Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

New Federal Medical Conscience Rule and Its Implications

Client Alert

New Statutes offer health care providers (and payors) protections against recipients of federal funds when refusing to provide services based on religious or moral grounds. The federal health care conscience protection statutes (the “Statutes”) include, among others, the Church Amendments, the Coats-Snowe Amendment, the Weldon Amendment, and certain Medicare and Medicaid provisions.

The Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights (OCR) issued a Final Rule regarding these Statutes on January 11, 2024 (effective March 11, 2024), clarifying the provisions, which gives the OCR the authority to receive, handle, and investigate complaints under the federal health care conscience protection statutes.

Services that are typically protected under the Statutes include assisted suicide, abortion, and sterilization. Importantly, providers cannot provide services to some patients and not others. Additionally, it is important to note that the protections apply to services/procedures – therefore, a provider cannot refuse to provide a service to a particular person or group of people based off of religious or moral beliefs.

Authority of the OCR in enforcing the Statutes includes:

  • Receiving and handling complaints;
  • Initiating compliance reviews;
  • Conducting investigations;
  • Consulting on compliance within the Department;
  • Seeking voluntary resolutions of complaints;
  • Consulting and coordinating with the relevant Departmental funding component and utilizing existing enforcement regulations, such as those that apply to grants, contracts, or other programs and services;
  • In coordination with the relevant component or components of the Department, coordinating other appropriate remedial action as the Department deems necessary and as allowed by law and applicable regulation; and
  • In coordination with the relevant component or components of the Department, making enforcement referrals to the Department of Justice.

When investigating potential violations of the Statutes, the OCR may review the practice’s policies, communications, documents, and compliance history. The OCR states that matters will be resolved via “informal means” whenever possible, but if not, the OCR will coordinate and consult with the Department responsible for the relevant funding to undertake appropriate action. The OCR may also refer the matter to the Department of Justice. It is important for entities to respond promptly to the OCR’s investigation and to keep adequate records.

In addition, the OCR encourages all entities subject to the Statutes to post a “model notice” in a prominent and conspicuous location to notify both providers and patients of their compliance. The model notice provided by the OCR can be found here.

Entities should also consider updating their policies and procedures to include the protections under the Statutes. For example, entities may include a statement that providers will not be required to participate in, and will not be discriminated against, for refusing to participate in specific medical procedures and related training and research activities or coerced into performing procedures that are against their religious or moral beliefs. Such procedures should also provide the steps providers can take to invoke their rights under the Statutes.

If you have any questions regarding the Final Rule, please don’t hesitate to contact BMD Health Law Group Member Jeana M. Singleton at jmsingleton@bmdllc.com or 330-253-2001, or BMD Attorney Rachel Stermer at rcstermer@bmdllc.com or 330-253-2019. 


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

Health care providers that receive federal financial assistance are now subject to updated HHS accessibility requirements for medical diagnostic equipment under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. With the July 8, 2026, compliance deadline in effect, covered providers should ensure they have the required accessible equipment, train staff, and review operational practices to reduce compliance risk and provide accessible care for patients with disabilities.

Florida Super Lawyers® Recognizes Brennan Manna Diamond Attorneys to the 2026 Lists

BRENNAN, MANNA & DIAMOND is proud to announce that three of our attorneys have been designated to the 2026 Florida Super Lawyers® and Florida Rising Stars® lists. Super Lawyers is based on multiple categories of independent research and peer evaluation to identify outstanding lawyers.

Supreme Court Clears Path for TPS Terminations: What Employers Need to Know

The U.S. Supreme Court's June 25, 2026 decision in Mullin v. Doe and Trump v. Miot removed legal obstacles that had delayed the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haiti and Syria. The ruling also reinforces the administration's authority to terminate other TPS designations currently under review. Employers should immediately identify workers whose employment authorization is tied to affected TPS programs, review Form I-9 records, and prepare for forthcoming USCIS guidance before taking any employment action.

The Risks of Outsourcing Medical Billing and the Importance of State-Law Compliance

Offshoring medical billing and other administrative functions can reduce costs, but it also raises significant compliance, operational, and contractual risks. Although HIPAA does not explicitly prohibit protected health information from being accessed or stored outside the United States, healthcare providers and their vendors remain responsible for safeguarding patient information and complying with state-specific restrictions that may limit or prohibit offshore subcontracting.

Risks of Using AI-Generated, Implied Celebrity Endorsements in Advertising

Businesses using AI-generated celebrity images, videos, or voice simulations in advertising may face significant legal risks if the content falsely implies an endorsement, affiliation, or sponsorship. This article discusses potential exposure under false advertising, right of publicity, consumer protection, and professional conduct laws, and explains why disclaimers may not be enough to avoid liability.