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


Don't Get Caught Dazed and Confused: Another Florida Court Weighs in on Employer Obligations to Accommodate Medical Marijuana Use

A Florida trial court ruled in Giambrone v. Hillsborough County that employers may need to accommodate off-duty medical marijuana use under the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA). This contrasts with prior rulings and raises new compliance challenges for employers. With the case on appeal, now is the time to review workplace drug policies.

Corporate Transparency Act to be Re-evaluated

Recent federal rulings have impacted the enforceability of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), which took effect on January 1, 2024. While reporting requirements were briefly reinstated, FinCEN has now paused enforcement and is reevaluating the CTA. Businesses are no longer required to submit reports until further guidance is issued. For updates and legal counsel, contact BMD Member Blake Gerney.

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

Ohio House Bill 58 proposes significant changes to recovery housing oversight, granting ADAMH Boards authority to inspect and investigate recovery residences. The bill also introduces a Certificate of Need (CON) program, requiring state approval for major facility changes. OMHAS will assess applications based on cost, quality, accessibility, and financial feasibility. The bill also establishes a recovery housing residence fund to support inspections. For more information, contact BMD attorneys Daphne Kackloudis or Jordan Burdick.

January 2025 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Brings Notable Changes to HIPAA Security Rule

In January 2025, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services proposed amendments to the HIPAA Security Rule, aiming to enhance cybersecurity for covered entities (CEs) and business associates (BAs). Key changes include mandatory compliance audits, workforce training, vulnerability scans, and risk assessments. Comments on the proposed rule are due by March 7, 2025.

Corporate Transparency Act Effective Again

The federal judiciary has issued multiple rulings on the enforceability of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), which took effect on January 1, 2024. Previously, enforcement was halted nationwide due to litigation in Smith v. U.S. Department of the Treasury. However, on February 18th, the court lifted the stay, reinstating the CTA’s reporting requirements. Non-exempt entities now have until March 21, 2025, to comply. Businesses should act promptly to avoid civil penalties of $591 per day and potential criminal liability.