US Supreme Court
Subscribe to US Supreme Court's Posts

See What’s Next with McDermott+Consulting’s 340B Ligitation Tracking Tool

The 340B program landscape is constantly shifting. Wednesday’s US Supreme Court American Hospital Association v. Becerra decision is of critical importance to hospitals that participate in the 340B program. The Court held that the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) improperly imposed a payment cut of almost 30% on 340B drugs paid by Medicare. Yet, while this decision is significant, it is not the end of the litigation surrounding the payment cut. The case has been remanded for further deliberation, which will include a determination of the remedies.

McDermott+Consulting has launched the 340B Litigation Tracking Tool, an up-to-date resource following the 30+ state and federal 340B program legal challenges. No more searching online or sorting through your newsfeed for updates on important case developments. This tracker, available 24/7 and routinely monitored by our team, delivers concise updates to help you make informed risk analyses on what’s next for your business in the evolving 340B landscape.

View the 340B litigation tracking tool here.




‘Unprecedented Interest’ in Employer-Covered Abortion Travel

If the US Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade (as suggested by a leaked draft on May 2), employers who want to provide abortion coverage to employees and their families could encounter serious challenges. In this Bloomberg Law article, McDermott’s Sarah G. Raaii noted that employers that provide travel expenses for abortions might encounter resistance from state laws like a Texas statue that permits citizens to sue abortion providers for abortions performed around six weeks.

“If a state wants to interpret this very broadly—and it seems that some of them have indicated that they do—to really just punish anyone involved even peripherally with providing abortion in the states, employers could potentially be at risk.” Raaii said.

Access the article.




Four Discrimination Questions Employers Have About COVID-19

As the world enters the third year of the COVID-19 pandemic, employers have gained a greater understanding about the virus’ relationship with US anti-discrimination laws. With the inevitable rise of future variants and long-haul COVID-19 cases, however, businesses are still navigating murky waters. In this Law360 article, McDermott Partner Lindsay Ditlow offers perspective about worker accommodation requests and what they mean for employers.

Access the article.




Saga and Legal Challenges Continue Despite Vaccine Requirement for Healthcare Workers

The US Supreme Court’s January ruling allowing the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to enforce its COVID-19 mandate is likely to continue to face challenges. Nevertheless, in this article published by the Health Care Compliance Association, McDermott Partner Sandra DiVarco said that the Supreme Court’s decision wasn’t a surprise.

“Many of [the CMS] providers may have slow-walked their compliance and now in theory need to be fully compliant,” DiVarco noted.

Access the article.




After High Court Loss, OSHA Looks to Other COVID-Curbing Means

The US Supreme Court’s January ruling that stayed enforcement of the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) shot-or-test mandate may limit some employers from introducing their own vaccination, testing or mask requirements. However, in this Bloomberg Law article, McDermott Partner Michelle Strowhiro said employers might still want to consider implementing portions of the standard—so long as state and local limits let them.

Access the article.




OSHA Hints at Permanent COVID-19 Standard, Withdraws Vax-or-Test ETS

On January 25, 2022, the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) announced that it would withdraw its controversial “vax-or-test” Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS), which required large employers to impose vaccination or testing requirements upon their employees. The withdrawal will be effective as soon as the announcement is published in the Federal Register, which is scheduled to occur on January 26, 2022.

Read more here.




Wild Ride Awaits Health, Life Sciences Policy in 2022

Healthcare and life sciences lawyers will likely have plenty of work in 2022 thanks to pending legislative and regulatory actions throughout the healthcare, health insurance, and drug and device industries.

According to this Law360 article, surprise billing, abortion and drug pricing are some of the major issues facing lawmakers and regulators in the year ahead. McDermott Partner Michael Ryan noted that changes to the Medical Device User Fee Amendments (MDUFA) also could be in order.

Access the article.




Four Trump-Era Bias Policies Stymied by Biden in 2021

Throughout US President Joe Biden’s first year in office, the Biden administration reversed numerous Trump-era policies, including those concerning the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, federal contractors, wage data and LGBTQ bias. In this Law360 article, McDermott Partner Rachel Cowen offers insight into how the friction between religious and LGBTQ rights will continue to play out throughout employment law.

Read more here.




‘Very Fluid Situation’ as Courts Halt COVID Vaccination Rules for Healthcare Providers

While the fate of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS) November 5 vaccination mandate rests in the hands of the federal courts, experts say the potential loss of healthcare employees outweighs any of the mandate’s benefits. In this Health Care Compliance Association article, McDermott Partner Sandra M. DiVarco called the situation “bonkers.”

“Almost every hospital has so many unfilled positions, and they are concerned even a small amount of forced terminations will impact their ability to staff and risk burnout in the staff they have,” DiVarco said.

Access the article (page 3).




Hospitals Push Back Against HHS Slashing of Reimbursement Rates

Hospitals are pushing back after the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) cut Medicaid reimbursement rates to participating hospitals under the 340B drug discount program.

According to this article published in The Well News, 340B program supporters have filed a petition with the Supreme Court, arguing that HHS failed to collect sufficient data and that the department overstepped its authority with the cuts. McDermott Partner Emily Jane Cook said that the cuts will mean rural hospitals are “deprived of an important source of support for the services that they provide to their communities.”

Read more here.




STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES