Taxpayers may encounter a variety of challenges as the IRS is facing one of its smallest (and least experienced) workforces since the 1970s. Continuing the theme of our previous article authored by Robert Romashko, the following discussion highlights some specific tax diligence areas of concern in the healthcare space. The problems of a very outdated IT system still exist – the IRS still uses fax machines in communications with taxpayers.
On February 25, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a False Claims Act (FCA) complaint against an Idaho home health agency and its owner, alleging that a series of Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan applications were fraudulent because the home health agency did not disclose in the applications that the home health agency was making improper claims to Idaho Medicaid at the time it applied for the loans.
On January 17, 2025, the ERISA Industry Committee (ERIC) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, claiming that the 2024 Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) Final Rule oversteps legal bounds, breaches the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), improperly delegates the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Treasury’s (Departments) executive power to private entities, and violates the Due Process Clause. ERIC argues that under the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996, the plan was not obligated to assess any disparate impact that a term, applicable to both medical/surgical (M/S) and mental health and substance use disorder (MH/SUD) benefits, might have had on access to MH/SUD benefits. The Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (MHPAEA) similarly maintained the disparate treatment standard of liability, rather than the disparate impact standard. Moreover, the Departments acknowledged in the 2013 regulations that “disparate results alone” did not constitute a parity violation.
Last fall, private equity and hedge fund investors were given a reprieve from the prospect of increased oversight of healthcare transactions when California Governor Gavin Newsom unexpectedly vetoed Assembly Bill 3129 (AB 3129). That bill would have required review and approval by the California Attorney General of certain healthcare transactions involving private equity groups and hedge funds and imposed limitations on contractual relationships between investors and healthcare providers. On February 12, 2025, Senator Christopher Cabaldon (D-Sacramento) introduced Senate Bill 351 (SB 351), which revives aspects of AB 3129 relating to relationships between private equity groups and hedge funds and physician and dental practices, reinforcing California’s existing corporate practice of medicine and corporate practice of dentistry bars.
On November 15, 2024, the California Board of Pharmacy issued a public notice of its intent to modify Cal. Code Regs. tit. 16 § 1708.2, which governs the discontinuation of pharmacy businesses in California. The regulation currently states:
“Any permit holder shall contact the board prior to transferring or selling any dangerous drugs, devices or
Keypoint: With the increased frequency and severity of cyberattacks against healthcare systems, state and federal agencies strive to improve cybersecurity controls with varied success.
In November 2023, New York Governor Kathy Hochul announced proposed regulations that would be the first state regulations for hospitals in New York. The governor described the proposed regulation as a “nation-leading blueprint” that would complement the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Security Rule enforced by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Engaging in management and investor conversations about maintaining and growing a business is critical, no matter the industry. Whether you’re discussing normal business sustainability, organic growth, or contemplating a sale, these discussions become more complex when practicing physicians are the business’s revenue generators. These conversations must be handled carefully to comply with the spirit and letter of healthcare’s strict fraud and abuse laws. To ensure these discussions are both productive and compliant, it’s essential to navigate these complex regulations effectively.
On July 3, 2024, Judge Louis Guirola, Jr. of the federal district court in Mississippi issued a nationwide preliminary injunction prohibiting the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) from “enforcing, relying on, implementing, or otherwise acting on” the gender identity provisions of a HHS Final Rule that purported to implement Section 1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) and was set to go into effect on July 5, 2024. The injunction was sought by a plaintiff group comprised of fifteen individual states that alleged the Final Rule violates existing statutory and constitutional law. The breadth of the injunction includes 42 C.F.R. §§ 438.3, 438.206, 440.262, 460.98, and 460.112; 45 C.F.R. §§ 92.5, 92.6, 92.7, 92.8, 92.9, 92.10, 92.101, 92.206-211, 92.301, 92.303, and 92.304 “in so far as these regulations are intended to extend discrimination on the basis of sex to include discrimination on the basis of gender identity.” While the injunction halts the gender identity provisions of the 2024 Final Rule, the remaining provisions of the 2024 Final Rule remain in effect.
Exiting a business, whether you are a serial entrepreneur looking to move on to the next project or a healthcare provider like a physician or therapist who has nurtured your practice for decades, can be difficult. After all, corporate transactions are complex affairs that often hang on small details. That’s to say nothing of the emotions that business owners sometimes experience when stepping away from an enterprise into which they have poured their sweat and passion.
For those in the healthcare industry, the complexities only get tougher to tackle. As one of the most heavily regulated industries, healthcare embodies a level of regulatory risk—from merely annoying to existential—that most businesses don’t have to contemplate, making succession and exit plans hard to develop and harder still to execute.
This post is the first in a series dedicated to Colorado’s Medicaid finance and payment systems, challenges faced by those programs, and opportunities for expansion.
The Colorado Healthcare Affordability and Sustainability Enterprise (CHASE) oversees Colorado’s hospital provider tax and the use of those taxes to support Medicaid supplemental payments. CHASE uses the largest portion of those taxes to generate payments targeting the cost shortfalls from treating Medicaid and uninsured patients. Broadly speaking, federal regulations (see 42 C.F.R. §§ 447.272, 447.321) allow each class of institutional providers to be paid for Medicaid services (on a fee-for-service basis) to a level that approximates what could have been paid under Medicare payment principles. This is known as the Upper Payment Limit (UPL). For the past several years, CHASE has limited these payments to less than the full amount permitted by federal law out of concerns about potential overpayments and statewide recoupment risks. The Colorado Hospital Association (CHA) is currently advocating for CHASE to increase payments to 100% of the UPL—i.e. “the full UPL.”