Health Law Advisor

On July 10, 2025, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced a proposed rule to establish the Ambulatory Specialty Model (ASM)—a mandatory value-based payment model for specialists who treat patients with heart failure or low back pain.

CMS selected heart failure and low back pain because these chronic conditions represent roughly 6% of total, annual spend for traditional Medicare. The model is scheduled to run from 2027 through 2031 and represents an expansion of CMS’s strategy to integrate specialty care into its broader efforts to manage chronic disease and control Medicare spending.

CMS is accepting public comments on the proposal through September 12, 2025, offering stakeholders an opportunity to help shape the model’s design and implementation.

On May 9, 2025, the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Treasury (collectively, “the Departments”) asked the D.C. federal court to suspend a lawsuit to challenge the legality of the 2024 Rule on the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) while the Departments consider whether to rescind or modify the 2024 Rule.^[1] On May 15, 2025, the Departments released a public statement that they will not enforce the 2024 Final Rule prior to a final decision in the litigation, plus an additional 18 months after the decision.

The public statement on May 15 provides further details regarding the scope of the non-enforcement policy, including clarification that the 2013 MHPAEA rules remain in effect, as does plans’ obligation to develop comparative analyses of non-quantitative treatment limits (“NQTLs”). However, the Departments have not yet provided any indication of the timeline for publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking to rescind or modify the 2024 Rule, and most likely it will take some time for the Departments to determine how exactly the new rule should be designed to better implement the statutory requirements.

On July 1, 2024 the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (“CMMI”) will be inaugurating a new value-based payment model designed specifically to address the devastating impacts that a diagnosis of dementia^[1] or Alzheimer’s Disease[2] can have on a patient, their family, friends, and other caregivers who make up the patient’s circle of support. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) designed the Guiding an Improved Dementia Experience (“GUIDE”) model (the “Model”) for health care providers enrolled in Medicare Part B and that treat ...

Introduction

Following the Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturning Roe v. Wade, the federal government, pursuant to President Biden’s Executive Order (the EO) took several steps to protect reproductive health privacy, some of which we previously discussed here. Specifically, the EO called for agencies to protect “women’s fundamental right to make reproductive health decisions.” Shortly following issuance of the EO, the Biden Administration created its HHS Reproductive Healthcare Access Task Force, requiring all relevant federal agencies to draft measurable actions that they could undertake “to protect and bolster access to sexual and reproductive health care.”  

On July 8, two weeks following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson that invalidated the constitutional right to abortion, President Biden signed Executive Order 14076 (E.O.). The E.O. directed federal agencies to take various actions to protect access to reproductive health care services,[1] including directing the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to “consider actions” to strengthen the protection of sensitive healthcare information, including data on reproductive healthcare services like abortion, by issuing new guidance under the Health Insurance and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA).[2]

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to imminently issue its opinion in the case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (“Dobbs”). If the Court rules in a manner to overturn Roe v. Wade, states will have discretion in determining how to regulate abortion services.^[1] Such a ruling would overturn nearly 50 years of precedent, leaving patients, reproductive health providers, health plans, pharmacies, and may other stakeholders to navigate a host of uncharted legal issues. Specifically, stakeholders will likely need to untangle the web of cross-state legal issues that may emerge.

In a move that reminds us that successful defendants can—and should—seek attorneys’ fees in the right case, a magistrate judge in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit awarded pharmaceutical company Aventis Pharma SA (“Aventis”) attorneys’ fees in a False Claims Act (“FCA”) case brought by a competitor, Amphastar Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Amphastar”). The FCA contains a fee-shifting component, permitting prevailing parties to recover attorneys’ fees from the opposing party—but the playing field is not equal. This fee-shifting provision entitles a prevailing plaintiff to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, regardless of whether the government elects to intervene in the case. 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d)(1)-(2). A defendant, on the other hand, can only be awarded attorneys’ fees in cases in which the government has declined to intervene and where the defendant can show that the opposing party’s action was “clearly frivolous, clearly vexatious, or brought primarily for purposes of harassment.” 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d)(4).

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether the federal government can approve state programs that force Medicaid participants to work, go to school, or volunteer to get benefits. Both Arkansas and the Justice Department sought review of the issue. Epstein Becker Green attorney Clifford Barnes provides potential paths for the Biden administration to best position itself in the case.

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a case involving the authority of the Department of Health and Human Services to approve Medicaid work requirements programs in Arkansas and New Hampshire that were struck down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The high court has agreed to determine whether the HHS can allow states to impose work requirements in its Medicaid program even though all lower courts ruled against HHS’s approval of states’ Section 1115 work requirement waivers, based on the Trump administration’s refusal to consider the impact of the waivers on the core purpose of Medicaid—which is to increase health insurance coverage.

Unlike the narrow question considered by the lower courts, however, the court granted certiorari on a much broader issue. The question presented concerns the entire Section 1115 process and asks whether the HHS secretary has the power to establish additional purposes for Medicaid, beyond coverage.

Should the court rule that the HHS secretary does indeed possess this unbounded power, the entire Section 1115 landscape could shift, potentially allowing states to implement waivers like Arkansas, so long as they meet such additional purpose.

The case establishes an effective deadline for the Biden administration to take action to mitigate or eliminate the work requirements, in light of the administration’s commitment to expanding, rather than rolling back, Medicaid insurance coverage.