1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit and Medicare Advantage FIinal Regulations

Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit and Medicare Advantage FIinal Regulations

Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.03.05

Introduction

Crowell & Moring LLP's HealthCare Group is pleased to provide our clients and visitors to our Website with the following analysis of the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit and Medicare Advantage final regulations. Rather than attempt to summarize 548 Federal Register pages of preambles and regulations, our analysis focuses on the changes between the proposed and final regulations and the commentary that explains those changes. We have also tried to note the many instances in which CMS promised later guidance to address matters not covered in the final rules.

Please click on the links below to view Crowell & Moring's analysis.

The above summaries are not a substitute, of course, for a careful review of the regulations and commentary themselves. To assist your further review, here are links to the Federal Register1 version of the regulations:

Title I (Prescription Drug Plan) Final Regulations
Title II (Medicare Advantage) Final Regulations

Equally obviously, Crowell & Moring's HealthCare Group would be happy to help you with the interpretation and application of these regulations. Feel free to call your regular Crowell & Moring contact or any of the authors listed below.

Kenneth M. Bruntel
Editor

1. Unless otherwise indicated all “FR” page references are to Volume 70 of the January 28, 2005 Federal Register. Also unless otherwise noted, cites to Code of Federal Regulations sections ( e.g. , § 423.1) are to 42 CFR.

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].”...

View All Insights