Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Ohio Recovery Housing Operators Beware: House Bill 58 Seeks to Make Major Changes

Client Alert
February 26, 2025

On February 18th, Ohio State Representatives Justin Pizzulli (R-District 90)  and Dontavius Jarrells (D-District 1) introduced House Bill (HB) 58, which proposes sweeping changes to Ohio’s current recovery housing landscape. HB 58 gives local Alcohol, Drug Addiction, and Mental Health (ADAMH) Boards (and their designees) authority to inspect recovery residences and investigate complaints levied against recovery residences (by residents, staff, or the public).

HB 58 also requires the Ohio Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services (OMHAS) to begin to issue Certificates of Need (CONs) to recovery homes seeking to engage in a “reviewable activity”.

Reviewable activities include but are not limited to:

    • Establishment, development, or construction of a new building that will be operated as a recovery housing residence;
    • Replacement of an existing building that is operated as a recovery housing residence or purchase or any other form of acquisition of an existing building that will be operated as a recovery housing residence;
    • Renovation of or addition to an existing building that is operated as a recovery housing residence that involves a capital expenditure of $500,000 or more, not including expenditures for equipment, staffing, or operational costs;
    • An increase in bed capacity at a recovery housing residence; and
    • Relocation of recovery housing residence beds from one physical building or site to another.

Under HB 58, as proposed, OMHAS will administer the CON program for recovery housing residences, approving or denying reviewable activities and issuing CONs if the reviewable activity is approved.

OMHAS will consider the following criteria (among others) when deciding whether to issue a CON to an operator:

    • The impact of the reviewable activity on the cost and quality of recovery housing in the relevant service area, including the historical and projected utilization of the services to which the application pertains and the effect of the reviewable activity on utilization of other providers of similar services;
    • The quality of the services to be provided as a result of the activity, as evidenced by the historical performance of the persons that will be involved in providing the services;
    • The impact of the reviewable activity on the availability and accessibility of the type of services proposed in the application to the population of the relevant service area;
    • The activity's short-term and long-term financial feasibility and cost-effectiveness; and
    • The impact of the activity on all other providers of similar services in the relevant service area, including the impact on their utilization, market share, and financial status.

To obtain a CON, operators will be required to submit an application and pay a non-refundable application fee to OMHAS. Further, when OMHAS grants a CON, it will monitor the activities of the recovery residence for up to five years after implementation of the reviewable activity for which the certificate was granted to ensure compliance.

Last, HB 58 requires establishment of a recovery housing residence fund funded by CON application fees and penalties assessed against operators. Alcohol, Drug Addiction, and Mental Health Boards will use the fund to pay for conducting inspections and investigations of recovery residences.

If you have questions about HB 58 or Ohio’s current regulations surrounding recovery homes, please contact BMD Member Daphne Kackloudis at dlkackloudis@bmdllc.com

or BMD Attorney Jordan Burdick at jaburdick@bmdllc.com.

Ohio Recovery HousingOhio Department of Mental Health and Addiction ServicesDaphne KackloudisJordan BurdickHealth Law
Client Alert

Update on Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haiti and Related Countries

July 13, 2026USCIS has temporarily extended Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) for certain Temporary Protected Status (TPS) beneficiaries from Haiti and several other countries following recent court action. Employers and TPS recipients should review EAD expiration dates, monitor ongoing developments, and ensure compliance with Form I-9 and E-Verify requirements.Client Alert

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

July 8, 2026Health 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.Client Alert

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

June 26, 2026BRENNAN, 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.Client Alert

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

June 25, 2026The 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.Client Alert

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

June 24, 2026Offshoring 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.
Older posts