On February 13, 2023, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) published the revised List of Telehealth Services for Calendar Year (CY) 2023 (List). The List includes the services that are payable under the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule when furnished via telehealth.
Continue Reading CMS Updates List of Telehealth Services for CY 2023
On August 19, the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) posted a favorable advisory opinion, AO 22-16, with respect to the provision of gift cards to Medicare Advantage (“MA”) plan enrollees who complete certain steps in an online patient education program. This opinion underscores potential flexibility for with Medicare Advantage Organizations (“MAOs”) and their vendor partners to offer incentives to patients to engage in learning and health care engagement activities that may improve health outcomes without inappropriately steering patients toward particular providers or MA plans.
Continue Reading OIG Blesses Gift Cards for Patient Engagement with Education Tool
On June 24, 2022, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, No. 19-1392 (2022), holding that the United States Constitution provides no basis for a right to abortion. In its opinion, the Court further states that the right to abortion is not in the text of the Constitution, not a part of this nation’s fundamental history or concept of ordered liberty, that abortion restrictions are subject to rational basis review, and that the authority to regulate abortions lies with the 50 individual states. This decision, which is consistent with the draft opinion leaked in May, overrules both Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), which have served as precedent on abortion issues and rights for the past 50 years.
Since its passage in late 2018, the Eliminating Kickbacks in Recovery Act (EKRA) (18 U.S.C. § 220) has posed interpretive challenges. Our detailed critical analysis of EKRA is available here. EKRA prohibits, among other things, the exchange of remuneration for referrals of patients or patronage to a clinical laboratory, or an individual’s use of the services of a clinical laboratory. The law, however, leaves key terms undefined, including “referral”, “patronage”, and “use of services.” This ambiguity leaves unclear exactly which forms of conduct are prohibited by EKRA. Further, EKRA contains exceptions that overlap imperfectly with safe harbors under the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) and states, confusingly, that EKRA “shall not apply to conduct that is prohibited” by the AKS. The latter provision imperils the status of conduct that is within an AKS safe harbor, but which does not meet the requirements of an EKRA exception. No implementing regulations have been published to alleviate any of these ambiguities.
On June 15, 2022, in a win for hospitals, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in American Hospital Association et. al. v. Becerra (“Becerra”), overturning massive reimbursement reductions in the 340B drug pricing program (“340B Program”).
Continue Reading Supreme Court Saves Hospitals from $1.6B Cut to 340B Program
The digital health sector has seen tremendous growth and innovation over the past few years. This momentum introduces new complexities within the legal and regulatory landscape that is trying to
Continue Reading Top 5 Legal Issues in Digital Health to Watch for in 2022
Scope of practice expansion has been a hot-button issue within medical communities and state legislatures for more than thirty years. The debate is centered on what services advanced practice providers (“APPs”) who hold Master’s Degrees (e.g., Physician Assistants, Nurse Practitioners, Pharmacists, Dental Hygienists, etc.) should or should not be able to furnish in their professional practices. Scope of practice is defined by state regulatory boards, often based on limitations established by state legislatures.
Continue Reading Debate Continues Around Scope of Practice Expansion for APPs
On August 13, 2021, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court opinion vacating CMS’ Overpayment Rule, 42 C.F.R. 422.326, for Medicare Advantage organizations (“MAOs”). UnitedHealthcare Insurance Co. et al. v. Becerra et al., case number 18-5326. As a result of this decision, CMS can once again rely on the Overpayment Rule to impose voluntary refund obligations for MAOs. MAOs – already subject to significant government enforcement related to their risk adjustment coding practices – should carefully consider the implications of this decision for their coding and auditing practices.
Continue Reading D.C. Circuit Gives New Life to CMS Overpayment Rule
Introduction
CMS’ most recent Stark Law rulemaking includes important changes to the rules that allow physician practices to satisfy the definition of “Group Practice” while distributing designated health services (“DHS”) – based profit shares and productivity bonuses. 85 Fed. Reg. 77492 (Dec. 2, 2020) (the “Final Rule”). As these changes go into effect January 1, 2022, and the ability to bill Medicare for DHS is often contingent on satisfying the definition of “Group Practice,” physician practices should take action now to assess their physician compensation arrangements and methodologies under the new rules.
In July 2020, we discussed a ruling by the D.C. Court of Appeals upholding the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) site-neutral payment rules. On Monday, June 28, 2021, the Supreme Court declined, without comment, to hear an appeal from the American Hospital Association (AHA) and other provider groups asking it to reverse this ruling.
Continue Reading Site-Neutral Payments Stand: SCOTUS Declines to Hear AHA Appeal, Preserving Lower Payments to Off-Campus Provider-Based Departments
Now approaching a year-long battle, drug manufacturers and 340B covered entities, which include hospitals and community health centers, participating in the 340B Drug Pricing Discount Program (“340B Participants”) continue to dispute the issue of whether drug manufacturers are required to give 340B Participants discounts on drugs dispensed through contract pharmacies. The most recent point of contention involves the U.S. Health Resources and Services Administration’s (“HRSA”) May 17, 2021 letters sent to six drug manufacturers stating that the manufacturers’ actions to limit access to 340B Program pricing for 340B Participants who dispense drugs through contract pharmacies is in direct violation of Section 340B of the Public Health Service Act (also referred to as the “340B Statute”). The letters also included HRSA’s demand that the manufacturers immediately begin offering their drugs at discounted prices to these 340B Participants as well as credit or refund all 340B Participants for overcharges that resulted from the limiting policies, or be subject to civil monetary penalties. As anticipated, certain drug manufacturers, including Eli Lilly, have filed motions in federal court to stop the HRSA from placing monetary penalties based on their refusal to provide 340B discounts to contract pharmacies.
Continue Reading 340B Drug Pricing Discount Program Update: HRSA Now Demands That Drug Manufacturers Provide 340B Discounts To Contract Pharmacies Amid Ongoing Litigation