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
March 5, 2025

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.

Healthcare PolicyHealth LawHealthcareDaphne KackloudisJesse Wilde
Client Alert

Employer Liability for COVID-19 Vaccine Side Effects

June 9, 2021As employers encourage or require employees to obtain a COVID-19 vaccine, they should be aware of OSHA recording obligations and potential workers’ compensation liability. Though OSHA has yet to revise its COVID-19 guidance in response to the latest CDC recommendations, OSHA has revised its position regarding the recording of injury or illness resulting from the vaccine. Until now, OSHA required an employer to record an adverse reaction when the vaccine was required for employees and the injury or illness otherwise met the recording criteria (work-related, a new case, and meets one or more of the general recording criteria). OSHA has reversed course and announced that it will not require recording adverse reactions until at least May 2022, irrespective of whether the employer requires the vaccine as a condition of employment. In its revised COVID-19 FAQs, OSHA states:Client Alert

The New Rule 1.510 - Radical Change for Summary Judgement Procedure in Florida

June 8, 2021In civil litigation, where both sides participate actively, trial is usually required at the end of a long, expensive case to determine a winner and a loser. In federal and most state courts, however, there are a few procedural shortcuts by which parties can seek to prevail in advance of trial, saving time, money and annoyance. The most common of these is the “motion for summary judgment”: a request to the court by one side for judgment before trial, generally on the basis that the evidence available reflects that a win for that party is legally inevitable and thus required. Effective May 1, 2021, summary judgment procedure in Florida has radically changed.Client Alert

Vacating, Modifying or Correcting an Arbitration Award Under R.C. 2711.13: Three-Month Limitation Maximum; Not Guaranteed Amount of Time

June 8, 2021In a recent decision, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that neither R.C. 2711.09 nor R.C. 2711.13 requires a court to wait three months after an arbitration award is issued before confirming the award. R.C. 2711.13 provides that “after an award in an arbitration proceeding is made, any party to the arbitration may file a motion in the court of common pleas for an order vacating, modifying, or correcting the award.” Any such motion to vacate, modify, or correct an award “must be served upon the adverse party or his attorney within three months after the award is delivered to the parties in interest.” In BST Ohio Corporation et al. v. Wolgang, the Court held the three-month period set forth in R.C. 2711.13 is not a guaranteed time period in which to file a motion to vacate, modify, or correct an arbitration award. 2021-Ohio-1785.Client Alert

EEOC Provides Updated Guidance Regarding Employer COVID-19 Vaccine Policies

June 3, 2021On May 28, 2021, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission updated its guidance regarding employer COVID-19 vaccination policies. The new guidance provides much-needed clarification of expectations for employers seeking to promote workplace safety and prevent the spread of COVID-19, including discussion of mandatory vaccination policies, voluntary vaccination incentives, and accommodation of employees based on disability or sincerely held religious beliefs. The full text of the update is found in Section K of the EEOC’s COVID Q&A document. You can also learn more about these and other developments from BMD's Bryan Meek and Monica Andress through the Employment Law After Hours YouTube channel, available here.Client Alert

What Telemedical Barriers Practices Face and How They Can Manage Them

May 28, 2021The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic has led to many businesses and industries having to rapidly adapt new practices in order to stay profitable, and the healthcare industry is no exception. Although telehealth tools and practices have existed and been used since the Vietnam War, the pandemic has caused many individual healthcare practices to heavily rely on telehealth as a large portion of their service mix in order to continue to provide care for patients. Because of this rapid adoption of telehealth practices in order to combat the restrictions of COVID-19, the telemedicine industry’s revenue has exploded in the last year. Experts predict that telehealth will continue to grow in use beyond the current pandemic, estimating the industry’s worth to be $25 billion by 2025. However, this rapid adoption of telehealth was prompted out of need and has not been without its own barriers that practices now face.
Older posts
Newer posts