THE ACCIDENTAL ENTREPRENEUR PART V video
THE ACCIDENTAL ENTREPRENEUR PART V Podcast
Health Reimbursement Arrangement Update
Podcast: Health Reimbursement Arrangements
K&L Gates Triage: 340B Update: CMS Finalizes 340B Program Reimbursement Cut on Part B Drugs
K&L Gates Triage: 340B Regulatory Update: CMS Proposal and Draft Executive Order Could Have Big Impact on 340B Program
In its recent decision, Becerra v. San Carlos Apache, No. 23-250, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA), 25 U.S.C. § 5301 et seq., requires the Indian Health Service...more
One could forgive the healthcare industry for thinking someone drove Doc Brown’s DeLorean time machine through One First Street when it awoke on Friday, June 28, to a blast from the past....more
On June 6, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its decision in the consolidated cases of Becerra v. San Carlos Apache Tribe (No. 23-250) and Becerra v. Northern Arapaho Tribe (No. 23-253)....more
By Heidi McNeil Staudenmaier and Kelsey Haake In a momentous decision on June 6, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a resounding victory for Native American tribes. The Court ruled that the Indian Health Service (IHS)...more
Kaiser Gypsum Company Inc. and Hanson Permanente Cement, Inc. (collectively, the “Debtors”), manufacturers of asbestos-containing cement products, filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy on September 30, 2016 (“Petition Date”) in the...more
On June 6, 2024, the US Supreme Court decided Becerra v. San Carlos Apache Tribe and Becerra v. Northern Arapaho Tribe (Nos. 23-250 and 23-253), holding that the Indian Health Service (IHS) must reimburse Native nations,...more
Another Three-for Thursday at the Supreme Court, with none of the decisions a landmark but each of utmost relevance to legal specialists and technicians in the fields of bankruptcy, estate taxation, and Indian affairs....more
Does violating requirements amount to fraud under the False Claims Act (FCA) when the requirements allegedly violated are unclear? There is currently a circuit split and petitions for review pending to the Supreme Court as to...more
The implications of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that overturned Roe v. Wade’s constitutional right to abortion have had sweeping implications that affect...more
Not surprisingly, leading up to and in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, our employee benefits team has been spending a lot of time helping our clients wade through...more
On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its highly anticipated decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, No. 19-1392. The Dobbs decision expressly overrules the two key precedents that...more
Wednesday, the United States Supreme Court handed down a highly anticipated, unanimous opinion, AHA v. Becerra, confirming that CMS exceeded its statutory authority when it implemented a discriminatory reimbursement structure...more
On June 15, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of “340B” hospitals in a notable statutory interpretation case concerning how the federal Medicare program reimburses hospitals for prescription drugs. The...more
The United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that has a direct impact on the 340B Drug Discount Program (the 340B Program) and how Medicare will reimburse hospitals for dispensing of 340B covered drugs, as well...more
Preemption is not a foreign concept when dealing with the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Preemption arguments frequently and increasingly arise, for example, in the context of claims by health care...more
While public attention is currently focused on the upcoming high profile Supreme Court decision in King v. Burwell (which involves subsidies for exchange-based coverage under the ACA), the Supreme Court recently decided to...more
On March 31, 2015, the Supreme Court issued the first of several expected decisions that will impact the healthcare industry this year, ruling that Medicaid providers have no constitutional or statutory right to challenge a...more
In Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, Inc., Case No. 14-15, issued March 31, 2015, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a group of private health care providers could not sue officials in Idaho’s Department of...more