ASBCA Grants Summary Judgment in Favor of FEHBP Contractor on Audit Disallowance
Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.30.03
On October 29, 2003, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals granted partial summary judgment against the Office of Personnel Management's disallowance as an unallowable premium tax of Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield's Ohio franchise taxes paid in years 1991 through 1995 and charged to an FEHBP contract. Blue Cross & Blue Shield Association, ASBCA No. 53632 (Oct. 29, 2003). Following a draft OPM OIG audit that questioned Anthem's method of allocating Ohio franchise taxes, the parties entered into a series of waivers extending the five-year limitations period for the issuance of a decision contained in the contract's Audit Disputes clause. The Board determined that the waiver did not preserve OPM's claim for years 1991 through 1993 because the waivers only addressed the allocability of the franchise taxes as raised in the draft audit report (an issue which BCBSA no longer disputes). OPM's challenge to the allowability of the franchise taxes was raised for the first time when the final audit report was issued in June 1999. The Board reasoned that "[a]llocability is not synonymous with allowability; it is merely one factor to be considered in determining allowability." Accordingly, the Board concluded that the waivers did not extend to the allowability of the franchise taxes, and OPM's claims related to the franchise taxes paid in years 1991 through 1993 were time-barred. The Board also denied OPM's motion for summary judgment that the Ohio franchise tax is an unallowable tax imposed directly or indirectly on premiums.
See full decision
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 08.21.26
FTC Proposes Enforcement Policy Statement on Personalized Pricing: What Businesses Need to Know
On August 19, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced a proposed Enforcement Policy Statement on personalized pricing — the practice of companies using consumers’ personal data to set individualized prices, discounts, coupons, or other incentives. The proposed statement, which is open for public comment for 30 days following publication in the Federal Register, marks a major step up in the FTC’s focus on data-driven pricing strategies and puts businesses across industries on notice that undisclosed or inadequately disclosed personalized pricing will not be tolerated. Importantly, while the proposed statement is not a binding legal requirement and does not create new legal obligations, it serves as an enforcement warning that the FTC is prepared to use its existing enforcement authority under Section 5 of the FTC Act (Section 5) and is also a potential harbinger of rulemaking. Businesses that engage in — or are considering — personalized pricing should carefully assess their disclosure practices and data collection procedures against the standards articulated in this statement.
Client Alert | 7 min read | 08.19.26
CMS’s Final Rule Bans Federal Medicaid Funding for Youth Gender-Affirming Care
Client Alert | 2 min read | 08.19.26

