CMS Extends Deadline For Publication of Final Stark II, Phase III Rule
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.21.07
As expected, CMS announced today that it is extending the timeline for publication of the final rule implementing the Stark Law (the “Phase III Rule”) for one year. With this extension, the interim final rule issued on March 26, 2004 (the “Phase II Rule”) will remain in effect until March 26, 2008, at which time CMS will publish the Phase III Rule.
The timeline for publishing a final regulation cannot exceed three years from the date of publication of the proposed interim final rule, unless there are “exceptional circumstances.” CMS attributes the “numerous and varied” public comments received following publication of the Phase II Rule, as well as the substantial “interagency coordination” among CMS, the Office of the Inspector General, and the Department of Justice, (resulting from their joint authority to enforce the Stark Law), as the justification for the one-year extension.
This leaves unanswered for at least one more year critical and outstanding issues under the Stark Law, including: 1) the Law’s applicability to Medicaid referrals and claims; 2) the potential for expansion of the physician recruitment exception to accommodate certain practical considerations; and 3) the potential narrowing of the in-office ancillary services exception to preclude certain referral practices that are understood to be deemed questionable by CMS.
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 09.15.26
GAO Indicates Reasonable Conflict of Interest Investigation Must Include Inquiry of Involved Firm
The U.S. Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) recent decision in Viderity Inc.—Costs, B-424422.5, Sept. 1, 2026, offers useful insight into what constitutes a legally sufficient conflict of interest investigation. The decision arose in an unusual procedural posture: Viderity initially protested, alleging that an agency evaluator had a personal conflict of interest. After the agency took corrective action, Viderity filed a cost entitlement claim requesting that GAO direct the agency to reimburse Viderity’s protest costs. In evaluating that claim, GAO assessed whether Viderity’s underlying protest ground was “clearly meritorious.”
Client Alert | 3 min read | 09.15.26
Client Alert | 7 min read | 09.14.26
AI in Life Sciences: Ten Legal Considerations and Risks of AI Use in Drug Discovery and Development
Client Alert | 6 min read | 09.14.26
Mental Health Parity Bulletin Restates Best Practices for Evaluating Compliance
