Perspectives on Affordable Care Act & Policy
11 total results. Page 1 of 1.
New CMS Final Rule Gives States Increased Flexibility to Define Essential Health Benefits Despite Disapproval from Patient Advocacy Groups
In a new final rule released on April 9, 2018, CMS is allowing states substantially more flexibility in selecting Essential Health Benefits (EHB)-benchmark plans for the 2020 plan year.
Recently, the Health Resources and Services Administration released a new addendum to amend the existing Pharmaceutical Pricing Agreements that drug manufacturers participating in the 340B Drug Pricing Program must have in place with the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
On August 12, 2016, the Health Resources and Services Administration published a proposed rule setting forth the requirements and procedures of the administrative dispute resolution process applicable to all covered entities and drug manufacturers participating in the 340B Drug Pricing Program.
Everyone working in the health care industry today knows how often overpayments can occur; nevertheless, it is clear under the Affordable Care Act that any provider who receives an identified overpayment is under a direct legal mandate to return it.
CMS’s Long-Awaited Final 60-Day Repayment Rule Provides Guidance and Eases Some Requirements for Health Care Providers and Suppliers
On Friday, February 12, 2016, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released the long-awaited Final Rule and regulations, providing much needed guidance to providers and suppliers on how to meet the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA’s) 60-day overpayment mandate.
Stark Law is Coming: Adventist Health System Pays $118.7 Million in Third Large September Settlement
On September 21, 2015, the US DOJ and whistleblowers’ counsel announced that Florida-headquartered Adventist Health System (Adventist) had agreed to pay $118.7 million to resolve allegations that it violated the FCA by submitting claims in violation of the Stark law and by miscoding claims.
Yet Another Challenge to the Affordable Care Act: House of Representatives’ Constitutional Claim Allowed to Proceed
After surviving two challenges that resulted in U.S. Supreme Court decisions that essentially preserved the law, the Affordable Care Act will face additional judicial scrutiny as a federal district court has denied the administration’s motion to dismiss the case brought by the House last year.
On Monday, a federal district court judge in New York issued a ruling that, if adopted broadly, will have a significant – and potentially nightmarish – impact on any provider who receives an overpayment from Medicare or Medicaid. Kane v. Healthfirst, Inc. and U.S. v. Continuum Health Partners Inc.
King v. Burwell understandably took the attention of the health care industry a couple of weeks ago when it upheld a key component of the ACA. A day later, the Supreme Court released another decision that may have a more significant going-forward impact on the health care industry: Obergefell.
In the long awaited decision in King v. Burwell, the Supreme Court ruled this morning in a 6-to-3 decision that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) permits tax credits for individuals who purchase their health insurance through a Federal health insurance marketplace (Federal Exchange), not just for indivi