On July 27, 2023, California’s Office of Health Care Access and Information (the “Office”) released its long-awaited proposed regulations on the notice requirements for material health care transactions in California. The anticipated regulations follow the passing of SB 184 on June 30, 2022, which, in part, created the Office and granted it the authority to collect and analyze data related to health care costs, specifically via monitoring mergers and acquisitions in the health care industry. Following the lead of states like New York, whose wide-range health care transaction requirements were discussed in a previous blog post, California seeks to address the increasing costs of health care services by imposing significant notice and review requirements for mergers and acquisitions beginning in 2024.
Continue Reading California Releases Proposed Regulations on Health Care Transaction Notice Requirements
Vinay Kohli
Recent Supreme Court Case Affirms Government’s Power to Dismiss Qui Tam Suits
On June 16, 2023, the Supreme Court (the “Court”) in United States ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources affirmed the federal government’s power to dismiss a False Claims Act (“FCA”) action brought under the qui tam provisions whenever it chooses to intervene. Polansky is the second FCA case this summer in which the Court has ruled in favor of the federal government—i.e., the Department of Justice, acting through the Attorney General (“DOJ”). Writing for an 8-1 majority, Justice Kagan explained that DOJ receives considerable deference, even over the objection of the individual who raised the action (i.e., the relator or whistleblower), to dismiss cases that are inconsistent with DOJ’s interests.
Continue Reading Recent Supreme Court Case Affirms Government’s Power to Dismiss Qui Tam Suits
The Supreme Court’s Ruling Narrows Available FCA Scienter Defenses
In a unanimous opinion, the United States Supreme Court (“Court”) recently held that the False Claims Act’s (“FCA”) scienter requirement refers to a defendant’s knowledge and subjective beliefs, rather than what a hypothetical reasonable person could have known or believed. As supported by the text of the FCA itself and by its common‑law roots, the Court explained that the “focus is what a defendant thought when submitting a claim—not what a defendant may have thought after submitting it.” Consequently, the Court vacated the holding of the Seventh Circuit and remanded the matter for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s opinion. Because the Seventh Circuit had affirmed a Federal district court’s grant of the defendants’ motions for summary judgment, the Court’s opinion effectively revives the FCA claim against the defendants.
Continue Reading The Supreme Court’s Ruling Narrows Available FCA Scienter Defenses