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 Businesses Required to Post Exceptions to State-wide Mask Mandate at all Entrances

On July 22, 2020, in conjunction with the state-wide mask mandate instituted by Governor Mike DeWine, Lance D. Himes, Interim Director of the Ohio Department of Health, issued an order requiring Ohio businesses to post any permitted exceptions they provide to customers, patrons, visitors, contractors, vendors and similar individuals to use facial coverings at all business entrances.

ODM and OhioMHAS Continue to Expand Telehealth

On July 17, 2020, Governor DeWine signed Executive Order 2020-29D, which allowed the Ohio Department of Medicaid (“ODM”) to immediately rescind old provisions and file a new rule (5160-1-18) and the Ohio Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services (“OhioMHAS”) to amend their current rule (5122-29-31), both expanding telehealth and introducing even more flexibility into Ohio’s healthcare system.

Top Questions of Employers - Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Law

One month ago, the United States Supreme Court, in Bostock v. Clayton County, determined that federal law (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) protects employees on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Our earlier post discussed the full decision. The purpose of this article is to share and address the Top Questions of Employers since that decision was rendered.

Healthcare Acquisitions and Divestitures During the COVID-19 Pandemic

It seems as though all aspects of our personal and professional lives have been impacted in one way or another by the COVID-19 public health emergency. Healthcare acquisitions and divestitures are no exception. Although the ramifications depend on the specific circumstances of each transaction, we are noticing certain common threads woven among recently closed and currently in progress transactions in the healthcare industry. Here are a few of the questions that often arise as we work with clients to navigate the current business landscape both during and after the COVID epidemic.

Ministerial Exception to Title VII

On July 8, 2020, the United States Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision holding that religious institutions, such as churches and religion-based schools, are shielded from employment discrimination lawsuits — including claims brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In doing so, the Court decided in favor of two Catholic schools facing legal discrimination claims from former teachers who alleged wrongful termination from their employment for age and disability.