Search Results
The default setting for search results displays All Content. If you prefer to see recent content only, please adjust the date filter.
Filter your results:
Types
Topics
215 Results Found
Terms of Use
By using the Services or visiting the Site, you, a User, acknowledge and agree that you have read, understand and agree to be bound by the terms and conditions set forth in these Terms and the AHA Privacy Policy. THESE TERMS FORM A LEGALLY BINDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN YOU AND AHA. PLEASE READ THE TERMS CAREFULLY.
Defendants’ Supplemental Brief Re: Vacate Surprise Medical Billing Rule
The federal government tells the court it anticipates issuing a final rule by early this summer, which is later than the May time period it had been expected.
AMA/AHA Supplemental Brief Re: Vacate Surprise Medical Billing Rule
The AHA and American Medical Association urge the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to act as quickly as possible to hold unlawful and vacate all provisions they are challenging in the federal government’s interim final rule on surprise medical billing, which took effect in January.
AHA v Becerra March 2022 Medicare Appeals Dashboard
AHA v Becerra March 2022 Medicare Appeals Dashboard
AHA v Becerra March 2022 Status Report and Dashboard
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Hospital and Physician Groups File Lawsuit Over No Surprises Act Final Rules That Jeopardize Patient Access to Care
Plaintiffs American Medical Association (“AMA”), American Hospital Association (“AHA”), Renown Health, UMass Memorial Health Care, Inc. (“UMass Memorial Health”), Stuart S. Squires, M.D., and Victor F. Kubit, M.D., by and through their attorneys, bring this action for declaratory and injunctive relief against defendants the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Labor, Department of the Treasury, Office of Personnel Management, and the current heads of those agencies in their official capacities.
AHA, Associations, Hospitals Respond to Government in 340B Supreme Court Case
The government does not dispute that the agency singled out Section 340B hospitals as a group and set their reimbursement based on acquisition cost rather than price, without conducting the cost study that the statute requires. The agency’s action was therefore contrary to law.
Court Opinion in Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC, and Novo Nordisk Challenges to 340B Contract Pharmacies Obligations
November 5, 2021
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Court Opinion in Novartis/United Therapeutics Challenges to 340B Contract Pharmacies Obligations (November 5, 2021)
This case concerns conditions that plaintiffs Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation and
United Therapeutics Corporation have imposed on discounted drug purchases by certain safetynet
health care providers.