Regulatory Developments

Subscribe to Regulatory Developments

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released a pair of proposed rules on April 27, 2023 that make substantial changes to the structure of Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), both in the traditional fee-for-service setting and for services provided through managed care organizations (MCOs), and incorporate feedback from stakeholders in…

In part I, we discussed whether federal district courts could exercise jurisdiction under the federal-question statute over legal challenges to overpayment determinations made by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) under the agency’s controversial Risk Adjustment Data Validation (RADV) program for Medicare Advantage (MA) organizations. In part II, we discussed whether MA organizations must exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit under the federal-question statute.

In this final installment, we discuss a litigation nuance of potential significance in this unique context: namely, whether a district court may find that a MA organization can only challenge a RADV overpayment determination in the United States Court of Federal Claims.…

Continue Reading A Potential Route to RADV Judicial Review: Part III

Note: This is Part 1 in a series of blog posts on developments from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) regarding its commitments set forth under the Prescription Drug Under Fee Act Reauthorization Performance Goals and Clinical Trial Diversity and Modernization mandates established by Congress under the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act of 2022 (FDORA), including developments on the intersection and use of digital health technology in clinical trials and clinical trial diversity.

The Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act of 2022 (FDORA) signed by President Biden on December 29, 2022, introduced significant changes to the way in which FDA will provide oversight for clinical trials as it pertains to “Clinical Trial Diversity and Modernization.” Under FDORA, among other things, FDA is required to issue guidance on decentralized clinical trials (which is a clinical trial in which some or all trial-related activities occur at a location separate from the investigator’s location) and to provide clarification on the use of digital health technologies (DHTs) in clinical trials.

Prior to the passage of FDORA, FDA set its sights on DHTs in the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) VII Commitment Letter, acknowledging the increased use of DHTs in drug development and the need for appropriate internal expertise and external guidance for their use and evaluation.…

Continue Reading New Opportunities, New Challenges: FDA Elaborates on use of Digital Health in Drug and Biological Product Development

In part I, we discussed whether federal district courts could exercise jurisdiction under the federal-question statute over legal challenges to overpayment determinations made by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) under the agency’s controversial Risk Adjustment Data Validation (RADV) program for Medicare Advantage (MA) organizations. After concluding that existing Supreme Court precedent provided a substantial basis for arguing in favor of such jurisdiction, we left for another day the antecedent question whether MA organizations must exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit under the federal-question statute.

The seemingly straightforward exhaustion question presents a host of considerations that belie a one-size-fits-all answer. The practical answer likely depends on the nature of the specific overpayment determination at issue and the grounds upon which the MA organization wishes to challenge that determination.…

Continue Reading A Potential Route to RADV Judicial Review: Part II

The Medicare Act does not expressly provide for judicial review of overpayment determinations made by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) under the agency’s controversial Risk Adjustment Data Validation (RADV) program for Medicare Advantage (MA) organizations. With the first wave of such overpayment determinations expected in the coming months, MA organizations impacted by RADV audits should begin considering a potential route to judicial review of such overpayment determinations and whether courts may deem exhaustion of administrative remedies a prerequisite to judicial review.…

Continue Reading A Potential Route to RADV Judicial Review: Part I

Health care and health care-adjacent organizations are seeing a steep increase in risk arising from the frequently utilized third-party analytics and advertising services on their websites, mobile applications, patient portals, and other Internet-connected services. Those organizations should pay attention to new regulatory guidance, published settlements with regulators, and an onslaught of class action filings stemming…

On March 27, 2023, two United States Senators, Bill Cassidy, MD (R-LA) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR) introduced the bipartisan No Unreasonable Payments, Coding, or Diagnoses for the Elderly (“No UPCODE”) Act to address perceived financial incentives inherent in the Medicare Advantage patient risk scoring reimbursement methodology. Senator Merkley alleges that the current reimbursement…

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) published a proposed rule on February 15, 2023 that would require Medicare-enrolled skilled nursing facilities (“SNFs”) and Medicaid-enrolled nursing facilities (“NFs”) to disclose additional ownership and management information to CMS and state Medicaid agencies.

The proposed rule would implement Section 1124(c) of the Social Security Act, which was created by the Affordable Care Act to require the disclosure of information about ownership and oversight of SNFs and NFs. CMS first published a proposed rule in 2011 to implement the provision; after receiving public comments, that rule was not finalized. Twelve years later, CMS is trying again, citing concerns about the standard of care that residents receive in these facilities, including those owned by private equity companies and real estate investment trusts (“REITs”).…

Continue Reading CMS Wants to Know Who Owns Nursing Facilities

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) recently issued a Medicare-related final rule invoking the agency’s statutory authority to promulgate retroactive rules after finding that failure to apply the final rule retroactively would be “contrary to the public interest.” The final rule is expected to face vigorous legal challenges in the coming years.

Of note, such challenges may ultimately provide the Supreme Court of the United States with an opportunity to reexamine a constitutional question whose importance goes beyond just the Medicare program: namely, whether a “public interest” statutory standard—whereby Congress directs an agency to regulate according to what the agency determines to be in the public interest—complies with the constitutional prohibition against Congress delegating its legislative power to agencies.…

Continue Reading “Contrary to the Public Interest” Part II: CMS Again Invokes Retroactive-Rulemaking Authority

On January 26, 2023, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued guidance for Rural Emergency Hospitals (REHs), through which CMS outlined requirements on eligibility, the conversion process for eligible facilities, and other related information. The guidance clarifies the final rule CMS issued in November that established REHs as a new Medicare provider type, effective January 1, 2023.

This provider type was established to address the concern over closures of rural hospitals, which was particularly problematic during the COVID-19 pandemic. The final rule set forth the Conditions of Participation (CoPs) that REHs must meet in order to participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The standards for REHs closely align with the current CoPs for Critical Access Hospitals (CAHs), available here.

This article provides a brief overview of CMS’s recent eligibility guidance.…

Continue Reading CMS issues guidance for rural emergency hospital eligibility requirements

As the September 1, 2023 deadline for Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to publish the first 10 “selected drugs” subject to negotiation of “maximum fair prices” under Medicare Parts B and D fast approaches, CMS has recently specified information that manufacturers must submit in order for their drugs to qualify for the “Small Biotech Exception” to being included on the list. The information is to be submitted during the summer of 2023; the specific deadline has not yet been announced.

On August 16, 2022, President Biden signed into law the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA). Among other provisions, the IRA provides for the CMS to negotiate “maximum fair prices” with manufacturers of “selected drugs” covered under Medicare Parts B and D. The price negotiation process begins on September 1, 2023, when CMS is required to publish the list of the first 10 selected drugs subject to negotiation, for maximum fair prices which will take effect beginning January 1, 2026.

The IRA provides that the selected drugs will be the 10 “negotiation-eligible drugs” having the highest total expenditures under Medicare Part D during the period June 1, 2022 through May 31, 2023. Negotiation-eligible drugs generally consist of “qualifying single-source drugs”, which are generally defined as branded drugs and biologicals approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) at least 7 years (with respect to drugs) or 11 years (with respect to biologicals) before the date the list is published, and which do not have a marketed generic equivalent or biosimilar. However, for 2026 through 2028, the IRA provides that negotiation-eligible drugs exclude certain drugs under what CMS refers to as the “Small Biotech Exception”.…

Continue Reading CMS Specifies Info Needed for Small Biotech Exception to Medicare Drug Price Negotiation

The three agencies that oversee the independent dispute resolution (IDR) process established by the No Surprises Act have notified certified IDR entities that they should not issue any new payment determinations while the agencies evaulate and update IDR guidance to comply with a recent court decision vacating provisions of the IDR rule.

The notice comes…

For the second time in 12 months, a federal district court has set aside provisions of the No Surprises Act’s Independent Dispute Resolution Final Rule on the grounds that the portions of the rule that provide guidance to arbitrators on how to weight price submissions violate the statute’s requirements.

This decision from Judge Jeremy D. Kernodle for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in a group of challenges to the rule, consolidated under Texas Medical Association v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (No. 6:22-cv-372), follows closely on the Requirements Related to Surprise Billing Final Rule issued in August 2022 (August Rule), which sought to address earlier criticisms of the independent dispute resolution process, and marks the second time that the rule has been vacated in part and sent back to the three agencies for another chance.

The previous remand was covered in an earlier post on this blog. In both that instance and in this one, the court took issue with the prominence of the “qualifying payment amount” or QPA. The QPA is a statutorily defined payment rate that represents the median contracted rates recognized by an insurer for the same or similar items or services in the same geographic area.…

Continue Reading Portions of No Surprises Act IDR rule procedures set aside by federal court again

The Department of Health and Human Services recently issued a proposed rule that would streamline the federal regulations governing the confidentiality of substance use disorder (SUD) patient records at 42 CFR Part 2 (Part 2) with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and its implementing regulations (HIPAA). Comments on the proposed rule are due to HHS by January 31, 2023

For years, health care providers regulated by both Part 2 and HIPAA and their patients, have wrestled with the inconsistencies across these two privacy frameworks. Part 2, for example, currently imposes different patient consent requirements and disclosure restrictions on Part 2-protected SUD treatment records (Part 2 Records) than HIPAA, even though such records often constitute protected health information (PHI) as well. The inconsistencies (and in some cases, conflicts) between HIPAA and Part 2 requirements have created barriers to information sharing and confusion and compliance challenges for entities regulated under both frameworks, which in turn have unnecessarily impeded treatment access and care coordination.

As noted in the HHS fact sheet and the press release issued by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), the proposed rule would, if finalized, enhance care coordination, afford patients a formal right of access to their SUD records, and extend HIPAA’s breach notification standards to Part 2-regulated providers and information. The proposed rule would also allow health care providers to align internal privacy compliance programs, the importance of which is underscored by another proposal to impose the same HIPAA civil and criminal penalties on regulated providers for noncompliance with Part 2 regulations.

Continue Reading HHS proposes update to Part 2 confidentiality regulations to align with HIPAA

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) has proposed a new rule that, among other changes, would amend the “identified overpayment” standard in the current regulations for Medicare to align with the False Claims Act’s (“FCA”) “knowingly” standard. The proposed rule plans to remove “the exercise of reasonable diligence” language from the relevant regulations and replace that language with the “knowingly” standard from the FCA.

The regulations at issue — 42 C.F.R. § 401.305(a)(2); 42 C.F.R. § 422.326(c) and 42. C.F.R. § 423.360(c) — are supposed to implement, in part, Section 6402(a) of the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7k. This section of the ACA explains that if an overpayment under the various Medicare programs has been identified and has not been reported and returned in a set amount of time, then an enforcement action can be brought under the FCA. This section also states that the terms “knowing” and “knowingly” have the same meaning as under the FCA.

The FCA defines these terms to mean that a person has actual knowledge of information, acts in deliberate ignorance of the truth or falsity of information, or acts in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of information; the terms do not require a specific intent to defraud. 31 U.S.C. § 3729(b)(1).…

Continue Reading CMS Proposes Amending Identified Overpayment Rules to Align with FCA Knowledge Standard

Following closely after the clarifying independent dispute resolution process Final Rule, the four executive branch entities tasked with implementing the provisions of the No Surprises Act, the Office of Personnel Management, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Employee Benefits Security Administration and the Internal Revenue Service have issued a request for information to help the agencies craft the next stage of regulations for the surprise billing law.

The request is the latest effort by agencies to seek stakeholder input on the contours of the regulations implementing the No Surprises Act, this time with a focus on the requirements in the law for providers to issue a good faith estimate (GFE) to plans for services that their covered patients will submit for reimbursement and for insurers to issue an advanced explanation of benefits (AEOB) to their plan participants based on estimated charges relayed to them by providers.

Specifically, the entities are looking for information and recommendations on the process of transferring data from providers and facilities to plans, issuers and carriers to facilitate the GFE and AEOB processes, as well as the economic impacts of implementing these requirements. The notice was added to the Federal Register on Friday, Sept. 16 and comments are due to the agencies by November 15.…

Continue Reading Agencies Look for Input on No Surprises Act Good Faith Estimate Rules

On June 29, 2022, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) issued two pieces of guidance clarifying the applicability of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) related to privacy of information connected to an individual’s reproductive health. 

Through this guidance, HIPAA addresses both protected health information (“PHI”), which is subject to HIPAA’s rules, as well as general, personal information that is not directly protected by HIPAA.…

Continue Reading New Guidance by OCR addresses HIPAA and Disclosures of Information relating to Reproductive Health

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has published a final rule that governed the way that Medicare Advantage and Medicare Part D plans interact with third-party marketing organizations. The rule, which goes into effect on June 28, 2022, will have a wide ranging impact on the insurers who run these plans.

Scot Hasselman…

CMS recently issued updated Open Payments Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs). The FAQs are revised periodically to reflect the most up to date program requirements. This latest revision both added and removed FAQs, and also included some general edits.

The following FAQs were added: #2014, #2015, #2016, #2017, #2018, #2019, #2020, #2021 and #2022. Each new FAQ is reproduced in full below. They provide additional guidance regarding topics such as archived reporting years, salaries paid to covered recipients, reporting of device identifiers, valuing long-term device loans, debt forgiveness, and the definition of Nurse Practitioner.

Additionally, the following FAQs have been removed from the FAQ document “due to being no longer applicable, redundant with another FAQ, or of low utility” (according to CMS):…
Continue Reading CMS Issues Updated Open Payments FAQs

On February 23, 2022, a federal district court judge in Texas agreed with the Texas Medical Association that some provisions of the interim final rules implementing the No Surprises Act were promulgated in violation of the provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”). As a remedy, the court ordered those provisions vacated and remanded the affected rules back to the federal agencies for further consideration.

In a memorandum issued February 28, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, one of the federal agencies that promulgated the rule (along with the Employee Benefits Security Administration and the Internal Revenue Service) indicated that it was still reviewing the court’s decision and considering next steps, which could include an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Additionally, CMS said that it was withdrawing any guidance documents based on the invalidated sections and will launch revised guidance and training for certified independent dispute resolution (“IDR”) entities and parties subject to the process. Those guidance documents will be edited to conform to the court’s decision and republished. Important to providers, CMS emphasized that the court’s order does not affect its other rulemaking related to the No Surprises Act.
Continue Reading Portion of No Surprises Act IDR rule procedures set aside by federal district court