It goes without saying that the actions of federal regulatory agencies greatly affect many essential aspects of our daily lives, among them the delivery of medical services, medicines, and therapeutic devices and the...more
In a recent landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled the Chevron doctrine in the case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo.
This ruling has significant implications for employers and other entities in the...more
In its frequent attempts to enforce the separation of powers that the Constitution’s framers devised as a system of checks and balances among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the federal government, it is...more
On June 3, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Azar v. Allina Health Services that the Medicare statute requires the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) to engage in public notice-and-comment rulemaking...more
6/5/2019
/ Administrative Procedure Act ,
Azar v Allina Health Services ,
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) ,
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) ,
Hospitals ,
Low-Income Issues ,
Medicare ,
Medicare Advantage ,
Medicare Part A ,
Medicare Part C ,
Notice and Comment ,
Pay Reductions ,
Provider Payments ,
Reaffirmation ,
Retroactive Application ,
SCOTUS ,
Substantive Rule ,
Vacated
On June 16, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States rendered a unanimous decision in the highly anticipated False Claims Act (“FCA”) case of Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar.[1] In its...more
On March 31, 2015, a 5-4 plurality of the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that Medicaid providers do not have a private right of action under the Medicaid statute to challenge reimbursement rates. The Supreme Court’s...more
On March 9, 2015, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that when a federal administrative agency wants to amend or repeal an “interpretive rule,” it does not have to follow the notice-and-comment procedures set forth in the...more