Photo of Tina Safi Felahi

Tina Safi Felahi

Subscribe to Tina Safi Felahi's Posts

Tina represents health care clients, including health plans and health care insurers, in complex business litigation matters. She is particularly experienced in handling managed care disputes from inception through trial.

Contact:Read more about Tina Safi Felahi

In our January 14 blog, we explained that Chief Judge Lance Walker of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine had entered a nationwide preliminary injunction in American Hospital Association v. Kennedy, blocking the Health Resources and Services Administration’s (HRSA) 340B Rebate Model Pilot Program under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). We also noted that both the district court and the First Circuit denied the government’s requests for a stay, and that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) told the First Circuit the parties planned to dismiss the appeal and consider sending the approvals back to HRSA.

On January 7, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied the federal government’s request for a stay of the nationwide preliminary injunction barring implementation of the Health Resources and Services Administration’s (HRSA) 340B Rebate Model Pilot Program. Five days later, on January 12, the Department of Justice advised the court that the parties are discussing returning the challenged approvals to HRSA for reconsideration and that they “plan to dismiss the appeal in short order,” signaling that the current version of the pilot is unlikely to move forward on appeal.

A coalition of hospital associations and individual safety‑net providers recently filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine challenging the Health Resources and Services Administration’s (HRSA) newly announced 340B Rebate Model Pilot Program, alleging violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). As framed in the complaint, the program would replace the 30‑year‑old practice of offering 340B discounts at the point of sale with a post‑dispense rebate for a set of high‑volume drugs, compelling covered entities to pay wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) upfront and then pursue reimbursement from manufacturers. The plaintiffs contend the shift will impose hundreds of millions of dollars in administrative and cash‑flow costs on safety‑net hospitals, jeopardize care in rural and underserved communities, and reflect a sudden, unexplained reversal of HRSA’s longstanding position that upfront discounts are the most effective and efficient way to administer the program.

Private equity’s footprint in health care has expanded rapidly over the past decade, and in response states have begun to retool long‑standing doctrines and create new guardrails that target ownership, control, and transparency. The result is an emerging patchwork of laws and review processes that remake the corporate practice of medicine landscape, constrain common “friendly PC” structures, and require far more visibility into transactions involving private equity, hedge funds, real estate investment trusts (REITs), and management services organizations (MSOs).

On April 2, the California Senate Judicial Committee passed Senate Bill 1061. The bill seeks to prevent health care providers and contracted collection agencies from providing information about patients’ medical debt to credit reporting agencies. The bill would also prevent credit reporting agencies from accepting, storing, or sharing information related to medical debt.

On February 15, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approved amendments to the rules and regulations implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The adopted Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking implemented new rules regarding revocation of consent to robocalls and robotexts — clarifying rulings from 2012 and 2015. The FCC’s goal was to “strengthen consumers’ ability to revoke consent so that it is simple and easy.”

As discussed here, D.K. et al. v. United Behavioral Health et al. is a case that has been carefully watched in the health benefits space for its potential to change what health plan administrators must include in adverse benefit determination letters. On May 15, 2023, the Tenth Circuit issued its opinion affirming the district…

As discussed here, administrators’ health plan benefit denial letters have recently been under scrutiny by the courts. For example, in D.K. et al. v. United Behavioral Health et al., the Tenth Circuit is reviewing a district court’s decision that health plan benefit denial letters must contain more fulsome discussions of the administrator’s determination…

On March 16, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted its first set of regulations targeting what is perceived as the increasing problem of scam text messages sent to consumers. The first rule requires mobile service providers to block text messages that appear to come from phone numbers that are unlikely to transmit text messages. This…

In recent years, several lawsuits have challenged wilderness therapy program exclusions in health plans. Not only do members typically assert a claim for benefits, alleging a denial of wilderness therapy benefits was improper under their health plan, but they also insist the plan’s exclusion that serves as the basis for the denial violates the Mental…