Posts

Governor Signs S.B. 300 Providing Immunity for Physicians, Hospitals and Other Providers

By Phillips Murrah Healthcare Attorney Mary Holloway Richard

Since the first emergency orders signed by Governor Stitt, Oklahoma physicians, hospitals and other healthcare providers have anticipated the emergency granting of some measure of statutory immunity to support care during the COVID-19 pandemic.  On April 20, the Governor amended Emergency Order 2020-13 but stopped short in filling the gap needed to support the healthcare system at this challenging time leaving the task to the legislature upon its return this month.

Oklahoma Opioid Decision by Phillips Murrah healthcare attorney Mary Holloway

Mary Richard is recognized as one of pioneers in health care law in Oklahoma. She has represented institutional and non-institutional providers of health services, as well as patients and their families.

On May 6, the Senate approved S.B. 300 granting limited immunity to providers on the front lines of this epidemic.  The bill provides for civil immunity “…for any loss or harm to a person by an act or omission by the facility or provider that occurs during the COVID-19 public health emergency…” so long as the act or omission did not result from the provider’s or facility’s “willful or wanton misconduct” in providing the services.  The grant of immunity excludes immunity from liability for provision of services to people who do not have suspected or confirmed COVID-19 diagnoses at the time the care was provided.  The grant of immunity expires on October 31, 2020, unless amended by the legislature.

The statute adopts the following definition of Health Care Providers from the Catastrophic Emergency Powers Act 63 O.S. §6104(6):

  • Physicians

  • Dentists

  • Pharmacists

  • Physician Assistants

  • Nurse Practitioners

  • Registered and Other Nurses

  • Paramedics

  • Laboratory Technicians

  • Ambulance and Emergency Medical Workers

The statute also adopts the following expansive definition of Health Care Facilities also from 63 O.S. §6104(5) of the Catastrophic Health Emergency Powers Act:

  • Hospitals

  • Ambulatory Care Facilities

  • Outpatient Facilities

  • Public Health Clinics and Centers

  • Dialysis Centers

  • Intermediate Care Facilities

  • Mental Health Centers

  • Residential Treatment Facilities

  • Skilled Nursing Facilities

  • Special Care Facilities

  • Medical Laboratories

  • Adult Day Care

These facilities, not an exclusive or complete list, may be proprietary or non-proprietary, non-federal buildings.  Further, property used in connection with such facilities may be included such as pharmacies, offices and office buildings for persons engaged in the health care professions, research facilities and laundry facilities.

The statute defines “Health care services” as those provided by a health care facility or provider, or by an individual working under the supervision of such a facility or provider, related to “…the diagnosis, assessment, prevention, treatment, aid, shelter, assistance, or care of illness, disease, injury or condition.”

In summary, the act provides for immunity for civil liability for loss or harm to a person with a suspect at or confirmed COVID-19 diagnoses caused by the provider or facility during the pandemic as long as the act or omission occurred during the course of treatment including decision-making, staffing, capacity of space of equipment in response to the epidemic and as long as the act or omission was not the result of the gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct of the provider or facility.  The statute do not grant such immunity to providers of services to individuals who do not have suspected or confirmed cases of COVID-19.


For more information on this alert and its impact on your business, please call 405.552.2403 or email me.

Keep up with our ongoing COVID-19 resources, guidance and updates at our RESOURCE CENTER.

facebook icon

Follow our coverage on FACEBOOK

CARES Act and independent contractors – How businesses can mitigate risk related to CARES Act unemployment claims

By Phillips Murrah Attorney Martin J. Lopez III 

Below is an expanded version of a Gavel to Gavel column that appeared in The Journal Record on May 14, 2019.

attorney Martin J Lopez III

Martin J. Lopez III is a litigation attorney who represents individuals and both privately-held and public companies in a wide range of civil litigation matters.

Businesses should identify and mitigate risk related to CARES Act independent contractor unemployment claims

In response to the COVID-19 national emergency, Congress has taken the extraordinary measure to allow independent contractors, gig-workers, and self-employed individuals access to unemployment insurance benefits for which they are generally ineligible. This article is geared towards businesses that regularly use independent contractors who may file claims for unemployment insurance benefits—discussing the risks involved and how businesses can mitigate those risks.

Background Regarding Relevant CARES Act Provisions

On March 27, 2020 President Trump signed into law the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”). Among other provisions, the CARES Act significantly expands the availability of unemployment insurance benefits to include workers affected by the COVID-19 national public health emergency who would not otherwise qualify for such benefits—including independent contractors. This increased accessibility to unemployment insurance benefits theoretically provides an avenue for a state unemployment agency to find an independent contractor applicant to be an employee. Such a finding introduces the risk of the state unemployment agency assessing unpaid employment and payroll taxes for those a business previously treated as independent contractors. Tangentially, such a finding could serve to establish or bolster independent contractors’ claims in wage and hour litigation.

To qualify as a “covered individual” under the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (“PUA”) provisions of the CARES Act, a self-employed individual must self-certify that she is self-employed, is seeking part-time employment, and does not have sufficient work history or otherwise would not qualify for unemployment benefits under another state unemployment program. Further, the self-employed individual must certify that she is otherwise able to work and is available for work within the meaning of applicable state law, but is “unemployed, partially unemployed or unable or unavailable to work” because of one of the following COVID-19 related reasons:

  • The individual has been diagnosed with COVID-19 and is seeking a medical diagnosis;
  • A member of the individual’s household has been diagnosed with COVID-19;
  • The individual is providing care for a family member or member of the individual’s household who has been diagnosed with COVID-19;
  • A child or other person in the household for which the individual has primary caregiving responsibility is unable to attend school or another facility that is closed as a direct result of the COVID-19 public health emergency and such school or facility care is required for the individual to work;
  • The individual is unable to reach the place of employment because of a quarantine imposed as a direct result of the COVID-19 public health emergency;
  • The individual is unable to reach the place of employment because the individual has been advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to concerns related to COVID-19;
  • The individual was scheduled to commence employment and does not have a job as a direct result of the COVID-19 public health emergency;
  • The individual has become the breadwinner or major support for a household has died as a direct result of COVID-19;
  • The individual has to quit his or her job as a direct result of the COVID-19 public health emergency;
  • The individual’s place of employment is closed as a direct result of the COVID-19 public health emergency.

If the individual meets the above criterion, she is a “covered individual” and is eligible for unemployment assistance authorized by the PUA provisions of the CARES Act. Such assistance was available beginning January 27, 2020 and provides for up to thirty-nine (39) weeks of unemployment benefits extending through December 31, 2020. Covered individuals’ unemployment benefits are calculated state-by-state, according to each state’s conventional unemployment compensation system. In addition, under the PUA provisions of the CARES Act, covered individuals may receive an additional $600 for each week of unemployment until July 31, 2020.

What Businesses Can Do to Protect Themselves

To counteract the risks discussed above, I recommend a business implement the following best practices when responding to a claim of unemployment by an independent contractor:

  • respond proactively to unemployment claim notices for independent contractors;
  • state clearly in the response that the relevant individual-claimants were independent contractors and not employees of the business;
  • affirmatively state that each independent contractor claimant was an independent contractor to whom the business occasionally (or routinely) provided work, but that it is unable to provide the same volume (or any) work to the individual at present because of the COVID-19 national emergency;
  • specify in the response that the individual’s eligibility for unemployment benefits must be entirely predicated on the PUA provisions of the CARES Act allowing for independent contractor participation in the program; and
  • provide the claimant’s independent contractor agreement to the state unemployment agency.

In providing this information and documentation to the state unemployment agency, the business will be able to demonstrate its independent contractor relationship with the individual. Together with the fact that these individuals’ eligibility to receive unemployment income rests exclusively on relevant CARES Act provisions, the business should be well-positioned to avoid the typical risks that can result from a successful unemployment claim by an independent contractor.

Martin J. Lopez III is an attorney at the law firm of Phillips Murrah.

Medicare Reimbursement Actions by the Government: Relief for Providers?

This article was originally published in the American Bar Association’s Health eSource newsletter in February 2020.


Oklahoma Opioid Decision by Phillips Murrah healthcare attorney Mary Holloway

Mary Richard is recognized as one of pioneers in health care law in Oklahoma. She has represented institutional and non-institutional providers of health services, as well as patients and their families.

By Mary Holloway Richard, Phillips Murrah, and
Anna Stewart Whites, Attorney at Law, Frankfort, KY

The tension between the government’s need to ensure appropriate use of Medicare funds and the need of providers to receive reasonable compensation for services to Medicare beneficiaries is an ongoing issue.  Providers are subject to demands for repayment or recoupment of compensation paid to providers based upon claims filed.  Providers are also pressed to keep up with the continually developing arsenal of vast data mining, increasingly restrictive federal reimbursement policies, and oversight tools, including a plethora of audit options available to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) programs that can lead to penalties and mandatory exclusion.  Locating the applicable guidance — statutes, regulations, guidelines, reimbursement policies — can be challenging, with the information upon which CMS actions are based sometimes emanating from data gathered across the country, which allows for identification of trends to be pursued by the regulators.

The focus of this article is to explore the tools available to counsel for providers seeking to place appropriate limits on CMS in connection with statutory and regulatory limits on HHS rulemaking authority as interpreted by recent case law.

Proper Rulemaking as a Limit to Regulatory Authority

Providers who have received payment under the CMS fee schedules may, even years later (1) be faced with demands by CMS for repayment of amounts received due to an after-the-fact reduction in the fees payable to the provider, or (2) experience a downward adjustment in payments.1  These changes by CMS, both prospective and retrospective, are frequently transmitted via electronic manuals or by local or national coverage determinations (LCDs or NCDs).

Providers argue that the retrospective changes by fiat can be likened to ex post facto laws penalizing the provider for actions occurring before the regulation, policy or change in interpretation of the law existed.  When a government entity or agency determines that such a change is necessary, and when those changes are substantive or can adversely impact providers or patients, an opportunity for all affected parties to comment is advisable to support wise decision-making within the government’s scope of authority, and to facilitate smooth transitions within the industry.2  The existing structured rulemaking process offers providers and other interested parties the opportunity to comment on the proposed change prior to its implementation, thereby facilitating the avoidance of bad rulemaking or rulemaking with unintended consequences.

The Rulemaking Process:  An Overview

The rulemaking process is formal and includes the notice-and-comment period so that public awareness and input are parts of the making of any enforceable regulatory change.3  Under the Social Security Act, a notice-and-comment period is required for a “rule, requirement or statement of policy” that establishes or changes a “substantive legal standard governing the scope of benefits, the payment for services, or the eligibility of individuals, entities, or organizations to furnish or receive services or benefits.”4 This requirement is stricter than the more common notice-and-comment requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The APA employs different nomenclature and holds that no notice-and-comment period is required where the change is merely an “interpretive rule” or “general statement of policy.”  That exception had been relied upon by agencies to change rules via policy manual updates or internal regulatory interpretations.5

Informal rulemaking under the APA requires development of a proposed rule and a published notice of the proposed rule or changes to an existing rule.  Following that, there is a comment period of at least 30 days.  Members of the public, including but not limited to those impacted by the change, have the opportunity to comment on the proposal. Codification of the final rule may take place only after the comment period has passed and the agency has made any final revisions to the rule.6 Typically, rule and regulation changes have a future, rather than retroactive, effective date.  Where the change to a law or regulation is “substantive,” formal rulemaking under the APA requires an additional opportunity for an agency hearing on the proposal before it can be made effective.

Historically, providers faced with recoupment demands from a federal payor had little choice but to accede to the payor’s demands within a specified, limited timeframe.  Providers could argue against such recoupment or denial, but such arguments in reality were limited to proving that the recoupment demand was in error.. The provider was thus placed in a defensive posture and required to operate from the premise that the recoupment request was correct, but for an obvious calculation or medical necessity oversight by the payor during its review.8

From the agency perspective, however, rulemaking takes significant time and effort and can be administratively debilitating.  It requires publication of the proposed changes, a lengthy comment period (often as much as several months long), opportunity for live comments as well as written comments, and then an analysis of the comments by the agency and publication of the agency’s responses to the comments.  If the comments result in an amendment to the policy, the rulemaking process may have to begin again to allow comment on those amendments newly proposed or on the resolution of issues raised during the comment period.  Because of the complexity of that rulemaking, agencies may choose to draft minor changes instead, and implement those via an announcement to providers/patients, thereby eliminating any delay in implementation or any requirement that those affected be allowed to speak.  Implementing minor changes is a necessary way to keep policies and regulations current, and is an acceptable part of the agency’s process.  Over time, however, there may be a blurring of the applicable procedures, where an agency implements a substantive change informally for an item that required the complete rulemaking process, particularly under the Medicare Act.  Providers have begun to pay more attention to the correct application of the rulemaking process and to challenge agencies ignoring required rulemaking.

Judicial Interpretation of Rulemaking Requirements Related to Healthcare

In Clarian Health West, LLC v. Hargan,9 the Court required adherence to the rulemaking process before a recoupment of payments could be enforced.  Under Part A of the Medicare program, hospitals are compensated prospectively based on the estimated likely cost of patient care.10 The hospitals may also receive supplemental or “outlier” payments.11 The regulatory changes enacted by HHS in 2003, which included notice-and-comment rule making, altered the way such “outlier payments” are calculated.12  The Court found that an agency decision is arbitrary and unenforceable as such where the agency “has relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise.”13

Two recent cases, Azar v. Allina Health Services14 and Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, Inc.,15 have provided validation for that argument, finding that absent the required rulemaking process and an opportunity for providers to comment on and be aware of the effect of the changes to the law, recoupment of funds properly paid exceeds CMS authority.

Provider Litigation to Enforce Rulemaking

In Azar v. Allina Health Services, the United States Supreme Court held that the decision to retroactively reduce Medicare disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments according to a newly revised formula and practice must be vacated due to HHS’s failure to provide an opportunity for notice and comment in the context of revised payment rules.16 The DSH payment is calculated based upon a Medicare Fraction which establishes a proportion of low income patients provided services at the hospital for a certain time period and is the basis for the hospital’s final reimbursement adjustments.

By way of explanation, a DSH payment is a sum awarded a hospital pursuant to 42 C.F.R. 412.106.  Under Section 1886(d) (5) (F) of the Medicare Act, hospital DSH payments are calculated by the formula:

  • DSH Patient Percent = (Medicare SSI Days / Total Medicare Days) + (Medicaid, Non-Medicare Days / Total Patient Days)17

A new CMS rate calculation affected the way the applicable payments were made, and was therefore considered by the Court to be a ‟substantive legal standard” under the Medicare Act requiring notice-and-comment rulemaking prior to enforcement.18  The Court found that HHS had promulgated a retroactive Medicare rate calculation methodology and that this was not a change that could be enacted without opportunity for comment and discussion.As explained by the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in 2004 HHS decreed that Medicare Part C patients would now be included in DSH calculations along with patients entitled to Medicare Part A benefits, and this change would have been applied prospectively for all Medicare Fraction calculations from 2005 onward. However, this change was successfully challenged and vacated by the D.C. Circuit.19 In response, in 2013 HHS promulgated the same rule to be applied prospectively from 2014. This left fiscal year 2012 at issue, and in 2014 HHS posted the Medicare Fraction on the CMS website, including Part C patients and Part A patients.20

CMS clarified that the 2012 determination that Medicare Part C days would be included in the calculations, thereby lowering the DSH calculation by including Medicare Advantage subscribers who generally represented higher income, resulting in a reduction of the DSH payments to hospitals.21

The proposed change underwent notice and comment in 2013 and eventually was adopted as a valid way to calculate those payments prospectively, beginning in 2014.  Rather than simply implementing the changed standard from 2014 onward, CMS looked back at earlier years and claimed that the change should apply retroactively.  There was no notice and comment period in 2012 on that change.  Following the changes, CMS used this ability to look back and demanded recoupment from provider hospitals, applying the changed law or interpretation of the law retroactively to 2012.

A group of  hospitals  challenged the changes made without notice and the opportunity to comment and sought to stop the recoupment, which represented billions of dollars.22  They argued that absent such timely rulemaking procedures, the change should not apply to years prior to 2014. HHS’s response was that it was not required to hold a notice-and-comment period for the new rule, since it was only advising the public on an existing interpretation of the law.  HHS relied on the less stringent standards of the APA23 to permit the recoupment.

The DC Circuit Court ruled in favor of HHS, and the hospitals appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which reversed the lower court ruling and held that the new payment schedule amounted to a “statement of policy” that required the notice-and-comment period specified by the Social Security Act.24

The Supreme Court, quoting the Social Security Act, held that “[n]o rule, requirement, or other statement of policy (other than an NCD) that establishes or changes a substantive legal standard governing the scope of benefits, the payment for services, or the eligibility of individuals, entities, or organizations to furnish or receive services or benefits under this title shall take effect unless it is promulgated by the Secretary by regulation.…”25 “Substantive rules” refer to the Supreme Court phrase “substantive legal standard” as encompassing more than just the “substantive rules” that already require notice and comment under the APA.26 The Supreme Court noted in particular that the many manuals that provide guidance to participants in the Medicare program might contain substantive legal standards that require notice and comment, and that its decision applied broadly across those fields.27

The Allina ruling established that substantive changes to the law should not be applied retroactively to time periods in which there has been no rulemaking process.  Providers faced with any retroactive application of a change in the law that occurred after a payment to the provider which was valid at the time of payment could now claim that absent rulemaking at that time, the change should only be prospectively applied.

That doctrine was expanded in Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, Inc.,28 where the provider faced a False Claims Act (FCA) action based upon allegations that the provider’s billing was fraudulent for failure to comply with Medicare reimbursement guidelines. The provider argued that the Medicare criteria being applied had not gone through appropriate rulemaking prior to implementation.  The Court agreed, holding that Medicare reimbursement criteria must be established through notice-and-comment rulemaking to provide the basis for enforcement actions under the FCA. Because the reimbursement policy at issue had been established solely in the 1989 edition of the Medicare Hospital Manual and not via the rulemaking process including questions and comments, the court found that it “cannot withstand scrutiny under Allina’s interpretation of the Medicare Act.”29

The Court based its findings in part on Bowen v. Michigan Academy of Physicians,30 which held that a provider demanding administrative or judicial review of a recoupment of a Medicare Part B claim or payment must show that the matter is reviewable by challenging the method by which the claim was determined under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1395ff(b)(1)(C) (Supp.1990).  While courts may not “improperly impose on agencies an obligation beyond the `maximum procedural requirements’ specified by [statute or regulation],” the rulemaking standards must have applied to the creation of the statute or regulation.31  The District Court in Polansky relied upon the Allina decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the defendant, holding that the method by which a change is implemented may be challenged by an affected party where the agency failed to comply with the process required.32  The provider must show first that this is a matter to which the rulemaking standard applies, and secondly, that the method used by the agency was flawed in that it did not use the correct standard, before being allowed to attack the change or any related financial impact created by the change.33

The Allina and Polansky decisions establish an additional strategy for providers to defend enforcement actions that are part of a recoupment or recalculation, rather than attempting to prove that the government’s audit determinations or interpretations are in error. This, in effect, places the burden of defense back on CMS (or another governmental agency or payor) by requiring it to prove that the law or regulation was properly created in compliance with required rulemaking procedures.  Importantly, these decisions offer that, where providers did not have opportunity to comment on or object to implementation of a rule or regulation, they should not be found to have either had notice of it or be bound by its terms.

In response to Allina, the Department of Justice (DOJ) provided notice of DOJ policy in a memorandum to U.S. Attorneys from former Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand dated January 25, 2018. Known as the Brand Memo, it announced that “Department litigators may not use noncompliance with guidance documents as a basis for proving violations of applicable law in affirmative civil enforcement (ACE) cases.”34 The effect of the Brand Memo is to place agencies on notice that they may not rely upon sub-regulatory guidance to re-frame, expand, or enforce requirements established by statute or regulation.35  Specifically, the Brand Memo prohibits coercing regulated parties from taking or refraining from taking actions beyond the requirements of applicable statute or “lawful regulation.”36 The Brand Memo further pointedly provides that “the Department may not use its enforcement authority to effectively convert agency guidance documents into binding rules.”37

A new internal memorandum from HHS dated October 31, 2019 is instructive. That Memo says that it’s important for CMS to conform its guidance documents to the rulemaking obligations set forth in Allina.  For instance, HHS personnel are discouraged from basing enforcement actions on guidance documents, specifically the Internet-only manuals, that are not “closely tied to statutory or regulatory standards.”38  This Memo suggests to counsel for providers a few new tools when dealing with Medicare payment issues, including the limits of the impact of formerly formidable sub-regulatory or “non-regulatory” guidance, the amelioration of LCDs as the single basis for enforcement actions and judicial support for these limitations.

Conclusion

Recoupment and reimbursement demands, audits, exclusions, prosecutions and targeting by CMS, its contractors or other federal and state agencies are substantive, significant matters.  Adherence to the regulatory protections, including the notice and opportunity to provide input, allows all affected parties to have an understanding of the law or regulation and to be prepared for its impact.  The Allina case and its progeny are likely to benefit providers and patients alike as the country continues to grapple with healthcare reform.

  1. 42 U.S.C. § 1886(d)(5)(F); 42 C.F.R. § 412.106.
  2. See discussion below comparing the rulemaking requirements of the Medicare Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1395(h), which was passed as an amendment to the Social Security Act, 5 U.S.C. Chapter 5, §§ 551-559.
  3. See generally, https://www.federalregister.gov/uploads/2011/01/the_rulemaking_process.pdf, “A Guide to the Rulemaking Process” (last accessed Jan. 24, 2020).
  4. 5 U.S.C. § 1395hh(a)(2)  (emphasis added).
  5. See, e.g., acus.gov/research-projects/agency-guidance-through-interpretive-rules, “Agency Guidance Through Interpretive Rules” (Administrative Conference of the United States) Adopted June 13, 2019 (last accessed Jan. 19, 2020).
  6. 5 U.S.C. §§ 551-559.
  7. 5 U.S.C. § 553.
  8. See, e.g., “Tricare Recoupment Steps Outline”(Guidance provided to Tricare Beneficiaries), https://tricare.mil/Resources/Recoupment?p=1 (last accessed Jan. 15, 2020).
  9. 878 F3d. 346 (D.C. Cir. 2017).
  10. 49 Fed. Reg. 234 (Jan. 3, 1984); 42 U.S.C. § 1395ww(d)(2), “Prospective Payment for Medicare Inpatient Hospital Services.”
  11. 42 U.S.C. § 1395ww(d)(5)(A)(ii); See also Dist. Hosp. Partners, L.P. v. Burwell, 786 F.3d 46,  49 (D.C. Cir. 2015).
  12. See Change in Methodology for Determining Payment for Extraordinarily High-Cost Cases (Cost Outliers) Under the Acute Care Hospital Inpatient and Long-Term Care Hospital Prospective Payment Systems Final Rule.  Fed. Reg. June 9, 2003 at 34493-515; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12795306 (last accessed Dec. 27, 2019).
  13. See Hawaii Helicopter Operators Ass’n v. F.A.A, 51 F.3d 212, 214-15 (9th Cir.1995). See also n. 1 supra and accompanying text.
  14. 863 F.3d 937 (D.C. Cir. 2017), aff’d, 139 S.Ct. 1804 (2019).
  15. 2019 WL 5790061 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 5, 2019).
  16. 587 U.S. ___, 139 S.Ct. 1804 (2019), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1395 ww(d)(5)(k)(I); 42 C.F.R. § 412.106; cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare.Fee.For.Service.Payment /Acute InpatientPPS/dsh (last accessed Jan. 15, 2020).  See S.Ct. at 1309 quoting Petition for Cert; “So counting makes the fraction smaller and reduces hospitals’ payments considerably–by between $3 and $4 billion over a 9-year period, according to the government.”
  17. https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/AcuteInPatientPPS/dsh. Hospitals rely on DSH payments, as calculated annually, for a significant part of the yearly budget and income. The change in the method in which HHS was calculating those payments, applied retroactively, reduced the sum HHS found should have been paid each hospital in 2012 and 2013, resulting in a CMS demand for recoupment (paying back) of those funds to Medicare. There is an alternate special exception method for large urban hospitals that can demonstrate that more than 30 percent of their total net inpatient care revenues come from state and local governments for indigent care (other than Medicare or Medicaid). Because Medicaid monies are funds designated to serve a specific group in accordance with CMS payment guidelines, CMS is permitted up to 10 years to recoup funds which it believes were paid in error.
  18. Allina at 1810-1815.
  19. Allina Health Services v. Sebelius, 746 F.3d 1102, 1107-9 (D.C. Cir. 2014), as quoted in Allina Health Services v. Sebelius, 863 F.3d 937 (D.C. Ct.App. 2017).
  20. Allina at 1810.
  21. Part A Benefits refers to inpatient benefits (42 U.S.C. § 1395ww(9)(5)(F)(vi)(I). Part C Benefits refer to Medicare Advantage beneficiaries, who generally have more financial resources. Including Part C patients in the DSH calculation lowers hospital payments markedly. See Northeast Hospital Corp. v. Sebelius, 657 F.3d 1, 5 (D.C. Cir. 2011).
  22. See n. 17 and accompanying material.
  23. 42 U.S.C. Chapter 5, §§ 551 – 559. See Allina at 1813.  See also Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass’n, 575 U.S. 92, 95 (discussion of “interpretive rules” to which the APA notice and comment rulemaking requirements do not apply.)
  24. See Allina Health Servs. v. Price, 863 F.3d 937, 949 (D.C. 2017).
  25. 42 U.S.C. § 1395hh(a)(2) (emphasis added).
  26. See Allina Health, 139 S. Ct. at 1814.
  27. Id. At 1816.
  28. No. 12-4239, 2019 WL 5790061 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 5, 2019).
  29. Polansky at 7. See generally Allina at 1816. (discussion of CMS Provider Manual).
  30. 476 U.S. 667, 106 S.Ct. 2133, 90 L.Ed.2d 623 (1986).
  31. See Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Ass’n, 135 S.Ct. 1206, 191 L.Ed.2d 186 (2015).
  32. ___ F.Supp.3d___, 13 (2019); 2019 WL 579006 (at 12-13).
  33. Id. at 16.
  34. https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1028756/download . See also Executive Order, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-orders-promoting-rule-law-improved-agency-documents/.
  35. See Attorney General Memo on the Prohibition on Improper Guidance Documents, https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1012271/download (last accessed Dec. 27, 2019).
  36. Brand Memo at Page 1.
  37. Id. at Page 2. The Brand Memo has been incorporated into the Justice Manual, the guidebook for DOJ attorneys. See https://www.justice.gov/jm/1-20000-limitation-use-guidance-documents-litigation (last accessed Dec. 27, 2019).
  38.  https://fcablog.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/1222000-1222453-allina-memo-cms.pdf.

About the Authors

Mary Holloway Richard represents both institutional and non-institutional providers of health services. Her career has included work at hospitals, outpatient clinics, behavioral health facilities and rehabilitation facilities and clinics. She has significant experience in health services contracting, reimbursement audits and appeals, OIG investigations, and regulatory and corporate matters. She lectures and has written on numerous healthcare topics including nonprofit operations, telehealth and behavioral health law, confidentiality and criminal justice reform. She was the driving force behind the first Oklahoma Women’s Law Manual as well as a contributor and editor.  She is currently a member of the faculty of the Oklahoma City University School of Law teaching an introduction to Healthcare Law and Behavioral Health Law. She has been in the leadership of the Behavioral Health Task Force of the American Hospital Association since its inception and is currently Vice Chair. She is Chair of the Oklahoma Bar Association’s Health Law Section. She may be reached at mhrichard@phillipsmurrah.com.

Anna Whites is the owner of Anna Whites Law Office and a graduate of Centre College and the University of Kentucky College of Law.  Her practice concentrates on health law, with a focus on laboratories, rural hospitals and behavioral health.  She advises providers on reimbursement, compliance and transactional issues.  Ms. Whites works with the Kentucky State Legislature and advocates in Kentucky and nationally to advance policies on prompt payment, uniform provider credentialing, telehealth advances and laws providing broad coverage to vulnerable populations. She is the Co-Chair of the Rural Health Subcommittee of AHLA’s Behavioral Health Task Force and speaks and writes for HCCA, ABA and AHLA on behavioral and compliance health law topics. She may be reached at annawhites@aol.com.

Federal Medicaid match matters to state’s healthcare providers

Introducing Becky-Pasternik-Ikard

Rebecca “Becky” Pasternik-Ikard is a lawyer, a nurse and a Medicaid program director who brings decades of experience to assist Phillips Murrah healthcare clients in copy with reimbursement, including negotiating payments, audits and appeals, and other regulatory issues related to governmental payments of providers.

In this article, Oklahoma City Attorney Rebecca Pasternik-Ikard answers questions about state and federal government’s role in funding Oklahoma’s Medicaid program.

What is the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP)?

The Federal Medical Assistance Percentage is the federal government’s share of the expenditures for medical services and administrative costs for a state Medicaid program and is often called the “federal match.”

Why does it matter to Oklahoma’s healthcare providers?

FMAP matters because each state’s Medicaid program is funded jointly by state and federal dollars. Generally, states receiving a higher FMAP for medical services need fewer state dollars. But a state must have state dollars to leverage federal matching dollars. On a quarterly basis, a state submits to the federal government its Medicaid expenditures paid by state dollars seeking to “draw down” the federal matching dollars.

How often does the FMAP change?

The FMAP for medical services for all states is calculated annually by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), based on a formula in the Social Security Act, and is effective from Oct. 1 through Sept. 30 of each year. The FMAP varies from state to state; it can be no lower than 50% and no higher than 83%. So, for every $1 states spend on Medicaid, states can “draw down” at least $1 from the federal government. However, the FMAP for a state’s Medicaid administrative costs is fixed, generally at 50% FMAP. States do receive enhanced FMAP for certain populations, services and a variety of administrative functions.

How does the FMAP specifically impact physicians, hospitals and other healthcare providers?

Fluctuations in the FMAP for medical services can have significant impact on all healthcare providers. Significant increases often allow a state to restore, increase or add benefits compensable under the Medicaid program, as well as adjust upward the rates paid to providers. Conversely, depending on a state’s ability to offset the loss of federal funds, a decrease in the FMAP can trigger the elimination or reduction in certain benefits provided to Medicaid enrollees, as well as a decrease in provider rates.

How is the FMAP for medical services calculated?

The FMAP is based on a rolling three-year average of the per capita income of each state as compared to the national average per capita income. However, there is a lag in the data used. For instance, for FY 2019 (effective Oct 1, 2018-Sept. 30, 2019) the FMAP calculation for states was based on state per capita personal income data for 2014, 2015 and 2016. Generally, what this means is that for states with lower per capita incomes relative to the national average, the federal government contributes more to the Medicaid program. Conversely, the federal government contributes less to the Medicaid program in those states with higher per capita incomes. However, the formula is not responsive quickly when a state experiences an economic downturn.

How does the FMAP work in Oklahoma?

With the exception of the FY 2014 FMAP of 64.02%, Oklahoma’s FMAP declined overall from 64.00% in FY 2013 to 58.57% in FY 2018. Oklahoma experienced the largest cumulative FMAP decrease in the nation over this period. This significant loss of federal dollars prompted the Oklahoma Health Care Authority (OHCA) to implement administrative and operational strategies to continue to operate the Medicaid program, resulting in physician and other provider rate reductions of 7.75% in July 2015 and 3% in January 2016. From FY 2018 to FY 2019, Oklahoma had the greatest FMAP increase of any state of 3.81%, from 58.57% ($1.43 in federal dollars for every state dollar spent in medical services) to 62.38% ($1.66 in federal dollars for every state dollar spent in medical services). This influx of federal matching dollars and OHCA’s management of its administrative and program budgets allowed OHCA to restore the last provider rate reduction of 3%. From FY 2019 to FY 2020, Oklahoma experienced another significant FMAP increase of 3.64% from 62.38% ($1.66 in federal dollars for every state dollar spent in medical services) to 66.02% ($1.94 in federal dollars for every state dollar spent in medical services). Once again, provider rates were increased. The good news is that, due to Oklahoma’s experience with shifting FMAPs, a Rate Preservation Fund of $29.4 million was created this year, to help offset future FMAP decreases and mitigate potential provider rate reductions.

Rebecca Pasternik-Ikard is an attorney at Phillips Murrah.

Medicaid, work and community engagement

This column was originally published in The Journal Record on November 27, 2019.


Introducing Becky-Pasternik-Ikard

Rebecca “Becky” Pasternik-Ikard is a lawyer, a nurse and a Medicaid program director who brings decades of experience to assist Phillips Murrah healthcare clients in copy with reimbursement, including negotiating payments, audits and appeals, and other regulatory issues related to governmental payments of providers.

By Phillips Murrah Of Counsel Attorney Becky Pasternik-Ikard

Physicians, hospitals and other health care providers continue to experience not only shrinking reimbursement rates, but also an increasingly formidable regulatory presence. A recent controversial Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services policy reform permits states to require certain Medicaid beneficiaries to engage in meaningful work or in volunteer activities as a condition for continued eligibility.

This policy is a fundamental shift in Medicaid eligibility, eliciting criticism from the health care community that employment should not be a condition for coverage and access to medical treatment.

Although overall Medicaid enrollment has declined over the past two years, Medicaid enrollment has increased since the Affordable Care Act, driven primarily by newly eligible adults gaining coverage under Medicaid expansion, with the highest enrollment increases seen in Medicaid expansion states. This increase includes not only the Medicaid expansion population, but also those individuals who were currently eligible, but not enrolled. These people learned of coverage due to extensive outreach efforts by expansion states.

In its Jan. 11, 2018 State Medicaid Director letter entitled Opportunities to Promote Work and Community Engagement among Medicaid Beneficiaries, CMS announced the new policy and clarified that states could predicate continued Medicaid eligibility on participation in work requirements, including community service, caregiving, education, job training, and substance use disorder treatment. The basis for this policy is Section 1901 of the Social Security Act. Divisive reactions have opponents characterizing it as inconsistent with Medicaid’s objective of health coverage and an impermissible Medicaid enrollment reduction strategy.

Eighteen states have sought approval to implement work requirements. Although CMS has approved all requests submitted by Medicaid expansion states, the implementation of three, Arkansas, Kentucky and New Hampshire, has been interrupted or stopped due to legal challenge.

Kentucky, a Medicaid expansion state, received CMS approval the day after the new policy was announced. Kentucky had submitted a Section 1115 waiver authority request in 2017 incorporating work requirements. Shortly after Kentucky’s January 2018 approval, a legal challenge was filed. Kentucky’s implementation has been blocked twice by a federal district court judge and is under appeal. Kentucky Gov.-elect Andy Beshear has declared plans to rescind Medicaid work requirements.

In July 2017, Indiana submitted its request to CMS proposing work requirements for its Medicaid expansion enrollees. Although Indiana received CMS approval in February 2018, implementation did not begin until January 2019. In September 2019, a lawsuit was filed challenging Indiana’s program. Indiana has suspended its work requirements pending the outcome of the litigation.

In March 2018, CMS approved Arkansas’ June 2017 request to amend its Section 1115 waiver to implement work requirements. Implementation began in June 2018. In August 2018, a lawsuit was filed challenging Arkansas’ approval. A year after approval, the federal district court set it aside. The matter is under appeal.

In May 2018, New Hampshire became the fourth state to win approval for work requirements, with implementation scheduled in March, but it was postponed due to a lawsuit filed the same month. Consistent with the rulings for Kentucky and Arkansas, in July 2019, the same federal district court judge set aside the approval for New Hampshire.

State leadership and Medicaid programs nationwide await the outcome following the Oct. 11 oral arguments related to the appeals for Arkansas and Kentucky. Oklahoma, a non-expansion state, has a pending waiver request to impose work requirements on certain Medicaid beneficiaries. If approved, this would add barriers to access and continuity of care, which are likely to place additional administrative and financial burdens on hospitals, physicians and other health care providers.

Becky Pasternik-Ikard is the former CEO of the Oklahoma Health Care Authority and former state Medicaid director. She currently practices Of Counsel for Phillips Murrah law firm in Oklahoma City.

Avoiding costly violations to the Anti-Kickback Statute

In this article, Oklahoma City Healthcare Attorney Mary Holloway Richard discusses the “Anti-Kickback Statute” and potential, federal violations of the statute as it relates to providers in the healthcare industry.

Mary Holloway

Mary Richard is recognized as one of pioneers in health care law in Oklahoma. She has represented institutional and non-institutional providers of health services, as well as patients and their families.

What is the authority for the federal government to oversee providers’ relationships with durable medical equipment (DME) and device suppliers and drug companies, such as educational programs that would seem to benefit the patient? How active is that oversight?

The Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) prohibits remuneration to induce referrals or use of products reimbursement by Medicare, Medicaid or other federal healthcare programs. The federal government, through its investigators and prosecutors, pursue civil remedies including fines for remuneration considered as kickbacks. Remuneration may be cash of in-kind contributions. Under the AKS both civil and criminal charges may result from an investigation by the federal government. Federal policy is designed to prevent relationships that purportedly “lead to excessive or unnecessary treatment,” drive up health care costs and inhibit free market competition. The kickback prohibition applies to all sources of referrals, even patients. For example, where the Medicare and Medicaid programs require patients to pay copays for services, you generally are required to collect that money from your patients. Routinely waiving these copays could implicate the AKS and you may not advertise that you will forgive copayments. However, providers are free to waive a copayment if the provider makes an individual determination that the patient cannot afford to pay or if reasonable collection efforts fail. In addition, providing free or discounted services to uninsured people is not prohibited. The beneficiary inducement statute (42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7a (a) (5)) also imposes civil monetary penalties on physicians who offer remuneration to Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries to influence them to use their services.

Is the federal government even active in investigating and prosecuting under the AKS?

Yes. The Office of the Inspector General, counsel for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), estimated in 2018 that for every $1 spent on investigating health care fraud, $4 is recouped. The government has investigated, prosecuted and settled claims with many types of providers and continues to do so. The government does not need to prove patient harm or financial loss to the programs to show that a physician violated the Anti-Kickback Statute. A physician can be guilty of violating the AKS even if the physician actually rendered a medically necessary service. Taking money or gifts from drug or device companies or DME suppliers is not justified by arguing that providers would have prescribed that drug or ordered that wheelchair even without a kickback. An example of unlawful activities comes from the Covidien case. A supplier of vein ablation products in California and Florida, Covidien recently settled its claims with the federal government that it offered or provided free to medical practices, or at discounted rates, practice development assistance, lunch-and-learns, dinners with physicians, and market development support, such as vein screening activities designed to recruit new patients to the practices — all provided free of charge or at discounted rates. This virtually uncompensated support, according to the Department of Justice, was designed to induce the use of certain items or services, leading to excessive and unnecessary treatments and driving up health care costs for everyone.

Are there any clear guidelines for physicians and other providers?

HHS has published guidelines for providers, such as “A Roadmap for New Physicians-Avoiding Medicare and Medicaid Fraud and Abuse,” which I routinely provide to new physicians, advanced-practice nurses and other providers. Failure to follow the guidelines can be costly. For example, the outcome of the Covidien investigation was a civil settlement agreement for violation of the AKS in the amount of $17,477,947, with additional payments in excess of $2 million by the company to the states of California and Florida for claims paid by their Medicaid programs.

How are violations of the AKS usually discovered?

Violations of the AKS are often discovered through “qui tam” actions brought by employees of the practice group or those with knowledge of its practices known as “whistleblowers” or “relators.” To avoid vulnerability to qui tam actions providers are advised to adopt and implement robust compliance policies, including training providers and other personnel regarding behavior that may constitute risk under a federal regulatory analysis. It is also advisable to have operating agreements of the practice’s legal entity and written agreements reviewed by counsel in order to shift legal liability where possible.

 

Published: 4/19/19; by Paula Burkes
Original article: https://newsok.com/article/5629122/medical-practice-support-can-be-costly-to-suppliers-others

Attorney Mary Holloway Richard authors update to AHLA publication

Mary Holloway

Mary Richard is recognized as one of pioneers in healthcare law in Oklahoma. She has represented institutional and non-institutional providers of health services, as well as patients and their families.

Mary Holloway Richard, Phillips Murrah Healthcare Law Attorney, lent her expertise to an update of the American Health Lawyers Association‘s Institutional Review Boards publication.

In preparing the third edition, the AHLA recognized the need to update the previous edition based upon changes in statutes and regulations and to incorporate new guidance reflecting expertise and current, in-depth experience with clinical research and IRB’s.

An important addition is the new chapter 17 “IRB Compliance and Internal Audits” authored by Richard.

Richard has recognized expertise in regulatory requirements and risk management in clinical research based upon involvement with both researchers and the IRB process for many years in the largest health system in the state.

The chapter brings to life a clinical research compliance plan by including the key elements and sample policies, procedures and other forms for use by researchers and research facilities, she said.

Richard advises clients regularly about FDA, HHS and OHRP requirements and lectures and writes on related topics, including regulatory requirements of the General Data Protection Regulation applicable in clinical research performed in the European Union.

For more information on the latest edition of the publication, click here.

GDPR in America: Businesses react to newly enforced EU Privacy Law

In this article, Oklahoma City healthcare attorney Mary Holloway Richard discusses GDPR, a newly enforced EU privacy law, and what it means for businesses in America.

Q: What is the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)?

oklahoma city health care attorney mary richard

Mary Richard is recognized as one of pioneers in Oklahoma healthcare law. She has represented institutional and non-institutional providers of health services, as well as patients and their families. She also has significant experience in representing providers in regulatory matters.

A: It’s a law regulating data protection and privacy for all individuals within the European Union (EU). It gives control to individuals over their personally identifiable information. It both standardizes the requirements throughout the EU and bolsters protections available to individuals amid well-publicized, costly data breaches in Europe. It’s a regulation rather than a directive, which means national governments within the EU don’t have to pass enabling legislation for these requirements to be effective. Rather, the regulation is directly binding on the members of the EU. The spirit of the General Data Protection Regulation also is embodied in recent legislation in the United Kingdom, providing consistency across Europe even though the U.K. withdrew from the EU effective in March. The regulation, passed two years ago, became effective May 22. Because of the length of time between passage and enforcement, there’s no transitional or grace period before compliance is required.

Q: How is this relevant to American businesses?

A: In certain circumstances, the GDPR also applies to organizations and other businesses based outside of the EU if they collect and/or process personally identifiable information located within the EU. For example, U.S. companies offering a website to market their products or services to individuals within the European Community or scientific concerns actively engaged in recruiting individuals within the European Community to be subjects in clinical trials are required to comply. It’s important for such commercial concerns to act quickly to determine if they are covered by the General Data Protection Regulation as processors of data or collectors of such data from individuals within the EU. Concerned about the potential burden of compliance on foreign businesses, some international websites have taken steps to block EU users on the effective date, thereby removing the need to comply and ensuring against potential liability under the regulation. USA Today’s international website redirected users to simplified sites limited in scope. Other U.S. newspapers with European editions made them temporarily unavailable to readers in the EU. In another example of responses by U.S. companies, Instapaper, a read-it-later app, temporarily shut off access to European users to allow sufficient time for compliance.

Q: What type of data is protected by the General Data Protection Regulation and how’s it protected?

A: Personally identifiable information is anything that allows a living person to be identified directly or indirectly. Such data elements include name, email and home addresses, medical information, bank or other financial information, computer IP address and photos. A data processing officer must be appointed by businesses involved in processing or collecting data who is similar to a compliance officer with special information technology proficiency in managing and securing personal and sensitive data as well as a local representative for the company. Individuals have the right to the portability (access) of their stored data, erasure of data in certain circumstances, the right to file complaints with the data processing authority and the right to contract automated decision-making made on a solely algorithmic basis. Data breaches must be reported in a manner similar to the Health Information Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 and its amendments (HIPAA).

Q: You mentioned HIPAA. Is informed consent required for American businesses engaged in business in Europe similar to that required for HIPAA?

A: Personally identifiable information may be lawfully processed under the General Data Protection Regulation with informed consent or with a legal basis for doing so which ranges from legitimate interests of the entity collecting the data or a third party performing a task under official authority in the public’s interest, in compliance with the controller’s legal obligation, in fulfillment of a contract with a data subject, and to protect vital interests of a data subject or another person. There are some similarities to the HIPAA informed consent and the various exceptions to the consent requirement including the requirements of clarity and the opportunity to withdraw consent. As with HIPAA, individuals must be apprised of their privacy rights and their ability to withdraw consent at any time under the General Data Protection Regulation.

Q: Are there exceptions or limitations to an individual’s right of access to information?

A: Limitations to disclosure and the individual’s right of access to protected data exist for overriding interests such as national security. Further, in recognition of the importance of providing health care across country boundaries and clinical research to fight disease, the General Data Protection Regulation doesn’t apply to statistical and scientific analyses. A recognition of the need to maintain the integrity of clinical research resulted in the limitation of the erasure right of the individual. The strengthened data protections of the General Data Protection Regulation are limited in the face of requirements of good science although companies engaging in clinical research, including patient recruitment in the EU, will need to evaluate their data compliance plans considering the requirements of the newly enforced law. In addition, the General Data Protection Regulation doesn’t apply to data related to employer-employee relationships.

 

Published: 7/20/18; by Paula Burkes
Original article: https://newsok.com/article/5601938/qa-with-mary-holloway-richard-u.s.-businesses-react-to-newly-enforced-eu-privacy-law

Oklahoma Medicaid plans offer solution for high cost of prescription drugs

In this article, Oklahoma City healthcare attorney Mary Holloway Richard discusses steps Oklahoma has taken to lower prescription drug costs for consumers.

oklahoma city health care attorney mary richard

Mary Richard is recognized as one of pioneers in Oklahoma healthcare law. She has represented institutional and non-institutional providers of health services, as well as patients and their families. She also has significant experience in representing providers in regulatory matters.

Q: Oklahoma recently has been recognized by Secretary Alex Azar, of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, for innovations in its Medicaid prescription drug program designed to lower drug costs to the state. How was the state able to accomplish this feat?

A: Medicaid is a federal program that’s administered by the states. In Oklahoma, it’s administered by the Oklahoma Health Care Authority. So, while the state receives some federal funding, a good portion of Medicaid funds are supplied by the state. In order to reduce costs related to prescription drugs, Oklahoma applied to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and was granted an amendment to the Oklahoma State Plan that facilitates prescription drug cost savings. The plan links the payment of a drug to its effectiveness and outcomes. This is essentially what we refer to as “value-based” prescription drug purchasing. CMS reports that “(t)he state plan amendment proposal submitted by Oklahoma will be the first state plan amendment permitting a state to pursue CMS-authorized supplemental rebate agreements involving value-based purchasing arrangements with drug manufacturers.” This program is part of the Trump administration’s “American Patients First” blueprint, designed to address rising drug prices.

Q: How will the amendment work in Oklahoma?

A: The amendment to the state plan, as approved by CMS, now allows Oklahoma to negotiate and enter into valued-based contracts with drug manufacturers. This means that, through identifying the most effective medications, the state can tailor its negotiations with manufacturers to drugs that have demonstrated the most success in treating patients, thereby achieving cost savings and efficiencies in treatment. Negotiating value-based contracts will supplement Oklahoma’s ability to control drug prices under its current participation in the Sovereign States Drug Consortium. The Consortium negotiates supplemental rebates on behalf of states. Oklahoma is free to accept or reject rebate offers.

Q: Are there other cost saving initiatives related to decreasing prescription drug costs?

A: Currently, certain drugs have a preferred status if they’re listed on the Medicaid State Supplemental Rebate Agreement. Almost every state Medicaid plan, including Oklahoma’s, gives the state the authority to negotiate supplemental rebate agreements with drug manufacturers. These agreements allow for rebates to be given to the state by manufacturers as least as large as those provided in the Medicaid national drug rebate agreement. Importantly, two other parts of the Trump administration’s plan to decrease drug costs include giving Medicare insurance plans greater ability to negotiate for the Medicare Program (Part B and prescription drugs) and to make drug prices transparent for consumers. The latter part of the president’s plan would require drugmakers to disclose list prices in public advertising.

 

Published: 7/10/18; by Paula Burkes
Original article: https://newsok.com/article/5600913/oklahoma-medicaid-plans-offer-solution-for-costly-prescription-drugs