Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Ohio Appellate Court Rules in Favor of Gender-Affirming Care

Client Alert
March 19, 2025

On Tuesday, March 18, 2025, the 10th District Court of Appeals in Franklin County ruled that House Bill (HB) 68’s restrictions on the provision of puberty blockers and hormones to minors seeking gender-affirming care violates the Health Care Freedom Amendment to the Ohio Constitution and therefore, are not enforceable in Ohio.

According to the 10th District, banning prescription drugs (including puberty blockers and hormones) interferes with parents’ rights to care for their children and prohibits parents from accessing for their minor children and deciding on medical treatment that follows the standards of care and professional guidelines accepted in the medical community to treat gender-related conditions.

The case, Moe v. Yost, has been remanded back to the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost has explicitly indicated that his office will appeal the ruling.

HB 68 became effective in August 2024 and broadly, prevents minors from accessing gender-affirming care (including hormone blockers, hormone replacement therapy (HRT), and some mental health services) without first being assessed for other comorbidities, including depression, anxiety, ADHD, and autism spectrum disorder, as well as for signs of physical, sexual, mental, or emotional abuse, and other traumas.

BMD previously drafted a client alert on HB 68, available here.

If you have any questions regarding this ruling, or HB 68 generally, please contact BMD Healthcare Member Daphne Kackloudis at dlkackloudis@bmdllc.com or Attorney Jordan Burdick at jaburdick@bmdllc.com.

Health LawHealthcareHealth Care Freedom AmendmentDaphne KackloudisJordan Burdick
Client Alert

Implications of Supreme Court Stay for Business Operations in Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo

September 16, 2025On September 8, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court temporarily reinstated immigration officers’ authority to conduct brief stops based on factors such as location, work type, language, or appearance. This stay in Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo allows enforcement actions to resume in California pending appeal. Employers in industries like construction, agriculture, landscaping, and day labor should prepare for increased worksite disruptions and review compliance protocols.Client Alert

Ohio House Bill 429: Potential Relief for Providers Facing Same-Day Reimbursement Restrictions

September 15, 2025Ohio House Bill 429 aims to prevent third-party payers from reducing provider reimbursement for multiple procedures performed on the same day. The bill could improve payment practices for a range of specialties, including surgery and gastroenterology.Client Alert

FTC Continues to Target Noncompetes

September 11, 2025The FTC is intensifying its focus on noncompete agreements in healthcare, urging employers to review contracts for compliance. While Ohio still generally enforces noncompetes, pending legislation could limit their use.Client Alert

Medicare Updates: Prior Authorizations and Physician Fee Schedule

September 8, 2025The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has announced two key updates effective January 1, 2026: a six-state prior authorization pilot program targeting high-risk services under the WISeR Model, and proposed revisions to the Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) that include increased payment rates, expanded telehealth coverage, and updated policies for chronic care, behavioral health, and rural providers.Client Alert

USCIS Policy Updates: Implications for Business Immigration

August 20, 2025In August 2025, USCIS issued three key policy updates enhancing vetting, good moral character (GMC) evaluations, and scrutiny of "anti-American" conduct in immigration adjudications. These policy memos will impact employers sponsoring foreign workers, including H-1B, L-1, EB visas, adjustments, and naturalization.
Older posts
Newer posts