1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Fraud, Wast and Abuse Guidance for Medicare Part D

Fraud, Wast and Abuse Guidance for Medicare Part D

Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.24.06

The Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit – Part D – imposes a legal requirement on Part D contractors to adopt a fraud, waste, and abuse (“FWA”) plan. On February 8, 2006, CMS issued a sixty-three page draft of FWA guidance to be contained in Chapter 9 of CMS’ Prescription Drug Benefit Manual, significantly enhancing the agency’s initial eight-page draft issued in June 2005. On February 23, 2006, the Health Care practice group at Crowell & Moring LLP conducted an online webinar in response to the new draft requirements. Crowell & Moring's webcast, aimed to quickly arm Plan Sponsors as well as downstream participants in the Part D benefit with what they need to know about the new requirements, discussed how to augment compliance and internal audit resources, develop new employee and subcontractor training programs, adopt scores of new "required" written policies and procedures, draft new contract clauses for Part D subcontractors, and enhance internal procedures for handling internal and external reports of potential Sponsor, provider, and beneficiary misconduct. To view a copy of the presentation, please click here.

Insights

Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.26.25

From ‘Second’ to ‘First:’ Federal Circuit Tackles Obvious Claim Errors

Patent claims must be clear and definite, as they set the boundaries of the patentee’s rights. Occasionally, however, claim language contains errors, such as typographical mistakes or incorrect numbering. Courts possess very limited authority to correct such errors. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has emphasized that judicial correction is appropriate only in rare circumstances, where (1) the error is evident from the face of the patent, and (2) the proposed correction is the sole reasonable interpretation in view of the claim language, specification, and prosecution history. See Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 407 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) and Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003)....

View All Insights