In a recent 5-4 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, Inc., Slip. Op., 575 U.S. ____ (March 31, 2015), Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, took aim at health care providers seeking to enforce Medicaid rate-setting provisions against a state that refused to incorporate those provisions in the state’s Medicaid plan, and instead reimbursed providers for Medicaid services at lower rates.
In Armstrong, the plaintiffs, providers of habilitation services under Idaho’s Medicaid plan sought an injunction to prevent Idaho’s State Department of Health from violating Section 30(A) of Medicaid, 42 U.S.C. § 1396(a)(30)(A), which requires a state to “assure that payments are consistent with efficiency, economy, and quality of care,” while “safeguard[ing] against unnecessary utilization of. . . care and services.” The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit’s decision that the Supremacy Clause gave the providers an implied right of action to seek an injunction requiring Idaho to comply with Section 30(a). Continue reading “SCOTUS Limits Claims Brought by Healthcare Providers’ for Denied Medicaid Reimbursement”
A per se violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, generally requires an agreement among horizontal competitors that unreasonably restrains trade. To withstand a motion to dismiss, a Section 1 plaintiff must allege facts that suggest direct of evidence of an agreement among the defendants, as opposed to alleging facts that merely are consistent with parallel conduct. These principles have been referred to by some courts as creating a heightened pleading standard for Section 1 claims.
In Arapahoe Surgery Center, LLC, et al. v. Cigna Healthcare, Inc., et al., 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis 28375 (D. CO.), the Colorado District Court determined that the plaintiffs’ allegations of a group boycott were sufficient to meet the pleading requirements under Section 1, and therefore denied a motion to dismiss filed by three insurance carrier defendants. The specificity of the factual allegations concerning the agreement among the defendants, and the acts in furtherance thereof, underscore the importance of antitrust compliance in the healthcare and health insurance industries. Continue reading “Specific Facts Suggest Hospitals and Insurers Agreed to Group Boycott”
Covered Entities Cautioned Regarding Use of Business Associates
On July 8, 2013, health insurer WellPoint, Inc. entered into a Resolution Agreement with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights (HHS), agreeing to pay HHS $1.7 million to resolve an HHS complaint regarding violations of the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules during the period of October 23, 2009, through March 7, 2010. WellPoint reported a breach of electronic protected health information (ePHI) on June 18, 2010, leading to an HHS investigation that commenced on September 9, 2010.
The WellPoint matter serves as a reminder to HIPAA-covered entities and subcontractors that are business associates to comply with the HIPAA Security Rule and to prudently oversee the services provided by these business associates.
Click here to read the full Alert.
In a July 2, 2013, blog posting on the U.S. Department of the Treasury website titled “Continuing to Implement the ACA in a Careful, Thoughtful Manner” the Obama administration announced that it will provide an additional year before the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) mandatory employer and insurer reporting requirements begin. These reporting requirements, which were originally scheduled to go into effect on January 1, 2014, will now be delayed until January 1, 2015. More significant is the fact that the Obama administration acknowledges that the delay in the reporting requirements will make it impractical to determine which employers owe shared responsibility payments for 2014. Therefore, the employer shared responsibility provisions will also not be applicable until 2015.
Click here to read the full Alert.