Tag: healthcare

What the FTC’s Rule Banning Non-Competes Means for Healthcare

The FTC unveiled its long-awaited final rule banning most non-compete agreements during a live broadcast of a Commission meeting on April 23, 2024. The proposed rule, which was first announced in January 2023, underwent an extensive public comment process in which approximately 26,000 comments were received. According to the FTC, approximately 25,000 of these comments supported a total ban on non-competes. While there was some expectation that the final rule would be less aggressive than the proposed rule, that turned out not to be the case. By late summer 2024, most employers, except for non-profit organizations, will not be able to enforce or obtain non-competes in the U.S. except in extremely narrow circumstances. The new rule will take effect 120 days after it is published in the Federal Register. Assuming the rule is published this week, we can expect it to take effect by late August. That is, of course, if a court does not enjoin the rule first. Shortly after the rule was announced on April 23, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce stated its intention to sue the FTC. U.S. Chamber to Sue FTC Over Unlawful Power Grab on Noncompete Agreements Ban | U.S. Chamber of Commerce (uschamber.com) The first lawsuit challenging the new rule was filed on April 23, Ryan, LLC v. Federal Trade Commission, Case No. 3:24cv986 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 23, 2024). Among other relief, the Ryan suit seeks to have the rule vacated and set aside. There are significant legal questions concerning whether the FTC has the authority to take this action by rulemaking or whether this is best left to the legislative process. While some U.S. states have banned non-competes, many U.S. states have not banned them.

As written, the rule will have profound effects on virtually every industry, especially health care, where non-competes are common in physician and mid-level practitioner employment agreements. As several Commissioners indicated during the April 23 meeting, they are particularly concerned about non-competes in health care and believe this rule will save approximately $74-194 billion in reduced spending on physician services over the next decade.

Following is Nelson Mullins’ quick take on what health care employers need to know:

  1. The rule does not apply to non-profits. The basis for the rule making is Section 5 of the FTC Act, which doesn’t apply to non-profits. So, a non-profit health system that has non-competes with physicians or other workers is not impacted by the rule. Be aware, though, that the FTC may be looking to test whether some non-profit health systems are really operating as true non-profits. Tax exempt status alone will not be enough. We believe, however, that given significant and quantifiable charitable benefits that most non-profit systems provide, the FTC may be hard pressed to find a good test case within the non-profit health care industry.
  2. For all others, the rule bans all non-compete agreements for any worker, regardless of title, job function, or compensation, after the effective date. Thus, a for-profit health system or for-profit physician practice that uses non-competes will be significantly limited. The only non-competes that will be allowed to remain in force are non-competes for “Senior Executives” that were entered into before the rule becomes effective.
  3. The rule will take effect 120 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This will likely occur this week, so we expect the effective date to be approximately August 20, 2024.
  4. The rule rescinds existing non-competes for all workers who are not “Senior Executives.”
  5. “Senior Executive” is a narrowly-defined term meaning:
    1. a person in a policy making position; and
    2. who was paid at least $151,164 in the prior year.
  6. Existing non-competes for Senior Executives are not rescinded. New non-competes with Senior Executives entered into prior to the effective date are still allowed. However, no new non-competes with Senior Executives may be entered into after the effective date.
  7. “Policy-making position” means: President, CEO, or equivalent, or other person who has policy making authority, i.e., decisions that control a significant aspect of a business entity. Most clinicians will not meet the definition of “Senior Executive.”
  8. Non-senior executives who are now under a non-compete must be given notice by the effective date that their non-compete will not be, and cannot legally be, enforced. Model language for the notice is in the rule.
Copyright ©2024 Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP
by: Denise M. Gunter, Carrie A. Hanger, Candace S. Friel of Nelson Mullins
For more news on the Implications of the FTC Noncompete Ban on Healthcare, visit the NLR Health Law & Managed Care section.

Importance of Negotiating Assignment and Subletting Provisions in Health Care Leases

In our ongoing series of blog posts, we examine key negotiating points for tenants in triple net health care leases. We also offer suggestions for certain lease provisions that will protect tenants from overreaching and unfair expenses, overly burdensome obligations, and ambiguous terms with respect to the rights and responsibilities of the parties. These suggestions are intended to result in efficient lease negotiations and favorable lease terms from a tenant’s perspective. In our first two blog posts, we considered the importance of negotiating initial terms and renewal terms and operating expense provisions. This latest blog post in our series focuses on negotiating assignment and subletting provisions.

It is imperative for a commercial tenant, particularly a private equity-owned health care tenant, to include provisions in a lease which allow the tenant the flexibility to assign and sublease the commercial space without the necessity of having to obtain the landlord’s consent and/or to meet burdensome landlord conditions.

Most leases prohibit transfers by assignment and subletting or require landlord’s prior written consent subject to meeting certain burdensome conditions. In addition, landlords often include a “change of control” provision which provides that sale of a controlling interest is deemed a transfer requiring landlord consent. A health care tenant looking for flexibility for reorganization or internal transfer subject to private equity control will want to push back on change of control provisions and will want to ensure that their lease allows for certain permitted transfers that do not require landlord consent. Carving out “permitted transfers” customarily includes transfers to: (i) an affiliate of the named tenant under the lease (meaning, any entity, directly or indirectly, which controls, is controlled by or is under common control with tenant); (ii) a successor entity created by merger, consolidation or reorganization of tenant; or (iii) an entity which shall purchase all or substantially all of the assets or a controlling interest in the stock or membership of tenant. If the tenant is a management services organization (MSO), the lease should also include explicit landlord permission for a sublease between the MSO and the provider that will occupy the leased premises.

Landlords may accept the concept of permitted transfers but often seek to impose certain conditions to allowing such transfers. Certain conditions on permitted transfers are reasonable, such as requirements for advance notice, that the proposed permitted transferee assume all obligations under the lease, that the permitted transferee operate only for the permitted use set forth in the lease, and that a copy of the transfer document be provided to landlord. However, other conditions, such as requiring a net worth test for the assignee or financial reporting requirements, can be burdensome and serve to undermine the concept of permitted transfers without landlord consent. We advise our clients in these instances to push back or limit these conditions as much as possible.

Other common assignment and subletting provisions should expressly not apply to permitted transfers. These include recapture provisions which allow a landlord to terminate the lease and recapture the space, excess profit provisions which provide that any excess profits realized as the result of a transfer will be shared between landlord and tenant, and administrative fees and reimbursements to landlord which are often charged to tenants in connection with an assignment or subletting request. Restrictions on transfers should not apply to guarantor entities. Often with private equity, the guarantor is the parent entity and cannot be restricted by a landlord as to transfer, restructuring or reorganization at the top of its organization.

In the case of transfers that do not fall within the definition of “permitted transfers” and require landlord consent, a tenant will want to include language that landlord will not unreasonably withhold, condition, or delay such consent. Other tenant protections should also be considered, including a cap on administrative and review fees reimbursable by tenant to landlord, a reasonably short time period for landlord to approve or disapprove a request (i.e., 30 days) or be deemed to have approved, a reasonably short time period for landlord to exercise recapture rights or be deemed to have approved, and a provision that excess profits will be shared equally rather than all belonging to landlord.

Negotiation of assignment and subletting terms is critical for tenants, particularly with respect to private equity-owned health care tenants. The goal for tenants in negotiating these points is to provide flexibility for addressing future financial and operational needs. As with other highly negotiated lease terms, we recommend addressing assignment and subletting provisions in detail in advance in the letter of intent. This makes expectations of the parties clear, saves time and money by avoiding protracted negotiations, and results in an overall efficient lease negotiation process.

In our next post, we will cover the importance of negotiating maintenance and repair terms and will offer suggestions for limiting a tenant’s exposure.

©2024 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights reserved.
For more news on Health Care Leases, visit the NLR Health Law & Managed Care section.

The Antitrust Investigator Will See You Now: What Healthcare And Pharma Should Expect In A World Of Enhanced Antitrust Scrutiny

Highlights

  • Healthcare entities should expect heightened government scrutiny of mergers, acquisitions, and business behaviors that could be construed as restricting competition in healthcare and pharma
  • The FTC, DOJ, and HHS have advanced a “whole-of-government approach,” including data sharing, cooperative enforcement, and enhanced antitrust training
  • Businesses should take note of practices that are likely to trigger investigatory and enforcement actions

According to media reports, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has opened an antitrust investigation into UnitedHealth Group, which is the owner of the United States’ largest health insurer, UnitedHealthcare. The focus of the inquiry appears to be the relationship between the UnitedHealthcare insurance plan and one of its health services divisions, Optum, and the potential impact on rivals and consumers.

While tech giants have grabbed most of the headlines when it comes to enhanced antitrust scrutiny, this new matter is the DOJ’s second antitrust investigation into UnitedHealth Group in recent years, giving teeth to the administration’s claim that it has an aggressive antitrust policy in the healthcare sector.

In another example of increased antitrust scrutiny, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently announced a new initiative in partnership with the DOJ and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to address what they consider to be the effects of anticompetitive behavior in the healthcare and pharmaceutical spaces. According to the government, these new efforts are aimed at lowering consumer costs and will include “partnering on new initiatives which include a joint Request for Information to seek input on how private-equity and other corporations’ control of health care is impacting Americans.”

Although interagency cooperation is the focus of the recent push to ramp up antitrust investigations and enforcement, each agency will still spearheaded their own regulatory activity.

Federal Trade Commission

FTC Chair Lina Khan has made it clear that her agency will devote more resources to enforcement in the healthcare industry, and emphasized that “safeguarding fair competition and rooting out unlawful business practices in health care markets is a top priority for the FTC.” In furtherance of these priorities, the commission has recently taken the following actions:

  • Orange Book Policy: The FTC challenged more than 100 patents held by pharmaceutical companies that they claim are inaccurately or improperly listed in the FDA’s Orange Book. The commission also released a policy statement explaining its renewed focus on Orange Book infractions.
  • Proposed Non-compete Rule: The FTC presented a new rule that would place a ban on non-compete clauses in employee contracts.

U.S. Department of Justice

Jonathan Kanter, Assistant Attorney General of the DOJ’s Antitrust Division, highlighted the division’s emphasis on the healthcare space when he said, “we are committed to weeding out anticompetitive practices and market consolidation that hinder Americans’ access to quality care at affordable rates, or deprive health care workers of fair wages and opportunity.” The following are just a few examples of how the DOJ has implemented this renewed focus:

  • Criminal Penalties: Recently, the DOJ’s Antitrust Division successfully secured a deferred prosecution agreement against Teva Pharmaceuticals, obtaining the largest monetary penalty ever (over $200 million) against a purely domestic producer that was allegedly operating an antitrust cartel.
  • Blocked Mergers: The Antitrust Division filed a suit to stop Aon plc’s $30 billion proposal to acquire Willis Towers Watson, two of the three largest brokers of health insurance and retirement benefits consulting. The companies later ceased their pursuit of the merger.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra made his agency’s priorities clear when he recently stated that “the Biden-Harris Administration remains laser-focused on increasing access to high-quality, affordable health care for all Americans, like by making hearing aids available for sale over the counter and lowering prescription drug costs through the Inflation Reduction Act.” The department’s initiatives have included:

  • Ownership Transparency: For the first time, HHS, via the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, made ownership data available on federal qualified health centers and rural health clinics on data.cms.gov. HHS hopes the release of this data will help catalyze enforcement actions by identifying common ownership.
  • Medicare Advantage Marketing: HHS also announced new efforts to crack down on what it considers “predatory marketing” that seeks to steer patients towards Medicare Advantage plans that “may not best meet their needs.”

Takeaways

In light of the government’s renewed focus on increased competition, expanded enforcement actions, access to quality care, more affordable services and products, and transparency of ownership in the healthcare and pharmaceutical industries, legal and compliance departments should consider being proactive about conducting thorough reviews of current practices. This is particularly true for mergers and acquisitions, competitive strategies, and pricing decisions, which are the business activities most likely to conflict with these recently energized regulatory bodies. Even healthcare providers with stellar compliance programs should expect to receive more frequent and targeted requests for information from enforcement authorities about their business partners, payors, and marketing practices.

© 2024 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
For more news on Antitrust Enforcement in the Healthcare Sector, visit the NLR Health Law & Managed Care section.

Recent Healthcare-Related Artificial Intelligence Developments

AI is here to stay. The development and use of artificial intelligence (“AI”) is rapidly growing in the healthcare landscape with no signs of slowing down.

From a governmental perspective, many federal agencies are embracing the possibilities of AI. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is exploring the ability of AI to estimate sentinel events and combat disease outbreaks and the National Institutes of Health is using AI for priority research areas. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is also assessing whether algorithms used by plans and providers to identify high risk patients and manage costs can introduce bias and restrictions. Additionally, as of December 2023, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration cleared more than 690 AI-enabled devices for market use.

From a clinical perspective, payers and providers are integrating AI into daily operations and patient care. Hospitals and payers are using AI tools to assist in billing. Physicians are using AI to take notes and a wide range of providers are grappling with which AI tools to use and how to deploy AI in the clinical setting. With the application of AI in clinical settings, the standard of patient care is evolving and no entity wants to be left behind.

From an industry perspective, the legal and business spheres are transforming as a result of new national and international regulations focused on establishing the safe and effective use of AI, as well as commercial responses to those regulations. Three such regulations are top of mind, including (i) President Biden’s Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of AI; (ii) the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (“HHS”) Final Rule on Health Data, Technology, and Interoperability; and (iii) the World Health Organization’s (“WHO”) Guidance for Large Multi-Modal Models of Generative AI. In response to the introduction of regulations and the general advancement of AI, interested healthcare stakeholders, including many leading healthcare companies, have voluntarily committed to a shared goal of responsible AI use.

U.S. Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of AI

On October 30, 2023, President Biden issued an Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of AI (“Executive Order”). Though long-awaited, the Executive Order was a major development and is one of the most ambitious attempts to regulate this burgeoning technology. The Executive Order has eight guiding principles and priorities, which include (i) Safety and Security; (ii) Innovation and Competition; (iii) Commitment to U.S. Workforce; (iv) Equity and Civil Rights; (v) Consumer Protection; (vi) Privacy; (vii) Government Use of AI; and (viii) Global Leadership.

Notably for healthcare stakeholders, the Executive Order directs the National Institute of Standards and Technology to establish guidelines and best practices for the development and use of AI and directs HHS to develop an AI Task force that will engineer policies and frameworks for the responsible deployment of AI and AI-enabled tech in healthcare. In addition to those directives, the Executive Order highlights the duality of AI with the “promise” that it brings and the “peril” that it has the potential to cause. This duality is reflected in HHS directives to establish an AI safety program to prioritize the award of grants in support of AI development while ensuring standards of nondiscrimination are upheld.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Health Data, Technology, and Interoperability Rule

In the wake of the Executive Order, the HHS Office of the National Coordinator finalized its rule to increase algorithm transparency, widely known as HT-1, on December 13, 2023. With respect to AI, the rule promotes transparency by establishing transparency requirements for AI and other predictive algorithms that are part of certified health information technology. The rule also:

  • implements requirements to improve equity, innovation, and interoperability;
  • supports the access, exchange, and use of electronic health information;
  • addresses concerns around bias, data collection, and safety;
  • modifies the existing clinical decision support certification criteria and narrows the scope of impacted predictive decision support intervention; and
  • adopts requirements for certification of health IT through new Conditions and Maintenance of Certification requirements for developers.

Voluntary Commitments from Leading Healthcare Companies for Responsible AI Use

Immediately on the heels of the release of HT-1 came voluntary commitments from leading healthcare companies on responsible AI development and deployment. On December 14, 2023, the Biden Administration announced that 28 healthcare provider and payer organizations signed up to move toward the safe, secure, and trustworthy purchasing and use of AI technology. Specifically, the provider and payer organizations agreed to:

  • develop AI solutions to optimize healthcare delivery and payment;
  • work to ensure that the solutions are fair, appropriate, valid, effective, and safe (“F.A.V.E.S.”);
  • deploy trust mechanisms to inform users if content is largely AI-generated and not reviewed or edited by a human;
  • adhere to a risk management framework when utilizing AI; and use of AI technology. Specifically, the provider and payer organizations agreed to:
  • develop AI solutions to optimize healthcare delivery and payment;
  • work to ensure that the solutions are fair, appropriate, valid, effective, and safe (“F.A.V.E.S.”);
  • deploy trust mechanisms to inform users if content is largely AI-generated and not reviewed or edited by a human;
  • adhere to a risk management framework when utilizing AI; and
  • research, investigate, and develop AI swiftly but responsibly.

WHO Guidance for Large Multi-Modal Models of Generative AI

On January 18, 2024, the WHO released guidance for large multi-modal models (“LMM”) of generative AI, which can simultaneously process and understand multiple types of data modalities such as text, images, audio, and video. The WHO guidance contains 98 pages with over 40 recommendations for tech developers, providers and governments on LMMs, and names five potential applications of LMMs, such as (i) diagnosis and clinical care; (ii) patient-guided use; (iii) administrative tasks; (iv) medical education; and (v) scientific research. It also addresses the liability issues that may arise out of the use of LMMs.

Closely related to the WHO guidance, the European Council’s agreement to move forward with a European Union AI Act (“Act”), was a significant milestone in AI regulation in the European Union. As previewed in December 2023, the Act will inform how AI is regulated across the European Union, and other nations will likely take note of and follow suit.

Conclusion

There is no question that AI is here to stay. But how the healthcare industry will look when AI is more fully integrated still remains to be seen. The framework for regulating AI will continue to evolve as AI and the use of AI in healthcare settings changes. In the meantime, healthcare stakeholders considering or adopting AI solutions should stay abreast of developments in AI to ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations.

Copyright © 2024, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.
For more on Healthcare, visit the NLR Health Law & Managed Care section.

WHO Publishes Guidance for Ethics and Governance of AI for Healthcare Sector

The World Health Organization (WHO) recently published “Ethics and Governance of Artificial Intelligence for Health: Guidance on large multi-modal models” (LMMs), which is designed to provide “guidance to assist Member States in mapping the benefits and challenges associated with the use of for health and in developing policies and practices for appropriate development, provision and use. The guidance includes recommendations for governance within companies, by governments, and through international collaboration, aligned with the guiding principles. The principles and recommendations, which account for the unique ways in which humans can use generative AI for health, are the basis of this guidance.”

The guidance focused on one type of generative AI, large multi-modal models (LMMs), “which can accept one or more type of data input and generate diverse outputs that are not limited to the type of data fed into the algorithm.” According to the report, LMMs have “been adopted faster than any consumer application in history.” The report outlines the benefits and risks of LLMs, particularly the risk of using LLMs in the healthcare sector.

The report proposes solutions to address the risks of using LMMs in health care during development, provision, and deployment of LMMs and ethics and governance of LLMs, “what can be done, and by who.”

In the ever-changing world of AI, this is one report that is timely and provides steps and solutions to follow to tackle the risk of using LMMs.

Copyright © 2024 Robinson & Cole LLP. All rights reserved.
For more news on AI in Healthcare, visit the NLR Health Law & Managed Care section.

2024: The Year of the Telehealth Cliff

What does December 31, 2024, mean to you? New Year’s Eve? Post-2024 election? Too far away to know?

Our answer: December 31, 2024, is when we will go over a “telehealth cliff” if Congress fails to act before that date, directly impacting care and access for Medicare beneficiaries. What is this telehealth cliff? Let’s back up a bit.

TELEHEALTH COVERAGE POLICIES

Current statute (1834(m) of the Social Security Act) lays out payment and coverage policies for Medicare telehealth services. As written, the provisions significantly limit Medicare providers’—and therefore patients’—ability to utilize telehealth services. Some examples:

  • If the patient is in their home when the telehealth service is being provided, telehealth is generally not eligible for reimbursement.
  • Providers cannot bill for telehealth services provided via audio-only communication.
  • There is a narrow list of providers who are eligible to seek reimbursement for telehealth services.

COVID-19-RELATED TELEHEALTH FLEXIBILITIES

When the COVID-19 pandemic hit in 2020, a public health emergency (PHE) was declared. Congress passed several laws, and the administration acted through its own authorities to provide flexibilities around these Medicare telehealth restrictions. In general, nearly all statutory limitations on telehealth were lifted during the PHE. As we all know, utilization of telehealth skyrocketed.

The PHE ended last year, and through subsequent congressional efforts and regulatory actions by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), many flexibilities were extended beyond the end of the PHE, through December 31, 2024. Congress and CMS continue to grapple with how to support the provision of Medicare telehealth services for the future.

CMS has taken steps through the annual payment rule, the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (MPFS), to align many of the payment and coverage policies for which it has regulatory authority with congressional deadlines. CMS has also restructured its telehealth list, giving more clarity to stakeholders and Congress as to which pandemic-era telehealth services could continue if an extension is passed. But CMS can’t address the statutory limitations on its own. Congress must legislate. CMS highlighted this in the final calendar year (CY) 2024 MPFS rule released on November 2, 2023, noting that “while the CAA, 2023, does extend certain COVID-19 PHE flexibilities, including allowing the beneficiary’s home to serve as an originating site, such flexibilities are only extended through the end of CY 2024.”

THE TELEHEALTH CLIFF

This brings us to the telehealth cliff. CMS generally releases the annual MPFS proposed rule in July, with the final rule coming on or around November 1. If history is any indication, Congress is not likely to act on the extensions much before the current December 31 deadline. This sets up the potential for a high level of uncertainty headed into 2025.

If we go over, this telehealth cliff would directly impact care and access for Medicare beneficiaries. The effects could be felt acutely in rural and underserved areas, where patients have been able to access, via telehealth, medical services that may have been out of reach for them in the past. The telehealth cliff would also impact how providers interact with their patients, and their collective ability to continue to utilize telehealth in a way that has benefited patients and providers alike. It could also influence how health plans choose to cover these services in the private marketplace beyond 2024. Such a dramatic change would impact business decisions for many providers and practices heading into 2025. And, at a time when provider shortages are still a significant issue, it would eliminate an option that has allowed many providers, practices and facilities to extend scarce resources for patient care.

TAKE ACTION

Stakeholders should be raising these concerns to Congress now. There are many ways to engage, including reaching out directly to key Members of Congress, looking for opportunities to testify or submit written testimony for relevant congressional hearings, and participating in organized events where Members of Congress will be present. This cliff can be avoided, but not without a concentrated effort and a lot of noise.

© 2024 McDermott Will & Emery
For more on Telehealth, visit the NLR Communications, Media & Internet section.

The End of the COVID Public Health Emergency and Its Effect on Employee Benefit Plans

The COVID-19 public health emergency ends on May 11, 2023. The emergency resulted in two big changes to welfare plans: the relaxation of certain notification and timing requirements, and the requirement for plans to cover COVID testing and vaccination at no cost to plan participants. While the public health emergency ends May 11, 2023, plans have a grace period until July 11 to take certain actions and come into compliance with the normal rules.

Plan Sponsor Requirements

Before the grace period ends, plan sponsors will generally need to follow the rules that existed before COVID. Among the most important of these rules are the requirements for plan sponsors to:

  • Timely provide all notices, including those for HIPAA and COBRA.
  • Review COVID-related coverage under their employee assistance programs (EAPs) to determine if such coverage would be considered “significant medical care,” which can result in additional reporting and compliance obligations.
  • Review telehealth options to ensure they are properly integrated and provided by an entity that can comply with the post-COVID requirements. Telehealth rules were substantially relaxed during COVID. With telehealth now expected and utilized by more participants, getting telehealth right is more crucial than before.

Plan Sponsor Decisions

With the end of the public health emergency, plan sponsors must also make several important decisions with respect to their employee benefit plans:

  • Whether testing will continue free of charge or will be subject to cost sharing.
  • Whether non-preventative care vaccines for COVID will continue to be free of charge.
  • Whether costs for certain COVID-related services will continue to be posted.

As they are mostly based on what costs the plan sponsor or plan will cover going forward, these plan sponsor decisions are largely business-related. In the absence of a choice by the plan sponsor, the insurance provider will likely make a default choice. The important legal consideration is that the plan documents and employee communications should be consistent and accurately reflect the plan sponsor’s decisions.

Participant Requirements

In addition to the changes for plan sponsors, the end of the public health emergency will result in the reinstatement of a number of rules applicable to participants. Participants will need to:

Follow the HIPAA Special Enrollment timing rules.

Elect COBRA within the 60-day window for elections.

Make all COBRA payments timely.

Timely notify the plan of disabilities and qualifying events under COBRA.

Follow the timing limitations of their plans and insurance policies regarding filing claims, appeals, and external reviews.

Next Steps

First, plan sponsors should decide what COVID-related coverage will remain fully paid by the plan, if any. Some insurance companies are already starting to communicate with participants, and maintaining a consistent message will avoid unnecessary problems.

Second, plan sponsors should review their EAP and telehealth coverages for compliance with the rules that will soon be in effect. To the extent necessary, plan sponsors should update the documentation for their plans.

Finally, plan sponsors should consider a voluntary reminder communication to participants. Many rules have been relaxed over the last two years or so, and participants may be confused regarding the rules. A reminder may save stress for participants and those administering the plan, and will also serve to document the plan sponsor’s intention to properly follow the terms of the plan.

© 2023 Varnum LLP

For more healthcare legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Software as a Medical Device: Challenges Facing the Industry

SaMD Blog Series: Introduction

Editor’s Note: We are excited to announce that this article is the first of a series addressing Software as a Medical Device and the issues that plague digital health companies, investors, clinicians and other organizations that utilize software and medical devices. We will be addressing various considerations including technology, data, intellectual property, licensing, and contracting.

The intersection of software, technology and health care and the proliferation of software as a medical device in the health care arena has become common place and has spurred significant innovations. The term Software as a Medical Device (SaMD) is defined by the International Medical Device Regulators Forum as “software intended to be used for one or more medical purposes that perform these purposes without being part of a hardware medical device.” In other words, SaMD need not be part of a physical device to achieve its intended purpose. For instance, SaMD could be an application on a mobile phone and not be connected to a physical medical device.

With the proliferation of SaMD also comes the need for those building and using it to firmly grasp legal and regulatory considerations to ensure successful use and commercialization. Over the next several weeks, we will be addressing some of more common issues faced by digital health companies, investors, innovators, and clinicians when developing, utilizing, or commercializing SaMD. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has already cleared a significant amount of SaMD, including more than 500 algorithms employing artificial intelligence (AI). Some notable examples include FDA-cleared SaMD such as wearable technology for remote patient monitoring; doctor prescribed video game treatment for children with ADHD; fully immersive virtual reality tools for both physical therapy and mental wellness; and end to end software that generates 3D printed models to better plan surgery and reduce operation time. With this rapid innovation comes a host of legal and regulatory considerations which will be discussed over the course of this SaMD Blog Series.

General Intellectual Property (IP) Considerations for SaMD

This edition will discuss the sophisticated IP strategies that can be used to protect innovations for the three categories of software for biomedical applications: SaMD, software in a medical device, and software used in the manufacture or maintenance of a medical device, including clinical trial collaboration and sponsored research agreements, filing patent applications, and pursuing other forms of protection, such as trade secrets.

Licensing and Contracting with Third Parties for SaMD

This edition will unpack engaging with third parties practically and comprehensively, whether in the context of (i) developing new SaMD or (ii) refining or testing existing SaMD. Data and IP can be effectively either owned or licensed, provided such licenses protect the future interests of the licensee. Such ownership and licensing are particularly important in the AI and machine learning space, which is one area of focus for this edition.

FDA Considerations for SaMD

This edition will explore how FDA is regulating SaMD, which will include a discussion of what constitutes a regulated device, legislative actions to spur innovation, and how FDA is approaching regulation of specific categories of SaMD such as clinical decision support software, general wellness applications, and other mobile medical devices. It will also examine the different regulatory pathways for SaMD and FDA’s current focus on Cybersecurity issues for software.

Health Care Regulatory and Reimbursement Considerations for SAMD

This edition will discuss the intersection of remote monitoring services and SaMD, prescription digital therapeutics and how they intersect with SaMD, licensure and distributor considerations associated with commercializing SaMD, and the growing trend to seek out device specific codes for SaMD.

Our hope is that this series will be a starting point for digital health companies, investors, innovators, and clinicians as each approaches development and use of SaMD as part of their business and clinical offerings.

© 2023 Foley & Lardner LLP

For more information on Healthcare, click here to visit the National Law Review.

 

Will CMS’s Proposed Rule on “Identified Overpayments” Increase Reverse FCA Cases?

On December 27, 2022, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) published a proposed rule which, in part, seeks to amend the existing regulations for Medicare Parts A, B, C, and D regarding the standard for when an “identified” overpayment must be refunded, pursuant to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the False Claims Act (FCA) reverse false claims provision. As written, the proposed rule would remove the existing “reasonable diligence” standard for identification of overpayments, and add the “knowing” and “knowingly” FCA definition. As a result, an overpayment would be “identified” when the entity has actual knowledge of an identified overpayment, or acts in reckless disregard or deliberate ignorance of an identified overpayment. And, a provider is required to refund overpayments it is obliged to refund within 60 days of such identified overpayment.

If this proposed rule is finalized, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) should be applying the same intent standard to their evaluation of potential reverse false claims and Civil Monetary Penalty liability.

The Lay of the Land

Currently, the applicable overpayment regulations state:

A person has identified an overpayment when the person has, or should have through the exercise of reasonable diligence, determined that the person has received an overpayment and quantified the amount of the overpayment. A person should have determined that the person received an overpayment and quantified the amount of the overpayment if the person fails to exercise reasonable diligence and the person in fact received an overpayment.

42 C.F.R. § 401.305(a)(2). In the 2016 Final Rule, CMS agreed “the 60-day time period begins when either the reasonable diligence is completed or on the day the person received credible information of a potential overpayment if the person failed to conduct reasonable diligence and the person in fact received an overpayment.” This reasonable diligence standard allows entities to not only determine credibility of allegations, or issues relating to, a potential overpayment but also, when credible, to conduct a properly scoped internal investigation, during which an entity also accurately quantifies any associated overpayment due for refund.

In the proposed rulemaking, CMS is suggesting instead the following standard:

A person has identified an overpayment when the person knowingly receives or retains an overpayment. The term “knowingly” has the meaning set forth in 31 U.S.C. 3729(b)(1)(A).

31 U.S.C. 3729(b)(1)(A) defines “Knowingly” as any circumstance in which “a person, with respect to information—(i) has actual knowledge of the information; (ii) acts in deliberate ignorance of the truth or falsity of the information; or (iii) acts in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the information.”

The currently proposed provision has similar effect to the language CMS proposed in 2012 and, after consideration of comments, ultimately rejected in the 2014 Final Rule (Medicare Advantage and Part D) and 2016 Final Rule (Medicare Part A and Part B). In that final rulemaking, CMS removed the “actual knowledge,” “reckless disregard,” and “deliberate ignorance” terms in favor of the reasonable diligence standard, leaving practitioners to argue that CMS had lowered requisite intent to a standard less than required by the FCA.

Potential Impact

The FCA is a fraud statute, requiring intent. If a company investigating the credibility, issue, and scope of a matter (i.e., exercising reasonable diligence) also diligently determines the scope of a possible refund obligation, it would be difficult for DOJ to credibly claim an entity has acted recklessly, or with deliberate indifference to repayment under the FCA. DOJ’s general practice has been to bring reverse FCA cases when a provider does not investigate credible allegations and does not refund associated overpayments, after identifying them. For example, in a 2015 case, DOJ attorneys stated in a court conference, “[T]his is not a question … of a case where the hospital is diligently working on the claims and it’s on the sixty-first day and they’re still scrambling to go through their spreadsheets, you know, the government wouldn’t be bringing that kind of a claim.” United States ex rel. Kane v. Healthfirst, Inc., 120 F. Supp. 3d 370, 389 (S.D. N.Y. 2015).

It remains to be seen whether this change will result in an increased pursuit of reverse FCA cases. The proposed rule would eliminate an explicit diligence period (generally not to exceed six months, except in particularly complicated analyses, such as under the Physician Self-Referral or “Stark” Law) to ascertain the validity and amount of a potential obligation to refund an overpayment. The proposed rule does not explain whether providers, suppliers, and others still will have an opportunity to conduct a reasonably diligent inquiry into whether any obligation to refund exists at all, prior to the ACA 60-day clock starting to run. Ideally CMS would make clear in any preamble that the government still expects reasonable and professional efforts be undertaken before making refunds, even if that process may take some time to complete

Absent such clarity, the fact remains that it is difficult to “identify” an obligation to refund, much less any refundable amounts, without first validating the alleged overpayment and quantifying any obligation.

Additionally, this standard may prompt entities to submit an HHS-OIG self-disclosure before all facts are known. While OIG requires a disclosing party to conduct an internal investigation prior to submission, it is near impossible to thoroughly investigate issues and identify any refund 60 days from learning of a possible issue that might result in a refund (especially when multiple payors are involved). Even if a disclosing party notes within a self-disclosure that an investigation is ongoing, the disclosing party must certify that it will complete its investigation within 90 days of the submission date – which still may not be enough time based on the complexity of the allegations or claims review required. The resulting back-and-forth of incomplete information likely would create unnecessary delays in reaching a resolution and frustration among all parties involved.

We encourage all providers, suppliers, Medicare Advantage organizations, Part D participants, and other stakeholders to submit comments on this proposed rule. The public has until 5 p.m. ET on February 13, 2023 to submit comments, which are accepted, electronically or by mail.

Article By Kara (Schoonover) Sweet, Lisa M. Noller, and Lawrence W. Vernaglia of Foley & Lardner LLP

For more healthcare and health law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2023 Foley & Lardner LLP

Colorado Legalizes Therapeutic Psychedelics – Now What?

Ten years after Coloradans voted for their state to be one of the first to legalize recreational cannabis, Colorado is again making history as the second state in the country to legalize therapeutic psychedelics for adults.

Colorado voters narrowly approved Proposition 122 with nearly 53% of the votes (as of the morning of November 14th 97% of the votes have been counted). Their vote thus enacted the Natural Medicine Health Act of 2022 (NMHA) which legalizes supervised or facilitated therapeutic sessions for adults twenty-one years and older using certain psychedelic plants and fungi. Click here for our initial takeaways and a high-level summary of key provisions of the NMHA.

Now that therapeutic psychedelics are legal in Colorado, what should be expected next? Below are key dates and next steps as Colorado navigates implementation of the NMHA.

  • The Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies (DORA) must establish the Natural Medicine Advisory Board (Board) and appoint initial members to the Board by January 31, 2023. The Board must have 15 members who will be appointed by the Governor with the consent of the Colorado Senate. The primary role of the Board is to advise DORA as to implementation of the NMHA program.
  • By September 30, 2023, and annually thereafter, the Board must make recommendations to DORA on certain areas related to natural medicine, such as recommendations related to product safety, herm reduction, and cultural responsibility, training programs, educational and experiential qualifications for facilitators, regulatory considerations for each type of natural medicine and the rules to be promulgated by DORA.
  •  DORA has until January 1, 2024 to adopt rules and establish the qualifications, education and training requirements that facilitators must meet prior to providing natural medicine services to participants.
  • By September 30, 2024, DORA must adopt rules to implement the NMHA program and begin accepting applications for licensure of facilitators, healing centers, entities to test natural medicines, and any categories of licensure as determined by DORA.
  • Once applications are accepted, DORA must make decisions on licensure applications within 60 days of receiving an application.
  • From the launch of the NMHA program until June 1, 2026, “natural medicines” are limited to psilocybin and psilocyn. After June 1, 2026, upon recommendation by the Board, DORA may add one of more of the following to types of natural medicines that can be provided under the NMHA program: dimethyltryptamine, Ibogaine, and Mescaline (excluding peyote).

A notable takeaway and something to watch for in the forthcoming rules is a focus on social equity. Seemingly applying lessons learned from the rollout of the state’s cannabis program, the NMHA expressly requires DORA to prioritize equity and inclusivity as it establishes rules to implement the NMHA program. Specifically, DORA is required to adopt rules which: (i) establish procedures, policies and programs to ensure the NMHA program is equitable and inclusive; (ii) promote the licensing of and provision of natural medicine services to (a) persons from communities that have been disproportionally harmed by high rates of controlled substances (including cannabis); (b) persons who face barriers to access to health care; (c) persons who have traditional or indigenous history with natural medicines; and (d) persons who are veterans by, offering, at a minimum reduced fees for licensure and training, incentivizing the provision of natural medicine services at a reduced cost to low income individuals, and incentivizing geographic and cultural diversity in licensing and the provision of and availability of natural medicine services.

In addition, DORA is prohibited from imposing unreasonable financial or logistical barriers that would prevent individuals with lower income from applying for a license and individuals are limited to having a financial interest in five healing centers. Currently, the definition of “individuals” does not include corporations. However, DORA could establish a rule which includes corporations in this limitation and would arguably level the playing field in this budding market.

We will continue to monitor developments and closely follow the rulemaking process as Colorado designs and implements this historical new program.

Article By Lauren P. Carboni of Foley & Lardner LLP

For more biotech, food, and drug legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Foley & Lardner LLP