On December 31, 2021, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed landmark legislation to increase the transparency of prescription drug pricing and to establish requirements on pharmacy middlemen. This new law is amongst 100  state bills introduced in 2021 that shed light on the business practices of pharmacy benefit managers (PBM). In an approval memo,
Recently, in Siegel v. Snyder, Slip.Op. 07624, New York’s Appellate Division, Second Department interpreted New York’s peer review/quality assurance confidentiality statute in a manner that may require modifications to the standard documentation of such meetings. New York’s Education Law 6527(3) shields from disclosure “the proceedings [and] the records relating to performance of a medical or a quality assurance review function or participation in a medical . . . malpractice prevention program,” as well as testimony of any person in attendance at such a meeting when a medical or quality assurance review function or medical malpractice prevention program was performed (see Logue v Velez, 92 NY2d 13, 16-17). Public Health Law 2805-m(2) affords similar protection from disclosure for “records, documentation or committee actions or records” required by law, which includes peer review activity.
In a November 12, 2021 revision of its prior draft guidelines for hospital co-location compliance with Medicare conditions of participation (COP) for hospitals (QSO-19-13), CMS has apparently softened its approach to co-location. The modified guidance is less prescriptive and appears more practical and supportive of co-location where appropriate. In July 2019, CNS issued draft QSO-19-13…
In an advisory opinion posted November 10, 2021 (AO 21-15), the Office of the Inspector General of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (OIG) appeared to soften a disturbing position that it had taken in 2012 regarding the employment safe harbor.
The issue is the breadth of the employment safe…
Earlier this month, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released its final rules for the 2022 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (PFS Final Rule) and 2022 Medicare Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System and Ambulatory Surgical Center Payment System (OPPS Final Rule). Both rules take effect January 1, 2022. This post is the first in a series covering the myriad Medicare-related changes set forth in those rules. We turn first to an area addressed extensively in the PFS Final Rule—the amendments to the Physician Self-Referral Law (Stark Law) regulations.
Those amendments correct inadvertent omissions in a previous CMS rulemaking and clarify the reach of the prohibition related to “indirect compensation arrangements.” As the tale unfolded, within a matter of months of publishing its Modernizing and Clarifying the Physician Self-Referral Regulations Final Rule (MCR Final Rule), which went into effect January 19, 2021, and which made significant changes to the Stark Law, CMS identified certain crucial omissions related to the regulatory calculus for analyzing indirect compensation arrangements, and sought to correct those oversights through its 2022 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Proposed Rule (PFS Proposed Rule). 85 Fed. Reg. 77492 (Dec. 2, 2020); 86 Fed. Reg. 39104 (July 23, 2021). After a short notice-and-comment period, on November 2, 2021, CMS announced that it had taken care of the issues through the PFS Final Rule, which is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on November 19, 2021.
As explained in more detail below, the import of the PFS Final Rule for physicians, their immediate family members, and entities furnishing designated health services (DHS) is that, while indirect compensation arrangements still must satisfy the requirements of an applicable exception to avoid the Stark Law’s referral and billing prohibitions, the number of indirect compensation arrangements subject to those prohibitions, currently enforceable under the law set forth in the MCR Final Rule, is now reduced. More specifically, CMS’s corrections to that rule ultimately reduce the number of arrangements that satisfy the definition of “indirect compensation arrangement” and, thus, decrease the number of arrangements that fall within the prohibitions’ purview. To CMS’s credit, the changes appear to be consistent with its long-standing policy of ensuring program integrity against the risk of program or patient abuse. To better understand the significance of CMS’s clarifications, we provide a chronological-based history of the amendments to the definition of “indirect compensation arrangement.”
The “Requirements Related to Surprise Billing; Part II” (the “Part II Rule”), published on October 7, 2021, is the second interim final rule (IFR) implementing the No Surprises Act, following a prior No Surprises Act IFR (the “Part I Rule”) published on July 13, 2021. Both of these regulations are generally set to take effect on January 1, 2022.
In this post, we outline how the Part II Rule addresses: (A) the independent dispute resolution (IDR) and open negotiation processes for health plans and other payers (“Plans”), (B) patient-provider dispute resolution processes for uninsured individuals, and (C) the expansion of the federal external review provisions of the Affordable Care Act to cover disputes regarding the application of the No Surprises Act.
In the last few years, we have seen an uptick in behavioral health groups focused on psychedelic treatments. There are now at least five (5) psychedelic-assisted therapy platforms traded on NASDAQ with numerous others listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange and elsewhere. Ketamine treatments, in particular, have garnered considerable attention from patients, providers and investors. Treatment models range from more traditional psychotherapy and infusion services similar to those offered by Columbia University to telemedicine-enabled psychotherapy coupled with mail-delivered tablets of ketamine under the Mindbloom model. However, despite the growth in adoption, Ketamine remains a controlled substance and ketamine behavioral health remains an industry with material regulatory risks.
We have set forth certain key considerations for various stakeholders involved with ketamine behavioral health.…
Continue Reading Key Legal Considerations Relating to Ketamine Behavioral Health Platforms
Over the past few weeks, we have covered recent updates to the False Claims Act (“FCA”), first discussing the recent recension of the “Brand Memo” and the resulting restoration of the Department of Justice’s willingness to use sub-regulatory guidance to bring FCA enforcement actions. In our second post, we outlined S.B. 2428’s proposal to shift the burden of proving materiality to defendants, provide for discovery reimbursement, address deference standards in motions to dismiss brought by the government in qui tam complaints, and extend whistleblower anti-retaliation protections. In this final post of our three-part series, we close out our discussion of the FCA with a review of a recent Seventh Circuit decision endorsing the use of an “objective reasonableness” defense in litigation brought under the FCA. We also highlight other recent court activity affecting enforcement of the FCA.…
Continue Reading False Claims Act Spotlight (3 of 3): Changing Landscape of the FCA in the Courts
This is the second installment in our series of posts covering recent developments in False Claims Act (“FCA”) doctrine and practice, with the first post discussing the rescission of the “Brand Memo” and restoring the role of sub-regulatory guidance in FCA enforcement actions. A third post, to come later this week, will address recent federal court cases construing the FCA.
In July 2021, Senator Chuck Grassley led a bipartisan group of senators in introducing S.B. 2428, the “False Claims Amendments Act of 2021,” which aims to address legal developments in FCA doctrine that, according to the bill’s sponsors, made it “more difficult for plaintiffs and whistleblowers to succeed in lawsuits against government contractors engaged in fraud.” S.B. 2428 proposes amendments to the FCA in four key areas more fully described below:
- to shift the burden to defendants to disprove plaintiffs’ showing of materiality of alleged FCA misconduct;
- to provide a means by which the government can seek reimbursement for costs incurred for responding to burdensome discovery requests;
- to resolve a Circuit Court split regarding the appropriate standard of review for evaluating government’s (c)(2)(A) motions to dismiss qui tam complaints; and
- to extend the FCA’s anti-retaliation whistleblower protections.
In a FAQ published on August 20, 2021, the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and the Treasury (collectively, the “Departments”) significantly delayed implementation of statutory requirements on surprise billing and price transparency, which we had previously summarized in a series of blog posts throughout this past year:
- No Surprises: Congress Enacts Surprise Bill Law and Adds Mandatory Billing Transparency
- No Surprises in Initial No Surprises Act Regulations
- New Federal Transparency Requirements Impacting Health Providers and Plans
Specifically, the FAQs focus on the implementation of certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act’s (the “ACA’s”) Transparency in Coverage Final Rules (the “TiC Final Rules”) and certain provisions of title I (the No Surprises Act) and title II (Transparency) of Division BB of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (the “CAA”).…
Continue Reading The Surprises Continue: The Biden Administration Delays Implementation of Certain Provisions of the No Surprises Act and Transparency in Coverage Final Rules Applicable to Providers and Insurers