Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

HHS Revokes Public Comment Requirement on Certain Policy Changes

Client Alert

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has announced the immediate revocation of the longstanding Richardson Waiver, a policy requiring public notice and comment on certain agency decisions involving contracts, grants, benefits, property, and public loans. This move, detailed in a March 3 policy statement by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., eliminates a key mechanism for stakeholder input on agency policy shifts.

Key Policy Changes

The elimination of the Richardson Waiver means that HHS will no longer be required to allow a 60-day public comment period before finalizing policy changes related to grants and benefits. As a result, HHS will now have the ability to implement new policies much more quickly, potentially impacting Medicaid and National Institutes of Health funding rules. This change eliminates opportunities for healthcare providers and other stakeholders to weigh in on crucial policy decisions – like implementing Medicaid work requirements – before they take effect. This change does not impact Medicare, which follows separate statutory public input rules and remains subject to different procedural requirements.

Industry groups have expressed concerns that eliminating public comment could lead to less transparency and hastily implemented policies that lack sufficient vetting. Without an opportunity for public review, new regulations may be more prone to unintended consequences, creating additional burdens for states, providers, and patients.

What This Means for Healthcare Providers

Healthcare providers and other stakeholders should prepare for more rapid and potentially unpredictable policy shifts from HHS. The absence of a formal comment process means that affected entities may need to explore alternative advocacy strategies to engage with policymakers.

We will continue to monitor developments and provide updates on any significant policy changes stemming from this decision. Please contact BMD Healthcare Member Daphne Kackloudis at dlkackloudis@bmdllc.com or Attorney Jordan Burdick at jaburdick@bmdllc.com with any questions about how this may impact your organization.


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.