Photo of Vinay Kohli

Vinay Kohli is a healthcare industry lawyer.  Recognized for his focus and commitment to the healthcare industry, a wide range of healthcare businesses use Vinay as an outside general counsel to guide them on strategic planning, compliance matters, operational questions, and reimbursement concerns.  He provides regulatory, compliance, and reimbursement advice on topics that range from venture formation, technology implementation, and risk management to day-to-day contract negotiations.

Vinay’s background is unique in that he is also a seasoned trial lawyer.  He is able to combine his regulatory expertise with a trial lawyer skillset for jury trials, bench trials, and arbitrations arising in the healthcare arena—he represents hospital systems, physician practices, providers of post-acute care services, as well as healthcare technology and revenue cycle management companies. He defends health care fraud and abuse litigation, prosecutes managed care disputes against large national payors, and handles government investigations.  And clients frequently call upon Vinay to serve as lead trial counsel in commercial litigation disputes that span the gamut from breach of contract and trade secret misappropriation to unfair business practices and breach of fiduciary claims.

Vinay received his B.B.A., magna cum laude, M.A., and J.D. from the University of Texas at Austin in 2005, 2006, and 2009 respectively.

Prior to joining Proskauer, Vinay was a partner in the Healthcare group at King & Spalding.

In another development in the ongoing litigation over the enforceability of Independent Dispute Resolution (“IDR”) awards issued under the No Surprises Act (“NSA”), two air ambulance providers, Guardian Flight LLC and Med‑Trans Corporation, have filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking review of the

On September 8, 2025, a shareholder of Nutex Health, Inc. (“Nutex”) filed a derivative action in the Southern District of Texas that places the No Surprises Act (“NSA”) squarely at the center of a corporate-governance fight.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that Nutex’s heavy reliance on the NSA’s independent dispute resolution

In a pair of recent back-to-back rulings, Federal district courts in Florida and New York have held that the No Surprises Act (“NSA”) does not permit providers to bring private causes of action to enforce Independent Dispute Resolution (“IDR”) awards issued under the NSA.  Following on the heels of earlier

On May 27, 2025, Blue Cross Blue Shield Healthcare Plan of Georgia (“BCBSGA”) sued several emergency physician groups and their billing agent, Halo MD, alleging abuse of the No Surprises Act’s (“NSA”) independent dispute resolution (“IDR”) process.  The complaint claims the providers submitted ineligible claims, made false attestations, and inundated

Last month, the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) issued its “Civil Division Enforcement Priorities” memorandum, memorializing a shift from its predecessor administration’s policy on gender‑affirming healthcare (“DOJ Memo”). The DOJ Memo portends a significant rise in government investigations and False Claim Act (“FCA”) liability for suppliers and providers

In a recently issued opinion, the Fifth Circuit has added yet another chapter to the growing debate over whether providers may seek judicial enforcement of Independent Dispute Resolution (“IDR”) awards issued under the No Surprises Act (“NSA”).  In a much-anticipated decision, the Fifth Circuit has held that the NSA does

The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut has become the latest court to weigh in on whether Independent Dispute Resolution (“IDR”) awards issued under the No Surprises Act (“NSA”) are enforceable.  In a recent decision, the District Court has held that providers may sue to enforce arbitration

The Department of Justice’s (“DOJ”) May 19, 2025 “Civil Rights Fraud Initiative” memorandum, issued by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche (the “Initiative”), marks a consequential policy shift for False Claims Act (“FCA”) enforcement. The Initiative instructs every U.S. Attorney’s Office to “aggressively pursue” compliance with federal civil rights laws, as those laws have been interpreted by the Supreme Court under the 2023 Harvard admissions decision. The effect of this order is to treat a recipient’s knowing violation of federal civil rights laws as a “false claim” whenever that recipient has certified, impliedly or expressly, that it would comply with those laws as a condition of receiving federal dollars.

On May 21, 2025, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) announced a significant expansion of its auditing efforts with respect to Medicare Advantage (“MA”) plans.

For newly initiated audits of MA plans, CMS will audit all eligible MA contracts for each payment year. Additionally, for audits already initiated

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a significant ruling affecting hospitals that serve low-income Medicare beneficiaries, narrowing the interpretation of the Disproportionate Share Hospital (“DSH”) payment formula.  In Advocate Christ Medical Center v. Kennedy, the Court determined that only Medicare patients who were eligible to receive a cash Supplemental