1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |CMS Issues Final Rule on Changes to the Medicare Advantage and Part D Programs

CMS Issues Final Rule on Changes to the Medicare Advantage and Part D Programs

Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.07.10

On April 6, 2010, CMS issued a final rule that revises regulations governing the Medicare Advantage program and the Part D prescription drug benefit program. The proposed rule was issued on October 22, 2009. Click here for our summary on Crowell.com.

According to CMS, the final rule strengthens beneficiary protections, ensures that plan offerings to beneficiaries include meaningful differences, improves plan payment rules and processes, strengthens various program participation and exit requirements, improve data collection for oversight and quality assessment, implement a new Part D formulary policy, and clarify or add other important program requirements. The final rule also includes a dispute and appeals process for risk-adjustment data validation.

The final rule will be published in the Federal Register on April 15, 2010, but is available now at http://www.federalregister.gov/inspection.aspx#special

Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25

Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality

On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument....

View All Insights