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


Ohio Department of Medicaid Proposes Changes to Dental Reimbursement and Coverage Rule

The Ohio Department of Medicaid is proposing amendments to Ohio Administrative Code. There will be a hearing on the proposed rule changes August 12, 2024.

Will Division II and III Athletic Programs Survive the New Era of College Athletics?

The potential reclassification of student-athletes as employees presents major financial challenges for Division II and III sports programs, which may struggle to afford the costs and could be forced to cut or eliminate non-revenue-generating sports. Recent legal rulings, including the Alston case and Johnson v. NCAA, have challenged the NCAA's amateurism model and prompted a need for innovative solutions to sustain these programs.

Corporate Transparency Act: Business Owners Must Act Now

The Corporate Transparency Act requires all reporting companies to file their Beneficial Ownership Information (BOI) report by year-end to avoid penalties. Companies formed before January 1, 2024, have less than six months to comply. Learn more in a client alert by BMD Member Blake Gerney.

New Medicare Billing Rules: What MFTs, MHCs, and IOP Providers Need to Know

Starting January 1, 2024, Medicare began covering services provided to Medicare beneficiaries by marriage and family therapists, mental health counselors, and Intensive Outpatient Program (IOP) services. With this change, Medicare has become the primary payer for these services.

Chevron Doctrine No More: What the Supreme Court’s Ruling Means for Agency Authority

On June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court invalidated the Chevron doctrine, nearly 40 years after it first took effect.