Health Care Today | Health Law Blog

Since the No Surprises Act was signed into law in 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services has published several rules with respect to the Act, leaving many unanswered questions. With the Act taking effect this month, forums are now being held to educate providers on the new law, which curtails surprise medical bills from out-of-network providers.

On December 28, 2021, directors from the Quality, Safety and Oversight Group at The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released a memorandum (QSO-22-07-ALL) outlining its procedures for surveying compliance under its November 5, 2021, Omnibus COVID-19 Health Care Staff Vaccination Interim Final Rule (IFR). The memorandum references various attachments for specific provider types which supplement and are intended to be used in conjunction with it.

In 2019, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued draft guidance on hospital co-location (when hospitals share space and resources with other health care entities). We previously summarized that draft guidance here. On November 12, 2021, CMS issued its final guidance and — surprise! — it changed quite a bit.

As originally drafted, the Illinois Freedom to Work Act (IFWA) only barred employers from entering into non-compete agreements with “low wage employees,” i.e., those making no more than minimum wage or $13 per hour, whichever is greater. In 2022, the law is expanding to include broader limitations on non-competes and, for the first time, non-solicitation agreements.

The No Surprises Act, which then-President Trump signed into law on December 27, 2020, as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021, addresses surprise medical bills from out-of-network providers when patients believe they are seeking care from in-network providers. Most sections of the act go into effect on January 1, 2022, and the Departments of Health and Human Services, Treasury, and Labor are working on regulations to implement many provisions of the act.

If an offer to a health care provider to speak at or attend a pharmaceutical or medical device company’s event seems too good to be true – it probably is, and it could lead to civil, criminal and federal administrative penalties.  

On November 10, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court held oral arguments in California, et. al. v. Texas, et. al., the most recent challenge to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA).

Greensfelder Officer Amy Blaisdell was recently quoted in an article for SHRM about a federal judge in New York temporarily blocking a regulation that was going to remove some health care protections for transgender individuals. The article, titled “HHS Blocked from Rolling Back Health Care Protections for Transgender Workers,” was published on August 18, 2020.

Greensfelder Officer Amy Blaisdell recently co-authored an article in For the Defense, a publication of the Defense Research Institute (DRI), about lessons employers should keep in mind when defending against disability benefits claims that lack objective medical evidence. The article, titled “Objective Versus Subjective Evidence in the ERISA Claims-Handling Process,” was published in the August 2020 edition.

The Department of Health and Human Services on May 7, 2020, extended the deadline for health care providers to attest to receipt of payments from the Provider Relief Fund and accept the Terms and Conditions.

Providers will now have 45 days, increased from 30 days, from the date they receive a payment to attest and accept the Terms and Conditions or return the funds.