Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

The Latest CMS Guidance: HIPAA Edition

Client Alert

The Latest CMS Guidance: HIPAA Edition

Healthcare worker holding an iPad with HIPAA Compliance

What are the HIPAA Administrative Simplification Regulations?

The HIPAA Administrative Simplification Regulations—encompassing 45 CFR Part 160, Part 162, and Part 164—require HIPAA covered entities to adopt standards for transactions involving the electronic exchange of health care data. The HIPAA Administrative Simplification Regulations include four standards covering transactions, identifiers, code sets, and operating rules. In addition to complying with the HIPAA Administrative Simplification Regulations, HIPAA covered entities must also comply with the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules.

The purpose of these regulations is to save time and money by moving away from the burdensome paperwork system used for billing, storing patient information, and organizing claims data. By switching to electronic transactions, healthcare organizations can reduce the paperwork burden, receive payments faster, easily obtain patient information, and quickly, check the status of claims.

CMS has recently put out updated guidance for healthcare providers and plans clarifying these HIPAA regulations.

Covered Entities, Listen Up!

HHS defines a transaction as an electronic exchange of information between two parties to carry out financial or administrative activities related to healthcare. HIPAA requires covered entities to conduct standard transactions with one another. Conducting a transaction as a “standard transaction” includes compliance with the set data standard and affiliated operating rules, code sets, and unique identifiers for the particular transaction. HHS has adopted standards for Health Care Claims or Equivalent Encounter Information (45 CFR § 162.1101-1102), Eligibility for a Health Plan (45 CFR § 162.1201-1203), Referral Certification and Authorization (45 CFR § 162.1301-1302), Health Care Claim Status (45 CFR §162.1401-1403), Enrollment or Disenrollment in a Health Plan (45 CFR § 162.1501-1502), Health Care Electronic Funds Transfer and Remittance Advice (45 CFR § 162.1601-1603), Health Plan Premium Payments, Coordination of Benefits (45 CFR § 162.1701-1702), and Medicaid Pharmacy Subrogation Transactions (45 CFR § 162.1901-1902). 

Specific parameters for covered entities also exist. For example, if a covered entity uses a business associate to conduct any portion of a transaction for which a standard has been adopted, the covered entity must require their business associate to comply with that standard. Simply put, the inclusion of a business associate in a transaction does not relieve a covered entity of its responsibility to comply with HIPAA because a business associate is acting on behalf of a covered entity.

Additionally, there are specific parameters for covered entities entering into trading partner agreements. Trading partner agreements are agreements related to the exchange of information in electronic transactions between each party to the agreement. For example, it is standard for a trading partner agreement to set out the duties and responsibilities of each party to the agreement in conducting a standard transaction. Importantly, a covered entity cannot enter into a trading partner agreement that would: (a) change the definition, data condition, or use of a data element or segment in an adopted standard or operating rule; (b) add any data elements or segments to the maximum defined data set; (c) use any code or data elements marked “not used” or that are not in a standard; or (d) change the meaning or intent of a standard.

General Provisions for Health Care Providers and Health Plans, Explained

If a health care provider chooses to use a DDE platform—a direct data entry platform like a provider portal—offered by a health plan to conduct a transaction for which a standard has been adopted, the provider must use the applicable data content and condition requirements of the standard. However, there is an exception for providers that negates their requirement to follow standard formatting protocols when using a DDE platform.

However, a health plan must always conduct a transaction using an adopted standard if requested. They may use a paper-based or manual method, a DDE portal, or an electronic funds transfer. Of note, there are no exceptions to this requirement. This means that a health plan must comply with a provider’s request to conduct a transaction as a standard transaction regardless of the provider’s affiliation, or lack of, with the plan. There are also key prohibitions for health plans. Mainly, a health plan cannot:

Delay or reject a transaction because the transaction is a standard transaction. For example, the plan cannot provide incentives that discourage the use of standard transactions;

Reject a standard transaction just because the health plan does not use some or all of the data elements, such as coordination of benefits data elements; or

Offer an incentive for a health care provider to conduct a transaction using a DDE exception.

Relatedly, the coordination of benefits and code sets are also regulated. If a health plan receives a standard transaction and coordinates benefits with another health plan or payer, then the health plan must store the coordination of benefits data it needs to forward the standard transaction to the other health plan or payer. Simply put, even if the initial receiving health plan does not need the coordination of benefits information, that information is required to process the transaction and the information must still be stored for transmission to the subsequent health plan or payer. Additionally, a health plan must accept and process any standard transaction that contains valid codes, and it must keep code sets for the current billing and appeals periods open to processing.

Sidebar: What are Standard Unique Health Identifiers for Health Care Providers?

A covered health care provider is a health care provider that transmits any health information in electronic form in connection with a transaction for which a standard has been adopted. A covered health care provider must obtain a National Provider Identifier (NPI) from the National Provider System (NPS) and use an NPI on all standard transactions that require its health care provider identifier. Likewise, a covered health care provider must give its NPI to any requesting entity so that they can identify the health care provider in a standard transaction. Of note, a covered health care provider must also require its business associates to use the provider’s NPI. Further, when a covered health care provider is an organization—for example, a corporation or partnership—it must require all individual prescribers it works with to both obtain an NPI and share the NPI upon request with any entity for use in a standard transaction.

If you have any questions about any of the new CMS Guidance and how it may impact your practice, please reach out to your local BMD Healthcare Attorney, Daphne L. Kackloudis at dlkackloudis@bmdllc.com or Ashley Watson at abwatson@bmdllc.com.

 


New Ohio Reporting Requirements for Non-Residential Contractors

Ohio’s E-Verify Workforce Integrity Act, effective March 19, 2026, requires all nonresidential construction companies, subcontractors, and labor brokers to use E-Verify to confirm employee work eligibility on projects across the state. The law applies regardless of company size and carries financial penalties and potential restrictions on future state contracts for noncompliance. Some uncertainty remains around requirements for existing employees, making early compliance planning important.

DOT Non-Domiciled CDL Rule

A new rule from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) will significantly narrow eligibility for non-domiciled Commercial Driver’s Licenses (CDLs) beginning March 16, 2026. The rule limits eligibility to holders of H-2A, H-2B, and E-2 visas and eliminates Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) as qualifying proof of work authorization. As a result, many lawfully present and work-authorized immigrants, including refugees, asylees, DACA recipients, and Temporary Protected Status holders, will no longer be able to obtain or renew a non-domiciled CDL. The change is expected to affect roughly 194,000 drivers nationwide and has prompted multiple legal challenges, including a pending emergency stay request before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

FinCEN Residential Real Estate Reporting Rule Now in Effect

FinCEN’s new Residential Real Estate Reporting Rule, effective March 1, 2026, requires certain real estate transfers to be reported to combat financial crimes. Transfers of residential property to entities or trusts without financing may require a Real Estate Report.

Department of Education Proposes Redefinition of “Professional Degree,” Excluding Nursing and Limiting Graduate Loan Borrowing

The U.S. Department of Education has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would redefine “professional degree” programs under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The proposal excludes nursing from the recognized list and would impose new borrowing limits for graduate students while eliminating the Grad PLUS program. Public comments are due by March 2, 2026.

First-of-Its-Kind Federal Ruling Finds Use of Consumer AI Tool May Destroy Attorney-Client Privilege

On February 10, 2026, Judge Jed Rakoff of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a first-of-its-kind ruling finding that documents generated by a criminal defendant using a consumer AI platform were not protected by attorney-client privilege after being shared with counsel. The court treated the AI tool as a third party, concluding that entering sensitive information into a publicly available platform may waive confidentiality. The ruling also suggests that the work product doctrine may not apply where AI-generated materials are created independently by a client rather than at counsel’s direction. The decision signals that parties should exercise caution when using consumer AI tools in connection with legal matters.