The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) recently adopted a new final rule banning nursing homes that receive federal funding (such as Medicare or Medicaid) from entering into pre-dispute arbitration agreements with their residents. WATCH Parker Poe Attorneys Robb Leandro, Brad Overcash, and Matt Wolfe discuss the final rule and its impact for nursing homes (and other providers). A link to the rule is available here.
The Federal Lawyer, a national magazine by the Federal Bar Association, just published an article by one of Parker Poe’s health care attorneys. The article looks at the implications of a recent Supreme Court decision and explores how Medicaid providers can still challenge rate cuts.
The article is available here.
Raleigh, NC – On July 16, 2015, Parker Poe hosted a Health Care Symposium co-sponsored by the North Carolina Society of Health Care Attorneys, the Federal Bar Association’s Health Law Section, and the Federal Bar Association’s Eastern North Carolina Chapter.
The Symposium was a review of the United States Supreme Court’s decisions impacting health care in the 2015 term. Panelists reviewed the Court’s opinions and their legal and practical implications. The Symposium was designed for health care providers, lawyers, policy makers, and others interested in health law and policy.
Matt Wolfe, an attorney in Parker Poe’s Raleigh office, moderated the Symposium’s panels. Matt was joined by Kimberly Cogdell Boies of NCCU Law; Catherine Dunham, Elon Law; Mark Hall, Wake Forest Law; Joan Krause, UNC Law; Jane Perkins, National Health Law Project; Barak Richman, Duke Law; Richard Saver, UNC Law; and Don Taylor, Duke Public Policy. Click here for a link to the video of the session.
If you would like further information about topics discussed, please contact Matt Wolfe at 919-835-4647 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion that denies providers the right to challenge low Medicaid reimbursement rates by suing state agencies in federal court.
In Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center (No. 14-15), several residential care providers in Idaho sued on the grounds that its Medicaid program failed to pay providers increased Medicaid rates that had been approved by the federal government. The providers were initially successful in convincing the district court and Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that the State should be forced to pay the higher rates because federal Medicaid law requires states to pay rates that are sufficient to ensure access to care. The providers contended that they had the right to sue Idaho in federal court under the United States Constitution’s Supremacy Clause—which provides that federal law trumps State law.
The media coverage in the run-up to today’s Supreme Court oral arguments in King v. Burwell has described King as an attack on Obamacare. That isn’t quite right. Understandably, some of the imprecise language is due to the need to make the “news fit.” But some of the media descriptions create confusion about what the action is and what the implications to the federal health law would be were the Supreme Court to decide in the challengers’ favor.
The King plaintiffs are not challenging the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) or Obamacare. In the last Supreme Court case grappling with the ACA, National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 132 S. Ct. 2566 (2012) (“NFIB”), the challenger was directly challenging the ACA. In NFIB, the main issue was whether Congress had the authority to mandate that individuals purchase health insurance or pay a penalty. Because the provision was enacted as part of the ACA, there was no dispute that Congress intended to impose the individual mandate when enacting the ACA. Ultimately, in an opinion authored by Chief Justice Roberts and joined by a majority of the justices, the Supreme Court determined that Congress had the authority to impose individual mandates under Congress’ taxing power.
In the King case, the challengers are not attacking the constitutionality of the ACA. The challengers are not attacking the ACA itself. Instead, the challengers are questioning the IRS’ implementation of the ACA in extending tax subsidies to individuals who have purchased health insurance plans in States that have not set up their own health insurance exchanges and instead rely upon the default federal exchange. The King plaintiffs point to the ACA’s language authorizing subsidies only to individuals who buy insurance on an “Exchange established by the State.”
If the Supreme Court agrees with the challengers’ argument that the ACA limits subsidies to State-run health insurance exchanges, the ACA will remain intact. Nothing about the law itself would directly be impacted. The implications for such a ruling, however, would be significant. If the Supreme Court were to side with the plaintiffs, the Obama administration would not have any ability to extend subsidies to the affected individuals. According to the federal government, more than 8.5 million of the 11.4 million people who have acquired health insurance through the exchanges would no longer be eligible for subsidies.
One solution would be for the affected States to set up their own exchanges. In some States, however, this solution would be politically or logistically challenging. Another potential solution would be for President Obama and Congress to “fix” the law to extend subsidies to individuals in States that use the federal exchange. This statutory change could be made by simply amending the language of the ACA.
Given that both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate are now controlled by Republican majorities, it is unlikely that Congress would change the law without demanding more significant and fundamental reforms to the ACA. This would set up a showdown between President Obama and Congressional Republicans to see who blinks first. If the Congress and the President could not reach a compromise, it could create what some of have called a “death spiral,” wreaking havoc on the insurance markets and potentially the ACA. Even though the Supreme Court would not have struck down the ACA, the federal health law could collapse under its own weight. Today’s oral arguments contained some drama, and all signs point to it being a close case. If the Supreme Court sides with the plaintiffs, the high drama may be yet to come.
Earlier this morning, Renée Montgomery, Sarah Ford, Robb Leandro, and Matt Wolfe, attorneys with Parker Poe, presented at the Association for Home and Hospice Care of North Carolina’s Leadership Conference in Wrightsville Beach. Parker Poe’s attorneys participated in a panel discussion on a myriad of audits that face healthcare providers. Parker Poe’s counselors shared their insights on the alphabet soup of audits and provided attendees a compliance “game plan.” If you were not able to attend, please click here for the handout. Yesterday at the Leadership Conference, Matt Wolfe presented a federal and State legislative update with the Association’s Vice President of Government Relations, Tracy Colvard, and Community Care of North Carolina’s Chief Operating Officer, Mark Benton.
Parker Poe attorneys regularly present in front of groups of healthcare providers and would be happy to share their experiences and insights with your group.