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
No Surprises Act
No Surprises Here! Fifth Circuit Upholds QPA Calculations and Disclosure Requirements, but Sides with Providers on Payment Deadlines
By Vinay Kohli & D. Austin Rettew on
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has handed down a significant decision in response to a challenge from health care providers to the implementing regulations of the No Surprises Act (“NSA”). The Court upheld the Departments of Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services’ (the “Departments”) approach to certain key…
No Surprises Here! Fifth Circuit Upholds Health Care Provider Challenge to No Surprises Act Regulations
By D. Austin Rettew & Vinay Kohli on
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
By D. Austin Rettew & Vinay Kohli on
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
By D. Austin Rettew & Vinay Kohli on
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…
Challenges to the No Surprises Act Continue: The Latest includes a Challenge to a 600% Increase in Administrative Fees
On February 6, 2023, a judge for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (“Texas District Court”) ruled in favor of the Texas Medical Association (“TMA”) and against the United States Departments of Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services (the “Departments”) over a challenge to…
Diagnosing Distress: Top 5 Challenges for Private Credit Lenders in Health Care Restructurings
By Ryan P. Blaney, Charles Dale & Vincent Indelicato on
A variety of conditions may be conspiring against businesses in certain segments of the health care industry. These include reduced patient census at skilled nursing and other long-term care facilities, COVID regulations that limit the ability of providers to give (or patients to receive) various forms of treatment and patients…
No Surprises Act’s Regulation Establishing QPA as Presumptive Payment Amount Vacated by District Court
By Edward S. Kornreich on
We previously noted that the No Surprises Act (NSA) regulation’s establishment of the presumption that the qualifying payment amount (QPA)—generally, the median payment by the plan to providers in the region—is the appropriate payment amount in arbitrations between plans and providers under the NSA did not appear to comport with…
The Devil may be in the Details of the Part II No Surprises Act IFR
By Edward S. Kornreich & Angela Gichinga on
This post reviews Part II of the federal No Surprises Act regulations. In previous publications, we have commented upon the No Surprises Act, and Part I of the regulations.
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.
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
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”).