CMS Issues Proposed Rule to Revise Medicare Parts C and D Regulations
Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.07.11
On October 3, 2011, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released on the Federal Register's Electronic Public Inspection Desk a new proposed rule designed to implement revisions to the Medicare Advantage (MA) program (Part C) and prescription drug benefit program (Part D) regulations. The revisions address a number of goals, namely: "to implement new statutory requirements; strengthen beneficiary protections; exclude plan participants that perform poorly; improve program efficiencies; and clarify program requirements." In addition, CMS is considering revisions to the long term care facility conditions of participation requirements for pharmacy services. Comments on the proposed rule will be due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register, which has been slated for Tuesday, Oct. 11. Among the revisions considered, highlights include:
- Implementation of Affordable Care Act with regard to the consolidation of prior guidance on the Coverage Gap Discount Program and implementation of Pharmacy Benefit Manager reporting requirements under Part D;
- Implementation of MIPPA provision related to benzodiazepines and barbiturates as Part D drugs;
- Provisions for beneficiary reinstatement into cost plans when good cause for failure to pay premiums can be established;
- Provision of uniform ID cards for MA plan enrollees and guidance related to the determination of creditable coverage for the retiree drug subsidy;
- A process for Independent Review Entity (IRE) reconsideration of Part D coverage determinations;
- Procedures and standards for the exclusion of poor performers in the Parts C and D programs;
- Measures to reduce costs, including the elimination of the requirement to purchase print advertising announcing non-renewal of cost contractors, implementation of hospital-acquired conditions and present-on-admission indicator policy for MA plans, changes to rules regarding agent/broker compensation, and cost-sharing associated with trial fills of prescription drugs;
- And further codification and clarification of prior guidance under Parts C and D.
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
