CMS Provides Guidance on Use of Medicare Advantage Enrollee Information for Communications
Client Alert | 2 min read | 10.20.09
On October 16, 2009, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services ("CMS") issued a memorandum regarding allowable use of Medicare beneficiary information obtained from CMS to all Medicare Advantage ("MA") Organizations and Part D sponsors, among others. By signing the CMS restrictions contained in the Data Use Attestation, organization or sponsors agree to restrict the use of Medicare data to those purposes "directly related to the administration of the Medicare managed care and/or outpatient prescription drug benefits for which they have contracted with CMS to administer." For purposes of these Data Use Attestations, CMS-provided data includes information provided by beneficiaries during the course of enrollment as well as data obtained solely as a result of access to CMS systems. The current Medicare Marketing Guidelines ("Guidelines") outline the requirements for acceptable marketing practices (found at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/ManagedCareMarketing), and Attachment 1 to the memorandum outlines a description of that guidance. Specifically, Attachment 1 contains detailed instructions for when prior authorization is required for use of Medicare Beneficiary Information obtained from CMS, as well as how prior authorization may be obtained.
Also on October 16, 2009, the CMS issued a memorandum to all Medicare Advantage Organizations and Part D sponsors, among others, regarding the use of federal funds for non plan-related activities. The Department of Health and Human Services' annual appropriations acts provide that no appropriated funds may be used to pay the "salary or expenses of any grant or contract recipient, or agent acting for such recipient, related to any activity designed to influence legislation . . . ." In 1997, CMS released guidance advising that lobbying activities undertaken at the expense of the risk contractor Health Maintenance Organization/Competitive Medical Plans would be permitted subject to certain restrictions. However, a notable recent change in the contracting program is that the current bidding methodology employed under the MA and Part D program was not in effect in 1997. The current bidding methodology for Parts C and D bids specifically account for administrative costs, and recent audits have revealed that some bids have included lobbying costs as administrative costs. As a result, CMS is clarifying that MA and PACE organizations, Part D sponsors, and 1876 and 1833 cost contractors that engage in lobbying activities must not include lobbying costs in their bid or cost report. Additionally, if lobbying expenses have been paid with federal funds, entities will be required to return an amount equal to those expenditures to the Federal government . This guidance will be applied on a prospective basis beginning with bids submitted for CY 2011.
This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship between you and Crowell & Moring LLP or any of its attorneys or an offer to create such an attorney-client relationship. The material is provided solely for informational purposes and is considered attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
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
