Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

HHS Addresses Drug Manufacturer Coupons on Out-of-Pocket Limits

Client Alert

On May 7, 2020, the US Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) announced their Notice of Benefit Parameters for 2021 in which HHS addressed the application of prescription drug manufacturer copay coupons towards a patient’s out-of-pocket limit. Under this guidance, HHS will permit, but not require, plans and insurers to count direct support offered to enrollees by drug manufacturers (i.e., coupons) for specific prescription drugs toward the annual limits on cost-sharing, regardless of whether a generic equivalent is available.

In the Notice of Benefit Parameters for 2020, HHS finalized a proposal that for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2020, amounts paid toward cost sharing using any form of direct support offered by drug manufacturers to enrollees to reduce or eliminate immediate out-of-pocket costs for specific prescription brand drugs that have an available and medically appropriate generic equivalent are not required to be counted toward the annual limitation on cost sharing.[1] HHS received stakeholder feedback indicating confusion on whether plans and issuers are required to count the value of all forms of direct support provided by drug manufacturers, including drug manufacturers' coupons, toward the annual limitation on cost sharing, other than in circumstances in which there is a medically appropriate generic equivalent available, particularly with regard to large group market and self-insured group health plans.

In an effort to alleviate this confusion, HHS is revising the rule to state, “…amounts of direct support offered by drug manufacturers to enrollees for specific prescription drugs towards reducing the cost sharing incurred by an enrollee using any form are not required to be counted toward the annual limitation on cost sharing.”[2] Health insurance issuers and group health plans now have the flexibility to determine whether drug manufacturer direct support to enrollees for specific prescription drugs counts toward the annual limitation on cost sharing.

HHS considered a proposal to interpret the definition of “cost sharing” to exclude expenditures covered by drug manufacturer coupons, but after review of proposal rule feedback and comments, is refusing to adopt this interpretation in this 2021 final rule.

Finally, HHS expects issuers and group health plans to be transparent with enrollees regarding potential out-of-pocket liability and whether the value of direct drug manufacturer support accrues to the annual limitation on cost sharing. HHS is encouraging issuers and group health plans to prominently include this information on websites and in brochures, plan summary documents, and other collateral material that consumers may use to select, plan, and understand their benefits, but this is not a requirement.

Please contact a BMD healthcare attorney if you have any questions regarding this final rule, the application of drug manufacturer coupons on cost sharing, or other general healthcare questions. 


Corporate Transparency Act Effective Again

The federal judiciary has issued multiple rulings on the enforceability of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), which took effect on January 1, 2024. Previously, enforcement was halted nationwide due to litigation in Smith v. U.S. Department of the Treasury. However, on February 18th, the court lifted the stay, reinstating the CTA’s reporting requirements. Non-exempt entities now have until March 21, 2025, to comply. Businesses should act promptly to avoid civil penalties of $591 per day and potential criminal liability.

Status Update: Physician Noncompete Agreements in Ohio

Noncompete agreements remain enforceable in Ohio if they meet specific legal requirements. While the AMA and FTC have challenged these restrictions, courts continue to uphold reasonable noncompete provisions for physicians. Recent cases, like MetroHealth System v. Khandelwal, highlight how courts may modify overly restrictive agreements to balance employer interests with patient care. With ongoing legal challenges to the FTC’s proposed ban, Ohio physicians should consult a healthcare attorney before signing or challenging a noncompete agreement.

Immigration Orders and Their Economic Impact on Small Business: Insights from Attorney and Former Immigration Judge Rob Ratliff

President Trump's recent executive orders, targeting immigration policies, could significantly impact small businesses in Ohio, particularly those owned by undocumented immigrants. With stricter visa vetting, halted refugee admissions, and potential deportations, these businesses face uncertainty, workforce disruption, and closures. Ohio's immigrant-owned businesses, especially in food services and transportation, contribute billions to the state economy, and any disruption could result in economic ripple effects.

Corporate Transparency Act Ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled on the enforceability of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), lifting an injunction previously imposed by the Fifth Circuit. However, a separate nationwide injunction remains in effect, meaning businesses are still not required to comply with the CTA’s reporting requirements. FinCEN continues to accept voluntary reporting while enforcement remains paused.

Lead Paint Contamination and Resources for Ohio Landlords

Children are exposed to lead-based paint, which was used in most homes until it was banned in the US in 1978 and “can severely damage the brain and central nervous system causing coma, convulsions and even death.” Property owners and landlords should educate themselves on regulations and resources to mitigate their own liability.