Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit and Medicare Advantage FIinal Regulations
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.03.05
Introduction
Crowell & Moring LLP's HealthCare Group is pleased to provide our clients and visitors to our Website with the following analysis of the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit and Medicare Advantage final regulations. Rather than attempt to summarize 548 Federal Register pages of preambles and regulations, our analysis focuses on the changes between the proposed and final regulations and the commentary that explains those changes. We have also tried to note the many instances in which CMS promised later guidance to address matters not covered in the final rules.
Please click on the links below to view Crowell & Moring's analysis.
The above summaries are not a substitute, of course, for a careful review of the regulations and commentary themselves. To assist your further review, here are links to the Federal Register1 version of the regulations:
Title I (Prescription Drug Plan) Final Regulations
Title II (Medicare Advantage) Final Regulations
Equally obviously, Crowell & Moring's HealthCare Group would be happy to help you with the interpretation and application of these regulations. Feel free to call your regular Crowell & Moring contact or any of the authors listed below.
Kenneth M. Bruntel
Editor
1. Unless otherwise indicated all “FR” page references are to Volume 70 of the January 28, 2005 Federal Register. Also unless otherwise noted, cites to Code of Federal Regulations sections ( e.g. , § 423.1) are to 42 CFR.
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
