Health Law Advisor

As explained in greater detail by our colleague Stuart M. Gerson, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down two major, and quickly decided, rulings on January 13, 2022. After hearing oral arguments only six days earlier, the Court issued two unsigned decisions per curiam. A 5-4 decision in Biden v. Missouri dissolved a preliminary injunction against enforcement of an interim final rule (“Rule”) promulgated by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), requiring recipients of federal Medicare and Medicaid funding to ensure that their employees are vaccinated against COVID-19.

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether the federal government can approve state programs that force Medicaid participants to work, go to school, or volunteer to get benefits. Both Arkansas and the Justice Department sought review of the issue. Epstein Becker Green attorney Clifford Barnes provides potential paths for the Biden administration to best position itself in the case.

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a case involving the authority of the Department of Health and Human Services to approve Medicaid work requirements programs in Arkansas and New Hampshire that were struck down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The high court has agreed to determine whether the HHS can allow states to impose work requirements in its Medicaid program even though all lower courts ruled against HHS’s approval of states’ Section 1115 work requirement waivers, based on the Trump administration’s refusal to consider the impact of the waivers on the core purpose of Medicaid—which is to increase health insurance coverage.

Unlike the narrow question considered by the lower courts, however, the court granted certiorari on a much broader issue. The question presented concerns the entire Section 1115 process and asks whether the HHS secretary has the power to establish additional purposes for Medicaid, beyond coverage.

Should the court rule that the HHS secretary does indeed possess this unbounded power, the entire Section 1115 landscape could shift, potentially allowing states to implement waivers like Arkansas, so long as they meet such additional purpose.

The case establishes an effective deadline for the Biden administration to take action to mitigate or eliminate the work requirements, in light of the administration’s commitment to expanding, rather than rolling back, Medicaid insurance coverage.

In a unanimous decision announced May 26, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Carter, 2015 BL 163948, U.S., No. 12-1497, 5/26/15, ruled that the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act ("WSLA") applied only to criminal charges and not underlying civil claims in times of war. Thus, the WSLA – which suspends the statute of limitations when the offense is committed against the Government - cannot be used to extend the statute of limitations in cases such as those brought under the False Claims Act ("FCA"). This ruling reversed a decision of ...

On March 31, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, Inc. The Court handed down a hodgepodge of opinions but, in the end, five Justices concurred in the judgment that the Constitution's Supremacy Clause does not confer a private right of action, and that Medicaid providers, therefore, cannot sue for an injunction requiring compliance with the reimbursement laws.  This ruling will adversely affect at least those health care companies that have contemplated suing on the basis that the reimbursement they are getting is less than what ...

On March 26, 27 and 28, 2012, the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS”) heard oral arguments in a series of cases, including Department of Health and Human Services, et al. v. State of Florida, et al, which addresses the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (“PPACA”).  In the three days of testimony, SCOTUS debated whether (1) the Anti-Injunction Act bars a decision until a tax is actually collected under PPACA, (2) the individual mandate to buy health insurance under PPACA is a valid exercise of ...