Sheela Ranganathan is a law clerk in Sheppard Mullin’s Washington, D.C. office.

Pharmaceutical manufacturers are challenging the breadth of the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”) in federal court, arguing that the government is harming the very vulnerable patients it aims to serve by prohibiting cost-sharing subsidies for life-saving oncology drugs. In October, we discussed the Office of Inspector General’s (“OIG”) Advisory Opinion No. 22-19 (the “Advisory Opinion”), which declared that a charitable organization funded by manufacturers would violate the AKS if it offered certain cost-sharing subsidies under Medicare Part D (“Part D”), even if the organization was independently run and patients had equal access to discounts for 90% of drugs on the market. On November 9, 2022, the Pharmaceutical Coalition for Patient Access (“PCPA”), presumably the organization behind the Advisory Opinion, filed a lawsuit against OIG, seeking declaratory judgment that its cost-sharing program is legal under the AKS and that the Advisory Opinion violates the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) and the First Amendment.[1]

Continue Reading Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Ask EDVa to Allow Cost-Sharing Under the AKS

On Monday, we discussed that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) has heightened oversight of Medicare Advantage (“MA”) organizations’ and Part D sponsors’ marketing practices. We also noted that the United States Senate Committee on Finance (the “Committee”) sent letters to 15 state insurance commissioners and state health insurance assistance programs, requesting data and information on MA marketing complaints in August 2022. Yesterday, the Committee, chaired by Ron Wyden, released a report entitled Deceptive Marketing Practices Flourish in Medicare Advantage (“the Report”).

Continue Reading Senate Committee Issues Report On Deceptive Marketing Practices in Medicare Programs

In May, we discussed the final rule on Contract Year 2023 Policy and Technical Changes to the Medicare Advantage and Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Programs (the “Final Rule”) issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”). In the Final Rule, CMS established certain marketing and communication requirements for Medicare Advantage (“MA”) organizations and Part D prescription drug sponsors (PDPs), intending to address complaints of inappropriate marketing that indicated it CMS received from beneficiaries and their caregivers.

Continue Reading CMS Heightens Oversight of TPMO Marketing Programs, Restricts TV Advertisements

On January 5, 2022, we discussed the Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2023 proposed rule released by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). On April 28, 2022, CMS issued the NBPP 2023 Final Rule. CMS published a Fact Sheet and other resources on April 28, 2022. The rule will take effect on January 1, 2023, but the optional early bird application deadline is May 18, 2022 and the final deadline for issuers to submit changes to their QHP Application is August 17, 2022.
Continue Reading 2023 Payment Rule’s Nondiscrimination Provisions and Anticipation of New Section 1557 Rules

More than 13 million people were enrolled in Medi-Cal in California in September 2021, making it the largest Medicaid program in the nation. In December 2021, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) approved the California Department of Health Care Services’ (DHCS’) request for a five-year extension of its Medicaid section 1115 demonstration and a five-year extension of its Medicaid managed care section 1915(b) waiver. These Medicaid waivers are part of the “California Advancing and Innovating Medi-Cal” (CalAIM) initiative which was launched in January 2022 to provide aid to California’s most vulnerable residents and to provide more equitable programs and access statewide.
Continue Reading Medicaid and Health Equity: CalAIM’s Bold Experiment

On July 13, 2021, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) released a Proposed Rule that proposes to amend certain regulations implementing the Physician Self-Referral Law, otherwise known as the “Stark Law”. The Proposed Rule proposes to revise once again the definition of “indirect compensation arrangement” (ICA), effectively to revert the meaning of the definition back – for the vast majority of indirect financial relationships between DHS entities and referring physicians – to the definition of that term as it was in place prior to the latest Stark Law rulemaking, “Modernizing and Clarifying the Physician Self-Referral Regulations” (the “MCR Final Rule”), published on December 2, 2020.[1]  The Proposed Rule also proposes to define the term “unit” and the phrase “services that are personally performed”, both for purposes of the ICA definition.

Continue Reading CMS Proposes to Revise, Again, the Stark Law’s Definition of “Indirect Compensation Arrangement”: What Was Old is New Again

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