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 | 12.04.25
District Court Grants Preliminary Injunction Against Seller of Gray Market Snack Food Products
On November 12, 2025, Judge King in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted in part Haldiram India Ltd.’s (“Plaintiff” or “Haldiram”) motion for a preliminary injunction against Punjab Trading, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Punjab Trading”), a seller alleged to be importing and distributing gray market snack food products not authorized for sale in the United States. The court found that Haldiram was likely to succeed on the merits of its trademark infringement claim because the products at issue, which were intended for sale in India, were materially different from the versions intended for sale in the U.S., and for this reason were not genuine products when sold in the U.S. Although the court narrowed certain overbroad provisions in the requested order, it ultimately enjoined Punjab Trading from importing, selling, or assisting others in selling the non-genuine Haldiram products in the U.S. market.
Client Alert | 21 min read | 12.04.25
Highlights: CMS’s Proposed Rule for Medicare Part C & D (CY 2027 NPRM)
Client Alert | 11 min read | 12.01.25
