Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

HHS Addresses Drug Manufacturer Coupons on Out-of-Pocket Limits

Client Alert

On May 7, 2020, the US Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) announced their Notice of Benefit Parameters for 2021 in which HHS addressed the application of prescription drug manufacturer copay coupons towards a patient’s out-of-pocket limit. Under this guidance, HHS will permit, but not require, plans and insurers to count direct support offered to enrollees by drug manufacturers (i.e., coupons) for specific prescription drugs toward the annual limits on cost-sharing, regardless of whether a generic equivalent is available.

In the Notice of Benefit Parameters for 2020, HHS finalized a proposal that for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2020, amounts paid toward cost sharing using any form of direct support offered by drug manufacturers to enrollees to reduce or eliminate immediate out-of-pocket costs for specific prescription brand drugs that have an available and medically appropriate generic equivalent are not required to be counted toward the annual limitation on cost sharing.[1] HHS received stakeholder feedback indicating confusion on whether plans and issuers are required to count the value of all forms of direct support provided by drug manufacturers, including drug manufacturers' coupons, toward the annual limitation on cost sharing, other than in circumstances in which there is a medically appropriate generic equivalent available, particularly with regard to large group market and self-insured group health plans.

In an effort to alleviate this confusion, HHS is revising the rule to state, “…amounts of direct support offered by drug manufacturers to enrollees for specific prescription drugs towards reducing the cost sharing incurred by an enrollee using any form are not required to be counted toward the annual limitation on cost sharing.”[2] Health insurance issuers and group health plans now have the flexibility to determine whether drug manufacturer direct support to enrollees for specific prescription drugs counts toward the annual limitation on cost sharing.

HHS considered a proposal to interpret the definition of “cost sharing” to exclude expenditures covered by drug manufacturer coupons, but after review of proposal rule feedback and comments, is refusing to adopt this interpretation in this 2021 final rule.

Finally, HHS expects issuers and group health plans to be transparent with enrollees regarding potential out-of-pocket liability and whether the value of direct drug manufacturer support accrues to the annual limitation on cost sharing. HHS is encouraging issuers and group health plans to prominently include this information on websites and in brochures, plan summary documents, and other collateral material that consumers may use to select, plan, and understand their benefits, but this is not a requirement.

Please contact a BMD healthcare attorney if you have any questions regarding this final rule, the application of drug manufacturer coupons on cost sharing, or other general healthcare questions. 


Florida's Recent Ruling on Arbitration Clauses

Florida’s recent ruling on arbitration clauses provides a crucial distinction in determining whether such clauses are void as against public policy and providers may have the opportunity to include arbitration clauses in their patient consent forms. On March 6, 2024, Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeals reversed and remanded Florida’s Fifteenth Circuit Court ruling of Piero Palacios v. Sharnice Lawson. The Court of Appeals ruled that the parties’ arbitration agreement did not contradict the Legislature’s intent of Florida’s Medical Malpractice Act (the “MMA”), but rather reflects the parties’ choice to arbitrate claims entirely outside of the MMA’s framework. Therefore, the Court found that the agreement was not void as against public policy.

Corporate Transparency Act Update 3/14/24

On March 1, 2024, a federal district court in the Northern District of Alabama concluded that the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) exceeded Congressional powers and enjoined the Department of the Treasury from enforcing the CTA against the plaintiffs. National Small Business United v. Yellen, No. 5:22-cv-01448 (N.D. Ala.). On March 11, 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice appealed the district court’s decision to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Ohio State University Launches Its Accelerated Bachelor of Science in Nursing Program

In response to Ohio’s nursing shortage, The Ohio State University College of Nursing is accepting applications for its new Accelerated Bachelor of Science in Nursing program (aBSN). Created for students with a bachelor’s degree in non-nursing fields, the aBSN allows such students to obtain their nursing degree within 18 months. All aBSN students will participate in high-quality coursework and gain valuable clinical experience. Upon completion of the program, graduates will be eligible to take the State Board, National Council of Licensure Exam for Registered Nursing (NCLEX-RN).

Another Transparency Obligation: The FinCEN Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting Requirements

Many physician practices and healthcare businesses are facing a new set of federal transparency requirements that require action now. The U.S. Department of Treasury Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting Requirements (the “Rule”), which was promulgated pursuant to the 2021 bipartisan Corporate Transparency Act, is intended to help curb illegal finance and other impermissible activity in the United States.

“In for a Penny, in for a Pound” is No Longer the Case for Florida Lawyers

On April 1, 2024, newly adopted Rule 1.041 to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedures goes into effect which creates a procedure for an attorney to appear in a limited manner in civil proceedings.  Currently, when a Florida attorney appears in a civil proceeding, he or she is reasonable for handling all aspects of the case for their client.  This new rule authorizes an attorney to file a notice limiting the attorney’s appearance to particular proceedings or specified matters prior to any appearance before the court.  For example, an attorney can now appear for the limited purpose of filing and arguing a motion to dismiss.  Once the motion to dismiss is heard by the court, the attorney may file a notice of termination of limited appearance and will have no further obligations in the case.