HHS Releases Supplemental HIPAA Regulations
Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.01.02
On Friday, May 31, 2002, HHS released three new rules affecting electronic transactions and code sets under HIPAA. First, HHS issued a Final Rule which adopts as the "standard unique employer identifier" for HIPAA transactions, the employer identification number assigned by the IRS. This final rule is substantially the same as initially proposed. The second is a proposed rule which would modify standards for certain retail pharmacy transactions (specifically, referral certification and authorization, health care payment and remittance advice, and certain batch transactions) and would repeal the adoption of National Drug Codes (NDC) as the standard medical data code set for reporting drugs and biologics for all standard transactions (excluding retail pharmacy transactions), thereby allowing the industry to utilize nonstandard coding systems. HHS requests comment on the adoption of HCPCS as an alternative standard code set for reporting drugs and biologics for non- retail pharmacy transactions. Third, HHS issued a proposed rule which would adopt, by reference, certain limited technical modifications to some of the transactions standards previously identified by the Designated Standard Maintenance Organizations and approved by National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics. The proposed rule does not list these modifications specifically, but rather, refers to the hipaa-dsmo.org website.
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
