Americans today are facing an opioid epidemic that stems in part from the misuse of prescription drugs. CMS takes aim at this crisis in its CY 2019 Medicare Advantage and Part D Proposed Rule (Proposed Rules) by setting out a framework for Part D plans to monitor and reduce the potential misuse of frequently abused prescription drugs. (Those interested in a high-level overview of the Proposed Rules should see our post from last month). Continue Reading Proposed Medicare Advantage and Part D Regulations for CY 2019 – CMS Takes on the Opioid Epidemic
Bridgette Keller is an Associate in the firm’s Washington, DC office. Bridgette applies her experience in health system administration and ethics in health care to her health law practice. Bridgette advises health care providers, ACOs, health plans, PBMs, and laboratories on a variety of regulatory, fraud and abuse, and business planning matters. With a background in health care operations, Bridgette is able to provide clients with practical insight that includes a focus on the business implications of health care enforcement defense activities, internal investigations, regulatory compliance, and fraud and abuse analyses of proposed new procedures.
This week, in their “Future of the Affordable Care Act” series on our Employment Matters blog, my colleagues Alden Bianchi and Edward Lenz provided an analysis of the major provisions of the American Health Care Act (“AHCA”).
Introduced on March 6, 2017, the AHCA is the first concrete legislative proposal detailing the initial provisions designed to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. As Alden and Ed discuss, the bill currently is the subject of widespread media scrutiny and intense criticism. The bill is not final and will likely face numerous changes, including the last minute proposals changes of the past 48 hours. The March 6th version offers an outline of Republican priorities in the regulation of health and health care financing, which include a strong bias in favor of market-based solutions and aversion to most (but not all) government intervention in the health care markets.
Check out their full analysis on The Future of the Affordable Care Act Week 7: The American Health Care Act, here. Continue Reading Future of the Affordable Care Act and the American Health Care Act
Join us in New York on Tuesday, January 24th, for a discussion on FDA priorities in 2017 and the potential impact on companies in the health care and life sciences industries. In a joint presentation from Mintz Levin and ML Strategies, my colleagues, Bethany Hills, Joanne Hawana, and Rodney Whitlock, will discuss the following topics:
- President Trump’s plans for FDA reform
- Expected health care activity in the 115th Congress
- Changing FDA regulatory priorities
- Practical implications for industry
We hope you will join us! The program will run from 5:30 – 6:30, with a cocktail reception to follow. Click here to register.
In the meantime, you can continue to follow our coverage of recent FDA developments here.
Republicans have been talking about remodeling the Medicaid program through block grants or per capita caps for years. Both block grants and per capita caps are designed to limit federal spending by providing a state with a set amount of federal money to fund its Medicaid program. With the sweeping Republican victory, Republicans are in a position to move forward with these policies, primarily focused on block grants. But, there are three main questions to consider in designing a block grant program, each of which could prove controversial.
Which populations would be included in the block grant?
Any block grant proposal must determine which populations are included in the block grant. While some proposals have included all Medicaid populations, others have specifically excluded the elderly and disabled, leaving them in the existing Medicaid program.
What services would be covered by Medicaid under the block grant?
Currently, states are required to provide a set of mandatory services in order to receive federal funds. A block grant proposal must consider and address whether the current set of services would still need to be covered under the block grant funds, and if not, what services would be covered. Any reduction in the coverage of mandatory services would likely be hotly debated.
What federal funds would be provided to the states?
A block grant proposal must also determine what federal funds will be provided to the states. Funding includes two parts: (1) the initial amount provided, and (2) how much is providing moving forward. In any block grant proposal written with the express purpose of reducing federal spending on Medicaid, the funding choices will be extremely controversial and perhaps rejected by states, including those with Republican governors.
While the road to Medicaid block grants may be open for Republicans come January, there are still many questions as to how such a policy would be implemented and how it will fit with other health reform proposals.
Earlier this week my colleagues, Bruce Sokler and Farrah Short published an alert detailing the FTC‘s creative solution to permit a presumptively anticompetitive merger for a financially failing medical practice. The FTC entered into a proposed settlement with two Minnesota health care providers, allowing them to proceed with a planned merger that, according to the agency, combines “the two largest providers of adult primary care, pediatric, and OB/GYN services in the St. Cloud area.” The FTC’s willingness to accept the proposed settlement permitting was premised on (1) the fact that one of the medical groups “is a financially failing physician practice” and (2) “concerns regarding disruptions to patient care and possible physician shortages.”
The full alert on the FTC’s envelope-pressing consent solution can be found here.
Earlier this week, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) filed an amicus brief with the Fifth Circuit stating that the Texas Medical Board’s (the “Board”) appeal was inappropriate and the Court does not have jurisdiction over the appeal. But the government did not stop there. The brief goes on to argue that if the Court does in fact find that it has jurisdiction, it should affirm the district court’s order denying the Board’s motion to dismiss and allow the case to proceed. Continue Reading Teladoc Receives Support from the Feds
In another procedural defeat for the Texas Medical Board (the “Board”) over its embattled telemedicine rule, last week, a federal judge held that the Board waited too long to request certification of appeal to the Fifth Circuit. Thus the Board’s existing appeal will move forward under the collateral-order doctrine. The Board’s brief is available here. Though this is a procedural setback for the Board, its appeal of the decision regarding its ability to escape antitrust liability under the state-action immunity doctrine is still pending before the Fifth Circuit.
As we have been closely following, in January 2015, the Board issued an “emergency” proposed rule requiring physicians to perform a face-to-face or in-person physical examination of a patient prior to issuing a prescription or risk sanctions for unprofessional conduct. Teladoc, Inc. and other Plaintiffs subsequently brought an antitrust claim against the Board alleging that the new regulation violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act and the Commerce Clause. The Board filed a motion to dismiss arguing (1) that the Board is entitled to state action immunity; (2) Plaintiffs’ claims were barred by the statute of limitations; and (3) Plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the Commerce Clause. A federal district court denied the Board’s motion to dismiss on all three grounds and specifically found that the Board is not entitled to state action immunity because its actions are not actively supervised by the state.
Last week, the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) released new materials for covered entities to use to comply with Section 1557, the nondiscrimination provision of the Affordable Care Act. Section 1557 strengthens protections for populations that have been most vulnerable to discrimination in the health care setting by stating that individuals cannot be subject to discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability.
Earlier today, my colleagues Tom Crane and Larry Freedman released a Health Care Enforcement Defense Advisory regarding the Supreme Court’s long-awaited, unanimous decision in Universal Health Services v. United States ex rel. Escobar (“Escobar”). As they discuss in detail, the Court ruled that under certain circumstances the theory of “implied false certification” can give rise to liability under the False Claims Act (“FCA”).
The Court explained that FCA liability can attach when (1) “the claim does not merely request payment, but also makes specific representations about the goods or services provided,” and (2) the defendant’s “failure to disclose noncompliance with material statutory, regulatory, or contractual requirements makes those representations misleading half-truths.” However, the Court also limited the scope of the FCA by imposing a “rigorous” and “demanding” standard of materiality.
For more information and a discussion on what this decision might mean for health care enforcement defense, please click here.
CMS issued a final rule, published in the Federal Register on Friday, June 10, 2016, updating how the performance of ACOs participating in the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) is measured and compensated. This rule is part of an ongoing effort to move Medicare away from a model that pays for each service provided towards a system that rewards physicians for coordinating with each other to improve quality of patient care and outcomes while reducing cost. CMS views ACOs as a major part of this transition, and according to its press release, believes that the current updates should help more ACOs successfully participate in the MSSP by “improving the shared savings payment methodology and providing a new participation option for certain ACOs to move to the more advanced tracks of the program.” The major changes relate to three areas: