Third Circuit Holds that MA organizations have a direct right of recovery under the Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) Act
Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.28.12
The Third Circuit has held that Medicare Advantage organizations (MAOs) have a direct right of recovery against primary payers under the Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) Act. The Third Circuit decision arises out of a lawsuit brought by Humana, Inc., as an MAO, to recover for medical expenses paid by Humana on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries related to the use of Avandia, a drug marketed by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). The decision is In re: Avandia Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, GlaxoSmithKline, LLC, No. 11-2664 (3rd Cir. June 28, 2012).
The court held specifically that the MSP provision in 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b)(3)(A), provides MAOs with a private cause of action against primary payers. The court's decision is based on the plain text of Section 1395y(b)(3)(A), which establishes "a private cause of action for damages (which shall be in an amount double the amount otherwise provided) in the case of a primary plan which fails to provide for primary payment (or appropriate reimbursement) in accordance with [the requirements of the MSP Act]."
The court held that the plain text of this provision "sweeps broadly enough to include MAOs," such that MAOs are proper plaintiffs to recover under the terms of the statutory provisions. The court also noted that even if it had determined the statute to be ambiguous on this point, it would have deferred to CMS regulations stating that MAOs have the same right to recover as the Medicare Trust Fund does under the MSP Act.
As the court noted, prior cases in which MAOs had unsuccessfully sought a federal cause of action were not premised on 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b)(3)(A), but on specific Medicare Advantage provisions of the Medicare Act. The court held that these prior cases were largely irrelevant to deciding the issue before it. The decision gives MAOs an important new tool for attempting to recover from primary payers for Medicare covered expenses, in addition to being able to continue using subrogation and other related legal remedies.
Crowell & Moring attorneys Art Lerner, Barbara Ryland and Amy Tridgell submitted an amicus brief on behalf of America's Health Insurance Plans in support of Humana's position.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.21.25
On November 7, 2025, in Thornton v. National Academy of Sciences, No. 25-cv-2155, 2025 WL 3123732 (D.D.C. Nov. 7, 2025), the District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a False Claims Act (FCA) retaliation complaint on the basis that the plaintiff’s allegations that he was fired after blowing the whistle on purported illegally discriminatory use of federal funding was not sufficient to support his FCA claim. This case appears to be one of the first filed, and subsequently dismissed, following Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s announcement of the creation of the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative on May 19, 2025, which “strongly encourages” private individuals to file lawsuits under the FCA relating to purportedly discriminatory and illegal use of federal funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in violation of Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (Jan. 21, 2025). In this case, the court dismissed the FCA retaliation claim and rejected the argument that an organization could violate the FCA merely by “engaging in discriminatory conduct while conducting a federally funded study.” The analysis in Thornton could be a sign of how forthcoming arguments of retaliation based on reporting allegedly fraudulent DEI activity will be analyzed in the future.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.19.25

