Both policy issues remain on the CMS agenda, even though the agency has lost two court battles.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Administrator Seema Verma was probably well aware of what she was walking into last week at the U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce committee hearing. The hearing, after all, was titled “Sabotage: The Trump Administration’s Attack on Health Care.”
Democratic members challenged Verma, accusing the administration of undermining the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) and reducing Americans’ access to healthcare. Verma and Republican members responded by saying that the administration’s reforms, including short-term health plans, had enhanced health insurance flexibility and affordability.
But the primary issue that Democratic members kept throwing at Verma was the question of what the administration would put in place of the PPACA, particularly with regard to its protections for those with pre-existing conditions.
The question was timely, given that, any day now, we expect the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to rule on the Affordable Care Act, in the court case Texas v. the USA. Most analysts assume the court of appeals will overturn an earlier court’s conclusion that the entire PPACA is unconstitutional. But whatever the appeal court decides, the case will likely proceed to the Supreme Court next year.
At the hearing, while Verma said that the administration had a plan, she refused to give specifics about what exactly it would do if the PPACA went away.
Spurred by a question from the committee, Verma also touched on the 340B Drug Pricing Program, noting that CMS is concerned about double discounts under the program, but said that she couldn’t say much, because the program is currently under litigation.
If you remember the history here, CMS lost a court battle in late 2018 on the 340B payment reductions. In that case, the court did not have an issue with the policy itself, only the process that CMS used to adopt it. The court said, in essence, that a) CMS did not have the authority to adjust payments, and b) CMS had not done enough homework on how the reduction would impact hospitals.
CMS is appealing that ruling, but, in the meantime, it is clear that CMS is going to have another go at adopting reductions in the 340B program. In late September, CMS asked for comments via a proposed survey of hospitals on their acquisition costs, ostensibly to prepare an impact analysis in a future regulation that CMS hopes would pass mustard with the court.
And speaking of court-entrenched accusations of CMS overstepping its bounds in reducing payments, last week a court reaffirmed a decision that ruled that CMS had gone beyond its authority with the site-neutral reduction in hospital payments. Although the court’s judgment was seen as a win for hospitals, observers say that although a battle was won, the war is far from over. As with the 340B issue, CMS will no doubt appeal the court’s decision, and an executive order from Trump earlier this month directed the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to keep pushing the site-neutral policy, arguing that it would encourage competition and greater access for patients.
So, we’re seeing a pattern here: CMS oversteps its authority and cuts payments; the industry puts up the money to bring the administration to court; CMS loses in court – but mostly on process technicalities – but CMS keeps pushing in court and, in the meantime, goes back and fixes the process technicalities.
In her opening statement last week in front of the Energy and Commerce committee, Verma stated that “we are committed to focusing on results instead of process.”
That statement seems to reflect CMS’s approach well, publishing policies it wants and skipping over silly process issues, like having the authority to make particular policies or conducting appropriate rulemaking.
Stay tuned to these two issues – the 340B program and the site-neutral policy – to see whether Verma gets the policy she wants, or if she gets stopped by the process.
Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous 2022 decision striking down the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS’s) differential 340B payment rates, providers faced a
We all know now that the federal telehealth waivers were allowed to expire while Congress continues the stalemate over the budget. And in the Centers
Please log in to your account to comment on this article.
Sepsis remains one of the most frequently denied and contested diagnoses, creating costly revenue loss and compliance risks. In this webcast, Angela Comfort, DBA, MBA, RHIA, CDIP, CCS, CCS-P, provides practical, real-world strategies to align documentation with coding guidelines, reconcile Sepsis-2 and Sepsis-3 definitions, and apply compliant queries. You’ll learn how to identify and address documentation gaps, strengthen provider engagement, and defend diagnoses against payer scrutiny—equipping you to protect reimbursement, improve SOI/ROM capture, and reduce audit vulnerability in this high-risk area.
Only ICD10monitor delivers what you need: updates on must-know changes associated with the FY26 IPPS, including new ICD-10-CM/PCS codes, CCs/MCCs, and MS-DRGs, plus insights, analysis and answers to your questions from two of the country’s most respected subject matter experts.
This third session in our 2026 IPPS Masterclass will feature a review of FY26 changes to the MS-DRG methodology and new technology add-on payments (NTAPs), presented by nationally recognized ICD-10 coding expert Christine Geiger, MA, RHIA, CCS, CRC, with bonus insights and analysis from Dr. James Kennedy.
This second session in our 2026 IPPS Masterclass will feature a review the FY26 changes to ICD-10-PCS codes. This information will be presented by nationally recognized ICD-10 coding expert Christine Geiger, MA, RHIA, CCS, CRC, with bonus insights and analysis from Dr. James Kennedy.
Federal auditors are zeroing in on Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility (IRF) and hospital rehab unit services, with OIG and CERT audits leading to millions in penalties—often due to documentation and administrative errors, not quality of care. Join compliance expert Michael Calahan, PA, MBA, to learn the five clinical “pillars” of IRF-PPS admissions, key documentation requirements, and real-life case lessons to help protect your revenue.
During this essential RACmonitor webcast Michael Calahan, PA, MBA Certified Compliance Officer, will clarify the rules, dispel common misconceptions, and equip you with practical strategies to code, document, and bill high-risk split/shared, incident-to & critical care E/M services with confidence. Don’t let audit risks or revenue losses catch your organization off guard — learn exactly what federal auditors are looking for and how to ensure your documentation and reporting stand up to scrutiny.
Learn how to navigate the proposed elimination of the Inpatient-Only list. Gain strategies to assess admission status, avoid denials, protect compliance, and address impacts across Medicare and non-Medicare payors. Essential insights for hospitals.
RACmonitor is proud to welcome back Dr. Ronald Hirsch, one of his most requested webcasts. In this highly anticipated session, Dr. Hirsch will break down the complex Two Midnight Rule Medicare regulations, translating them into clear, actionable guidance. He’ll walk you through the basics of the rule, offer expert interpretation, and apply the rule to real-world clinical scenarios—so you leave with greater clarity, confidence, and the tools to ensure compliance.
Happy National Doctor’s Day! Learn how to get a complimentary webcast on ‘Decoding Social Admissions’ as a token of our heartfelt appreciation! Click here to learn more →
CYBER WEEK IS HERE! Don’t miss your chance to get 20% off now until Dec. 2 with code CYBER24
