Today (January 11, 2018), CMS released a Letter to Medicaid Directors outlining guidance that work requirements can be used as a basis for eligibility for certain adult Medicaid beneficiaries through 1115 waivers. Medicaid beneficiaries that can be subject to work requirements include non-elderly, non-pregnant adult Medicaid beneficiaries who are eligible for Medicaid on a basis other than disability. The guidance also outlines that exemptions/protections from work requirements must be made for individuals who are medically frail or have substance use disorders. It also details that states should outline how they would support beneficiaries with limited employment opportunities (economically depressed area, rural area, transportation limitations, etc.). The guidance suggests state could use good cause exemptions similar to those used in SNAP and TANF. Continue Reading CMS Guidance on Work Requirements for Medicaid Eligibility
The U. S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a memo dated January 4, 2018 regarding federal marijuana enforcement policy, directing all U.S. Attorneys to enforce the laws enacted by Congress and to follow well-established principles when pursuing prosecutions related to marijuana activities. Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ memorandum rescinds multiple guidance documents issued during the Obama administration, such as the Cole Memo dated August 29, 2013, and announces a” return to the rule of law.” Continue Reading Sessions Memo Resets Federal Marijuana Enforcement Policy
The rising cost of drugs in the U.S. is frequently in the news. So it is not surprising that in its contract year 2019 Proposed Medicare Advantage and Part D Regulations (Proposed Rule), the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) seeks to address Part D drug prices. CMS proposes making certain changes that might lower drug costs (for Plan Sponsors and beneficiaries) and requests information regarding avenues to potentially lower Medicare beneficiaries’ point-of-sale drug costs. The three provisions in the Proposed Rule that most directly relate to drug pricing address: (1) generic drug formulary placement, (2) cost-sharing for follow-on biological products, and (3) whether and how to reduce point-of-sale drug prices based on manufacturer rebates and pharmacy price concessions that a Plan Sponsor might receive months after the beneficiary receives the drugs. We will concentrate on the first two provision in this post. The third provision, which is a request for information, will be discussed in a later post. Continue Reading Proposed Medicare Advantage and Part D Regulations for CY 2019 – CMS Takes Aim at Drug Prices
On November 8, 2017, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will hold a workshop entitled, “Understanding Competition in Prescription Drug Markets: Entry and Supply Chain Dynamics.” Acting FTC Chairman Maureen K. Ohlhausen and U.S. Food and Drug Commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb will give the keynote addresses. Part of the goal of the workshop is to identify obstacles to competition and discuss policy steps that can increase the availability of generic drugs to consumers.
The Hatch-Waxman Act (the Act), which Congress passed over 30 years ago, provides a regulatory and judicial framework to expedite generic entry into U.S. prescription drug markets. For many drugs, the Act has helped reduce patent-related barriers to generic drug entry, which, in turn, has increased competition that has led to lower drug prices. In 2010, Congress created a similar framework for biosimilar drug development under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act. Continue Reading Federal Trade Commission Announces Workshop on Competition in the Prescription Drug Market
Last week, Mintz Levin’s Health Care Enforcement Defense Group published a new Qui Tam Update, which analyzes 21 health care-related False Claims Act qui tam cases unsealed in May 2017, and the findings include:
- long delays in unsealing remain the norm;
- relators overwhelmingly consisted of current and former employees (and physicians); and
- the most common alleged violation was billing fraud (which was claimed in two-thirds of the 21 unsealed cases).
Also of note in this Update:
- The targeted entities in these 21 cases included outpatient medical and psychological providers, laboratory testing companies, inpatient hospitals, and home health care providers.
- Of the 21 cases, the government intervened, in whole or in part, in seven cases and declined to intervene in 10. (Intervention status could not be determined from the docket in four cases.)
- The cases were filed in 17 different courts (including the Central District of California, the District of South Carolina, the Eastern District of Michigan, and the Northern District of California).
This Update provides in-depth analysis of three of the unsealed cases, which involve allegations regarding (1) “up coding” by a hospital that allegedly billed routine transport as emergency transport, which was reimbursed at a higher rate; (2) billing for medically unnecessary tests that purported to identify susceptibility to opioid addiction and engaging in a kickback scheme; and (3) processing prior authorization requests for MCOs using automated procedures to expedite processing and circumvent medical necessity determinations, resulting in submission of false claims.
The latest installment in the ongoing saga over EpiPen Medicaid Drug Rebates came on May 31, 2017, when Senator Charles Grassley issued a press release stating that between 2006-2016 taxpayers may have overpaid for EpiPen by as much as $1.27 billion, “far more” than the announced-but-never-confirmed or finalized $465 million DOJ settlement with Mylan.
To understand what the latest news means in the ongoing saga over EpiPen Medicaid Drug Rebates, it is important to understand how we got here. And why at the end of the day, the information Senator Grassley included in the May 31, 2016 release may be less important than the information he hinted at but omitted from the release. Continue Reading The Latest in the Epipen Medicaid Drug Rebate Saga – Where Are We Now?
Next week, the Massachusetts House will continue the budget process and debate over 1000 amendments that members filed to the House Ways and Means Committee’s proposed $40.3 billion FY2018 budget. The Committee’s budget includes some notable departures from Governor Baker’s proposed budget, including changes to budget items impacting the health care industry. In an Alert released earlier this week, my ML Strategies colleagues Julie Cox, Steven Baddour, Dan Connelly, Caitlin Beresin, Max Fathy and Haejin Hwang describe some of the variances in health care and public health spending proposals. Continue Reading Massachusetts Budget Process Continues with Impact on Health Care
As the healthcare industry moves towards value-based purchasing, pay-for-performance, and other payment reform models, industry leaders have identified federal fraud and abuse laws as a barrier to full implementation of such models. Last month, the Health Care Leadership Council released a White Paper entitled “Health System Transformation: Revisiting the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute and Physician Self-Referral (“Stark”) Law to Foster Integrated Care Delivery and Payment Models” (“HCL White Paper”), identifying current fraud and abuse laws as impeding transformation of the healthcare system. Pharmaceutical and device manufacturers have also taken advantage of the OIG’s Solicitation of New Safe Harbors and Special Fraud Alerts (“OIG Solicitation”) to advocate for more flexible fraud and abuse laws with respect to value-based arrangements. Continue Reading Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Healthcare Leaders cite Fraud and Abuse Laws as Obstacle to Value-Based Arrangements
Last month, the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah joined the AseraCare court and others in finding that a relator cannot successfully allege violations of the False Claims Act (“FCA”) based on a purported lack of medical necessity unless there is an objective standard articulated by Medicare. In fact, District Judge Jill Parrish cited the AseraCare case and many federal appellate decisions when granting dismissal – with prejudice – in United States ex rel. Polukoff v. St. Mark’s et al., No. 16-cv-00304 (D. Utah 2017). Continue Reading Another Court Agrees That A Difference Of Opinion On Medical Necessity Is Insufficient to Show Falsity Under the False Claims Act
Today, my colleagues Laurence Freedman, Samantha Kingsbury, and Karen Lovitch released the latest in our ongoing series reviewing health care enforcement activities in 2016 and their impacts looking forward to 2017. The client alert highlights major case law developments that influenced health care enforcement in 2016 and that will likely have major effects on the health care industry in the year ahead.
The client alert addresses the following issues raised by these important cases and what each might mean in 2017:
- Implied false certification theory and materiality requirement (Escobar)
- Anti-Kickback Statute discount exception and safe harbor (Organon; CCS Medical)
- Proof of falsity in False Claims Act medical necessity cases (AseraCare)
- Statistical sampling to prove liability in False Claims Act cases (Agape; Life Care Centers of America)
Please refer to our Health Care Enforcement Review and 2017 Outlook blog post series for additional insights on key government policies, regulations, and enforcement actions from 2016 and their expected impact on health care enforcement in the year ahead. We also encourage you to sign up for our annual webinar, Health Care Enforcement Review & 2017 Outlook, which will take place on Wednesday, January 25 at 1:00 p.m. ET. Registration and additional information are available here.