Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)

Subscribe to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has published its final rule that requires nursing homes enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid to disclose additional ownership and management information to CMS and state Medicaid agencies. The rule finalizes CMS’s proposed rule from February, with just two differences, as we describe further below.

The rule implements Section 1124(c) of the Social Security Act, which was added by the Affordable Care Act to require the disclosure of additional information about ownership and oversight of nursing facilities. Medicare-enrolled skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) and Medicaid-enrolled nursing facilities (NFs) will soon be required to report many detailed aspects of their ownership and management structure, including both the executive leadership and any members of the facilities’ governing bodies.

CMS plans to gather the information in 2024, beginning when the revisions to the Form CMS-855A is completed, regardless of where a facility is on its current five-year revalidation schedule. The information will then be made publicly available within one year.

Of note in the final rule is that CMS declined to finalize a broad definition of “real estate investment trust” (also known an “REIT”) from its February proposed rule and instead has finalized a definition that it finds more consistent with current federal law and industry practice.Continue Reading CMS Finalizes Nursing Home Ownership Rule

On October 31, FDA will be offering a webinar on its proposed rule ”Medical Devices; Laboratory Developed Tests.”

This webinar comes about a month after FDA issued a proposed rule revising 21 C.F.R. Part 809 (specifically, 21 C.F.R, § 809.3) to state, explicitly, that in vitro diagnostics (IVDs) are medical devices, even if they are developed and manufactured in a laboratory setting.

This category of tests is generally referred to as “laboratory developed tests” (LDTs) and FDA has historically extended enforcement discretion, accepting the availability of certain LDTs outside of the FDA device clearance and approval pathway.

Of course this has not been a straightforward situation: we have seen decades of debate among FDA and industry stakeholders about the exact boundaries of FDA’s expressed enforcement discretion—where those boundaries should lie, and even interpretation (gleaned from enforcement action) of more precisely where they do, in FDA practice, actually lie.Continue Reading The Latest Episode of the LDT Drama: FDA Issues Long-Awaited Proposed Rule for Laboratory Developed Tests

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

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

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

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (P.L. 117-328) (referred to hereafter as 2023 CAA) runs more than 1,600 pages long in the official PDF version, so you would be excused if you missed a few key substantive health provisions that were included in the law.

Many of the substantive provisions of the law had been proposed as parts of other packages throughout the year, including the Infrastructure law, the FDA User Fee legislation and the Inflation Reduction Act. However, for one reason or another, these provisions were eliminated from the final versions of the laws that were passed.

The 2023 CAA included, among other aspects, changes to the Medicare payment program and sequestration requirements, additions to the accelerated approval process for drugs, a regulatory regime for cosmetics, and changes related to pre-approval communication of health care economic information to payors, formularies and similar entities.

This is the first in a series of posts exploring some of the more important policy aspects of the law. With part 1, we will explore the changes to Medicare payment rules.Continue Reading Health Provisions of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023: Part 1 Medicare Payments

Under provisions of the 21st Century Cures Act (Cures Act), providers of Medicaid-funded personal care services (PCS) and home health care services (HHCS) will need to be fully compliant with their state’s electronic visit verification (EVV) systems by January 1, 2023

Congress passed the Cures Act on December 13, 2016. Among other things, in an effort to increase transparency and reduce fraud in connection with the delivery of health care services, this law mandated that states implement EVV systems for all Medicaid-funded (including under waiver programs) PCS by January 1, 2019, and HHCS by January 1, 2023, in each case where services include an in-home visit by a provider. Subsequent legislation extended the deadline for PCS to implement EVV requirements to January 1, 2020. However, the deadline for HHCS remains January 1, 2023, and is quickly approaching.

Providers of PCS and HHCS services should make sure that they are working towards implementing EVV systems in their own business operations in compliance with applicable state requirements, the majority of which also are requiring provider compliance by January 1, 2023Continue Reading Home Health Care Services Electronic Visit Verification System Implementation Required by January 1, 2023

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) issued the first round of civil monetary penalties to two hospitals in Georgia for failure to comply with the requirements of the Hospital Price Transparency Final Rule (the “Rule”) on June 7, 2022.

According to the Notices of Imposition of a Civil Monetary Penalty published on the CMS Price Transparency Website, Northside Hospital Atlanta (“Northside Atlanta”) and Northside Hospital Cherokee (“Northside Cherokee”) failed to publish their standard charges and provide access to a machine-readable searchable tool, which would include standard prices for the hospitals’ items and services. CMS took this action after both hospitals failed to respond to the Warning Notices and Requests for Corrective Action Plans issued by CMS.

Effective January 1, 2021, hospitals must publish a machine-readable file that discloses the hospital’s negotiated rates with health plans, gross charges, discounted cash prices, and de-identified minimum and maximum negotiated charges for all items and services. Additionally, hospitals must publish a consumer-friendly, searchable tool that displays in plain language the prices of 300 shoppable medical services that a consumer can schedule in advance.Continue Reading CMS levies penalties for non-compliance with Hospital Price Transparency Rule

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…

On May 14, 2021, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released a new final rule that further delays until December 15, 2021, the effective date of the final rule titled “Medicare Program; Medicare Coverage of Innovative Technology (MCIT) and Definition of ‘Reasonable and Necessary’” (the January 2021 Rule), which was published in the…

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released complementary rules this past Friday, November 20, 2020, to modernize and clarify the regulations that interpret the Physician Self-Referral Law (the Stark Law) and the federal Anti-Kickback Statute.

As we wrote when the proposed rules were released last autumn (see client alerts here and here),…

On October 28, 2020, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued an interim final rule with comment period (IFR) in an effort to ensure that participants in CMS programs have no-cost access to any forthcoming Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) authorized or approved COVID-19 vaccine.

The IFR governs any vaccine that…

On September 15, 2020, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued guidance to state Medicaid directors on how to advance value-based care (VBC) across their health care systems, with an emphasis on Medicaid populations, and how to share pathways for adoption­ of such approaches.  Within the 33-page letter, CMS highlights the merits of…

The October 3, 2019 Executive Order 13890 (“EO 13890”), entitled “Executive Order on Protecting and Improving Medicare for our Nation’s Seniors,” directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to “propose regulatory and sub-regulatory changes to the Medicare program to encourage innovation for patients.”  EO 13890 explicitly requests that the Secretary make coverage…

On August 27, 2020, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) filed an interim final rule with comment period (“IFC”), detailing new long-term care (“LTC”) facility COVID-19 testing requirements and strengthening enforcement of existing related facility reporting requirements.  According to CMS, the IFC represents the agency’s latest effort in an ongoing initiative to control…

With only one day left before the final rule scaling back nondiscrimination regulations took effect, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (EDNY) issued an order staying the repeal of certain parts of the former regulations. On June 19, 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) published a final rule scaling back nondiscrimination regulations first released in 2016 to implement Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The 2016 regulations had imposed significant requirements on health care providers to ensure that all individuals were provided “meaningful access” to care. As part of the 2016 regulations, OCR banned discrimination “on the basis of sex,” which was defined broadly as “on the basis of pregnancy, false pregnancy, termination of pregnancy, or recovery therefrom, childbirth or related medical conditions, sex stereotyping, or gender identity.” The 2020 final rule revised the 2016 regulations significantly, however. In one of its most controversial changes, OCR removed the definition of “on the basis of sex” contending that “on the basis of sex” shall revert to the “plain meaning” of the term “sex” in Title IX of the Civil Rights Act – meaning not to encompass discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. OCR’s decision came on the heels of a Supreme Court ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, Ga. four days prior which concluded that discrimination “on the basis of sex” encompasses claims based on gender identity and sexual orientation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Accordingly, within the course of less than a week, the Supreme Court broadly interpreted the same term that OCR severely limited.

Shortly after OCR announced its reversal of the nondiscrimination requirement based on gender identity and sexual orientation, various interest groups began mounting legal challenges. With the order issued by EDNY on August 17, 2020, we are already seeing evidence of the legal battles likely to ensue over the definition of “on the basis of sex,” placing certain parts of OCR’s final rule in legal limbo.
Continue Reading Federal Court stays repeal of “On the Basis of Sex” definition in recent nondiscrimination final rule one day before regulations take effect

On August 4, 2020, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) posted for inspection the Proposed 2021 Payment Policies under the Physician Fee Schedule and Other Changes to Part B Payment Policies.  The proposed rule is scheduled for publication in the Federal Register on Wednesday, August 17, 2020, and among its many proposals, would update and revise: (1) the physician fee schedule relative value units; (2) practice expense relative value units; (3) telehealth service approval and reimbursement policies; (4) the direct supervision requirement; (5) payment for teaching physicians; (6) medical records documentation policies; and (7) policies regarding opioid treatment programs.

Comments to this proposed rule must be received by CMS no later than 5 p.m. on October 5, 2020.
Continue Reading CMS Releases Proposed Physician Fee Schedule Rule for 2021