In Gresham v. Azar, United States District Court for the District of Columbia Judge James E. Boasberg “[found] its guiding principle in Yogi Berra’s aphorism, ‘It’s déjà vu all over again.’” No. CV 18-1900 (JEB), 2019 WL 1375241, at *7 (D.D.C. Mar. 27, 2019). In striking down the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) approval of Arkansas’s Medicaid work requirements as “arbitrary and capricious,” Judge Boasberg noted that the agency’s failures were “nearly identical” to those in Stewart v. Azar I, 313 F.Supp.3d 237, 243 (D.D.C. 2018), where he vacated the agency’s approval of Kentucky’s Medicaid Work requirements back in June 2018. The same day the Court issued Gresham, Judge Boasburg declared “[t]he bell now rings for round two” and again vacated Kentucky’s Medicaid work requirements finding the agency’s reaproval “arbitrary and capricious” in Stewart v. Azar II. No. CV 18-152 (JEB), 2019 WL 1375496, at *1 (D.D.C. Mar. 27, 2019).

Under Section 1115 of the Social Security Act, HHS may approve a state’s waiver application and allow a state to waive certain Medicaid program requirements. Such waivers include “experimental, pilot, or demonstration project[s]” that “in the judgment of the Secretary, [are] likely to assist in promoting the [Medicaid Act’s] objectives.” 42 U.S.C. § 1315(a). In March 2017, Seema Verma, the Administrator for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”), along with HHS Secretary at the time, Thomas Price, sent a letter to state governors clarifying the agency’s “intent to use existing Section 1115 demonstration authority to review and approve” Medicaid work requirements. Heeding this call, the governor of Kentucky applied for a Section 1115 waiver to implement an experimental program which includes work requirements as a condition of Medicaid coverage. Under these work requirements, many adults must complete 80 hours of employment or other qualifying activities every month or lose their Medicaid coverage. These requirements primarily target the Medicaid expansion population (individuals who obtained coverage after states expanded eligibility under the Affordable Care Act). Arkansas’ program—which took effect last June as the first work requirements in the history of Medicaid—is substantially similar to the Kentucky program. The Kentucky work requirements had yet to take effect.


Continue Reading

On January 1, 2019, portions of the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) Final Rule expanding the availability of Association Health Plans (AHPs) went into effect. AHPs allow small businesses to band together and negotiate better deals when buying insurance for their members.

The partial government shutdown hasn’t slowed the raging debate over how states are to implement the DOL’s final rule. On December 28, 2018, a federal judge ordered litigation concerning the rule to continue despite the shutdown.

States have reacted to the final rule in dramatically divergent ways. Some states believe that AHPs will make it finally possible for small employers to offer affordable healthcare options for their employees. Other states worry that AHPs will destabilize the individual insurance marketplace. They predict that healthy people will join AHPs because they are less expensive than other insurance options, and this shift will leave sicker people in a smaller pool with higher premiums.  
Continue Reading

Crowell & Moring has issued its Regulatory Forecast 2018: What Corporate Counsel Need to Know for the Coming Year.”

The health care section of the Forecast, “Mergers: Keeping Care Competitive,” outlines how regulators have kept a close eye on the impact of industry consolidation and how the government has been aggressively

Crowell & Moring has issued its Litigation Forecast 2018: What Corporate Counsel Need to Know for the Coming Year.”

 The health care section of the Forecast, “FCA Enforcement: Different, But Still Here,” outlines how health care companies should expect continued enforcement of the False Claims Act, but with perhaps different emphasis

Internet defamation (and intellectual property infringement) cases are on the rise.  And cases involving anonymous defendants are becoming more common.  They of course present tricky First Amendment issues.  Indeed, most such cases result in the anonymous defendants remaining masked and escaping liability.  But in four example health care cases – a scare tactic, accidental disclosure,

A recent California Supreme Court decision has significant implications for any agreement attempting to waive a substantive statutory remedy in California. In McGill v. Citibank, the Court held that an arbitration provision that provides for a waiver of the right to seek public injunctive relief is contrary to California public policy and unenforceable.  The Court

California recently enacted Assembly Bill 72 (“AB 72”) to target surprise medical bills from out-of-network professionals.  The new law applies to commercial plans licensed by the Department of Managed Health Care and the Department of Insurance.  AB 72 sets reimbursement rates for out-of-network professionals at in-network facilities at either the average contracted rate, or 125

On August 24, 2016, Judge Edgardo Ramos of the Southern District of New York approved a settlement in which Mount Sinai Health System (Mount Sinai) will pay $2.95 million to New York and the federal government to resolve allegations that it violated the False Claims Act (FCA) by withholding Medicare and Medicaid overpayments in contravention

On February 9, 2016, the D.C. Circuit, in American Hospital Association v. Burwell, No. 1:14-cv-00851 , held that a district court has jurisdiction to compel the Department of Health & Human Services (“HHS”) to address the substantial backlog of disputed Medicare claims and to make decisions within the statutory deadlines in the face of complaints by the American Hospital Association (“AHA”) and several hospitals.  Not only did the D.C. Circuit find that the suit met the threshold requirements for mandamus jurisdiction, it also opined that the circumstances of the case and the clarity of HHS’ duty to meet statutory deadlines will “likely require” issuance of the writ if HHS has not made meaningful progress in addressing the backlog by the close of the next full appropriations cycle.

After a Medicare claim is denied, the Medicare Act provides a four-level administrative appeal process, followed by judicial review. The statute includes specific time frames for each step of the process.  At the first level, the provider presents its claim to the Medicare Administrative Contractor for “redetermination,” to take place within 60 days.  The second level involves “reconsideration” by a Qualified Independent Contractor, also to be completed within 60 days.  The third level constitutes de novo review by an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) within 90 days.  The fourth and final administrative stage involves de novo review by the Medicare Appeals Council within 90 days.  Appeals should work their way through the administrative process within about a year if all of the respective time frames are met.


Continue Reading