers that specialize in treating conditions affecting mobility, such as rehabilitation centers and physical therapy practices, the threshold increases to 20%. 

With the July 8, 2026 compliance deadline now here for HHS-funded recipients, providers should assess current equipment inventories, identify whether accessible examination tables and weight scales are available at each relevant location, review purchasing practices, and train staff on equipment use and patient assistance protocols. Providers that fail to comply may face enforcement risk, including administrative action and potential litigation exposure. 

For many providers, this is not simply an equipment procurement issue. It is also an operational compliance issue that requires coordination across facilities, purchasing, clinical operations, and staff training. Covered entities should consider acting now to confirm that their accessibility practices align with the updated Section 504 requirements. 

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

[1] 29 U.S.C. §794.

Health LawHealthcareHealthcare PolicyU.S. Department of Health and Human ServicesAmanda L. Waesch
Client Alert

Enhancing Privacy Protections for Substance Use Disorder Patient Records

February 16, 2024On February 8, 2024, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) finalized updated rules to 42 CFR Part 2 (“Part 2”) for the protection of Substance Use Disorder (“SUD”) patient records. The updated rules reflect the requirement that the Part 2 rules be more closely aligned with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) privacy, breach notification, and enforcement rules as mandated by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act of 2020.Client Alert

Columbus, Ohio Ordinance Prohibits Employers from Inquiries into an Applicant’s Salary History

January 30, 2024Effective March 1, 2024, Columbus employers are prohibited from inquiring into an applicant’s salary history. Specifically, the ordinance provides that it is an unlawful discriminatory practice to:Client Alert

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

January 26, 2024The Ohio Chemical Dependency Professionals Board has introduced new rules and amendments, covering various aspects such as CDCA certificate requirements, expanded services for LCDCs and CDCAs, remote supervision, and reciprocity application requirements. Notable changes include revised criteria for obtaining a CDCA certification, expanded services for LCDCs and CDCAs, and updated ethical obligations for licensees and certificate holders, including non-discrimination, confidentiality, and anti-sexual harassment measures.Client Alert

Governor Mike DeWine and The Ohio State University Introduce the SOAR Study on Ohio Mental Illness

January 22, 2024On January 19, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine and The Ohio State University announced a new research initiative, the State of Ohio Adversity and Resilience (“SOAR”) study, which will investigate all factors influencing Ohio’s mental illness and addiction epidemic.Client Alert

CHANGING TIDES: Summary and Effects of Burnett et. al. v. National Ass’n of Realtors, et. al.

January 17, 2024In April 2019, a class-action Complaint was filed in federal court for the Western District Court for Missouri arguing that the traditional payment agreements employed by many across the United States amounted to conspiracy resulting in the artificial increase in brokerage commissions. Plaintiffs, a class-action group comprised of sellers, argued that they paid excessive brokerage commissions upon the sale of their home as a result of the customary payment structure where Sellers agree to pay the full commission on the sale of their property, with Seller’s agent notating the portion of commission they are willing to pay to a Buyer’s agent at closing on the MLS or other similar system.
Older posts
Newer posts