The American Rescue Plan Act (“ARPA”) requires the full cost of COBRA premiums to be subsidized for COBRA continuation coverage during the period from April 1, 2021 through September 30, 2021 (“Subsidy Period”) of certain assistance-eligible individuals (“AEI“) whose COBRA qualifying event was due to an involuntary termination or reduction in hours. Our prior blog post, COBRA Premium Assistance Under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 – What Employers Should Know, provides information about the ARPA COBRA subsidy and associated notice requirements. ARPA also required employers to comply with certain notice obligations, first at the outset of the Subsidy Period to make the AEIs aware of the subsidy, and now to inform AEIs that the subsidy is nearing expiration through what is known as the Notice of Expiration of Period of Premium Assistance (“Expiration Notice”).

Continue Reading Reminder: ARPA COBRA Subsidy Expiration Notice Due by September 15

In almost all corporate transactions, the first piece of written documentation the parties exchange and execute (after a non-disclosure agreement) is a letter of intent or term sheet (“LOI”), which is intended to summarize the main deal points. And as many corporate transactions involve entities organized in Delaware, these documents often select Delaware as the governing law.


Continue Reading When Is a Non-Binding Term Sheet or Letter of Intent Enforced as a Binding Contract?

As the end of 2012 approaches, we consider what a notable year it has been for the future of healthcare reform, starting with the United States Supreme Court’s decision to uphold key provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“PPACA”), and culminating with the November elections. Since PPACA’s enactment in 2010, employers have seen the roll out of various new requirements and disclosure obligations with respect to the healthcare benefits provided to employees. As we move closer to PPACA’s “individual mandate,” which becomes effective in 2014 and is viewed as the hallmark of the healthcare reform legislation, the following is a summary of certain requirements that employers should be aware of for 2013.


Continue Reading What Employers Need to Know About Healthcare Reform for 2013

This article was authored by members of the Firm’s Government Contracts & Regulated Industries Practice Group. For additional articles and postings concerning this and related topics, please refer to Sheppard Mullin’s Government Contracts Blog, which can be found at www.governmentcontractslawblog.com.

It has long been questioned whether the “Christian Doctrine,” pursuant to which mandatory contract clauses reflecting core procurement policy are incorporated into government prime contracts by operation of law, can be used to incorporate such clauses into subcontracts. That question may now have an answer. In a non-CDA decision issued last year that has flown somewhat “under the radar,” the Department of Labor’s Administrative Review Board (“ARB”) held that at least some such clauses are incorporated into subcontracts by operation of law. OFCCP v. UPMC-Braddock, ARB Case No. 08-048 (“UPMC-Braddock”).
 


Continue Reading Department Of Labor Attempts To Extend The “Christian Doctrine” To Subcontracts

The new healthcare laws signed by President Obama on March 23rd and 30th, and specifically the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), includes a significant modification to the "in-office ancillary services" exception of the Stark Law.  Physicians who refer patients for MRI, CT or PET services, to an entity in which the referring physician has a financial interest, including the physician’s own office or medical group, must now provide written notice to the patient of the patient’s ability to utilize an alternative supplier. Additionally, the notice must include a list of alternative suppliers. This amendment not only applies to referrals to a separate entity, but it also applies to referrals within a group practice. 

All physicians and medical groups that have in-house MRI, CT, or PET imaging services (or that refer to an outside entity in which they have a financial interest) will need to make written financial disclosures to patients to comply with the new law in order to qualify for Medicare reimbursement. Failure to comply could result in civil monetary penalties of $10,000 per medical imaging procedure.


Continue Reading New Healthcare Law Requires Financial Disclosures By Referring Physicians

Sweeping changes to the obligations of providers, health plans and their service providers ("business associates") under HIPAA privacy and security rules were included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Previously only health plans and providers were covered under HIPAA and subject to the criminal and civil monetary penalties. Effective February 17, 2010, business associates are now directly covered. These new requirements will require amendments to all business associate agreements. Business associates must also draft policies and procedures to implement their obligations under the privacy and security standards. Immediate steps must be taken to prepare for implementation.


Continue Reading HIPAA Statutory Changes Require Action Now by Providers, Plans and Their Business Associates

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 ("ARRA"), which President Obama signed into law on February 17, 2009, created a federal subsidy of the premiums payable by certain terminated employees for continuation coverage provided under employer-sponsored group health plans pursuant to the requirements of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, as amended (also known as "COBRA"). The premium subsidy and new notification requirements under COBRA that apply to employers and plan administrators as a result of this legislation are summarized below.


Continue Reading The COBRA premium subsidy under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 – What Employers and Plan Administrators need to know.

In a much anticipated decision, the California Supreme Court held, in Prospect Medical Group, Inc. v. Northridge Emergency Medical Group, that billing disputes over emergency medical care must be resolved solely between the emergency department physicians and the HMO; emergency department physicians may not bill the HMO enrollee for any disputed amount.  When an emergency physician, who has not contracted with the HMO, provides emergency care to a patient that is enrolled in an HMO, the emergency physician only has recourse against the HMO, and not against the patient.  The decision was filed by the California Supreme Court on January 8, 2008.


Continue Reading California Supreme Court Says “NO” To Balance Billing in the Emergency Room Setting