Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Ohio House Passes Bill 388 Including Out-of-Network Reimbursement Requirements

Client Alert
July 6, 2020

On May 20, 2020, the Ohio House of Representatives unanimously passed House Bill 388, which would enact five new Ohio Revised Code sections regarding out-of-network care and reimbursement. Sponsored by Representative Adam Holes – District 97 – House Bill 388 would require a health plan issuer to reimburse the following: 

  • An out-of-network provider for unanticipated out-of-network care provided at an in-network facility. 
  • An out-of-network provider or emergency facility for emergency services provided at an out-of-network emergency facility. 
  • An out-of-network ambulance for emergency services provided in an out-of-network ambulance. 
  • An out-of-network provider or facility for clinical laboratory services provided in connection with unanticipated out-of-network care or emergency services. 

As used above, "unanticipated out-of-network care" means health care services, including clinical laboratory services, that are covered under a health benefit plan and that are provided by an out-of-network provider when either of the following conditions applies: (1) the covered person did not have the ability to request such services from an in-network provider; or (2) the services provided were emergency services.

In addition to the above requirements, House Bill 388 also sets forth the following: 

  • Prohibits a provider, facility, emergency facility, or ambulance from balance billing a patient for unanticipated or emergency care when that care is provided in Ohio. 
  • Provides that a covered person’s cost-sharing responsibility for the services described above cannot be greater than if the services were provided in network. 
  • Establishes the default reimbursement rate as the greatest of the in-network rate, the out-of-network rate, or the Medicare rate and establishes procedures by which payees (providers, facilities, emergency facilities, and ambulances) may seek to negotiate the reimbursement in lieu of the default reimbursement rate. 
  • Permits certain payees to seek arbitration if negotiation is unsuccessful, and establishes criteria to be eligible for arbitration, and establishes procedures for the conduct of the arbitration. (Requires the Superintendent of Insurance to select an arbitration entity to conduct arbitrations under the bill using specified criteria). 
  • Requires a provider to disclose certain information to patients regarding the cost of out-of-network services that are not unanticipated out-of-network care or emergency services. 

The requirements found in House Bill 388 would be effective nine months following the bill’s effective date. Any payee or issuer in violation of these requirements would face disciplinary actions and/or penalties. The bill now continues the rule making path and will be debated and voted on by the Ohio Senate.

Please contact a BMD healthcare attorney if you have any questions regarding House Bill 388, any other reimbursement question, or other general healthcare questions.

Ohio House of RepresentativesHouse Bill 388out of networkout of network careout of network reimbursementprovidershealthcare providershealthcarephysiciansBMD Healthcare & Hospital Law GroupKevin Cripe
Client Alert

Yard Sign Do’s and Don’ts: How to Avoid Legal Challenges to Municipal Sign Codes this Election Season

September 8, 2020As the nation heads into the tail end of the 2020 general election, municipalities will inevitably face challenges as they seek to regulate the seasonal proliferation of yard signs on residential property. While the matter may seem trifling, a seemingly benign yet content-based sign ordinance can result in significant legal exposure for municipalities that have not heeded recent Supreme Court decisions on content neutrality.Client Alert

Time to Update Your HIPAA Compliance Plan for Telehealth Policies and Procedures

September 8, 2020The delivery of healthcare in this country may be forever changed following the COVID-19 pandemic. Providing services through telehealth technologies initially allowed providers to connect with patients in a safe and socially distant manner and helped keep vital hospital beds free for COVID-19 care. Now, while still a safe, socially distant option, telehealth allows patients to access healthcare services in an efficient manner, decreases the likelihood of cancellations, and expands access to services that do not require an in-person encounter (i.e., surgery, procedure, or test). Telehealth is now widely reimbursed by both federal and commercial payors and more provider types are able to provide telehealth services within their licensed scope of practice.Client Alert

The SEC Amends Accredited Investor and Qualified Institutional Buyer Definitions

September 2, 2020The SEC Amends Accredited Investor and Qualified Institutional Buyer DefinitionsClient Alert

Landlord Alert: CDC Issues Temporary Halt in Residential Evictions

September 2, 2020On September 1 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) issued a nationwide temporary halt on all residential evictions through December 31, 2020. With the July 24, 2020 expiration of the prior moratorium established under the CARES Act, the CDC based the new moratorium on the need to protect public health and the likely increase in the spread of COVID-19 if mass evictions take place.Client Alert

BMD Obtains Supreme Court Victory on Behalf of Sterilite of Ohio, LLC

August 28, 2020Columbus, Ohio – On August 26, 2020, the Supreme Court of Ohio issued its opinion in Lunsford v. Sterilite of Ohio, LLC, Slip Op. No. 2020-Ohio-4193. The Supreme Court’s 4-3 decision reversed an Ohio Court of Appeals ruling that had reinstated a putative class action against Sterilite brought by a group of current and former employees claiming that Sterilite’s use of “direct observation” urinalysis screening violated their common law right to privacy.
Older posts
Newer posts