Legal Documents
American Hospital Association legal documents.
Introduction
Plaintiffs’ opening brief explained the clear limits that Congress imposed on the ability of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to change Medicare payment rates for hospital outpatient clinic visit services from year to year: The agency may make targeted cuts to…
MINUTE ORDER resetting the briefing schedule after consideration of the parties' response to the Court's February 27, 2019 Minute Order.
The parties to the above-referenced related actions respectfully submit this response to this Court’s minute order of February 27, 2019, which directed the parties to “submit a proposed schedule for consolidated dispositive briefing or show good cause why such briefing should not be consolidated.”…
Following a December 17, 2018 status conference, the Court issued a minute order requiring defendants to "file [a] status report[] pertaining to their progress in publishing pricing data by not later than February 28, 2019 . . . ." Minute Order, Dec. 18, 2018. Consistent with their representations…
In a highly unusual filing, Defendants seek to defend the 2019 OPPS Rule with arguments that Defendants forthrightly acknowledge the Court has already rejected. See Gov’t Mem. in Supp. of Mot to Dismiss New Claim…
The Court concluded that the defendants – the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and its Secretary (referred to collectively throughout as “the Agency”) – acted in an ultra vires fashion by reducing the payment rate for drugs purchased through the 340B Program in the 2018 Outpatient…
In November 2018, Defendants issued a regulation requiring that, for calendar year 2019, the Centers for Medicare…
The Court determined that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ("Agency") acted in an ultra vires fashion when it reduced the payment, in the 2018 Medicare Outpatient Prospective Payment System Rule ("OPPS Rule"), 82 Fed. Reg. at 52, 362, for drugs purchased through the 340B Program.…
This Court should reject Defendants’ attempt to re-litigate the merits of the case or, alternatively, to decide on their own if the 340B hospitals are entitled to relief and if so what that relief might be. Defendants’ proposal is nothing more than an attempt to further delay resolution of this…