On December 28, 2020, the District Court for the Northern District of California granted a motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services from implementing the Most Favored Nation Rule (the “Rule”, summarized in our December 23 post) until the notice and comment procedures required by the federal Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”) are completed. The opinion, penned by Judge Chhabria, largely adopts the reasoning of the District Court for the District of Maryland, which granted a temporary restraining order against the implementation of the Rule last week. Judge Chhabria notes that the plaintiffs are “virtually certain” to prevail on their claim that the government violated the APA, and concludes that vacating the Rule in its entirety pending completion of the notice and comment period is the only appropriate path, as enjoining its enforcement as to the plaintiffs only runs contrary to the underlying purposes of the Rule itself.  We will continue to monitor pending suits and other developments related to the Rule’s implementation.

On December 23, 2020, The District Court for the District of Maryland granted a temporary restraining order temporarily ceasing the implementation of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ (“CMS”) Most Favored Nations Rule (the “Rule”) for fourteen (14) days. The Rule, published on November 27, seeks to lower the amount paid for 50 high-cost Medicare Part B drugs to the lowest price that drug manufacturers receive in similar countries. The Rule was set to take effect on January 1, 2021. Several suits have been filed challenging the Rule’s validity and CMS’ authority in issuing the Rule, particularly since the Rule was issued without the usual notice and comment procedures. In granting the TRO, the Court found that the plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim under the Administrative Procedures Act, which requires an agency to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register and allow stakeholders to comment. We will continue to monitor developments on this case and the other pending cases closely.

On Friday, November 20, 2020, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) released final regulations to remove certain barriers to the implementation of physician compensation arrangements under value-based payment arrangements posed by the “Stark” Physician Self-Referral law. The new regulations are the first substantive changes to the regulations in two years and the first attempt by CMS to update the regulations specifically to address value-based payment arrangements that have proliferated since the regulations were initially implemented in the early 2000s.

The new rules contain three new exceptions to the Stark law’s general prohibition on physician referrals for designated health services to entities with which the physician has a financial relationship that are specifically targeted at value-based arrangements; one for value-based arrangements involving full financial risk, one for value-based arrangements with meaningful downside risk for physicians, and one for value-based arrangements that involve neither full financial for physicians or meaningful downside risk.

On October 29, 2020, Governor Wolf signed House Bill 81 into law, creating new minimum education and certification requirements for central service technicians and surgical technicians working in the Commonwealth, and regulating the practice of surgical technology. The Act will take effect on December 28, 2020.

Central Service Technicians

The Act defines central service technicians (“Central Tech”) as “an individual who provides the services of inspecting, assembling, decontamination, preparation, packaging and sterilization of reusable medical instruments or devices.” Under the Act, a health care facility cannot employ or otherwise contract for the services of a Central Tech unless the individual has successfully passed a nationally accredited central service exam for central service technicians and holds and maintains either a certified registered central service technician or a certified sterile processing and distribution technician credential. Currently employed health care facility Central Techs and contracted Central Techs are grandfathered from the requirements, but any Central Tech that is considered a new employee must meet the minimum requirements within 18 months from the date of hire. Techs must complete 10 hours of annual continuing education. The Act directs the Department of Health (“DOH”) to promulgate regulations necessary to implement the Act’s requirements, and grants the DOH general oversight.

As we indicated in last week’s blog post , the D.C. Circuit Court’s refusal to uphold HHS’ pharmaceutical price disclosure rule (“RX Rule”) was not a predictor of how the trial court might rule in the closely watched challenge to HHS’ hospital price transparency rule (“Hospital Rule”). In a June 23, 2020 ruling on cross motions for summary judgment, American Hospital Association, et. al. v. Azar, D.C. District Court Judge, Carl Nichols, ruled that HHS did not overstep its authority under Section 2718 of the Public Health Services Act (“Section 2718”) by requiring hospitals to publish their “gross charges”, payer-specific negotiated rates, discounted cash prices, and de-identified minimum and maximum negotiated charges.  

On June 16, the D.C. Circuit Court struck down the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ (“CMS”) rule issued in May 2019 requiring pharmaceutical companies to disclose the wholesale acquisition cost of drugs over $35 in their direct-to-consumer television advertisements (“RX Rule”). Similar to the RX Rule, the Hospital Price Transparency Rule, issued on November 27, 2019, requires hospitals to publish, among other information, payor-specific rates for certain services on their websites beginning on Jan 1, 2021 (“Hospital Rule”). Both rules stem from the Trump administration’s stated efforts to improve the nation’s health care quality and transparency, and both were met with swift legal opposition. The Hospital Rule litigation, American Hospital Association et al v. Azar, is currently before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. While the D.C. Circuit Court’s RX Rule decision could be viewed as a predictor of the outcome of the Hospital Rule litigation, the alleged statutory authority underlying the Hospital Rule is different than the statutory authority underlying the RX Rule.  Therefore, the Circuit Court’s ruling in the RX Rule litigation may not be an accurate barometer of the likely outcome in the Hospital Rule litigation.

On Friday, April 24th, President Trump signed the Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act (“Act”) into law that will send an additional $75 billion to the Public Health Emergency and Social Services Fund (“Fund”) used to reimburse eligible health care providers for health care related expenses or lost revenues that are attributable to COVID-19. These funds will be in addition to the $100 billion previously appropriated to the Fund in the CARES Act. Of that $100 billion, the first $30 billion was distributed through the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) to health care providers proportionally, based on the providers’ share of total 2019 Medicare payments. HHS has outlined how the remaining $70 billion of the initial $100 billion Congress dedicated to the Fund in the CARES Act would be allocated to providers, with additional payments starting April 24^th. However, HHS has not published any additional guidance as to how the Act’s additional $75 billion will be allocated.

The CARES Act (“Act”) appropriates $100 billion to create a Public Health Social Service Emergency Fund (“Fund”) to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus domestically and internationally for necessary expenses to reimburse, through grants or other mechanisms, eligible health care providers enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid who provide diagnoses, testing, or care for individuals with possible or actual cases of COVID–19, for health care-related expenses or lost revenues that are attributable to coronavirus. Although the Act sets forth some high level qualifying criteria, the actual mechanism by which providers can apply for or request funds, or additional qualifiers for eligibility, if any, have not yet been released. To date, the Act notes that funds appropriated under this provision may be used for:

In a 2-1 decision published on December 18, 2019, a 5th Circuit panel upheld the Texas District Court’s decision ruling that the ACA individual mandate tax which, since January 2019, has had no monetary consequence, is unconstitutional. Citing the Supreme Court’s 2012 NFIB v. Sebelius opinion, the panel explained that the key feature of the individual mandate –the critical tax attributes that once saved the mandate from unconstitutionality- no longer exist, and therefore it can no longer be classed under Congress’ taxing power. Despite definitively ruling on this key issue, the panel remanded the case to the District Court to take a closer look at whether the individual mandate’s unconstitutionality is severable, or whether the entire ACA now must be struck down.

As another mark of progress in the fight against opioid addiction, Governor Wolf signed Senate Bill 572 (the “Act”) into law on November 27, 2019, requiring prescribing providers (referred to as “Prescribers”) to take several additional steps before issuing a prescription for an opioid in certain treatment situations. Specifically, the Act’s requirements kick in before a Prescriber can issue a patient the first prescription in a single course of treatment for chronic pain with a controlled substance containing an opioid.