Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Parental Approval Mandate for Diagnosing Gender-Related Conditions in Minors under Ohio House Bill 68

Client Alert
September 4, 2024

Effective August 6, 2024, mental health professionals cannot diagnose or treat a minor presenting with a gender-related condition without first obtaining consent from one of the minor's parents, a legal custodian, or a guardian. The law, established by Ohio House Bill 68 (HB 68) and recently upheld by a Franklin County Common Pleas Court judge, imposes stringent requirements on the process that must be followed in these cases.

This mandate applies to a wide range of professionals, including advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs) specializing in psychiatric-mental health, psychiatrists, psychologists, licensed social workers, counselors, and marriage and family therapists.

HB 68 defines a “gender-related condition” broadly to include any situation where an individual feels an incongruence between their gender identity and biological sex, with gender dysphoria being the most commonly recognized condition. Before addressing any gender-related condition, mental health professionals are required by law to first screen the minor for other comorbidities, including depression, anxiety, ADHD, and autism spectrum disorder. Additionally, professionals must assess the minor for signs of physical, sexual, mental, or emotional abuse, as well as other traumas that might be influencing the gender-related condition.

In other words, providers must account for the order of operations required by HB 68 (diagnosing gender conditions last) and parents/guardians need to fully consent to that plan of action. If providers do not take both steps, then they are considered to be engaging in “unprofessional conduct” that could subject them to discipline by their professional licensing board.

If you have any questions regarding HB 68 or would like assistance ensuring your policies and procedures comply with the new law or any of its provisions, please contact BMD Healthcare Member Daphne Kackloudis at dlkackloudis@bmdllc.com or Attorney Jordan Burdick at jaburdick@bmdllc.com.

Health LawHealthcare PolicyMental HealthDaphne KackloudisJordan Burdick
Client Alert

Supreme Court Backs HHS in DSH Payment Battle

July 6, 2022DSH payments are statutorily required payments intended to offset hospitals’ uncompensated care costs to improve patient access to Medicare and Medicaid. The payments also serve to help the financial stability of safety-net hospitals that oftentimes treat uninsured or underinsured patients. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) specifically makes DSH payments to hospitals that serve a high number of low-income patients. The Medicare DSH adjustment is calculated based on two factors: the hospital’s Medicare patients with low incomes and those with low incomes, but not on Medicare.Client Alert

Sweeping Changes Proposed for Federal Title IX Legislation

June 24, 2022Monica B. Andress and Krista D. WarrenClient Alert

The Latest CMS Guidance: HIPAA Edition

June 23, 2022Client Alert

Metaverse in the Workplace: What Do Employers Need to Know?

June 16, 2022Emerging technologies are creating a host of new legal issues for employers. The rise of the metaverse has been one of the most anticipated expansions over the last few years. The metaverse is a virtual world that allows users to interact with each other in simulated environments. The metaverse in the workplace has been expanding rapidly as businesses explore the use of virtual reality and augmented reality to improve workflows and communication.Client Alert

A Win for the Hospitals: An Update on the Latest 340B Lawsuit

June 16, 2022On Wednesday, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected massive payment cuts to hospitals under the 340B drug discount program. Now, the Department of Health and Human Services no longer has the discretion to change 340B reimbursement rates without gathering data on what hospitals actually pay for outpatient drugs. This “straightforward” ruling was based on the text and structure of the statute, per the Supreme Court. Simply put, because HHS did not conduct a survey of hospitals’ acquisition costs, HHS acted unlawfully by reducing the reimbursement rates for 340B hospitals.
Older posts
Newer posts