OCR’s 8th Investigation Announcement Clearly Warns HHS-Funded Organizations To Ensure Merit-Based Decisions & Manage Antisemitism & Other Prohibited Discrimination Risks

May 14, 2025

Academic medicine and other education, health care, Medicare or Medicaid Advantage insurers, and other organizations received another warning to update and strengthen the defensibility of their policies and practices system-wide for preventing anti-Semitism, and other race, color, national origin, race, religious or other discrimination from the Department of Health & Human Service’s May 13, 2025, announcement of another investigation of another university for anti-Semitism in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“CRA”) and other federal civil rights laws. 

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (the “CRA”), the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, Section 1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“Section 1557”) and various other federal laws discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, color and certain other status by covered government or private organizations by health care, Medicare and Medicaid Advantage, academic medicine and other education, child care, research and other HHS-funded organizations, employers and other entities.

Since President Donald J. Trump (“President Trump”) took office in January, HHS OCR, the Departments of Education and Justice, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and other federal agencies are aggressively investigating anti-Semitism, anti-Christianity, and certain other race, color, national origin and religious discrimination by academic medicine and other educational institutions, health care organizations, health insurers, employers and other organizations covered by these civil rights laws. These investigations and enforcement actions target prohibited discrimination in all forms, including the use of race, national original, color, sex, religion and other non-merit based criteria, even when those criteria are applied to promote racial balancing, diversity or other similar goals.

Trump Merit-Based Civil Rights Executive Orders Heighten Public & Private Civil Rights & Other Discrimination Risks

This heightened investigation and enforcement emphasis is a direct response to the directives of President Trump in a series of Executive Orders directing federal agencies zealously to combat anti-Semitism, anti-Christian, and other discrimination or bias based on race, color, national origin and religion.  See e.g., Executive Order 14188 – Additional Measures To Combat Anti-Semitism (January 29, 2025); Executive Order 14202, Eradicating Anti-Christian Bias (February 6, 2025); Executive Order 14291, Establishment of the Religious Liberty Commission (“May 11, 2025); and Executive Order 14291, Establishment of the Religious Liberty Commission (May 1, 2025).

As part of these directives, President Trump specifically singled out anti-Semitism for special attention and concern, In Executive Order 14188, for instance, President Trump directed HHS, the Justice Department and other agencies to vigorously enforce the Civil Rights Act to combat the rise of anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic incidents in the U.S. and around the world.  While Executive Order 14188 specifically targeted the use of the Civil Rights Act and other federal prohibitions against race, color and national origin discrimination to fight anti-Semitism, Executive Order 14188 also noted that anti-Semitism also can violate federal protections against religious discrimination, stating:

…[Title VII] prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance. While Title VI does not cover discrimination based on religion, individuals who face discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin do not lose protection under Title VI for also being a member of a group that shares common religious practices. Discrimination against Jews may give rise to a Title VI violation when the discrimination is based on an individual’s race, color, or national origin.

The Trump Administration’s emphasis on protecting federal right of conscience and other religious freedom protections is made more perilous by his sharp disagreement, revocation, and characterization as patently illegal various key aspects of the interpretation and enforcement policies of the Biden, Obama and other previous administration regarding federal right of conscience and other religious freedom, sexual orientation, reproductive rights and other civil rights policies and protections. See e.g., Executive Order 14281 -Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy (April 23, 2025). These directives and widespread coverage and publicity of the actions by HHS and other federal agencies to implement and enforce the Administration’s Merit Based interpretation and enforcement of civil rights laws are fueling a a slew of new federal investigations and enforcement, as well as encouraging and shaping private discrimination claims by both parties advantaged or disadvantaged by the Administration’s interpretations.

As reflected by OCR’s May 13, 2025 announcement of its investigation of complaints against a “prestigious” midwestern university (“University”), OCR and other federal agencies are responding by zealously investigating complaints of anti-Semitism or other race, color, national origin and religious discrimination by academic and other health care, education, health insurance and other organizations receiving federal funding under programs managed by HHS.

Announced OCR Investigations Since February Show HHS Enforcement Risks

According to OCR, the investigation announced on May 13, 2025, and other investigations “[are] part of a broader effort by the Administration’s multi-agency Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism. OCR opened the investigation against the University in response to a complaint from a multi-stakeholder advocacy organization that alleges “systemic concerns regarding the University’s actions to maintain a campus climate, academic direction, and institutional policy that ensures nondiscrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin.” OCR says its investigation will examine whether the University complied with its obligations under Title VI not to discriminate against Jewish students, such that it denied them an educational opportunity or benefit.

Before OCR issued is May 13, 2025, announcement, OCR and other federal agencies previously had announced Civil Rights Act and other investigations of illegal anti-Semitism at four academic medical centers based on their response to protests and other anti-Semitic activity during graduation and other activities. In addition, OCR also had announced similarly high-profile investigation or enforcement actions against Harvard University and Harvard Law Review, a HHS-funded health services research scholarship program; eight medical schools and hospitals; a HHS-funded health research program;  a California-based medical school; the State of Maine and others for impermissibly applying race, color, national origin, sex, religious or other prohibited criteria in operating their programs.

The message from these and other HHS investigations and enforcements is clear.  “Institutions of higher education receiving HHS Federal financial assistance are responsible for complying with Title VI’s nondiscrimination mandates,” said Anthony Archeval, Acting Director of the Office for Civil Rights at HHS. “OCR is committed to ensuring students’ education, safety, and well-being are not disrupted due to discrimination at institutions funded by taxpayer dollars.”

Dear Colleague Letter Advises Academic Medicine & Other HHS-Funded Organizations On Implementing Merit Based Decisionmaking

While warning academic medical and other health care and other HHS-funded organizations against the application of non-merit based criteria and other prohibited race, national origin, color, sex and religious discrimination, OCR also has sought to encourage covered entities to adapt their policies and practices to comply with President Trump’s merit based interpretation of the Civil Rights Act and other federal civil rights law prohibitions against race, color, national origin, sex and religious discrimination through a May 6, 2025, “Dear Colleague” Letter.  In the dear Colleague Letter, OCR ‘clarifies’ its updated policies interpreting and enforcing what constitutes race-based discrimination under Title VI, Section 1557, and the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution as applied to student admissions, academic and campus life, and the operation of university hospitals and clinics.

The Dear Colleague Letter reiterates that Title VI and Section 1557 prohibit academic medical and other covered organizations from relying on race-based criteria, racial stereotypes, and facially neutral criteria that operate as a pretext for race.  Instead, citing to the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, 600 U.S. 181 (2023) and President Trump’s Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity, the Dear Colleague Letter warns HHS funded academic medicine and other organizations that these federal rules require health care providers, and those in the health professions pipeline make their selections and decisions “based on merit and clinical skills, not race” or other non-merit based criteria even when the purpose of the use of the criteria is to promote diversity or racial-balancing.

The Dear Colleague Letter discloses that in applying its merit-based interpretation of Title VI and Section 1557, OCR will prioritize enforcement against HHS funded organizations that:

  • Use race as part of their application or employment processes;
  • Require diversity, equity, and inclusion statements in connection with hiring or promotion; or
  • Lack clear policies demonstrating compliance with Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard.

Accordingly, the Dear Colleague Letter advises medical schools and other HHS-funded organizations to:

  • Ensure their policies and procedures comply with existing federal civil rights laws;
  • Discontinue criteria, tools, or processes that serve as substitutes for race or are intended to advance race-based decision-making; and
  • End reliance on third-party contractors, clearinghouses, or data aggregators that engage in prohibited uses of race.

Act Now To Mitigate Risks From Past, Current & Future Non-Merit Based Decisions & Other Prohibited Discrimination

The new emphasis of HHS and other agencies on investigation and enforcement of federal protections for race, national origin, and other civil rights laws alone should prompt all health care and other HHS-regulated authorities prospectively to reevaluate and update their own practices to strengthen their defensibility under new standards.

As the Trump Administration civil rights directives and interpretations apply to all federal agencies, all organizations should consider and redress their exposure to civil rights or other discrimination under EEOC and other workforce, Department of Justice, and other applicable agency rules when assessing the adequacy of their existing policies and practices.

Organizations also should anticipate the likely need to defend past actions taking into account given the practice of HHS and other agency to apply the merit-based civil rights law interpretations of the Trump Administration even to events and actions that occurred while organizations were subject to the diversity, equity and inclusion friendly interpretations of federal civil rights laws during the Biden Administration. Since the investigation and enforcement actions announced by HHS and other agencies so far retroactively apply the newly announced Trump-era interpretations and standards to investigations of events and actions that occurred during the Biden Administration, prospective changes to enhance the defensibility of current and future actions alone may not be enough. Rather, health care and other organizations need to prepare for the possibility that HHS or other agencies may require their organization to defend Biden-era events under the new Trump Administration interpretations and enforcement policies. In the face of these developments, all health care organizations receiving funding from HHS should review their current and past policies and actions implicating federally civil rights laws to assess and manage their potential past exposures and mitigate future risks. 

Because the process of reviewing and revising their policies and practices inevitably will require medicine and other HHS-funded institutions to identify and engage in legally and politically sensitive discussions of past and current policies, events, and actions affecting the competing interests of individuals or organizations whose opportunities are either helped or hurt by the Trump Administration’s transition to a merit-based interpretation of civil rights laws as well as potential whistleblower and retaliation exposures, academic medicine and other HHS-funded organizations generally should work with within the scope of attorney-client privilege with legal counsel experienced with these and other civil rights laws and dealing with OCR and other agencies in relation to investigations and enforcement actions under these rules.

The author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer has decades of experience advising, representing, and defending health care providers, Medicare and Medicaid Advantage and other public and private health plans and plan sponsors, public and private employers, government contractors and grant recipients, educational organizations, child care facilities, employers, technology, data, third party administrators, and other managed care and other health care, defense, technology, life sciences and other clients about Civil Rights Laws and other religious, civil rights and other discrimination, HIPAA and other privacy and data security, False Claims Act and other billing and reimbursement, quality, technology, licensing and accreditation, whistleblower and other workforce, enforcement, governmental affairs, dispute resolution, and other compliance, risk management and operational matters. If you have questions or need advice or help evaluating or addressing these or other compliance, risk management, or other concerns, contact her. 

For More Information

We hope this update is helpful. For more information about the  or other health or other employee benefits, human resources, or health care developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452-8297.

Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you receive future updates by registering on our Solutions Law Press, Inc. Website and participating and contributing to the discussions in our Solutions Law Press, Inc. LinkedIn SLP Health Care Risk Management & Operations GroupHR & Benefits Update Compliance Group, and/or Coalition for Responsible Health Care Policy.

About the Author

Recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for her more than 35 years of health industry and other management work, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, and publications including leading edge work on workforce and other risk management and compliance.

Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her career has focused heavily on working with health care, health insurance and managed care, insurance and financial services, defense contractors, and other workforce and data sensitive businesses domestically and internationally on employment, benefits, data and other knowledge use and protection, Federal Sentencing Guidelines and other workforce and heath care management, internal and operational controls, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns.  As a part of this work, she has had extensive involvement in Civil Rights Laws, Section 1557 and other discrimination compliance, training, risk management and defense.

In addition, Ms. Stamer serves as a Scribe for the American Bar Association (“ABA”) Joint Committee on Employee Benefits annual agency meetings with OCR and shares her thought leadership as International Section Life Sciences Committee Vice Chair, and a former Council Representative, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, former Vice President and Executive Director of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, and a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her extensive publications and thought leadership as well as leadership involvement in a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. 

Author of many highly regarded compliance, training and other resources on cybercrime and other data privacy and security, health and other employee benefits, health care, insurance, workforce and other risk management and compliance, Ms. Stamer is widely recognized for her thought leadership and advocacy in these matters.  

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides health care, human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on health care, leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources including the following recent publications about related emerging developments:

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here.

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general information and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation considering the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstances at the particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law constantly and often evolves, subsequent developments that could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion are likely. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc. disclaim and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone of any fact or law-specific nuance, change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. Any statements contained herein are not intended or written by the writer to be used, and nothing contained herein can be used by you or any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related transaction or matter addressed herein.


Trump 4/15 Executive Order Targets Prescription Drug Cost, Transparency and Competitiveness Reforms

April 17, 2025

Health care providers, health plans and insurers, pharmaceutical and prescription drug companies, prescription benefit manager and consumers should prepare for increased regulation of prescription drug benefit management arrangements and other changes in federal rules on prescription drug pricing, coverage and related practices in response to directives in President Trump’s April 15, 2025 Executive Order on Lowering Drug Prices By Once Again Putting Americans First (the “Executive Order”).

Intended to address widely shared concerns about prescription drug availability, cost and coverage, by the Executive Order declares optimization of health care programs, intellectual property protections, and safety regulations to provide access to prescription drugs at lower costs to American patients and taxpayers the policy of the United States. Persons potentially concerned or impacted by these concerns should monitor the affected agencies for calls for stakeholder input, proposed guidance, and other activities in furtherance of the shaping and implementation of these new policy initiatives.

Medicare-Focused Prescription Drug Reforms

To promote this policy, the Executive Order directs the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) and various other federal agencies to take certain steps to implement this policy.  The Executive Order includes several directives to HHS and certain other agencies that President Trump intends to lower the cost of prescription drugs within and outside the Medicare program.

By April 15, 2026, the Executive Order directs HHS to develop a better payment model to improve the ability of the Medicare program to obtain better value for high-cost prescription drugs and biological products covered by Medicare, including those not subject to the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program.   

In addition, the Executive Order:   

  • Directs HHS to work with the Congress to modify the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program to align the treatment of small molecule prescription drugs with that of biological products so as to end the distortion that undermines relative investment in small molecule prescription drugs, coupled with other reforms to prevent any increase in overall costs to Medicare and its beneficiaries;
  • By June 14, 2025,   
    • Requires HHS to propose changes to the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program regulations for the initial price applicability year 2028 and manufacturer implementation of maximum fair price under such program in 2026, 2027, and 2028 to improve the transparency of the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program, prioritize the selection of prescription drugs with high costs to the Medicare program, and minimize any negative impacts of the maximum fair price on pharmaceutical innovation within the United States; and
    • Requires HHS to require health centers receiving Public Health Service Act Section 330(e) grants to establish practices to make insulin and injectable epinephrine available at or below the discounted price paid by the health center grantee or sub-grantee under the 340B Prescription Drug Program (plus a minimal administration fee) to low income individuals who have a high cost-sharing requirement for either insulin or injectable epinephrine; have a high unmet deductible; or have no healthcare insurance.
    • Requires the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy (“APDP”) in coordination with the Secretary, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB Director”), and the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy (“APECP”), to provide recommendations to the President on how best to stabilize and reduce Medicare Part D premiums;
    • Requires the HHS Secretary to publish a plan to conduct a survey under the Site-of-Service Price Transparency rules of Social Security Act Section 1833(t)(14)(D)(ii) to determine the hospital acquisition cost for covered outpatient drugs at hospital outpatient departments and propose appropriate adjustments to align Medicare payment with the cost of acquisition, consistent with the budget neutrality requirements;
    • Requires HHS to evaluate and propose regulations to ensure that payment within the Medicare program is not encouraging a shift in drug administration volume away from less costly physician office settings to more expensive hospital outpatient departments.

Other Prescription Drug Reforms

In addition to these predominantly Medicare-focused programs, the Executive Order also orders federal agencies to

  • Requires the Secretary of Labor  to propose regulations pursuant to section 408(b)(2)(B) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to improve employer health plan fiduciary transparency into the direct and indirect compensation received by pharmacy benefit managers by October 12, 2025;
  • Requires the APDP, in coordination with the HHS Secretary, the OMB Director, and the APECP, to provide recommendations to the President on how best to promote a more competitive, efficient, transparent, and resilient pharmaceutical value chain that delivers lower drug prices for Americans by June 14, 2025;
  • Requires the Food and Drug Administration to streamline and improve the Importation Program under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to make it easier for States to obtain approval without sacrificing safety or quality;
  • Requires the OMB Director, the APDP, and the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy )”APECP, and HHS Secretary to provide joint recommendations on how best to ensure that manufacturers pay accurate Medicaid drug rebates consistent with section 1927 of the Social Security Act, promote innovation in Medicaid drug payment methodologies, link payments for drugs to the value obtained, and support States in managing drug spending;
  • Requires the HHS Secretary, through the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, to issue a report providing administrative and legislative recommendations to  accelerate approval of generics, biosimilars, combination products, and second-in-class brand name medications; and improve the process through which prescription drugs can be reclassified as over-the-counter medications, including recommendations to optimally identify prescription drugs that can be safely provided to patients over the counter;
  • Requires HHS, the Department of Justice, the Department of Commerce, and the Federal Trade Commission to conduct listening sessions and issue a report with recommendations to reduce anti-competitive behavior from pharmaceutical manufacturers.


State Medicaid Programs Can Deny Out-Of-State Providers Supplemental Payments

April 9, 2025

While Medicaid rules require state Medicaid programs to provide reimbursements for out-of-state services provided to beneficiaries, the District Of Colombia Court of Appeals has ruled that states can limit supplemental payments funded through a tax or assessment on in-state providers to in-state providers.

In Asante v. Kennedy, No. 23-5055 (D.C. Cir. 2025), border hospitals caring for California residents covered by California’s Medi-Cal program argued California violated the Commerce Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution by refusing to pay Medi-Cal supplemental payments provided to in-state hospitals caring for Medi-Cal beneficiaries to the border hospitals treating Medi-Cal beneficiaries seeking care outside California. 

The Medi-Cal program is the program through which California participates in Medicaid. Federal Medicaid funding is available to States for expenditures related to the provision of a covered Medicaid service to a Medicaid beneficiary under 42 U.S.C. § 1396b.

For purposes of Asante, the Court distinguished between two types of State Medicaid expenditures:

  • Base payments, which CMS has defined as payments made to providers “on a per-claim basis for services rendered to a Medicaid beneficiary,” and
  • Supplemental payments, which are payments to providers separate from (and in addition to) the “per-claim” base payments for services rendered to a beneficiary.

See Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Minimum Staffing Standards for Long-Term Care Facilities and Medicaid Institutional Payment Transparency Reporting, 89 Fed. Reg. 40,876, 40,925 (June 21, 2024) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1396b(bb)); 42 C.F.R. § 438.6(a).

The Medicaid law does not require states to fund their share of Medicaid expenditures entirely on their own. Instead, States may tax providers in accordance with specified criteria to generate funds that the federal government then matches. In 2009, California exercised this taxing authority by establishing a Quality Assurance Fee (“QAF”) as part of its administration of Medi-Cal. The QAF program operates by: (i) assessing a provider tax, which California calls a quality assurance fee, on nonexempt in-state hospitals; (ii) using those funds to generate matching federal Medicaid funding; and (iii) distributing the collected funds as supplemental payments to qualifying private in-state hospitals. Id. §§ 14169.50, 14169.52, 14169.54, 14169.55.

Following California’s original creation of the QAF program, a group of out-of-state hospitals located near the California border challenged the program in federal court in California, claiming an entitlement to receive the QAF supplemental payments, which by California law were to go solely to instate hospitals. At that time, California chose to settle rather than fight the out-of-state hospitals.  Consequently, California entered into settlement agreements under which it gave QAF supplemental payments to those out-of-state hospitals through 2019. Those settlement agreements expired in 2019.

When California sought and obtained in 2020 CMS approval of the QAF program with payments restricted to in-state hospitals for the next two-year cycle, California again faced challenges from out-of-state hospitals along its border.  A group of out-of-state hospitals located near the California border again argued in federal court that their exclusion from the QAF supplemental payments violates the Commerce Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and federal Medicaid regulations. After district court granted summary judgment approving the California exclusion of the out-of-state providers, Asante v. Azar, 656 F. Supp. 3d 185, 190 (D.D.C. 2023), the border hospitals appealed.

In its ruling upholding California’s limitation of eligibility for the supplemental payments, the Court rejected each of the border hospital’s Constitutional challenges to their ineligibility.1

Regarding the Commerce Clause, the Court of Appeals rejected the border hospitals’ Commerce Clause’s claim that the QAF program discriminates against interstate commerce because California pays QAF supplemental payments only to in-state hospitals. The Appeals Court noted that both the QAF provider tax assessed against in-state hospitals and the QAF supplemental payments given to in-state hospitals are calculated based solely on the in-state provision of medical care to in-state patients. The QAF program does not assess a tax against out-of-state hospitals. Since California makes no “obvious effort to saddle those outside the State” with the costs of the QAF program.  Since out-of-state hospitals neither incur the costs (the provider tax) nor receive the benefits (the supplemental payments) of the QAF program, the Appeals Court held that the program does not discriminate against interstate commerce—as it imposes no “differential burden on any part of the stream of commerce” here. See W. Lynn Creamery, Inc. v. Healy, 512 U.S. 186, 202 (1994).

The Court likewise rejected the border hospital’s claim that California violated the Equal Protection Clause. Noting that a challenged state law such as the California statute that does not include factors justifying heightened scrutiny must be upheld under the Equal Protection Clause “if there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis” for it, the Court ruled that limiting eligibility for the supplemental payments to the in-state hospitals that paid the taxes that funds it.  Accordingly, the Court ruled the border hospitals were not entitled to receive supplemental payments under the Equal Protection Clause.

Finally, the Appeals Court also rejected the border hospitals’ last argument that California’s QAF program violated HHS Regulations by denying the supplemental payments to the border hospitals because the supplemental payments are not reimbursements for services and therefore not covered by 42 C.F.R. § 431.52.

Accordingly, the Appeals Court ruled that California does not violate the Commerce Clause or Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution by excluding out-of-state hospitals located along the California border (“border hospitals”) that treat California residents enrolled in Medi-Cal from eligibility to collect Medi-Cal supplemental payments paid to California hospitals for treating Medi-Cal-covered Californians.

The author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer has decades of experience advising health care providers, Medicare and Medicaid Advantage and other public and private health plans and plan sponsors, government contractors and grant recipients, government health and social security programs, and their technology, data, third party administrators, and other managed care and other health care, defense, technology, life sciences and other clients about health industry quality, technology, reimbursement, licensing and accreditation, compliance, enforcement, governmental affairs, dispute resolution, and other compliance, risk management and operational matters. If you have questions or need advice or help evaluating or addressing these or other compliance, risk management, or other concerns, contact her. 

For More Information

We hope this update is helpful. For more information about the  or other health or other employee benefits, human resources, or health care developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452-8297.

Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you receive future updates by registering on our Solutions Law Press, Inc. Website and participating and contributing to the discussions in our Solutions Law Press, Inc. LinkedIn SLP Health Care Risk Management & Operations GroupHR & Benefits Update Compliance Group, and/or Coalition for Responsible Health Care Policy.

About the Author

Recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for her more than 35 years of health industry and other management work, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, and publications including leading edge work on workforce and other risk management and compliance.

Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her career has focused heavily on working with health care, health insurance and managed care, insurance and financial services, defense contractors, and other workforce and data sensitive businesses domestically and internationally on employment, benefits, data and other knowledge use and protection, Federal Sentencing Guidelines and other workforce and heath care management, internal and operational controls, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns.  As a part of this work, she has had extensive involvement in the design, enforcement, investigation, mitigation and defense of trade secret and other information privacy and confidentiality, HRIS, claims, electronic medical records, payment, and other systems and technologies; HIPAA and other health industry, DOD,  FACTA, GLB, EU, and other data privacy and security, trade secret and other confidential information; and other information privacy and security laws, policies, practices, contracts and requirements. 

In addition, Ms. Stamer serves as a Scribe for the American Bar Association (“ABA”) Joint Committee on Employee Benefits annual agency meetings with OCR and shares her thought leadership as International Section Life Sciences Committee Vice Chair, and a former Council Representative, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, former Vice President and Executive Director of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, and a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her extensive publications and thought leadership as well as leadership involvement in a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. 

Author of many highly regarded compliance, training and other resources on cybercrime and other data privacy and security, health and other employee benefits, health care, insurance, workforce and other risk management and compliance, Ms. Stamer is widely recognized for her thought leadership and advocacy in these matters.  

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides health care, human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on health care, leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources. 

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here.

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general information and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation considering the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstances at the particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law constantly and often evolves, subsequent developments that could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion are likely. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc. disclaim and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone of any fact or law-specific nuance, change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. Any statements contained herein are not intended or written by the writer to be used, and nothing contained herein can be used by you or any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related transaction or matter addressed herein.


FTC Faces PBM Lawsuit For Report Critical Of PBMs And Their Practices

September 19, 2024

Health care providers, independent pharmacies, employer and other health plan sponsors and fiduciaries, and individuals concerned about prescription drug prices and access should carefully follow the rapidly accelerating battle between the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) and pharmacy benefit managers (“PBMs”), which threatens to reshape how pharmaceutical products are priced and sold to health plans and consumers.

At the center of the complex pharmaceutical distribution chain that delivers prescription medicines from manufacturers to patients, PBMs generally are vertically integrated organizations that simultaneously serve and regulate health plans and pharmacists and play other roles in the drug supply chain.

This vertical integration allows these six PBMs to wield enormous power and influence over health plans’ and patients’ access to drugs and the prices they pay, as well as pharmacies’ access to prescription drugs and the price and other terms under which pharmacies qualify for health plan coverage or payment for these medications.

PBMs also exert substantial influence over independent pharmacies by imposing contractual terms imposed by PBMs as a condition of accessing medications, covering the pharmacies under health plans contracted with the PBMs, or both. Physicians and health care prescribers also often complain that these PBM-imposed restrictions inappropriately interfere with appropriate physician prescribing practices and pit pharmacists against physicians to the detriment of patients.

Mergers and consolidations within the PBM, pharmacy and health benefit industries that brought ownership of the largest PBMs under common ownership with large insurers and retail pharmacies they purport to both manage and work has increased the already significant power of PBMs to use their integration to control these and other aspects of prescription drug availability, access, distribution, and pricing/ Consequently, the sixth largest PMBs -Caremark Rx, LLC; Express Scripts, Inc.; OptumRx, Inc.; Humana Pharmacy Solutions, Inc.; Prime Therapeutics LLC; and MedImpact Healthcare Systems, Inc. – now collectively negotiate and enforce access, coverage, pricing and other key terms and conditions governing the availability, access to, and cost of prescription drugs for hundreds of millions of Americans.

With the consolidation of ownership of large PBMs, payers and pharmacies further tightening these PBMs’ control over prescription drug distribution, pricing, and coverage and prescription drug costs continuing to rise, PBMs and their practices increasingly face scrutiny, challenges and calls for reform by employers and other plan sponsors, health care providers, independent pharmacies, the FTC and other regulators, Congress, state legislatures and regulators, consumers, and others. See Report on Pharmacy Benefit Managers: The Powerful Middlemen Inflating Drug Costs and Squeezing Main Street Pharmacies.

FTC July 2024 Interim Report On 6th Largest PBMs

In response to these and other growing concerns about consolidation, lack of transparency and other potential abuses about the PBM industry and prescription drug costs, the FTC began investigating the PBM industry in 2022.  In July 2024, the FTC released its Report on Pharmacy Benefit Managers: The Powerful Middlemen Inflating Drug Costs and Squeezing Main Street Pharmacies (the “FTC Report”) that reports the FTC’s interim findings from its ongoing study of the six largest PBMs – Caremark Rx, LLC; Express Scripts, Inc.; OptumRx, Inc.; Humana Pharmacy Solutions, Inc.; Prime Therapeutics LLC; and MedImpact Healthcare Systems, Inc. use their vertical integration and concentration to inflate drug costs, squeeze Main Street pharmacies and engage in other practices harmful to patients and independent pharmacies.

The FTC Report shares interim findings based on the FTC staff’s review of more than 1,200 public comments to identify predominant areas of concern, initial submissions of internal documents and data from PBM respondents and their affiliates, interviews of various industry experts and participants and review of other public data and information.  The FTC Report also discloses that certain PBMS have yet to produce the data and documents required in response to FTC orders issued more than two years ago. While stating its study continues and promising that the FTC will continue efforts to force the PBMs to produce the evidence demanded in the orders, the FTC Report also promises to share regular updates about its progress and findings.

While the investigation continues, the FTC Report shares the FTC’s interim findings that:

  • The market for pharmacy benefit management services has become highly concentrated, and the largest PBMs are now also vertically integrated with the nation’s largest health insurers and specialty and retail pharmacies;
  • As a result of this high degree of consolidation and vertical integration, the leading PBMs can now exercise significant power over Americans’ access to drugs and the prices they pay;
  • Vertically integrated PBMs may have the ability and incentive to prefer their own affiliated businesses, which in turn can disadvantage unaffiliated pharmacies and increase prescription drug costs;
  • Evidence suggests that increased concentration may give the leading PBMs the leverage to enter into complex and opaque contractual relationships that may disadvantage smaller, unaffiliated pharmacies and the patients they serve;
  • PBMs and brand drug manufacturers sometimes negotiate prescription drug rebates that are expressly conditioned on limiting access to potentially lower cost generic alternatives in exchange for higher rebates from the manufactures in a manner that may cut off patient access to lower-cost medicines and warrant further scrutiny by the Commission, policymakers, and industry stakeholders.

The FTC Report also shares the FTC’s concern that the six largest PBMs improperly use their integration and market control over 95 percent of all prescriptions filled in the United States:

  • To profit at the expense of patients and independent pharmacists;
  • To hike the cost of and overcharge for drugs
  • To squeeze independent pharmacies that many Americans—especially those in rural communities—depend on for essential care;
  • To wield enormous power over patients’ ability to access and afford their prescription drugs, allowing PBMs to significantly influence what drugs are available and at what price; and
  • To impose unfair, arbitrary, and harmful contractual terms that can impact independent pharmacies’ ability to stay in business and serve their communities.

The FTC Report concludes that PBMs’ have an “outsized influence” that comes not only from the expansion of their traditional, middlemen administrative services in processing patients’ pharmacy prescription claims but also from decades of consolidation and vertical integration across the healthcare delivery system where “the largest PBMs have come under common ownership with the largest, most dominant health insurers … [that] operate some of the largest retail, mail order, and specialty pharmacies in the country, which compete with local independent pharmacies. Given these relationships, PBMs and their affiliated entities may have the incentive and ability to engage in steering a growing share of prescription revenues to their own pharmacies through specialty drug classification, self-preferential pricing, and pharmacy contracting procedures to target and control the business operations of pharmacies. While the FTC Report principally focuses on the impact of these changing market dynamics on the operation and vitality of the nation’s pharmacies, the FTC Report also states that initial evidence about PBM and brand pharmaceutical rebating practices “urgently warrant further scrutiny and potential regulation.”

The FTC Report concludes that these interim findings underscore the importance and urgency of scrutinizing the role and influence of PBMs in the nation’s healthcare system, particularly as federal and state governments are the largest purchasers of healthcare.

Express Scripts Sues FTC Demanding Retraction Of FTC Report

Not surprisingly, the PBMs subject to the FTC Report generally have protested the reported findings. On September 17, 2024, CIGNA-owned Express Scripts sued the FTC, demanding the FTC retraction of the FTC Report. In the Express Scripts, Inc. v. FTC complaint, Express Scripts characterizes the FTC Report as “unfair, biased, erroneous, and defamatory.” In the Complaint, Express Scripts alleges:

“According to the Commission’s press release announcing the Report, the Report stems from special orders issued under Section 6(b) of the FTC Act to six PBMs, including Express Scripts, demanding data and information about the PBM industry. But the Report is not an analysis of the data and information produced by the PBMs. Instead, it is seventy-four pages of unsupported innuendo leveled against Express Scripts and other PBMs under a false and defamatory headline and accompanied by a false and defamatory press release. The Commission disregarded the millions of documents and terabytes of data produced and relied instead on unverified comments from the very companies that PBMs negotiate against in order to help lower drug costs. Not surprisingly, those entities are incentivized to point the finger at PBMs for allegedly driving drug costs up, when it is PBMs who are, in fact, bringing drug costs down.”

Charging that the FTC Report “followed prejudice and politics, not evidence or sound economics, and wrongly concluded that PBMs inflate drug costs and harm independent pharmacies” and harmed Express Scripts’ business and reputation by the FTC’s “unlawful, unconstitutional, and arbitrary and capricious conduct and defamatory statements,” the Complaint alleges that the FTC Report “gets nearly everything wrong” as a result of FTC Chair Khan’s and the FTC’s bias against PBMs and failure to consider the evidence before them. For example, the Complaint asserts:

“It falsely accuses Express Scripts and other PBMs of “controlling” access to drugs and drug pricing when it is manufacturers who set drug prices and plan sponsors who decide which drugs to cover for their members.

It attacks Express Scripts for disadvantaging independent pharmacies when the evidence produced shows that on average independent pharmacies not affiliated with PBMs receive higher reimbursements than unaffiliated chain pharmacies, independent pharmacies are profitable, and the number of prescriptions filled at independent pharmacies is increasing.

It falsely claims that Express Scripts is “profiting by inflating drug costs,” including by taking rebates from drug manufacturers in return for putting high cost drugs on formularies when, in truth, the bulk of rebates and fees received by PBMs get passed through to plan sponsors and lower the net cost of drugs to plan sponsors and members. Moreover, Express Scripts prefers drugs with the lowest net cost to its plan sponsors on its largest standard formularies.

It makes the broad-brush claim that the PBMs failed to comply with the Commission’s 2022 6(b) orders, which demanded extensive data and information for production—without identifying who the supposed offenders are—even while Express Scripts had long ago complied with the Commission’s requests, which

the Commission knew and verbally acknowledged before and after issuing its Report. It falsely states that PBMs, including Express Scripts, “profit at the expense of patients by inflating drug costs” when the evidence shows that PBMs compete for the business of plan sponsors by offering lower costs for covered drugs than their competitors. PBMs have low and declining operating margins and any PBM that sought to inflate the cost of covered drugs would quickly lose its clients.

Due to these alleged false conclusions, the Complaint charges that the FTC Report violates federal and state law several times over, including in at least the following ways:

  • By exhibiting bias against PBMs and prejudgment of the facts, the Report violates Express Scripts’ right to due process under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
  • It contains (i) assertions that will predictably be and have been interpreted as conclusions adverse to all PBMs and (ii) false statements unsupported by the record that demonstrate the Commission’s failure to consider the available contrary evidence and render its decision arbitrary and capricious.
  • It is not in the public interest and therefore exceeds the Commission’s statutory authority under Section 6(f) of the FTC Act.
  • It is unlawful because Commissioners exercise executive authority while enjoying statutory removal protections in violation of Article II of the U.S. Constitution.
  • And the Commission’s claim both in the Report and the accompanying press release that PBMs, including Express Scripts, are “inflating drug costs” and “profit by inflating drug costs at the expense of patients,” is false and defamatory.

Claiming that Express Scripts has suffered and continues to financial, business and reputational harm by the FTC Report’s allegedly false statements about its business practices and the insinuation that Express Scripts’ successful efforts to fight for lower prices for plan including being sued in multiple lawsuits invoking the FTC Report as evidentiary support for plaintiffs’ claims and faces multiple demands for information from state regulators and federal legislative committees. Contending these harms “have only just begun and will only be compounded over time,” Express Scripts asks the District Court:

  • To vacate and require the FTC to set aside the FTC Report;
  • Make the FTC correct the false statements it has made about PBMs; and
  • Require the recusal of FTC Chair Khan from further FTC proceedings regarding Express Scripts in light of her evident bias against PBMs, including Express Scripts.

Regardless of how the Express Scripts lawsuit plays out, employers and other health plan sponsors, fiduciaries, third party administrators, insurers, pharmacies, health care providers and individual Americans can expect to see continued challenges and attempts to reform PBMs to address perceived abuses. The direction and specifics of those challenges and changes remain unclear. Since political pressure is likely to significantly influence the ultimate outcome of any reforms, concerned individuals and organizations should carefully monitor and provide input.

Meanwhile, employer and other health plan sponsors and fiduciaries should also anticipate that the FTC Report and similar Congressional and other studies and investigations may increasingly fuel and provide evidence to support participants’ and beneficiaries’ questions and challenges to PBM features and practices within their health plans.

More Information

We hope this update is helpful. For more information about the  or other health or other employee benefits, human resources, or health care developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.

Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you receive future updates by registering on our Solutions Law Press, Inc. Website and participating and contributing to the discussions in our Solutions Law Press, Inc. LinkedIn SLP Health Care Risk Management & Operations GroupHR & Benefits Update Compliance Group, and/or Coalition for Responsible Health Care Policy.

About the Author

Recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for her more than 35 years of health industry and other management work, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, and publications including leading edge work on PBM, pharmacy and pharmaceutical and other health care, managed care, insurance, and insured and self-insured contracting, design, administration and regulation.. 

Author of numerous highly regarded works on PBM and other health plan contracting and design,  Immediate Past Chair of the ABA International Section Life Sciences Committee and the Tort Trial and Insurance Practice Section Medicine and Law Committee, past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and past Group Chair and current Welfare Benefit Committee Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group, Ms. Stamer is most widely recognized for her decades of pragmatic, leading edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on health and other privacy and data security and other health industry legal, public policy and operational concerns. 

Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her career has focused heavily on working with health care and managed care, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services and other public and private organizations and their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors domestically and internationally with legal and operational compliance and risk management, performance and workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns.  As a part of this work, she has continuously and extensively worked with domestic and international health plans, their sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators, and insurers; managed care and insurance organizations; third party administrators and other health benefit service providers; hospitals, health care systems and other health care providers, accreditation, peer review and quality committees and organizations; billing, utilization management, management services organizations, group purchasing organizations; pharmaceutical, pharmacy, and prescription benefit management and organizations; consultants; investors; EMR, claims, payroll and other technology, billing and reimbursement and other services and product vendors; products and solutions consultants and developers; investors; managed care organizations, self-insured health and other employee benefit plans, their sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators and service providers, insurers and other payers, health industry advocacy and other service providers and groups and other health and managed care industry clients as well as federal and state legislative, regulatory, investigatory and enforcement bodies and agencies.

She also has extensive experience helping health care systems and organizations, group and individual health care providers, health plans and insurers, health IT, life sciences and other health industry clients prevent, investigate, manage and resolve  sexual assault, abuse, harassment and other organizational, provider and employee misconduct and other performance and behavior; manage Section 1557, Civil Rights Act and other discrimination and accommodation, and other regulatory, contractual and other compliance; vendors and suppliers; contracting and other terms of participation, medical billing, reimbursement, claims administration and coordination, Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, Medicare/Medicaid Advantage, ERISA and other payers and other provider-payer relations, contracting, compliance and enforcement; Form 990 and other nonprofit and tax-exemption; fundraising, investors, joint venture, and other business partners; quality and other performance measurement, management, discipline and reporting; physician and other workforce recruiting, performance management, peer review and other investigations and discipline, wage and hour, payroll, gain-sharing and other pay-for performance and other compensation, training, outsourcing and other human resources and workforce matters; board, medical staff and other governance; strategic planning, process and quality improvement; meaningful use, EMR, HIPAA and other technology,  data security and breach and other health IT and data; STARK, ant kickback, insurance, and other fraud prevention, investigation, defense and enforcement; audits, investigations, and enforcement actions; trade secrets and other intellectual property; crisis preparedness and response; internal, government and third-party licensure, credentialing, accreditation, HCQIA and other peer review and quality reporting, audits, investigations, enforcement and defense; patient relations and care;  internal controls and regulatory compliance; payer-provider, provider-provider, vendor, patient, governmental and community relations; facilities, practice, products and other sales, mergers, acquisitions and other business and commercial transactions; government procurement and contracting; grants; tax-exemption and not-for-profit; privacy and data security; training; risk and change management; regulatory affairs and public policy; process, product and service improvement, development and innovation, and other legal and operational compliance and risk management, government and regulatory affairs and operations concerns. to establish, administer and defend workforce and staffing, quality, and other compliance, risk management and operational practices, policies and actions; comply with requirements; investigate and respond to Board of Medicine, Health, Nursing, Pharmacy, Chiropractic, and other licensing agencies, Department of Aging & Disability, FDA, Drug Enforcement Agency, OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, Department of Labor, IRS, HHS, DOD, FTC, SEC, CDC and other public health, Department of Justice and state attorneys’ general and other federal and state agencies; JCHO and other accreditation and quality organizations; private litigation and other federal and state health care industry actions: regulatory and public policy advocacy; training and discipline; enforcement;  and other strategic and operational concerns.

Author of publications on “Transparent PBM Contracting,” “ACOs, Direct Contracting: Legal & Practical Challenges For Employers, Providers & TPAs,” “The Medicare Advantage Contracting Manual,” “Third Party Administrator (TPA) Contracting Principles and Strategies and a multitude of other highly regarded publications and presentations,  Stamer is widely recognized for her thought leadership on PBM and other managed care and health plan contracting and design, and a multitude of other health care, health plan and other health industry matters.  In addition, Ms. Stamer contributes her time and leadership to numerous policy, professional, civil and other organizations including service as the, the American Bar Association (ABA) International Section Life Sciences Committee Vice Chair, a Scribe for the ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (JCEB) Annual OCR Agency Meeting and a former Council Representative, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, former Vice President and Executive Director of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, and past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, and a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her extensive publications and thought leadership as well as leadership involvement in a broad range of other professional and civic organizations. For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources available here such as:

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here.

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general information and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation considering the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at the particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law constantly and often rapidly evolves, subsequent developments that could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion are likely. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc. disclaim and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone of any  fact or law specific nuance, change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. Any statements contained herein are not intended or written by the writer to be used, and nothing contained herein can be used by you or any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related transaction or matter addressed herein.

©2024 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ For information about republication, please contact the author directly. All other rights reserved.


FLSA Salary Threshold Increases, Other Proposed Changes To Rules & Enforcement Alert Health Care Employers To Confirm Salaried Employee Defensibility

May 14, 2024

Overtime awards like the $152,000 in back wages and liquidated damages a Bronx Urgent Care, P.C. (“Bronx”) must pay for wrongfully misclassifying as exempt and routinely failing to pay overtime to nine employees for hours over 40 in a workweek (“overtime”) and recently announced increases in the salary threshold required for salaried employees strongly signal the need for all medical practices and other health care providers to reassess and re-verify the defensibility of their classification and pay practices for each salaried employee of their organizations and related management services organizations to confirm each salaried employee both the earnings and job duties requirements to qualify as an exempt employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).  The precautionary warning sent by the judgment comes on the heels of the announcement by the Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division (“WHD”) of two increases in the minimum salary that an employer must pay an employee who otherwise satisfies the job duties requirements for payment by an employer on a salaried basis between July 1, 2024, and January 1, 2025.  The salaried classification reviews both should confirm current fulfillment of each salaried classified employee and identify and begin preparations for necessary adjustments to classifications or salary for any salaried employee currently earning less than the higher minimum salary requirements set to take effect this Summer.

Bronx $152,000 Back Pay & Liquidated Damages Award

The Brox overtime judgement is part of a growing number of enforcement actions targeting health industry employers for overtime and other labor and employment violations. See, e.g., Nearly $900K FLSA Backpay Award Warns Other Home Health Employers.

On May 10, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ordered Bronx Urgent Care P.C. to pay $152,000 – $76,000 in back wages and an equal amount in liquidated damages – to the affected workers. The court also affirmed $8,000 in civil money penalties the WHD assessed by because the court found the FLSA violations willful. In addition to the wage recovery, damages and penalties assessed, the court order also forbids Bronx from future FLSA violations.

The judgment resulted after a WHD investigation found the employer operating Bronx, its owner Basil Bruno, and operations manager Samuel Singer violated the FLSA by misusing the salaried employee exemption and failing to pay time and a half overtime pay for overtime hours worked to nine employees improperly treated as salaried. 

WHD Raising Salary Threshold Salaried Exemption

The FLSA requires employers to treat and pay each employee as an hourly employee subject to the minimum wage, overtime, and recordkeeping requirements unless the employer proves that the employee qualifies as exempt.  To treat an employee as a salaried employee exempt from the FLSA requirements, an employer bears the burden of proving both that the employee’s salary meets or exceeds the required salaried threshold and that the actual duties and responsibilities of the employee fulfill the job duties test. 

The judgment follows WHD’s April 23, 2024, adoption of a final rule that will twice increase the salary threshold of two upcoming increases to the minimum salary an employee must earn to qualify for treatment as an exempt employee eligible for the employer to pay on a salaried basis. On July 1, 2024, the Final Rule will increase the salary threshold from the current required annual equivalent salary threshold of $35,568 to an annual salary of $43,888. On January 1, 2025, the Final Rule further increases the salary threshold to an annual salary equivalent of $58,656.

The impending changes mean the Final Rule will prohibit an employer from paying any employee on a salaried basis and must comply with the FLSA’s minimum wage, overtime, and recordkeeping requirements for any employee whose an annual equivalent salary is less than $43,888 after June 30, 2024 or less than $58,656 after December 31, 2024.  Consequently, employers that currently pay employees whose job duties fulfill the job duties test paid less than the applicable salary threshold must either increase the employees’ salaries above the threshold or reclassify and compensate the employee as non-exempt employees, subject to the FLSA’s minimum wage and overtime requirements.

WHD and private litigation challenges overturning health industry and other salaried classification and other wage and hour practices demonstrate that many organizations rely upon inaccurate or overly optimistic perceptions of their ability to defend their salaried employee characterizations. Defending even the most realistically grounded salaried worker classification would become even more difficult if proposed changes to WHD proposed changes to its “White Collar” exemption rules announced earlier this year. When considering whether to raise salaries or reclassify, a health care or other organization should conduct documented compliance reviews on both workers the organization directly employs and any workers providing services to the organization through management services organizations, employee leasing, staffing, manpower, consultant, independent contractor, or other similar service arrangements where the potential exists for reclassification of the worker as a employee of the employer or the employer as a joint employer of the employee taking into account, the more aggressive regulatory and enforcement positions of the Biden Administration that make defending salaried characterizations more difficult for employers. 

The process should both realistically assess the defensibility of the classification and capture documentation of the employer’s compliance efforts, as this documentation can help mitigate exposure to willfulness penalties in the event the WHD or a court rejects the salaried classification of a particular employee in the future.The review of each salaried employee’s classification should begin with a review of whether each salaried employee currently meets the job duty and salaried threshold tests to qualify for salaried status.  If the review raises concerns about the defensibility of any employee’s current salaried classification, the organization should work with counsel to pursue options for resolving potential exposures.  

An employer should conduct this review on all salaried employees, not just those whose current salary is below the current or upcoming increased minimum salaried threshold level. Reevaluation of the defensibility of all salaried workers classification is recommended because many employers mistakenly misclassify workers as salaried rather than hourly due to an overly optimistic misunderstanding of the duties requirements for a worker to qualify as salaried. The risk of misclassification is heightened under the current administration’s enforcement policies. Employers currently aggressively classifying workers as salaried currently are at risk for FLSA wage and hour backpay, penalty, interest, and enforcement cost liability for record-keeping and overtime violations for misclassified workers under the FLSA and other applicable federal and state laws. Raising the salary of a misclassified worker will only make matters worse by increasing the overtime liability that the employer will be required to pay for failure to pay overtime after the salary increases take effect.  As the impending salary threshold increases will heighten already the already high enforcement interest of the WHD and private class action and individual litigants, employers are cautioned to consider their heightened risks of enforcement when evaluating the aggressiveness of their current and future salaried classification and other worker classification and pay practices.

For More Information

We hope this update is helpful. For more information or help about these or other health or other legal, management, or public policy developments, please get in touch with the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297

Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you to receive future updates by registering on our Solutions Law Press, Inc. Website and participating and contributing to the discussions in our Solutions Law Press, Inc. LinkedIn SLP Health Care Risk Management & Operations GroupHR & Benefits Update Compliance Group, and/or Coalition for Responsible Health Care Policy

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here.

About the Author 

Recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for 35 plus years of compliance, risk management, regulatory affairs, operations, strategy and other work with health, employee benefits, insurance, hospitality, retail, construction and other clients, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, and publications.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, Co-Chair of the American Bar Association (“ABA”) International Section Life Sciences and Health Committee and Vice-Chair and Chair Elect of its International Employment Law Committee, Chair of the ABA TIPS Section Medicine & Law Committee, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with HHS-OCR, past chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and current co-Chair of its Welfare Benefit Committee, and Chair of t and Che ABA Intellectual Property Section Law Practice Management Committee, Ms. Stamer has decades of experience advising employers, investigating and helping employers to defend wage and hour, worker classification, discrimination and other labor and employment, employee benefits and other compliance.

Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her career has focused heavily on working with health care and managed care, life sciences, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services and other public and private organizations and their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors domestically and internationally with legal and operational compliance and risk management, performance and workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns. Her experience includes extensive involvement advising clients about preventing, investigating and defendingWHD, CAS, Davis-Bacon and other federal and state wage and hour and other compensation; EEOC, OFCCP, DOD, HUD, HHS and other Civil Rights Act, Section 1557 and other federal and state discrimination; EBSA, IRS, and PBGC employee benefit and compensation; DEA and other Justice Department; CDC, OSHA and other safety and other compliance, investigations, audits, lawsuits and other enforcement actions as well as advocacy before Congress and regulators regarding federal and state equal opportunity, equity and other laws. 

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here

About Solutions Laws Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested in reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources available here, such as:

ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here.

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and educational purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstances at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ reserve the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules make it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication. Readers acknowledge and agree to the conditions of this Notice as a condition of their access to this publication. 

Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. Any statements contained herein are not intended or written by the writer to be used, and nothing contained herein can be used by you or any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related transaction or matter addressed herein.

©2024 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Limited non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™