On Thursday June 14, 2018, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled against two health plans seeking risk corridors payments from the federal government. A more detailed background on the program and pending litigation is available in my prior post here. Continue Reading Appeals Court Rejects Insurers Risk Corridors Claims
Many provisions of the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) have been the subject of litigation over the last decade, with several high-profile Supreme Court cases including: NFIB v. Sebelius, King v. Burwell, and Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. One of the more overlooked topics of litigation has been the ACA’s “Risk Corridors” program. This has recently changed because a decision is anticipated in the consolidated appeal of two important risk corridors cases currently pending in a federal appeals court. Continue Reading Decision Expected Soon in Ongoing Risk Corridors Litigation
This week the Senate Finance Committee will mark up its opioid package. Additionally, the HELP Committee will hear from Secretary Azar on the Administration’s effort to lower prescription drug prices. For our complete review and what else to watch for this week, click here.
States may be starting to take aim at prescription automatic refill programs. Automatic refill programs have been proven to increase patient adherence, especially among patients with chronic conditions. However, these programs are not popular among regulators: Medicare Part D and several state boards of pharmacy have prohibited these programs for mail order pharmacies and an increasing number of state Medicaid programs are prohibiting automatic refill programs for both mail and retail pharmacies. Regulators argue that automatic refill programs result in waste to the system, stockpiling, and federal program payment for unneeded prescriptions.
Last week, Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club paid $825,000 to the Minnesota Attorney General and the Department of Justice to settle allegations that they violated the False Claims Act and Minnesota False Claims Act by automatically refilling prescriptions and billing Medicaid without a specific authorization from the patient. These alleged violations appear to be for prescriptions filled at both retail and mail. Continue Reading The Hazards of Prescription Auto-Refill Programs
On Wednesday May 9th, I was floored when the Administration released the Spring 2018 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, which contained this nugget: by December 2018, HRSA will publish its 340B Omnibus Guidance. Readers of our blog know that, as we predicted, this so-called Mega-Guidance was withdrawn in January 2017 without ever seeing the light of day. Within a day, the Unified Agenda was reposted with references to the so-called 340B Mega-Guidance removed, and HRSA acknowledged that its inclusion in the Unified Agenda was an error. The 340B Guidance remains shelved. Continue Reading Last Week in 340B: the Revival [not] of the 340B Mega-Guidance, Another Senate Hearing, and the Trump Blueprint to Lower Drug Prices
On Friday, after weeks of delay, the President finally delivered his Drug Pricing Speech and released the HHS Blueprint detailing the Trump Administration’s plan to lower drug prices and reduce out-of-pocket costs.
The speech made pointed attacks on “the middlemen” and drug lobbyists. President Trump even called out Secretary Azar’s past role as a drug company executive when calling out drug companies’ role in high drug prices. Continue Reading President Trump Delivers Much Anticipated Drug Pricing Speech
Mintz Levin has updated the Mintz Matrix, a comprehensive summary of the data breach notification laws that now exist in all 50 states (South Dakota and Alabama finally caved and enacted their own laws). It’s critical that HIPAA-regulated entities monitor these state laws because they apply simultaneously, and often conflict with, HIPAA. In the event of a data breach, regulated entities must fulfill HIPAA’s breach notification requirements and the requirements of applicable state law. Large-scale data breaches, affecting individuals from multiple states, require the rapid analysis of multiple state laws along with HIPAA requirements. But don’t wait for a crisis to review the Matrix. HIPAA covered entities and business associates should use it to familiarize themselves with the breach notification requirements of the states in which they do business, and use the Matrix to inform incident response planning activities. The Matrix is also useful for monitoring patterns and trends among state laws in this area. For example, state data breach notification laws have historically been implicated by the loss of information that could be used for identity theft, such as name coupled with social security, debit or credit card numbers. However, many states now require breach notification when health care information is used or disclosed without authorization, even if it is not associated with a social security number and even if HIPAA does not apply. You can learn more about the Matrix and download a copy on our Privacy and Security Matters blog.
As we highlighted earlier this month, CMS released both the Contract Year 2019 Final Rules for Medicare Advantage and Part D (Final Rules) and the 2019 Call Letter. These documents are not typically released at the same time, so there is a lot of information for Medicare Advantage organizations and Part D plan sponsors to absorb. One major topic area that CMS focuses on in these documents is the prevention of opioid misuse and abuse.
As you know, we have been following this topic closely in the last few months: first, we discussed how the proposed rules set out a framework for plan sponsors to monitor and reduce the potential misuse of frequently abused prescription drugs. We then discussed the Advance Notice and Call Letter outlining utilization review controls for Part D plans to use to address opioid misuse and abuse.
The Final Rules and 2019 Call Letter work together to establish a number of new policies aimed at helping Medicare plan sponsors prevent and combat prescription opioid overuse. There is significant discussion, including CMS’s response to commenters, in the final documents linked above. Here, we provide a high-level overview of the new policies.
The all-too-common story of a healthcare company declaring bankruptcy in the face of aggressive Medicare recoupment actions before the company even has a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) may get a new ending – at least in the Fifth Circuit. Although the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case, Family Rehabilitation, Inc. v. Azar, back to the district court and thus it is still too soon to tell the ultimate outcome, it reversed the district court and held that there is jurisdiction for a district court to enjoin CMS recoupment during the administrative appeals process. This decision is a big win for companies navigating the difficult and seemingly one-sided process of Medicare recoupment actions. Continue Reading Fifth Circuit Decision is Rare Victory Permitting District Court to Enjoin Recoupment Before Provider Exhausts Administrative Remedies
On Monday, CMS published a number of policies changing the dynamics of the individual market, including the Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2019 Final Rule, guidance on hardship exemptions, and a bulletin on transitional (grandmothered) plans. When interpreting all of these policies it’s important to keep in mind the following: What is success? And who is defining it?
The Obama Administration managed ACA implementation with the clear intention of making sure the outcome met the goals of the law: more people covered, more choices of coverage for those people, and lower premiums. While the success of their efforts can be debated, the intention was always known.
For the Trump Administration, it is not necessarily clear how successful implementation of this next rule will be judged. Are they trying to maximize the number of people covered, maximize the number of choices available or lower premiums? What is the organizing principle? Is it as simple as providing additional regulatory flexibility?
There are two other stakeholders who also have to determine their definition of success in the face of this rule: states and insurers. For states, they will have to determine if and how they will use the additional flexibility granted to them under their rule. Insurers, with the loss of the individual mandate and CSRs, and the looming threat of STLDIs and AHPs, have to decide if the rule provides a stable environment for participation.
From now through the start of the next open enrollment period, we expect significant backstage drama as insurers, states, and the Administration answer these questions. The offerings and premiums available to Americans six days before the midterm elections depend on these decisions. Continue Reading CMS Benefit and Payment Rule: What is Success for the ACA?