On August 31, 2024, the California State Assembly and State Senate passed Assembly Bill 3129 (“AB 3129”). If signed by Governor Newsom, AB 3129 would establish a comprehensive transaction review law that (i) targets private equity firms and hedge funds, and (ii) grants the Attorney General explicit consent rights over
No Surprises Here! Fifth Circuit Upholds Health Care Provider Challenge to No Surprises Act Regulations
In a recent win for health care providers, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has affirmed a lower court’s decision to vacate key portions of regulations issued by the U.S. Departments of Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services (collectively, the “Departments”) under the No Surprises
No Surprises Here! CMS Audit Uncovers Non-Compliance by Aetna in Calculation and Disclosure Requirements Under the No Surprises Act
In a recent audit, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) uncovered non-compliance by Aetna Health Inc. of Texas (“Aetna”) in calculating key payment information for air ambulance services under the No Surprises Act (“NSA”). These audit results highlight the ongoing challenges faced by providers and payors in
No Surprises Here! Divergent Court Rulings Spotlight Ongoing Challenges in No Surprises Act Implementation; Tee Up Split in Authority on Award Enforcement Mechanisms
Two District Courts have reached opposite conclusions on the enforceability of arbitration awards under the No Surprises Act (“NSA”). The two decisions, while far from the final word on the subject, highlight the most recent challenge relating to the implementation of the NSA.
Enacted by Congress in 2020, the NSA
Recent Circuit Litigation Continues to Highlight “But-For” Causation Requirement for the Government to Demonstrate an FCA Violation Predicated on an AKS Violation
In recent years, a circuit split among the United States Courts of Appeals has emerged over how courts have interpreted the False Claims Act’s (“FCA”) causation element in cases where a violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”) is a predicate violation for the false claim. The spotlight is now on
California Considers New Restrictions as Health Care Notice Requirements Go Live for Transactions Closing on or After April 1
In August 2023, we published a blog post about the California Office of Health Care Access and Information’s (“OHCA”) proposed cost and market impact review (“CMIR”) regulations under the California Health Care Quality and Affordability Act (“Proposed Regulations”). The final CMIR regulations implementing the notice requirements for large health care transactions in California (“Final Regulations”) were approved on December 18, 2023. As enacted, all health care entities that meet certain threshold requirements and are a party to a “material change transaction” expected to close on or after April 1, 2024, must provide at least 90 days’ advance notice to OHCA. OHCA began accepting notices as of January 1.
Continuing the trend towards greater scrutiny of health care transactions, on February 16, the California Assembly introduced a new bill, AB-3129, which would subject private equity groups and hedge funds to a 90-day notice and consent requirement for change of control transactions or acquisitions of health care facilities or provider groups that are expected to close on or after January 1, 2025. While the Final Regulations are intended to promote competition in the health care sector, the stated purpose of AB‑3129 is to improve the quality and lower the cost of health care.
This blog discusses the scope of the Final Regulations and what to look out for as AB-3129 makes its way through the California legislative process.
California Releases Proposed Regulations on Health Care Transaction Notice Requirements
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.
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.
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.