Health Law Advisor

In this episode of the Diagnosing Health Care Podcast: Under the Biden administration, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services published a health equity framework that drastically changed the playing field for health plans and other risk-bearing entities.

In the wake of these changes, how can health plans, accountable care organizations, and other similar stakeholders successfully create and administer social determinants of health interventions as a means to advance health equity?

On this episode, Epstein Becker Green attorneys Jackie Selby, Kevin Malone, and Marjorie Scher discuss the recent national focus on health equity, the actionable interventions behind the concept, and the responsibility of stakeholders in making care delivery more equitable.

On August 24, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued an opinion and order in Texas Medical Association, et al. v. United States Department of Health and Human Services(“HHS”)(“TMA III”). TMA III challenged certain portions of the July 2021 No Surprises Act (“NSA”) interim final rules proposed by the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and Treasury, along with the Office of Personnel Management (the “Departments”).  In a decision that significantly levels the field for providers, the District Court ruled in part ...

In this episode of the Diagnosing Health Care Podcast:  In July, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services made significant headway in its implementation of the drug pricing provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).

How can stakeholders respond to, implement, and comply with all these new provisions? On this episode, hear from special guest Sylvia Yu, Vice President and Senior Counsel of Federal Programs at PhRMA.

Sylvia and Epstein Becker Green attorneys Connie Wilkinson and Alexis Boaz discuss the recent updates on the quickly moving implementation of the drug pricing provisions under the IRA and the industry’s response.

On April 14, 2022, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued new guidance on the Independent Dispute Resolution (IDR) process, created under the No Surprises Act (NSA) to provide a mechanism for payers and providers to resolve disputes as to appropriate payment amounts for certain out-of-network claims. In addition, the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and the Treasury launched two online portals– one to host the IDR process for providers and payers and one to host the patient-provider dispute resolution process for self-pay and uninsured patients.

This new guidance replaces earlier instruction from the agency on how the IDR process would operate and what the independent arbitrator was required to consider. The prior guidance was withdrawn after a successful legal challenge to the interim final rule implementing the No Surprises Act provisions on the IDR process, specifically with respect to the weight to be given to the Qualifying Payment Amount (QPA). The QPA is essentially the payer’s median contracted rate for similar services. The QPA is used to calculate patient cost sharing and must be considered by the independent arbitrator in resolving a payment dispute between a payer and an out-of-network provider. Initially, regulators directed arbitrators to use the QPA as a baseline, and when choosing between the parties’ proposed payment offers to choose the amount closest to the QPA unless one of the parties submitted credible information demonstrating that the appropriate payment amount was materially different from QPA.

In this episode of the Diagnosing Health Care Podcast:  This term, the Supreme Court of the United States is set to rule in a Medicare reimbursement case that has sparked a fresh look at the historical deference often granted to agencies and whether it should remain, be modified, or even be overruled.

Attorneys Stuart Gerson, Robert Wanerman, and Megan Robertson discuss why Chevron deference matters to health care industry stakeholders and what aspects of deference arguments should be in focus as these cases progress.

The Diagnosing Health Care podcast series examines the ...

On September 30, 2021, the federal Departments of Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services issued “Requirements Related to Surprise Billing; Part II,” the second in a series of interim final regulations (the “Second NSA Rules”) implementing the No Surprises Act (“NSA”). This new federal law became effective for services on or after January 1, 2022.

In this episode of the Diagnosing Health Care Podcast:  The Biden administration has released a series of rules and guidance to implement the No Surprises Act, which went into effect on January 1. All providers and facilities must now provide a good faith estimate to uninsured and self-pay patients scheduling appointments for services or upon request.

From our Thought Leaders in Health Law video series:  Is your organization ready for the No Surprises Act (NSA)? The law goes into effect January 1, 2022, and contains a new federal ban on surprise billing as well as new disclosure requirements.

The NSA applies to certain payors, providers, facilities, and ancillary service entities that support patients who receive emergency services or other non-emergency services at certain facilities, such as hospitals, hospital outpatient departments, and ambulatory surgical centers.

As featured on the Diagnosing Health Care Podcast:  As 2021 nears a close, acute care hospitals and health systems are facing a host of financial, regulatory, and legislative challenges. In this special episode of Diagnosing Health Care, Rick Pollack, President and CEO of the American Hospital Association, and Epstein Becker Green’s Ted Kennedy, Jr., discuss the ways in which the industry is working with the Biden administration and Congress to shape policy around critical issues, such as surprise billing, coverage expansion, value-based care, and telehealth.

Rick ...

On April 13, 2021, a New York-based chiropractor, was sentenced to nine years in prison, and ordered to pay close to $20 million, for running what the federal government alleged was a large scale scheme to defraud Medicare and other third party insurers.[1]   The sentencing stems from a case originally filed under seal on August 29, 2018, in which the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York alleged that two New York chiropractors – James and Jeffery Spina – improperly owned and controlled multiple medical practices and engaged in submission of fraudulent health care claims from 2011 until September 2017.

The ongoing pandemic caused by the novel coronavirus has upended the American health care system in many ways. One of the many effects of COVID-19 will likely be substantial disruption in value-based payment arrangements between health plans and providers. Though this is an issue that is not on the top of providers or payors minds as the health care system prepares to respond to the crisis, there are some simple steps that providers can take now to avoid issues in the future.

Any iteration of value-based payments (“VBP”) is likely to be disrupted by COVID-19; be it shared savings, shared risk, or full risk arrangements. Quality targets and reporting deadlines are likely to be missed as providers move many routine and preventative services to telehealth services or suspend them entirely for the time being, as well as turn the bulk of their clinical focus to COVID-19. Under some VBP arrangements, providers may be ineligible for any savings due to their inability to meet “quality gates” (i.e., certain quality metric thresholds that must be met before any savings payments are made) in the current climate. Cost savings targets are likely to be missed or at least distorted as providers focus on building out their capabilities to address the pandemic. How will these sudden and substantial changes affect the parties participating in value-based arrangements?

CMS has already announced that it will amend its quality reporting requirements from the fourth quarter of 2019 through the end of the second quarter of 2020.[1] The announcement covers a variety of quality reporting requirements and payment programs with the stated purpose of alleviating reporting requirements and disregarding unrepresentative data created during the emergency. CMS has also stated that it intends to prorate any losses incurred by Medicare accountable care organizations (“ACOs”) in 2020 for the duration of the public health emergency (e.g., if the public health emergency lasts for six months, the annual losses an ACO incurs in 2020 would be halved). Many – including a bipartisan group of Senators – have argued that this approach is insufficient to truly address the pandemic-related costs incurred by ACOs.[1] CMS has also stated that it will disregard all costs associated with care related to COVID-19 when performing benchmark calculations.[2] States may make similar changes for VBP arrangements in Medicaid programs. How these government steps would flow down into VBP agreements between managed care plans and providers is not clear and requires analysis of the specific agreements.

As the coronavirus spreads throughout the country, hospitals and other health care providers are finding themselves inundated with patients. Those providers who are in-network with payors have and will likely continue to experience difficulty in complying with certain provisions of their contracts. For instance, as payors are also experiencing an unexpected influx of telephone traffic, the wait time for various approvals, including, but not limited to, pre-authorizations are being delayed.

Providers are often contractually obligated to obtain pre-authorizations for certain procedures and services prior to rendering the care. Due to the increased telephone traffic and increased wait times on the payor end, these providers are now faced with a dilemma. A process that as of two weeks ago only took a matter of ten to fifteen minutes now can take up to an hour or more. This creates a serious dilemma for those providers who need to render care to their patients and comply with their contractual obligations to payors.

The Senate has spoken to this issue via the Families First Act which prohibits cost sharing and imposing prior authorizations for COVID-19 related testing under Medicare, CHIP, and individual and small/large self-funded group plans. See Division F-Health Provisions, § 6001, Coverage of Testing for COVID-19. While some payors have recognized and acknowledged the difficulties posed by COVID-19 and have made exceptions to the standard requirements, those exceptions have been limited. For example, the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association has indicated that its network of 36 BCBS companies will waive prior authorizations for diagnostic tests and covered services that are medically necessary for members diagnosed with COVID-19. Similarly, Wellmark and Anthem, Inc., have waived prior authorizations for covered services related to COVID-19. While these limited pre-authorization waivers are a start, they do not resolve the dilemma faced by those providers treating patients who are not suffering from COVID-19.

Did you know that your zip code is a better predictor of your health than your genetic code? Public health experts – and your health insurance provider – have long known that the air you breath, the education you receive, your net worth, and even the music that you listen to are strong indicators of your overall health – and the possibility that you might need expensive medical procedures in the future. By some measures, up to 50% of your overall health is determined by social, economic, and environmental factors. As the movement to value-based payment continues in health care, there ...

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a final rule on November 1, 2018 that updates physician fee schedule (PFS) payments for calendar year (CY) 2019 and finalizes several policies. The final rule includes amendments to the regulations promulgated under Section 216 of the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 (“PAMA”) intended to increase the number of clinical laboratories that qualify as an “applicable laboratory” for reporting purposes; specifically (1) removal of payments received from Medicare Advantage (MA) Plans for determining ...

On October 10, 2018, President Donald Trump signed into law the “Know the Lowest Price Act” and the “Patients’ Right to Know Drug Prices Act,” which aim to improve consumer access to drug price information by banning gag clauses. The Trump administration previously announced its intention to enact this legislation in its May 2018 Blueprint to Lower Drug Prices and Reduce Out-of-Pocket Costs and will likely point to these new federal laws as affirmation of its commitment to drug pricing reform that favors patients and consumers.

These bills—one of which applies to ...

All titles in this series can be viewed below. Subscribe to our blog to receive these future updates. Prior installments of this series can be accessed using the links provided.

• Medicare Secondary Payer Compliance: An Introduction (Part I)
• Medicare Secondary Payer Compliance: Conditional Payments (Part II)
• Medicare Secondary Payer Compliance: Group Health Plans (Part III)
• Medicare Secondary Payer Compliance: Non-Group Health Plans (NGHPs) (Part IV)
• Medicare Secondary Payer Compliance: Providers (Part V)
• Medicare Secondary Payer Compliance: The False Claims Act (FCA) for ...

There has been a growing trend of strategic joint ventures throughout the healthcare industry with the goal of enhancing expertise, accessing financial resources, gaining efficiencies, and improving performance in the changing environment. This includes, for example, hospital-hospital joint ventures, hospital-payor joint ventures, and hospital joint ventures with various ancillary providers (e.g., ambulatory surgery, imaging, home health, physical therapy, behavioral health, etc.). Extra precautions need to be taken in joint ventures between tax-exempt entities ...

Early January has seen the release by FDA of a flurry of information on drug and device manufacturer communications, largely reaffirming FDA's long-held approach to restricting manufacturer communications regarding off-label uses of approved drugs and medical devices. The most significant positive development arising from these documents is the Agency's concession on proactive pre-approval communications with payors about investigational drugs and devices, allowing certain information to be provided to payors prior to a product's approval. FDA's guidance documents ...

On October 24, 2016 the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") in conjunction with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services ("CMS") announced their intention to extend the Parallel Review pilot program indefinitely. The Parallel Review process is intended to provide timely feedback on clinical data requirements from FDA and CMS, and minimize the time required for receiving Medicare coverage nationally.  Sounds good.  So, why have so few manufacturers taken advantage of the program to date?

Despite its admirable goals, the current Parallel Review Process is too limited in scope ...

On July 7, 2016, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS") imposed several administrative penalties on Theranos, a clinical laboratory company that proposed to revolutionize the clinical laboratory business by performing multiple blood tests using a few drops of blood drawn from a finger rather than from a traditional blood draw that relies on needles and tubes. However, after inspecting the laboratory, CMS concluded that the company failed to comply with federal law and regulations governing clinical laboratories and it posed an immediate jeopardy to patient ...

In its recent decision in U.S. House of Representatives v. Burwell,[1] the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the Obama administration's payment of cost-sharing subsidies for enrollees in plans offered through the Affordable Care Act's Exchanges is unauthorized for lack of Congressional appropriation. The decision would affect future cost-sharing subsidies, though the court immediately stayed the decision pending its outcome on appeal.[2]

In its decision, the court found in favor of the members of the House of Representatives, based upon its ...

In its Fiscal Year 2017 Private Insurance Legislative Proposals, President Obama's Budget contains a provision seeking to "eliminate surprise out-of-network healthcare charges for privately insured patients." Described as an attempt to "promote transparency on price, cost, and billing for consumers," this measure requires hospitals and physicians to collaborate so that patients receiving treatment at in‐network facilities do not face unexpected charges from out‐of‐network practitioners. This provision could have far-reaching effects, potentially impacting ...

On September 28, 2015, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services ("CMS") issued a request for information ("RFI") seeking comments on two key components of the physician payment reform provisions included in the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 ("MACRA"), the law enacted on April 16, 2015, repealing the sustainable growth rate formula used to update payment rates under the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule.  The RFI was originally open for a 30-comment period.  However, CMS has announced that it is extending the comment period for an additional 15 days.  Comments ...

On Wednesday, October 14, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (the "Court"), Judge Rudolph Contreras, vacated the Health Resources and Services Administration's ("HRSA") interpretive rule on Orphan Drugs ("the Interpretative Rule") as "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law."^[1]  As a result of the ruling, pharmaceutical manufacturers are not required to provide 340B discounts to certain types of covered entities for Orphan Drugs, even when the drugs are prescribed for uses other than to treat the rare ...

As we ended the summer of 2012, the Obama administration touted one of the more popular aspects of the Affordable Care Act – the requirement that health insurers spend at least 80 cents of every premium dollar on medical care and health care quality (85 cents for large employer groups purchasing health insurance), and if they do not, requiring these insurers to rebate the difference back to subscribers or their employers. According to the Administration, the “80/20 Rule” or the “Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) Rule,” as it alternately known, resulted in 12.8 million Americans ...