Be a more knowledgeable, successful laboratory in just five minutes each week!
Sign up to receive Dark Daily, a free email newsletter with laboratory news, strategies, tips, and techniques and get the Special Report: 2008 Trends in Clinical Laboratory Pathology Management free when you sign up.
Laboratory News
Judge Dismisses Uropath Suit Against CMS in Condo (Pod) Lab Case
It was not the court decision that UroPath, LLC hoped to hear.
Yesterday, United States District Court Judge Rosemary M. Collyer dismissed a
case that Uropath, LLC, and affiliated laboratories and physician groups, had
filed against federal Health and Human Services Secretary Michael O. Leavitt. Collyer ruled Uropath had no standing to
challenge HHS' Final Order on January 3, 2008.
Collyer also vacated a preliminary injunction she had issued
in March. In the preliminary injunction, Collyer prevented the federal Centers
of Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) from implementing the Final Order for 30 days. But because Collyer
decided that Uropath and its fellow plaintiffs had no standing, the injunction
was moot. Also, she ruled that the motion for reconsideration filed by Leavitt,
the defendant in the case, was denied, as that request was also moot.
For all practical purposes, Collyer threw this case out of her
court, ruling that the plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge Medicare
on its Final Order. In the Final Order, Collyer noted that the plaintiffs can
pursue any grievances through CMS' administrative procedures.
Plaintiff Uropath and its affiliated labs and physician
groups sued Leavitt in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia,
challenging HHS's final rule, issued January 3, 2008 (known as the "Final
Order"), and its final rule, issued November 27, 2007 (known as the
"Anti-Markup Rule"). Uropath and its affiliated labs and physician groups had
said the Final Order and the Anti-Markup Rule would essentially put them out of
business.
"Because Plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge the
Final Order issued by HHS in January 2008, the claims challenging the Final
Order must be dismissed," Collyer wrote in a 21-page decision. "In addition,
Plaintiffs Uropath and [Uropath's Director of Clinical Operations Rebecca] Page
do not participate in Medicare and have no standing to challenge the
Anti-Markup Rule. Because Plaintiff Physician Groups... must channel their
objections to the Anti-Markup Rule issued by HHS in November 2007 through the
administrative process before coming to court, the claims challenging the
Anti-Markup Rule must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction."
UroPath and its co-plaintiffs must now decide their next
strategy in how to oppose the efforts of CMS to impose anti-markup rules that
involve anatomic pathology services provided by anatomic pathology condo (pod)
laboratories. The Dark Report will have a full analysis of this case and its implications for the pathology
profession in its next issue on May 27, 2008.
Related News:
Judge Grants Temporary Injunction in Pathology
Anti-Markup Lawsuit
MEDICARE FINAL RULE ANNOUNCES 2008 PHYSICIAN FEES AND
REFORMS FOR ACCURATE PAYMENTS AND QUALITY
