Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

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

Client Alert

Offshoring 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. 

For healthcare organizations, outsourcing billing can create exposure far beyond routine vendor-management issues. If an offshore billing company mishandles protected health information, submits inaccurate claims, or fails to follow applicable payer requirements, the provider, not just the vendor, may face delayed reimbursement, audit scrutiny, breach-response costs, contractual disputes, and reputational harm. 

HIPAA considerations

HIPAA protects protected health information (PHI), including individually identifiable health information maintained or transmitted by covered entities and business associates. Vendors that create, receive, maintain, or transmit PHI on behalf of a covered entity generally qualify as business associates and must comply with HIPAA’s applicable privacy and security obligations. 

At a minimum, organizations should confirm that outsourcing arrangements address:

  • appropriate access controls and role-based permissions;
  • encryption and other reasonable safeguards for PHI;
  • workforce training and documented compliance policies;
  • a compliant Business Associate Agreement (BAA);
  • audit rights, monitoring, and recordkeeping; and
  • clear breach reporting and notification procedures.

State-law and program requirements

HIPAA is only part of the analysis. State Medicaid rules, managed care agreements, provider manuals, executive orders, and other state authorities may impose additional restrictions on offshore subcontracting. In some jurisdictions, these restrictions can require that certain services be performed in the United States or that patient data remain within the country. As a result, a provider may be compliant with HIPAA yet still violate contract or state-specific requirements. 

This risk is especially important because enforcing contractual and privacy obligations against an offshore vendor may be incredibly difficult. When a foreign subcontractor experiences a breach or other compliance failure, the healthcare provider often bears the immediate burden of investigation, remediation, patient notification, and regulator response. 

Practical takeaways

Before outsourcing billing or related administrative functions overseas, providers should:

  • review state statutes, administrative codes, Medicaid guidance, and managed care contract requirements that may apply to the services at issue;
  • confirm whether any payer or provider agreement restricts subcontracting or offshore access to PHI;
  • conduct diligence on the vendor’s technical, administrative, and legal safeguards;
  • negotiate a BAA and service agreement with audit rights, indemnification, reporting obligations, and clear data-security requirements; and
  • implement ongoing monitoring to verify compliance after the arrangement begins.

For questions regarding the individualized risk requirements or assistance with compliance and implementation, please contact Amanda Waesch at alwaesch@bmdllc.com


CMS Rescinds EMTALA Guidance for Emergency Abortions

On June 3, 2025, CMS withdrew its 2022 guidance on emergency abortion care under EMTALA, eliminating federal protection for providers in states with abortion restrictions. This policy change could significantly impact how hospitals handle emergency care involving pregnancy complications.

Supreme Court Eliminates Higher Burden for Majority-Group Plaintiffs in Title VII Claims

In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that all Title VII plaintiffs, whether from majority or minority groups, must meet the same evidentiary standard. The decision eliminates the “background circumstances rule” and reinforces equal treatment in workplace discrimination claims.

Understanding Reasonable Fear vs. Credible Fear Interviews: A Critical Guide for Immigrants Facing Removal

In his latest article, Immigration Attorney and former Immigration Judge Rob Ratliff offers a clear breakdown of Reasonable Fear vs. Credible Fear Interviews—key procedures for noncitizens seeking protection from persecution or torture. Citing Judge Brian Murphy’s recent ruling on unlawful deportations to South Sudan, Ratliff connects these critical legal standards to current judicial developments. Read the full article at www.removal-defense.com.

House Republicans Propose Cuts to Medicaid to Finance Savings

House Republicans have introduced legislative language that proposes substantial cuts to the Medicaid entitlement program, aiming to achieve significant budget savings through policy changes. The proposed measures include stricter eligibility verification, work requirements for certain adults, and federal funding cuts to states providing coverage to undocumented residents. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the proposed healthcare provisions would reduce spending by $715 billion and could result in 8.6 million fewer people having health insurance by 2034.

Protecting Your Image in the Age of AI-Generated “Deepfakes”

The rapid evolution of artificial intelligence (AI) has transformed how we create and consume digital content, but it also poses significant risks. Among the most troubling developments in AI is the proliferation of AI-generated fraudulent content, often called “deepfakes”.