.

Client Alerts/eUpdates/Alerts

CARES Act Summary of Provisions that Support America’s Health Care System

March 27, 2020

by Claire H. Topp, Alissa Smith, Ross C. D'Emanuele, Randall Hanson, and Jamie McCarty

Download as a PDF

Share this page

Updated April 1, 2020

On March 27, 2020, the President signed into law the “Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act’’ (“CARES Act”). The CARES Act is the third phase of the federal government’s response to the coronavirus following two other laws to support American families and address health sector needs that were approved on March 6, 2020 (Phase I here) and March 18, 2020 (Phase II here).

The CARES Act includes provisions which provide cash payments and other resources to help individuals, small businesses, state and local governments and hospitals/healthcare providers.  The CARES Act includes four sections (called “Titles”) and each title addresses a different topic.  This e-update summarizes Title III of the CARES Act titled “Supporting America’s Health Care System in the Fight Against the Coronavirus”.  Title III provides much needed financial assistance to the health care industry, as well as additional guidance and other provisions which provide information on waivers and other benefits to help hospitals and others who are on the front lines of fighting the COVID-19 pandemic. The following is a summary of the major provisions of Title III, organized in order by section numbers under the CARES Act but does not address subtitle B – Education Provisions and subtitle C – Labor Provisions.  We will provide links to summaries of other provisions in the CARES Act prepared by our colleagues throughout the firm as they become available.

TITLE III – SUPPORTING AMERICA’S HEALTH CARE SYSTEM IN THE FIGHT AGAINST THE CORONAVIRUS

SUBTITLE A – HEALTH PROVISIONS

PART I – ADDRESSING SUPPLY SHORTAGES

SUBPART A – MEDICAL PRODUCT SUPPLIES

Section 3101.  National academies report on America’s medical product supply chain security.

Not later than 60 days after the enactment of the CARES Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services is required to enter into an agreement with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to examine and report on the security of the United States medical product supply chain, considering input from various federal agencies and consulting with relevant stakeholders.  The report will (1) assess and evaluate the dependence of the United States on critical drugs and devices that are sourced or manufactured outside of the United States; and (2) provide recommendations, which may include a plan to improve the resiliency of the supply chain for critical drugs and devices and to address any supply vulnerabilities or potential disruptions of such products that would significantly affect or pose a threat to public health security or national security.

Section 3102.  Requiring the strategic national stockpile to include certain types of medical supplies.

The law adds the following items to the strategic national stockpile that the Secretary of Health and Human Services is required to maintain in the event of a bioterrorist attack or other public health emergency:  personal protective equipment, ancillary medical supplies and other applicable supplies required for the administration of drugs, vaccines and other biological products, medical devices, and diagnostic tests.

Section 3103.  Treatment of Respiratory Protective Devices as Covered Countermeasures.

The law provides for respiratory protective devices approved by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.  The law also states that the Secretary of Health and Human Services determines these devices to be a priority for use during a public health emergency qualify as “covered countermeasures” under Section 42 U.S. Code Section 247d-6d which provides targeted liability protection for pandemic and epidemic products and security countermeasures.

SUBPART B — MITIGATING EMERGENCY DRUG SHORTAGES

Section 3111 – Prioritize reviews of drug applications; incentives.

The Secretary is now required to expedite certain new drug applications to prevent drug shortages, when previously, expediting applications was optional.

Section 3112 – Additional manufacturer reporting requirements in response to drug shortages.
Drugs that are deemed critical during a public health emergency are added to the list of drugs that manufacturers must report to the FDA in the case of discontinuation or interruption. Additionally, this provision expands reporting requirements, including requiring manufacturers of these drugs to develop and implement a redundancy risk management plan that must be submitted to the Secretary of Health and Human Services in the event of an inspection or request.

SUBPART C — PREVENTING MEDICAL DEVICE SHORTAGES

Section 3121 – Discontinuance or interruption in the production of medical devices.

Manufacturers of life-sustaining devices that are deemed critical to public health during a public health emergency must notify the Secretary of Health and Human Services six months prior to any discontinuance or interruption. If appropriate, the Secretary of Health and Human Services may distribute this information to entities the discontinuance or interruption could affect. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is to maintain a list of drug devices of which there is a shortage.

PART II—ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE FOR COVID-19 PATIENTS

SUBPART A – COVERAGE OF TESTING AND PREVENTIVE SERVICES

Section 3201 – Coverage of diagnostic testing for COVID-19.

The Families First Coronavirus Response Act which was signed into law on March 18, 2020 requires that a group health plan or a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage provide coverage and not impose any cost sharing (including deductibles, copayment and co-insurance) or prior authorization or other medical management requirements for an in vitro diagnostic test for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 or the diagnosis of the virus that causes COVID-19 and the administration of such a test.  This section provides more specificity regarding the definition of a COVID-19 diagnostic test under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act by expanding the definition to include an in vitro diagnostic product that

  1. is approved, cleared or authorized under sections 510(k), 513, 515, or 564 of the  Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FFDCA”);
  2. the developer has requested or intends to request emergency use authorization under section 564 of the FFDCA unless and until the emergency use authorization request under section 564 has been denied or the developer of such test does not submit a request under such section within a reasonable timeframe,
  3. is developed in and authorized by a State that has notified the Secretary of Health and Human Services of its intention to review tests intended to diagnose COVID-19; or
  4. is another test that the Secretary of Health and Human Services determines appropriate in guidance.

Section 3202 – Pricing of diagnostic testing.

A group health plan or a health insurance issuer providing coverage of items and services described in section 6001(a) of division F of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (which provides for coverage of testing for COVID-19) with respect to an enrollee shall reimburse the provider of the diagnostic testing provider as follows:

  1. If the health plan or issuer has a negotiated rate with such provider in effect before the emergency declaration, such negotiated rate shall apply throughout the period of such declaration.
  2. If the health plan or issuer does not have a negotiated rate with such provider, such plan or issuer shall reimburse the provider in an amount that equals the cash price for such service as listed by the provider on a public internet website, or such plan or issuer may negotiate a rate with such provider for less than such cash price.

During the emergency period described under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, each provider of a diagnostic test for COVID-10 shall make public the cash price for such test on a public internet website of such provider.  The Secretary of Health and Human Services may impose a civil monetary penalty on any provider that is not in compliance and has not completed a corrective action plan to comply in an amount not to exceed $300 per day that the violation is going on.

Section 3203 – Rapid coverage of preventive services and vaccines for coronavirus.

The law requires full insurance coverage of yet to be created immunizations and preventive services for COVID-19.  Specifically, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Treasurer shall require group health plans and health insurance issuers offering group or individual health insurance to cover (without cost-sharing) a “qualifying coronavirus preventive service”. A “qualifying coronavirus preventive service” means an item, service or immunization that is intended to prevent or mitigate coronavirus disease 2019 that is:

  1. an evidence-based item or service that has in effect a rate of “A” or “B” in the current recommendations of the US Preventative Services Task Force or
  2. an immunization that has in effect a recommendation from the Advisory Committee on immunization practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention with respect to the individual involved.

The requirements shall take effect on the date that is 15 business days after the date on which a recommendation is made relating to the qualifying coronavirus preventive service as described in such paragraph.

SUBPART B — SUPPORT FOR HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS

Section 3211 - Supplemental awards for health centers.

$1.32 billion is appropriated for grants to health centers in medically underserved areas working towards the detection of SARS-CoV-2 or the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of COVID-19.

Section 3212 – Telehealth network and telehealth resource centers grant programs.

This provision amends the National Telehealth Strategy and Data Advancement Act to include services for substance use disorders and to serve rural areas in addition to medically underserved areas.

Section 3213 – Rural health care services outreach, rural health network development, and small health care provider quality improvement grant programs.

Awards under the National Telehealth Strategy and Data Advancement Act are granted for basic health care services, not only essential health care services.

Section 3214  United States Public Health Service Modernization.

This section amends the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 204) with respect to Commissioned and Reserve Corps members. The amendments remove references to the “Ready Reserve Corps” and permit the Regular Corps to be deployed for service in time of a public health emergency, along with other technical amendments.

Section 3215 – Limitation on liability for volunteer health care professionals during COVID-19 emergency response.

With limited exceptions, a health care professional shall not be liable under Federal or State law for any “harm” caused by an act or omission of the professional in the provision of “health care services” during the public health emergency with respect to COVID-19 if (1) the professional is providing health care services in response to such public health emergency as a “volunteer”; and (2) the act of omission occurs:

  1. in the course of providing health care services;
  2. in the health care professional’s capacity as a volunteer;
  3. in the course of providing health care services that (i) are within the scope of the license, registration, or certification of the volunteer, as defined by the State of licensure, registration, or certification; and (ii) do not exceed the scope of the license, registration, or certification of a substantially similar health professional in the State in which such act or omission occurs; and
  4. in a good faith belief that the individual being treated is in need of health care services.

For this purpose, “harm” includes physical, non-physical, economic and noneconomic losses and “health care services” means any services provided by a health care professional, or by any individual working under the supervision of a health care professional that relate to – (A) the diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of COVID-19; or (B) the assessment or care of the health of a human being related to an actual or suspected case of COVID-19.  A “volunteer” means a health care professional who, with respect to the health care services rendered, does not receive compensation or any other thing of value in lieu of compensation, which compensation (A) includes a payment under any insurance policy or health plan, or any Federal or State health benefits programs; and (B) excludes (i) receipt of items to be used exclusively for rendering health care services in the health care professional’s capacity as a volunteer; and (ii) any reimbursement for travel to the site where the volunteer services are rendered and any payments in cash or kind to cover room and board, if the services are being rendered more than 75 miles from the volunteer’s principal place of residence.

This limitation on liability does not apply if the harm was caused by an act or omission constituting willful or criminal misconduct, gross negligence, reckless misconduct, or a conscious flagrant indifference to the rights or safety of the individual harmed by the health care professional or the health care professional rendered the health care services under the influence (as determined pursuant to applicable State law) of alcohol or an intoxicating drug.

The law clarifies that this section preempts the laws of a State or any political subdivision of a State to the extent that such laws are inconsistent with this section, unless such laws provide greater protection from liability and protections afforded by this section are in addition to those provided by the Volunteer Protection Act of 1997.

This section takes effect upon the date of enactment of the CARES Act and applies to a claim for harm only if the act or omission that caused such harm occurred on or after the date of enactment.

Section 3216  Flexibility for members of National Health Service Corps during emergency period.

This section permits the Secretary of Health and Human Services to assign members of the National Health Service Corps, with voluntary agreement of such corps members, to deploy and provide health services as needed to respond to a public health emergency.

SUBPART C — MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Section 3221 – Confidentiality and disclosure of records relating to substance use disorder.

This section revises certain provisions found at 42 U.S.C. 290dd-d concerning confidentiality and disclosure of records relating to substance use disorders. First, outdated references to “substance abuse” are replaced with the term “substance use disorder.” Second, the provisions regarding consent and use of the content found in such records was overhauled to explicitly allow use not only specifically consented to by a patient but also as permitted by the HIPAA regulations. The consent and use provisions now also make clear that prior written consent applies for all such future uses or disclosures for purposes of treatment, payment, and health care operations. Third, disclosure of the de-identified record to a public health authority was added to the list of allowable disclosures. Fourth, a list of relevant definitions was added to the statute to be consistent with HIPAA.  Fifth, in addition to criminal contexts, administrative and civil contexts were added as situations under which such records may not be disclosed, for example in an application for a warrant. Sixth, general anti-discrimination language was added to protect fair treatment of individuals with such records. Seventh, breach notification language in line with the HITECH Act was added. Finally, this section calls for the Department of Health and Human Services to issue additional regulations to appropriately implement the changes described above and require covered entities to update their notices of privacy practices to account for such records.

Section 3222  Nutrition services.

This section grants the Secretary of Health and Human Services the right to allow state agencies to transfer funds for the provision of nutrition services without the prior approval of the Secretary of Health and Human Services during a public health emergency.

Section 3223  Continuity of service and opportunities for participants in community service activities under title V of the Older Americans Act of 1965.

This section grants the Secretary of Labor the ability to permit participants in community service activities under Title V of the Older Americans Act of 1965 to extend such participation and to increase the average participation cap as set forth therein.

Section 3224 – Guidance on protected health information.

No later than 180 days after enactment, the Department of Health and Human Services must issue guidance regarding the sharing of patients’ protected health information during a public health emergency. The guidance must include information on compliance with regulations promulgated pursuant to HIPAA and applicable policies, including policies that may come into effect during such emergencies.

Section 3225  Reauthorization of healthy start program.

Section 3225 reauthorizes the healthy start program and appropriates $125,500,000 for each of the fiscal years 2021 through 2025.  Among other things, the section requires that the Secretary of Health and Human Services ensure that the program is coordinated with other programs and activities related to the reduction of the rate of infant mortality and improved perinatal and infant health outcomes supported by the department.

Section 3226 – Importance of the blood supply.

The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall carry out a national campaign to improve awareness of, and support outreach to, the public and healthcare providers about the importance and safety of blood donation and the need for donations for the blood supply during the public health emergency declared by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.  The Secretary of Health and Human Services may enter into contracts to establish a national blood donation awareness campaign. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is required to consult with the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, the Assistant Secretary for Health, the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Director of the National Institutes of Health, and the heads of other relevant Federal agencies, and relevant accrediting bodies and representative organizations.  Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall submit to the Senate and House a report which will include a description of the activities carried out, a description of trends in blood supply donations, and an evaluation of the impact of the public awareness campaign.

PART III – INNOVATION

Section 3301  Removing the cap on OTA during public health emergencies.

Section 3301 amends the provisions that govern the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) to remove the cap on “other transactions” authority (“OTA”) during a public emergency.  Currently, the law authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to enter into “other transactions” for a project that is expected to cost the Department of Health and Human Services in excess of $100 million only upon the written determination by the Assistant Secretary for Financial Resources that the use of such authority is essential to promoting the success of the project.  The amendment removes the foregoing approval for transactions necessary during a public health emergency. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to the maximum extent practicable, is required to use competitive procedures when entering into transactions to carry out projects for the purposes of a public health emergency.  Any transaction entered into during such public health emergency shall not be terminated solely due to the expiration of the public health emergency if the public health emergency ends before the completion of the terms of such agreement.

Section 3302  Priority zoonotic animal drugs.

Section 3302 amends Chapter V of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act by adding a new section 512A which provides a process for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to expedite the development and review of a new animal drug if preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the new animal drug, alone or in combination with 1 or more other animal drugs, has the potential to prevent or treat a zoonotic disease in animals, including a vector borne-disease, that has the potential to cause serious adverse health consequences for, or serious or life-threatening diseases in, humans. 

PART IV – HEALTH CARE WORKFORCE

Section 3401 – Reauthorization of health professions workforce programs.

Section 3401 makes significant amendments to Title VII of the Public Health Service Act to add additional appropriations of $23,711,000 for each of fiscal years 2021 through 2025 as well as extending funding for various programs.

In addition, under this section, the Secretary of Health and Human Services may award grants or contracts to eligible entities to increase the number of individuals in the public health workforce, to enhance the quality of such workforce, and to enhance the ability of the workforce to meet national, State, and local health care needs.  The law authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to give priority to qualified applicants that train residents in rural areas, including for Tribes or Tribal Organizations in such areas.

Section 3402 – Health workforce coordination.

Within one year after the date of enactment of the CARES Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services in consultation with the Advisory Committee on Training in Primary Care Medicine and Dentistry and the Advisory Council on GME, shall develop a comprehensive and coordinated plan with respect to the health care workforce development programs of the Department of Health and Human Services including education and training programs.  The plan will include performance measures to determine the extent to which the programs are strengthening the nation’s health care system, identify any gaps that exist between the outcomes of programs and projected health care workforce needs identified in workforce production reports conducted by the Health Resources and Services Administration, identify actions and barriers and coordinate with other agencies and provide a report to the Senate and House not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of the CARES Act.

Section 3403  Education and training relating to geriatrics.

This section provides that the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall award grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements to certain entities or other health professions schools for the establishment or operation of Geriatrics Workforce Enhancement Programs.  These programs are designed to support the training of health professionals in geriatrics, including traineeships and fellowships, with an emphasis on patient and family engagement in an effort to address gaps in health care for older adults.  The section sets forth permitted activities, duration of such programs, application requirements, program requirements, and reporting requirements.  The section provides the Secretary of Health and Human Services with the authority to grant special consideration and priority to those entities and health professions schools operating in areas with a shortage of geriatric workforce professionals or who can otherwise demonstrate need.

The section further establishes the Geriatric Academic Career Awards program to promote the career development of such individuals as academic geriatricians or other academic geriatric health professionals.

Section 3404 – Nursing workforce development.

This section establishes clinics to “address national nursing needs” including addressing challenges related to the distribution of the nursing workforce and existing or projected nursing workforce shortages in geographic areas that have been identified as having, or that are projected to have, nursing shortage increase access to and the quality of health services, including by supporting the training of professional registered nurses, APRNs, and advanced education nurses within community based settings and in a variety of health delivery system settings or addressing the strategic goals and priorities. No later than September 30, 2020 and biennially thereafter, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will provide a report that contains an assessment of the programs and activities related to enhancing the nursing workforce.

This section also amends Section 296(j) which provides grants to projects that support the enhancement of advanced nursing education and practice to strike the requirements of  “master’s” degree program and adding “graduate” and by inserting “clinical nurse leaders” after “nurse administrators” in the list of nurses that qualify for the grants.  The law also adds a clinical nurse specialist programs which are education programs that provide registered nurses with full-time clinical nurse specialist education, and have as their objective the education of clinical nurse specialists who will, upon completion of such a program, be qualified to effectively provide care through the wellness and illness continuum to inpatients and outpatients experiencing acute and chronic illness.

In addition, this section expands quality grants to make the quality and retention grants and expanding the high-risk groups to include mental health or substance use disorders in addition to those that are already listed.

Finally, this section adds an additional amount by amending 298(d) to strike $338,000,000 for fiscal years 2011 through 2016 and to insert $137,837,000 for each of the years 2021 through 2025 and to appropriate an additional $117,135,000 for each of the fiscal years 2021 through 2025.

The Comptroller General will conduct an evaluation of the nurse loan repayment program administrated by the Health Resources and Services Administration.  The evaluation will focus on the manner in which payments are made under such programs, the existing oversight functions necessary to ensure the proper use of such programs (including payments made as part of such programs), the identification of gaps, if any, in oversight functions and information on the number of nurses assigned to facilities pursuant to such programs (including the type of facility to which nurses are assigned and the impact of modifying the eligibility requirements for programs under the Public Health Services Act).  Not later than 18 months after the enactment of the CARES Act, the Comptroller General shall submit a report to the House and Senate on the evaluation which may include recommendations to improve relevant nursing workforce loan repayment program.

SUBTITLE D—FINANCING COMMITTEE

Section 3701 – Exemption for telehealth services.

This section creates a temporary telehealth-related safe harbor for high deductible health plans. For plan years beginning on or before December 31, 2021, a high deductible health plan does not need to have a deductible for telehealth and other remote care services. In addition, coverage for telehealth and other remote care during such plan years will not be considered in determining whether someone is an eligible individual under a high deductible health plan.

Section 3702 – Inclusion of certain over-the-counter medical products as qualifiedmedical expenses.

This section adds the costs of menstrual care products as qualified medical expenses for purposes of health savings accounts, Archer MSAs, health flexible spending arrangements, and health reimbursement arrangements for amounts paid after December 31, 2019.

Section 3703 – Increasing Medicare telehealth flexibilities during emergency period.

Federal law at 42 U.S.C. 1320b-5 provides authority to the Secretary of Health and Human Services to waive health care related requirements during a national emergency to ensure that there are sufficient health care items and services to meet patient need and to ensure that health care providers may be reimbursed and may be exempted from sanctions for noncompliance.  The CARES Act improves upon Congress’ recent efforts to enhance the availability of telehealth services for Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries during this emergency period.

On March 6, 2020, Congress enacted the Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2020, available here, which amended 1320b-5(b) by adding paragraph (b)(8) to permit the Secretary of Health and Human Services to waive certain restrictions on telehealth provided to Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP beneficiaries starting on March 6, 2020 (the “January law”).  The January law allowed a waiver which would permit payment for telehealth services such as office visits, mental health counseling and preventative health screenings even if a patient was not in a rural area and if the patient was at home.  Medicare had historically not paid for telehealth if a patient was at their home when they received the telehealth services, and also did not pay for telehealth for patients in urban areas.  The January law, which allowed a waiver to be granted during an emergency period, to permit such payments for Medicare beneficiaries in urban areas and in their homes was a very substantial leap forward for Medicare.

However, the January law still limited the Secretary of Health and Human Services’ ability to waive certain telehealth payment restrictions.  Specifically, the January law did not permit the Secretary of Health and Human Services to waive the limitation on the payment of facility fees, which are only permitted if the patient is located at one of a specific list of “originating sites” (such as a physician office or a hospital, and notably, NOT at home) and the originating site is located in a rural area.

This new law removes the limitation on the Secretary of Health and Human Services’ waiver authority for facilities fees related to telehealth.  Now, the Secretary of Health and Human Services may determine that during an emergency period, facility fees can be paid for telehealth providers even if the patient is not in a rural area and even if the patient is at home during the telehealth visit.

The January law also included restrictions on the Secretary of Health and Human Services’ ability to waive requirements for the types of telecommunications services used in telehealth.  The Secretary was not permitted to waive telecommunications requirements if the communication did not have both audio and video capabilities.  Under this new law, the Secretary now will have the authority to waive all of the requirements regarding the type of telecommunications services that can be used for telehealth.

Further, the January law included a definition of “qualified provider” which highlighted the fact that telehealth is only allowed for a Medicare or Medicaid beneficiary who is already an established patient of the provider or the provider’s practice. Despite this continued requirement, the Department of Health and Human Services stated in guidance documents, available here, that it would not conduct audits to ensure that such prior relationship existed for claims submitted during the public health emergency.  This new law will go farther than a “no audit” statement by the Department of Health and Human Services.  Instead, this new law will remove the definition of “qualified provider”, which means that the Secretary of Health and Human Services will have the authority to waive the “established patient” requirement during the emergency period.

In summary, under this new law the Secretary of Health and Human Services will now have the authority to waive all laws governing payment for telehealth services under Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP.  There are no more limitations to the Secretary of Health and Human Services’ waiver authority pertaining to payment for telehealth services.

In particular, the Secretary of Health and Human Services now has the authority to waive: (1) the restrictions on the payment of a facility fee even if the patient is at home and not in a rural area during the telehealth visit; (2) all requirements for the type of telecommunications services that can be used- even if the telecommunications service only has audio capabilities; and (3) the requirement that telehealth services can only be provided to a provider’s established patients.

Section 3704 – Enhancing Medicare telehealth services for Federally qualified health centers and rural health clinics during emergency period.

The Act provides that during the currently designated emergency period Medicare shall pay for telehealth services that are furnished via a telecommunications system by a Federally qualified health center (“FQHC”) or a rural health clinic (“RHC”) to an eligible telehealth individual who is an enrolled beneficiary notwithstanding that the FQHC or RHC providing the telehealth service is not at the same location as the beneficiary. The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall develop and implement payment methods for such telehealth services, which shall be based on payment rates that are similar to the national average payment rates for comparable telehealth services under the Medicare physician fee schedule. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services may implement such payment methods through program instruction or otherwise. Costs associated with the telehealth services would not be included in other reimbursement methods for the FQHC and RHC. 

Section 3705  Temporary waiver of requirement for face-to-face visits between home dialysis patients and physicians.

During the currently designated emergency period, the Secretary of Health and Human Services may waive the requirement for face-to-face clinical assessments between home dialysis patients and their physicians. This would allow Medicare beneficiaries determined to have end stage renal disease receiving home dialysis to choose to receive monthly end stage renal disease-related clinical assessments via telehealth.

Section 3706  Use of telehealth to conduct face-to-face encounter prior to recertification of eligibility for hospice care during emergency period.

For purposes of recertifying a Medicare beneficiary for hospice care, during the currently designated emergency period a hospice physician or nurse practitioner may conduct the required face-to-face encounters via telehealth, as determined appropriate by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. 

Section 3707  Encouraging use of telecommunications systems for home health services furnished during emergency period.

The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall consider ways to encourage the use of telecommunications systems, including for remote patient monitoring as described in 42 CFR Section 409.46(e) (or any successor regulations) and other communications or monitoring services, consistent with the plan of care for the individual, including by clarifying guidance and conducting outreach, as appropriate.

Section 3708  Improving care planning for Medicare home health services.

For purposes of certifying the need for home health services for a Medicare or Medicaid beneficiary, and for establishing a plan of care for furnishing home health services to an eligible beneficiary and periodically reviewing such a care plan, the CARES Act adds the following practitioners to physicians as permitted to so certify, establish and review: nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, and physician assistants (as the case may be) after a date specified by the Secretary of Health and Human Services in regulations (but in no case later than the date that is 6 months after the date of the enactment of the CARES Act).

Section 3709  Adjustment of sequestration.

During the period beginning on May 1, 2020 and ending on December 31, 2020, the Medicare programs under title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.) shall be exempt from reduction under any sequestration order issued before, on, or after the date of enactment of the CARES Act.

Section 3710  Medicare hospital inpatient prospective payment system add-on payment for COVID–19 patients during emergency period.

For hospital discharges of Medicare beneficiaries occurring during the emergency period, in the case of a discharge of an individual diagnosed with COVID–19, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall increase the weighting factor that would otherwise apply to the diagnosis-related group (“DRG”) to which the discharge is assigned by 20 percent. The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall identify a discharge of such an individual through the use of diagnosis codes, condition codes, or other such means as may be necessary. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services may implement this change by program instruction or otherwise. States that have received an applicable 1115A Medicaid demonstration waiver from the Secretary may implement a similar adjustment for hospital discharges of Medicaid beneficiaries diagnosed with COVID–19.

Section 3711 – Medicare hospital inpatient prospective payment system add-on payment for COVID-19 patients during emergency period.

Access to post-acute care during the emergency period will be increased as follows: rehabilitation facilities will not be required to comply with the requirement for coverage that they provide at least fifteen hours of therapy per patient per week; and the Secretary of Health and Human Services will exercise discretion in enforcement of certain long-term care hospital discharge rate requirements. These modifications allow for additional resources and flexibility for facilities treating patients during this emergency period.

Section 3712 – Receiving payment rates for durable medical equipment under the Medicare program through duration of emergency period.

The transition period for the recently enacted revised payment methodology for durable medical equipment under the Medicare program (See 42 CFR 414.210) will be extended, effective through the duration of emergency period. The intent of this section is to ensure durable medical equipment reimbursement is not reimbursed at a potentially reduced level, as initially required by the regulation, until after the emergency period.

Section 3713 – Coverage of the COVID-19 vaccine under part B of the Medicare program without any cost-sharing.

Any approved COVID-19 vaccine will be covered under part B of the Medicare program without any cost-sharing mechanism, such as a deductible. The COVID-19 vaccine will be treated the same as the influenza vaccine in that regard.

Section 3714 – Requiring Medicare prescription drug plans and MA–PD plans to allow during the COVID-19 emergency period for fills and refills of covered part D drugs for up to a 3-month supply.

Understanding that access to pharmacies and ability to travel may be restricted, Medicare prescription drug plans and Medicare Advantage Part D plans will be required to allow refills of covered part D drugs for an amount elected by the enrollee, up to a 3-month supply during the emergency period. Note that this section does not allow for refills of prescriptions that are inconsistent with an applicable safety edit, such as opioid prescriptions.

Section 3715 – Providing home and community-based services in acute care hospitals.

Acute care hospitals will not be prohibited from providing home and community-based services in acute care hospitals during the emergency period so long as such services are identified in a patient’s care plan, provided to meet the needs of the of the patient not already met by the receipt of hospital services, not offered as a substitute for hospital services, and designed to ensure a smooth transition between acute care and home and community based settings.

Section 3716 – Clarification regarding uninsured individuals.

Access to care and coverage related to COVID-19 under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act will be expanded to include several categories of individuals, including individuals who reside in a state that does not make medical assistance available and individuals who are enrolled in a federal program, but whose plan does not have “minimum essential coverage” as that term is defined in the Internal Revenue Code, Section 5000A(f)(1).

Section 3717 – Clarification regarding coverage of COVID-19 testing products.

COVID-19 testing products that are not approved under certain sections of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act will now be covered “medical assistance” products for applicable grants to states for medical assistance programs, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1396d.

Section 3718 – Amendments relating to reporting requirements with respect to clinical diagnostic laboratory tests.

No reporting of payment and volume rates for non-advanced clinical diagnostic laboratory tests under 42 U.S.C. § 1395m-1(a) is required until January of 2022. Additionally, phase-in of reduction in payments for a clinical diagnostic laboratory test under 42 U.S.C. 1395m-1(b) is extended to 2024 and the applicable percentage by which the payment for a test cannot be reduced from the year 2020 for 2021 is reduced from 15 percent to 0 percent. 

Section 3719 – Providing Hospitals Medicare Advance Payments

An existing Medicare accelerated payment program is expanded during the emergency period to give hospitals, especially rural hospitals, (along with other Medicare Part A and Part B providers and suppliers) faster access to Medicare Parts A and B payments in order to meet the increase in demand due to the pandemic. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has already issued guidance on this new program, available here.  To qualify for advance/accelerated payments the provider/supplier must: 1. Have billed Medicare for claims within 180 days immediately prior to the date of signature on the provider’s/supplier’s request form, 2. Not be in bankruptcy, 3. Not be under active medical review or program integrity investigation, and 4. Not have any outstanding delinquent Medicare overpayments.  Qualified providers/suppliers will be asked to request a specific amount using an Accelerated or Advance Payment Request form provided on each Medicare Administrative Contractor’s (MAC’s) website. The advanced payment is based on net reimbursement represented by unbilled discharges or unpaid bills.

Most providers and suppliers will be able to request up to 100% of the Medicare payment amount for a three-month period. Inpatient acute care hospitals, children’s hospitals, and certain cancer hospitals are able to request up to 100% of the Medicare payment amount for a six-month period. Critical access hospitals (CAH) can request up to 125% of their payment amount for a six-month period. Advanced payments may be in the form of a lump sum or alternatively, periodic payments. CMS has extended the repayment of these accelerated/advance payments to begin 120 days after the date of issuance of the payment. The repayment timeline is broken out by provider type: Inpatient acute care hospitals, children’s hospitals, certain cancer hospitals, and Critical Access Hospitals (CAH) have up to one year from the date the accelerated payment was made to repay the balance; and all other Part A providers and Part B suppliers will have 210 days from the date of the accelerated or advance payment was made to repay the balance.

Section 3720 – Providing State Access to Enhanced Medicaid FMAP

The Families First Coronavirus Response Act of 2020 temporarily increased Medicaid payments to the states by 6.2% so long as the states met certain requirements.  This section amends the Families First Coronavirus Response Act of 2020 to ensure that, during the 30 days following enactment, states are able to receive the Medicaid 6.2 percent “federal medical assistance percentage” increase, even if the states did not comply with the requirement that, to receive such increase, the premium charged by the state is not greater than the premium charged on January 1, 2020, provided that the premium in effect on the enactment date is not increased during the emergency period.

Subtitle E—HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICE EXTENDERS

PART I — MEDICARE PROVISIONS

Section 3801 – Extension of the work geographic index floor under the Medicare program.

The work geographic floor index was set to expire on May 23, 2020.  The new law extends this out to December 1, 2020.

Section 3802 – Extension of funding for quality measure endorsement, input, and selection.

The law increases the $4,830,000 to $20,000,000 and extends the funding which was originally set to expire on May 22, 2020 through FY 2020 and adds additional pro rata funding for the period beginning on October 1, 2020 through November 30, 2020.

Section 3803 – Extension of funding outreach and assistance for low-income programs.

The law provides additional funding for various area agencies on aging, aging and disability resource centers, and the National Center for Benefits and Outreach Enrollment and extends such funding through FY 2020 and adds additional pro rata funding for the period beginning on October 1, 2020 through November 30, 2020.

PART II — MEDICAID PROVISIONS

Section 3811 – Extension of the money follows the person rebalancing demonstration program.

The law increases funding for the program from $176,000,000 to $337,500,000 for the period beginning on January 1, 2020 and ending on September 30, 2020 and extends such additional pro rata funding for the period beginning on October 1, 2020 through November 30, 2020.

Section 3812 – Extension of spousal impoverishment protections.

The spousal impoverishment protections are to be based on an income or resource disregard under a methodology authorized under Section 1902(r)(2) to the income or resources of an individual described in 1902(a)(10)(A)(ii)(VI) or on the basis of an individual’s need for home and community-based services authorized under subsection (c), (d), (i), or (k) of Section 1915 or disregarding an individual’s spousal income and assets under a plan amendment to provide medical assistance for home and community-based services for individuals by reason of being determined eligible under Section 1902(a)(10)C) or otherwise on the basis of reduction of income based on costs incurred for medical or other remedial care under which the State disregarded the income and assets of the individual’s spouse in determining the initial and ongoing financial eligibility of an individual for such services in place of the spousal impoverishment provisions applied under Section 1924 of the CARES Act.

Section 3813 – Delay of DSH reductions.

The reduction in Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) payments alters certain time frames set forth in the current law out to 2022.

Section 3814 – Extension and expansion of Community Mental Health Services.

The program as provided under Section 223(d) of the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 (42 U.S.C. 1396a), originally set to expire on May 22, 2020, is extended out to November 30, 2020.

This section further compels the Secretary, no later than 6 months after the enactment of the law, to select two states to participate in a two-year demonstration program.  The section further sets forth provisions for the selection of states and requirements of states selected to participate.  No later than 18 months after the enactment of the law, the Comptroller General shall submit a report to the House and Senate describing the demonstration program, including information on state’s experiences, information on federal efforts to evaluate the demonstration program, and recommendations for improving reporting, accuracy, and validity of encounter data.

PART III — HUMAN SERVICES AND OTHER HEALTH PROGRAMS

Section 3821  Extension of sexual risk avoidance education program.

This section extends allotments to states for sexual risk avoidance education programs originally set to end on May 22, 2020 through 2020.  This section replaces also references to FY 2020 with FY 2021.  This section also extends the funding for such programs through CY 2020 and adds additional funding for the period beginning on October 1, 2020 and ending on November 30, 2020 an amount equal to the pro rata portion of the amount appropriated for such FY 2020.

Section 3822  Extension of personal responsibility education program.

This section extends allotments to states for personal responsibility education originally set to end on May 22, 2020 through 2020 and provides an adjusted timeframe for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to determine the allotment for such programs. This section also extends the funding for such programs through CY 2020 and adds additional funding for the period beginning on October 1, 2020 and ending on November 30, 2020 an amount equal to the pro rata portion of the amount appropriated for such FY 2020.

Section 3823  Extension of demonstration projects to address health professions.

This section authorizes the extension of demonstration projects through November 30, 2020 in the same manner in which such projects were authorized for FY 2019 and further authorizes the appropriation of money for such programs.

Section 3824  Extension of the temporary assistance for needy families program and related programs.

This section authorizes the extension of the temporary assistance for needy families program and other related programs through November 30, 2020 and further authorizes the appropriation of money for such programs.

PART IV – PUBLIC HEALTH PROVISIONS

Section 3831 – Extension for community health centers, the National Health Service Corps, and teaching health centers that operate GME programs.

The law revises the enhanced funding as set forth under Section 330 of the Public Health Service Act to extend the program past the May 22, 2020 deadline and provide an additional $4,000,000,000 for FY 2020 and $668,493,151 for the period beginning on October 1, 2020 and ending on November 30, 2020 for community health centers.

The law revises the enhanced funding provisions for the National Health Services Corps, as well, providing $310,000,000 for FY 2020 and $51,808,291 for the period beginning on October 1, 2020 and ending on November 30, 2020.

The law revises the funding for the Teaching Health Centers that Operate Graduate Medical Education Programs by extending the term of such funding through November 30, 2020, with an additional $21,141,086 for the period beginning on October 1, 2020 and ending on November 30, 2020.

Section 3832  Diabetes programs.

This section extends diabetes programs as authorized under the Public Health Service Act through 2020 and provides an additional $25,068,493 for the period beginning on October 1, 2020 and ending November 30, 2020.

PART V – MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Section 3841  Prevention of duplicate appropriations for fiscal year 2020.

This section provides that any expenditures made under the law shall be charged to the applicable appropriation or authorization for such program for such fiscal year.

SUBTITLE F – OVER THE COUNTER DRUGS

PART I – OTC DRUG REVIEW

Sec. 3851 - Regulation of certain nonprescription drugs that are marketed without an approved drug application.

The legislation amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to provide, for many over-the-counter (“OTC”) drug products, a conclusion to FDA’s OTC drug product review process.  That process was intended to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of OTC drug products marketed in the U.S. before 1972.  Although proceeding for nearly 50 years, for many OTC drug products that process remains incomplete.

Under the new legislation, OTC drugs that were part of the OTC drug product review are for the most part to be deemed Generally Recognized as Safe and Effective (“GRASE”) and not a new drug under the following conditions:

  1. They are subject to an FDA OTC final monograph, conform to that monograph, and are in a dosage form that immediately prior to enactment has been used to a material extent and for a material time;
  2. They were classified in Category I during the OTC drug review (meaning they were found GRASE for the clinical therapeutic indication), subject to an OTC tentative final monograph, conform to that monograph, and are in a dosage form that immediately prior to enactment has been used to a material extent and for a material time;
  3. They were classified in Category I during the OTC drug review, subject to a proposed monograph or Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“ANPR”), conform to that proposed monograph or ANPR, and are in a dosage form that immediately prior to enactment has been used to a material extent and for a material time;
  4. They were classified in Category III during the OTC drug review (meaning there was insufficient evidence to permit final classification of the OTC drug), subject to a tentative final monograph, conform to that monograph, and are in a dosage form that immediately prior to enactment has been used to a material extent and for a material time.

If an OTC drug was classified in Category II during the OTC drug review (meaning the drug was found not to be GRASE or that the indication(s) for the drug were unacceptable), then the drug will be considered a new drug and would require a new drug application to be marketed from 180 days after enactment of the legislation unless the FDA determines that it is in the interest of public health to extend the period in which the product can be marketed without an approved new drug application.

The legislation also sets out a process for FDA to process requests for administrative orders to determine whether there are conditions under which a specific drug, drug class, or combination of drugs are OTC and GRASE, and thus may be marketed without a new drug application.  There is a lengthy comment period of 180 days on any proposed administrative orders from FDA.  If the active pharmaceutical ingredient is new, than the requestor must provide prima facie evidence that the drug has a verifiable history or being marketed and safely used by consumers in the U.S. as an OTC drug under comparable conditions of use, or similar evidence of use in another country.  If FDA issues an administrative order pursuant to a request, then the requester can receive 18 months of exclusivity to market drugs that either incorporate an active pharmaceutical ingredient not previously incorporated or that provides for a change in the conditions of use of a drug for which new human data studies conducted or sponsored by the requestor were essential to the issuance of the order.

Sections 3852, 3853, and 3854 of the statute make changes to the definition of misbranding to comport with the amendments above, clarifies that nothing in the changes apply to drugs that FDA excluded from its OTC drug review, and includes specific provisions addressing sunscreen products.

Sec. 3855. Annual update to Congress on appropriate pediatric indication for certain OTC cough and cold drugs.

This provision requires FDA to provide an annual report to Congress on the OTC cough and cold drug monograph with respect to children under the age of 6.

PART II – USER FEES

Section 3861 and Section 3862  Fees relating to OTC drugs.

These sections authorize 2 types of user fees, with the charges to be dedicated to FDA’s OTC drug monograph activities.

First, an annual fee will be charged beginning in 2020 to each person that owns a facility engaged in manufacturing or processing of the finished dosage form of an OTC monograph drug.  Contract manufacturing organization pay 2/3 of the annual fee charged to other OTC monograph drug facilities.  FDA is directed to publish the amount of such annual fees by May 11.  For 2020, the fees are due the later of the first business day of July 2020 or 45 days after FDA publishes a notice in the federal register setting forth the fees.

In addition, to the annual OTC monograph drug facility fees, FDA will charge a fee to anyone requesting an administrative order under Section 3851 of the legislation.  That fee is due on the date of the order request submission and will generally equal $500,000.  However, the fee will be $100,000 for more minor administrative order requests, such as merely asking for additional drug facts, or the reordering of ingredients.

Both fees are subject to annual inflation adjustments.

 

Firm Highlights

Insights

State Affordability Infrastructure Districts (SAIDs) — A Financing Tool for Taiwanese Investment in Arizona Science and Technology Parks

If you have developed a facility inside one of Taiwan's science or technology parks, you are accustomed to the one-stop-shop of government planning the park and delivering the roads, water, power, and other infrastructure before your building is even constructed. In the United States, including Arizona, land development generally does not work that way. In Arizona, the cost of infrastructure such as water, sewer, stormwater, roads, power, and the digital backbone, typically falls on the private landowner and is incurred up front before operations generate revenue to offset that cost. For a company entering the Arizona market, this is often the largest and earliest capital burden of the entire project. Arizona recently created a tool that provides a more cost-effective way for landowners and developer to finance some of that infrastructure. House Bill 2999, signed into law June 2026 and codified at Chapter 40 of Title 48 of the Arizona Revised Statutes, establishes the creation of a State Affordability Infrastructure District (SAID). How a SAID Works Landowners are now able to use a SAID to finance public infrastructure such as water, sewer, stormwater, roads, parking, lighting, communications, rail sidings and signalization, and similar improvements, through tax-exempt bonds. The bonds are repaid over up to 30 years and secured solely by the property within the SAID. No city, county, or state credit is pledged, and no obligation falls on other taxpayers, and therefore no city, county, or state approval other than from the Arizona Finance Authority (AFA). In effect, a SAID lets you spread the cost of horizontal infrastructure over the life of the asset instead of funding it entirely at the outset. And tax-exempt bonds often offer a lower interest rate than taxable or other types of financing. How a SAID is Formed A SAID is formed upon the filing of a petition with the AFA. The petition must include the finance plan, general plan, estimated costs, maximum tax rate, appraisal, bond counsel certificate, consultant list, petitioner experience, legal description, title report, and other materials. While the landowner is required to provide notice to the local governing jurisdiction, local governing jurisdiction does not have the right to approve or deny. The petition is reviewed administratively by the AFA through a standards-based process. For an inbound investor without long-standing local relationships, an objective, criteria-driven process is a meaningful advantage to the overt political process associated with other financing districts in Arizona. Formation requirements. A SAID requires consent from 100% of landowners within the proposed district; public infrastructure costs must exceed $5 million (easily met at any real scale); the district property must all be in the same county and need not be contiguous provided that noncontiguous property is located within five miles of the district's other property; and the board is initially appointed by the forming owners of the SAID district, later transitioning to election as ownership diversifies. Actual bond issuance requires an election of the SAID property owners. Ownership and corporate structure. Consent rights and board seats run with title. If you hold the Arizona land through a U.S. blocker beneath your Taiwan parent, the standard model for Taiwanese/Arizona real estate and operating investment, the U.S. property-holding entity, rather than it’s corporate parent, is the landowner of record for the district. Before formation, our Dorsey team will confirm that you have the proper corporate structure and board mechanics to be compliant.  Board composition has no citizenship or residency requirement. This is a common concern for foreign investors, and the statute answers it cleanly. Under A.R.S. § 48-7004, a director must either hold fee title to real property in the district or be an individual designated or appointed by a fee-title owner. Corporations, partnerships, and other business entities are expressly permitted to be those owners, to vote as owners, and to designate an individual to serve. There is no requirement that a director be a U.S. citizen or resident. So your U.S. property-holding entity, as landowner of record, can appoint whichever of your principals you choose, including a Taiwan-based individual, as the three-member board.  Power infrastructure limitation. The enacted definition of "public infrastructure" in A.R.S. § 48-7001 does not include electrical power generation or transmission. The reference to electrical facilities appears only as components of lighting and traffic-control systems, and the Legislature removed broader energy infrastructure from the definition during the Senate amendments. A SAID will likely not finance the high-load power infrastructure required for semiconductor fabrication, data storage, or heavy manufacturing.  Water infrastructure within a current utility CC&N. Where water, sewer, or wastewater facilities fall within a regulated utility's certificated service territory, the SAID cannot build or own them without the utility's written consent and must convey them to the utility on completion. Entitlements and zoning: The determination of entitlements, zoning, and other land use permitting, as well as construction permitting for a technology or manufacturing facilities remain with the local jurisdiction and run on a separate track. Our Dorsey team will help you coordinate the financing and entitlement timelines together. Our Dorsey team works regularly with Taiwanese and other Asia-Pacific companies entering the Arizona market. If a SAID fits your project, we can structure it for your cross-border ownership.

News

Real Estate Attorney Alexis Olsen Joins Dorsey in Phoenix

Attorney Alexis Olsen has joined Dorsey & Whitney LLP as Of Counsel in the Real Estate group in Phoenix, the law firm announced today. Alexis focuses her practice on large-scale residential, mixed-use, and multi-asset development projects as well as multi-state commercial leasing transactions. She guides clients through sophisticated acquisitions, dispositions, leasing, entity structuring, investment strategies, and due diligence matters. She has structured co-investment arrangements that drive capital deployment into housing subdivisions nationwide and has represented both landlords and tenants in commercial leasing transactions involving office, retail, industrial, and specialty-use properties, including cannabis dispensaries. Alexis received her J.D. from Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law and her B.A. from the University of Arizona. Alexis comes to Dorsey from Squire Patton Boggs. “Alexis strengthens Dorsey’s real estate capabilities at a time when Phoenix remains one of the fastest-growing and most dynamic real estate markets in the country,” said Scott Jenkins, Dorsey’s Phoenix office head. “Her addition further enhances our deep bench of 12 real estate attorneys in Phoenix and reflects our continued investment in serving clients throughout Arizona and supporting their real estate transactions and objectives across the country. We are thrilled to welcome Alexis to Dorsey.” “Joining a firm with such a deep bench of experienced attorneys in the Phoenix office, especially in the Real Estate group, presents an exciting opportunity not just for my own professional growth, but for the clients we service,” said Alexis Olsen. “I look forward to building on this strong foundation, growing our national practice, and delivering top-tier service to our clients.”

Insights

Alaska HB 126: What Changes for Alaska Native Corporations, Proxy Filings, and Annual Reports

Alaska House Bill 126 (HB 126), sponsored by Representative Neal Foster and passed by the 34th Alaska Legislature, is now law. The bill changes which Alaska Native Corporations (ANCs) must file proxy and annual report materials with the State of Alaska, and makes it easier to reinstate certain dissolved Village Corporations. For many smaller Village Corporations, the practical result is less public disclosure. For shareholders, advisors, and the public, it means some financial information that used to be available through the State will no longer be readily obtained. This eUpdate explains what HB 126 does in plain terms, walks through the practical trade-offs, and answers common questions. 1. What HB 126 Changes The old rule Under prior law (Alaska Statutes Sec. 45.55.139), an Alaska Native Corporation had to file its annual report, proxies, and proxy statements with the Alaska Division of Banking and Securities (the Division) if it had more than $1 million in assets and 500 or more shareholders on its current rolls. A filing ANC was also required to follow the Division’s proxy rules (3 AAC 08.305 through .365), which require specific disclosures such as top 5 executive compensation, and related-party transactions. Because these filings are treated as public records, they gave non-shareholders, including the public and the press, visibility into ANC financial information that is not filed with the SEC. The new rule HB 126 changes how the 500-shareholder test is measured. Now, the asset test is removed, and the shareholder count is based on how many shareholders the corporation originally enrolled when it was formed under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), not how many it has today. As shares have passed down through families over the decades, some Village Corporations that started with fewer than 500 shareholders now have more than 500 recordholders. Under the old current-count test, when those corporations had crossed the threshold, they had to file. Under the new original-enrollment test, they do not. Who is affected Village Corporations that originally enrolled fewer than 500 shareholders are the main beneficiaries. They no longer have to file proxy and annual report materials with the Division or follow the Division’s proxy regulations at 3 AAC 08.305 through .365. Two groups must continue to file as before: all twelve ANCSA Regional Corporations, each of which enrolled more than 500 shareholders at creation, and all Village Corporations that originally enrolled 500 or more shareholders. As reported by the Alaska Beacon, when the bill was under consideration, the Division identified 59 corporations then filing, expected at least seven village corporations to become exempt, and was reviewing roughly 30 more. 2. Practical Analysis HB 126 reduces a real compliance burden for smaller Village Corporations, which now need not spend time and money on State filings. In coming years, the exempt Village Corporations may experience benefits associated with less public disclosure and less regulation. But at the same time, less public disclosure carries trade-offs. Benchmarking will become harder Publicly-filed proxy statements and annual reports have long served as a reference set. Shareholders, corporations, advisors, and counsel use them to compare governance practices, compensation, and financial results across similarly-situated ANCs. Since fewer of these materials will be filed publicly, there will be fewer comparable documents available, which will make benchmarking and market-checking more difficult for like-sized ANCs over time. Executive compensation transparency may be reduced The Division’s proxy rules require disclosure of the compensation of ANC’s top five most highly compensated individuals (3 AAC 08.345(b)(2)), related-party transactions above $20,000 (3 AAC 08.345(b)(3)), and audited financial statements and management’s discussion and analysis (3 AAC 08.365). When a corporation is no longer required to file these disclosures publicly, it becomes harder for shareholders and others to obtain the information, to understand how compensation is set for their corporate leadership, and how it compares across corporations of similar size and complexity. Transparency may matter more as ANCs grow Some ANCs have grown into large, complex enterprises with substantial revenue and many subsidiaries, even with fewer than 500 shareholders. For an ANC with a broad and dispersed shareholder base, public materials can be an important way for shareholders and other stakeholders to understand governance, compensation, and performance across ANCs. Reduced disclosure may carry more practical weight in those settings than for a small corporation whose shareholders are closely connected to the business. The ANCSA annual report obligation continues It is important not to overstate what HB 126 does. HB 126 changes the state filing proxy requirements. It does not remove the separate obligation under ANCSA itself. That obligation comes from ANCSA at 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1625(c), which requires a Native Corporation that would otherwise be subject to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to prepare and transmit to its shareholders an annual report containing substantially the information a company subject to that Act would include. Similarly, ANCs that solicit proxies for an annual meeting are still required to furnish shareholders with those proxy materials under general Alaska corporate law. However, ANCs are now no longer required to transmit proxy statements to the State. ANCs’ reporting obligations to their shareholders are unaffected by HB 126. Any corporation newly exempt from state filing still owes its shareholders a detailed annual report and a proxy statement, even though that report is no longer routed through the State and made public. Reinstatement of dissolved Village Corporations Separately, HB 126 amends AS 10.06.960(k) to remove the prior deadline (previously December 31, 2020) for reinstating an involuntarily dissolved Native Village Corporation. A dissolved Village Corporation may now apply to be reinstated under AS 10.06.633(e) at any time. Reinstatement still runs through the commissioner under AS 10.06.633(e). In general, that means the ANC must apply, cure the neglect or delinquency that led to dissolution, and pay the amounts owed, and the corporation’s name must be available or be changed to one that is. Once reinstated, the corporation and its shareholders are restored to the rights, privileges, liabilities, and obligations they would have had as if the dissolution had never occurred, and corporate and shareholder actions taken during the dissolution are treated as valid. If the previously-used corporate name is no longer available, the board alone may amend the articles to adopt a new name (without the necessity for shareholder approval). 3. Frequently Asked Questions What does HB 126 do? It changes how Alaska measures the 500-shareholder test that decides which ANCs must file proxy and annual report materials with the state. It removes the asset test, and it counts shareholders based on original enrollment rather than the current rolls. It also removes the deadline for reinstating an involuntarily dissolved Native Village Corporation. Which ANCs are affected? Village Corporations that originally enrolled fewer than 500 shareholders, because they may no longer need to file with the Division. Regional Corporations and Village Corporations that originally enrolled 500 or more shareholders must continue to file as before. Does HB 126 eliminate all reporting obligations? No. It changes the state filing requirement under AS 45.55.139, but it does not remove the separate ANCSA obligation (43 U.S.C. Sec. 1625(c)) to provide shareholders with an annual report, and general corporate law still calls for a proxy statement when the ANC solicits proxies. Corporations that remain subject to state filing requirements must also continue to comply with the Division's rules. We think we are now exempt. What should our ANC board and management consider? Confirm your ANC’s original enrollment number and whether your corporation falls below the new threshold. Watch for communications from the State on this topic as they proceed with their research. If your ANC is now exempt, decide how your corporation will meet its continuing ANCSA obligation to shareholders, review proxy and annual meeting materials and timelines, and consider what to communicate to shareholders about any change in how they will receive information. It is worth documenting the basis for any exemption. What should ANC shareholders watch for? Shareholders should watch for how and when they will continue to receive annual report and proxy statement information directly from their ANC, since some material that used to be available through the State’s online website will no longer be publicly filed. If something is unclear, shareholders can ask their ANC how it intends to meet its ANCSA reporting obligations. How Dorsey Can Help HB 126 lightens the State filing load for smaller Village Corporations, but it also raises practical questions: confirming who is exempt, meeting continuing ANCSA obligations to shareholders, keeping proxy and annual meeting processes on track, and maintaining benchmarking when public materials become less available. These are exactly the kinds of judgment calls that benefit from early planning. Dorsey’s attorneys work closely with Alaska Native Corporations and related stakeholders. If you have questions about HB 126, ANC governance, proxy filings, annual reports, disclosure obligations, or shareholder communications, please contact your Dorsey attorney, including the authors of this eUpdate.

Insights

Proposed CMS Rule Ramps Up Potential Medicare Fraud Administrative Remedies

On July 6, 2026, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) proposed a rule that would expand its administrative remedies to combat potential fraud. The proposed rule is the latest in a round of administrative actions that signal CMS’s intent to aggressively pursue allegations of Medicare and Medicaid fraud and heighten the risk of fraud enforcement against even well-intentioned Medicare and Medicaid providers and suppliers. The proposed rule includes several changes to regulations that govern Medicare billing privileges. Providers and suppliers should be aware that these changes dramatically expand the flexibility afforded to CMS in enrollment and revocation actions, potentially leading to harsh consequences for ministerial and administrative errors. If finalized, moreover, the proposed rule could have material implications for providers and suppliers facing threatened revocation, including heightened risk of overpayment liability and increased hurdles to challenging revocations and denials of enrollment. Added Flexibility to Existing Revocation Grounds CMS has proposed to remove a number of factors that the regulations list as relevant to a determination of whether a provider has engaged in “abuse of billing privileges.” While acknowledging that the inclusion of these factors in the regulations was permissive (requiring consideration only where “as appropriate or applicable”), CMS stated that it must be afforded “the maximum flexibility to address all possible . . . scenarios without the rigid constraints of our existing factors.” CMS provided little guidance as to the outer bounds of what conduct could constitute an “abuse of privileges” that merits revocation of Medicare billing privileges. Instead, CMS noted that a “pattern of practice” of abuse of billing privileges might be established “by a simple finding that several of a provider’s claims do not meet Medicare requirements.” Similarly, CMS has proposed to expand the regulatory provision that permits revocation of enrollment if a provider certifies as “true” false or misleading information in Medicare enrollment application or renewal forms to include any scenario in which a provider submits “false or misleading information on or associated with any CMS Medicare enrollment-related form,” including materials submitted to Medicare contractors. CMS stated that it interprets this expanded rule to include anything related to Medicare enrollment, and not only those submissions that are “intended to gain or maintain Medicare enrollment.” If finalized, the proposed rule would add significant flexibility to CMS’s ability to pursue revocation of a provider’s enrollment. While CMS has assured providers that it would “invoke [the revised regulations]. . . only when legitimately warranted under the facts and circumstances and not as a matter of course,” such expanded flexibility threatens unpredictability in the event of even administrative or ministerial errors in submissions and claims. These changes would, moreover, make it more difficult for providers to challenge a revocation action. Expanded Revocation Grounds In addition to adding flexibility to existing grounds for revocation, CMS’s proposed rule adds to and expands CMS’s already broad authority to revoke provider and supplier enrollment. Such proposed changes include adding the following grounds for revocation: Denial of Enrollment Application. Where CMS could previously revoke a provider’s other enrollments if one enrollment is revoked, CMS would also be able to revoke a provider’s existing enrollments if an application for enrollment submitted by the provider is denied. High-Risk Enrollments. CMS would be able to revoke enrollment if it determines the provider or supplier (including owning/managing employees or organizations) poses a high risk of fraud, waste, or abuse due to “. . . an affiliation under [42 C.F.R.] § 424.519” or “the provider’s or supplier’s location within a limited geographic area that has an excessive number of providers and suppliers.” Certain Misdemeanor Convictions. CMS would be able to revoke enrollment if a provider or supplier—or its owners, managing employees, managing organizations, officers, or directors—are convicted of a “misdemeanor related to sexual assault or financial misconduct within the past 10 years that CMS deems detrimental to the best interests of the Medicare program and its beneficiaries.” Ownership Changes (HHA, Hospice, DMEPOS). CMS would have broad authority to revoke enrollment of home health agencies, hospices, and DMEPOS suppliers who do not comply with the regulations governing provider changes of ownership. These proposed, expanded grounds for revocation are notably broad, and CMS provides only limited guidance as to what conduct might result in revocation under these grounds. As with the proposed expansion of existing grounds for revocation, the open-ended nature of these proposed grounds for revocation may make it more difficult for providers and suppliers to challenge revocation actions. Expanded Grounds to Deny Medicare Enrollment As with revocations, CMS proposes to expand the grounds under which a provider’s application to enroll in Medicare can be denied. These expanded and additional grounds include many of the grounds added for revocations, but also include: Medicare Debt or Payment Suspension. CMS proposes expanding the ground to deny enrollment based on Medicare debt or payment suspension to include a provider or supplier’s “managing employee, managing organization, or individual or entity with any other form of business or financial relationship with the provider or supplier[.]” Significantly, this expansive definition (called an “associated party” under the proposed regulation) currently contains no material limitations, meaning almost any person or entity with whom an applicant does business could create denial liability. Sharing Locations with Denied/Revoked Providers or Suppliers. CMS would have authority to deny applications where a “provider’s or supplier’s practice location is in the same suite or office as another provider or supplier whose Medicare enrollment has been revoked or denied.” Hospices with Distant Medical Directors or Administrators. CMS would have discretion to deny hospice applications if the hospice’s medical director or administrator serves “multiple other hospices” or practices/is located “at such a distance (for example, in a different state) from the enrolling hospice that the medical director cannot realistically perform all medical director functions,” with a similar provision for administrators. In addition, CMS proposes applications denied for “other program termination or suspension,” may be applied to the provider or supplier in its own name or NPI or that of its owners, managing employees, or managing organization regardless of whether any appeals are pending. Retroactive Revocation CMS proposed to restructure and expand the regulatory grounds for retroactive revocation of billing privileges. Currently, Medicare regulations provide that revocations are, by default, prospective in nature: effective 30 days after CMS or the CMS contractor mails notice to the provider. Under certain circumstances, the regulations provide for revocations to be retroactive, such as when a provider is convicted of a felony, the date a professional license is suspended, revoked, or surrendered, or when a provider submits a false certification in their enrollment application. CMS has proposed to reframe the rule so as to default to retroactive revocation of billing privileges. CMS expressed concern that providers may collect payment from Medicare while remaining so non-compliant with enrollment requirements as to merit revocation. To address this concern, CMS proposed that all revocations be retroactive to the date of determined non-compliance.[1] As a result, providers suspected of misconduct or non-compliance are likely to face claims of retroactive overpayments in addition to the immediate concern no longer receiving Medicare payments while their enrollment is revoked. Reapplication Bar CMS’s proposed rule expands the grounds from which a provider may be prohibited from seeking reapplication as a Medicare provider. Under current regulations, CMS may prohibit prospective providers from enrolling in Medicare for up to 10 years if its enrollment application is denied because the applicant submitted false or misleading information in its application. Under the proposed rule, CMS will have the discretion to prohibit a provider from enrolling in Medicare if their enrollment application is denied for any reason. Conclusion As a part of the federal government’s increasingly aggressive push to combat real or perceived healthcare fraud, the proposed rule both broadens CMS’s authority to revoke and deny Medicare enrollment and raises the stakes for revocation and denial. What the proposed rule does not share is how CMS plans to exercise this expanded discretion: as a result, the proposed rule, if enacted, increases the unpredictability and potential ramifications of even technical noncompliance with CMS rules. As a result, Medicare providers should keep a close eye on potential revisions to these rules and their potential implementation and consider proactively evaluating their compliance under CMS standards. [1] In the proposed rule, CMS identifies, with respect to each ground for revocation, what it will consider to be the effective date of revocation.

News

Dorsey Partner Melissa Raphan Elected a Fellow of the College of Labor & Employment Lawyers

International law firm Dorsey & Whitney LLP is pleased to announce that Partner Melissa Raphan has been elected a Fellow of the College of Labor & Employment Lawyers (CLEL) as part of its 2026 class. “Melissa’s election to this prestigious fellowship comes as no surprise to those of us who have had the privilege of working with her,” says Peter Nelson, Dorsey’s Managing Partner.  “She is an exceptional employment lawyer, a trusted advisor, and a leader whose impact extends far beyond her matters. Clients rely on her deep knowledge, strategic counsel, and ability to navigate complex workplace disputes and sensitive employment matters with both confidence and compassion. She has helped shape our firm, strengthen our profession, and opened doors for countless others through her commitment to mentorship and diversity. We are incredibly proud of her accomplishments and delighted to see her receive this recognition.” CLEL is a nonprofit professional association that honors the nation’s leading attorneys in the field of labor and employment law. Originally established to recognize excellence in the profession, CLEL has evolved into a respected intellectual and practical resource for the legal community and its many audiences. Its mission centers on recognizing individuals who have made significant contributions to the field, fostering the exchange of knowledge and delivering value to academia, government, the judiciary, and the broader public. Election as a fellow represents the highest level of peer acknowledgment, reflecting sustained achievement, integrity, and a commitment to advancing the profession. Melissa’s career reflects CLEL’s mission. She has been recognized both regionally and nationally for her advocacy, leadership, and achievements both inside and outside of the courtroom. Her employment litigation experience spans class actions, collective actions, and high-stakes individual disputes in state and federal courts, as well as arbitration forums including the American Arbitration Association and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). She is also a trusted advisor on a full range of workplace issues, from hiring and performance management to sensitive terminations and organizational change. She brings decades of experience representing clients across the financial services, healthcare, food and agriculture, and energy sectors. Melissa will be formally inducted during CLEL’s installation ceremony held in conjunction with the American Bar Association’s Labor & Employment Law Conference in Washington, D.C., on November 7.

News

37 Dorsey Attorneys Named 2026 Top Lawyers by Minnesota Monthly

Minnesota Monthly has recognized 37 Dorsey attorneys across 27 practice areas as 2026 Top Lawyers in Minnesota. Honorees are selected through a peer nomination process and a curated survey of practicing attorneys in Minnesota, who identify leading lawyers across a range of practice areas. Administrative / Regulatory Law Jennifer Coates Antitrust Law Michael Lindsay Banking & Financial Service Law Peter Nelson Copyright Law  Jeffrey Cadwell Corporate Law  Robert Hensley Robert Rosenbaum Criminal Defense: White-Collar  Beth Forsythe Edward Magarian RJ Zayed Health Care Law  Claire Topp Immigration Law  J. Mike Sevilla Insurance Law  Daniel Brown Intellectual Property and Patent Law  Stuart Hemphill International Trade Law  Jonathan Van Horn Labor and Employment Law  Edward Magarian Ryan Mick Melissa Raphan Land Use & Zoning  Jay Lindgren Marcus Mollison Litigation – Antitrust  Michael Lindsay F. Matthew Ralph Jaime Stilson Litigation – Commercial  Michael Lindsay Litigation – Construction  Eric Ruzicka Litigation – Intellectual Property  Peter Lancaster RJ Zayed Litigation – Labor Employment Benefits  Ryan Mick Melissa Raphan Litigation – Trusts and Estates  William J. Berens Theresa Bevilacqua Bridget Logstrom Koci Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions  James K. Langdon Mergers & Acquisitions Law  Keith Ahlgren Rachel Benedict Brian Burke Morgan Helme John Jorgenson Brian Moore Robert Rosenbaum Jonathan Van Horn Bri Whiting Municipal Law Jay Lindgren Nonprofit/Charities Law Claire Topp Securities / Capital Markets Law Cam Hoang Robert Rosenbaum Securities Regulation Theresa Bevilacqua James K. Langdon Tax Law William J. Berens Trusts and Estates Jennifer Ede Bridget Logstrom Koci Sonny Miller Kiley Petty Henry

Insights

The Long-Awaited Public Infrastructure Financing Solution for Development in Arizona

Every developer who has taken raw Arizona ground to a finished project knows the largest upfront cost other than the land price is almost always the cost to install the public infrastructure. Water, sewer, stormwater, streets, dry utilities, and the fiber backbone all have to be in the ground before a single lot closes or a building opens. That capital is deployed early and generates no return for years. For decades the standard workaround has been the Community Facilities District (CFD). That tool has grown materially harder to use, for reasons cited below, and House Bill 2999, signed in June 2026 and now codified as Chapter 40 of Title 48, is Arizona's response. Some Background I have spent a good part of my career on the other side of this problem. In the 1990s and early 2000s I served as general counsel of SunCor Development Company, one of Arizona's most active master-planned community developers, where we used Community Facilities Districts to finance hundreds of millions of dollars of major infrastructure across Arizona in cities such as Goodyear, Phoenix, Tempe, Litchfield Park, and Prescott Valley. For its time the CFD was an effective structure, and a great deal of what is now on the ground in those communities was financed with this tool. Unfortunately, CFDs have over time become considerably harder to use. Successive legislative amendments have layered on tax-rate ceilings, homebuyer disclosure obligations, and added procedural steps. Another drag on the use of CFDs is that formation of them runs through the municipality, where approval can turn as much on local politics as on the merits of a project. Developers now routinely are asked to absorb delay and uncertainty that a project's economics cannot support, which is a large part of why Arizona has fallen behind Colorado, Texas, and Utah in getting infrastructure financed. A better tool was needed, and Chapter 40 is it. How a SAID Improves on a CFD A State Affordability Infrastructure District (SAID) keeps what worked about the CFD: tax-exempt, property-secured, non-recourse infrastructure financing — while shedding much of what made the CFD cumbersome. Its principal advantages over a traditional CFD: Administrative formation. A SAID is formed by the Arizona Finance Authority against fixed statutory criteria, through a yes-or-no compliance review on a sixty-day clock, rather than through the discretionary approval of a city council or a board of supervisors. Insulation from municipal politics. Because formation is a state-level compliance determination, a meritorious project is far less exposed to local political headwinds than it is under the CFD process. Landowner control of the board. A SAID is governed by a board of the landowners — appointed at formation, then elected on an acreage basis. In a typical municipal CFD, the city council sits as the district board; here, the developer controls governance. Advance funding of impact fees. A SAID can use bond proceeds to advance-pay municipal development impact fees, unlike CFDs, removing one of the largest upfront cash burdens in a project. A uniform, statewide process. The criteria are the same regardless of jurisdiction, replacing the municipality-by-municipality variation that has made CFD outcomes hard to predict. Flexible boundaries. A district may include noncontiguous parcels in the same county within five miles of one another, which fits phased and multi-tract development. Capped cost and a fixed timeline. Authority fees to form a district are capped at $15,000, and a complete petition must be acted on within sixty days. The full range of bonds. A SAID may issue general obligation, special assessment, revenue, and refunding bonds, secured solely by district property and creating no obligation for any other taxpayer. What is a SAID A SAID is a special taxing district that the owners of a development form to finance public infrastructure with tax-exempt bonds: general obligation bonds, special assessment bonds, and revenue bonds. The bonds are secured only by the property inside the district and are repaid over the long term, with terms up to 30 years. They do not affect the credit of the city, the county, or the State, and they create no obligation for any taxpayer outside the district. In practical terms, a SAID lets you finance horizontal infrastructure over the life of the asset instead of writing the check at the front end. The maximum ad valorem rate securing general obligation bonds is capped by statute at $5.00 per $100 of net assessed limited property valuation, with a limited step-up to cover a debt-service shortfall. SAIDs Work for Commercial as Well as Residential Development The SAID bill drew most of its press as a housing-affordability measure, and it appears to be a strong one. It is the first Arizona district statute to let bond proceeds advance-fund municipal development impact fees, which pulls one of the largest upfront cash burdens off a homebuilder's pro forma. But the statute's eligible infrastructure categories apply with equal force to commercial, industrial, and mixed-use projects. An industrial or logistics project can finance roads, rail crossings, sidings, and grade separations. A life-sciences or technology campus can finance its water, sewer, roads, and broadband the same way a subdivision can. Read Chapter 40 as a general-purpose infrastructure finance platform, not a subdivision-only device. How Formation Works A SAID is formed administratively by the Arizona Finance Authority. The Authority reviews the petition for compliance with the statute; it is a yes-or-no review against fixed criteria, not a discretionary negotiation with a city council or a board of supervisors, and it runs on a sixty-day clock once a complete petition is filed. Formation requires the written consent of 100% of the landowners in the proposed district and an engineer's certification that public infrastructure costs will exceed $5 million. The district may include noncontiguous parcels so long as they lie in the same county and within five miles of the district's other property, which accommodates phased and multi-tract development; if any part of the district sits inside a municipality, the whole district must stay within that municipality's limits or planning area. The Authority's fees to form a district are capped at $15,000. Issuing bonds requires a district election. Governance Simplified A SAID is run by a three-member board. The initial directors are named in the petition; after that, directors are elected by the landowners on an acreage basis as ownership diversifies. Board service runs with ownership; a director must either hold fee title inside the district or be an individual designated by a fee-title owner; and corporations, partnerships, and other entities may hold that ownership, vote as owners, and designate the individual who serves. A district has no power of eminent domain and no zoning authority, and directors may not be officials or employees of the municipality in which the district sits. What a SAID Does Not Do It finances; it does not entitle. Zoning, platting, rezonings, use permits, and the specialized approvals a manufacturing or life-sciences facility may need all remain with the local jurisdiction and proceed on their own track. The financing and entitlement timelines should be coordinated with formation of the SAID, but they are separate processes. Two substantive limits are worth flagging at the planning stage. First, electric power is largely outside the tool: the statutory definition of public infrastructure does not reach power generation or transmission, and broader energy infrastructure was removed from the bill during the Senate amendments. A power-intensive user should not assume a SAID will carry its electrical load. Second, where water, sewer, or wastewater facilities fall within a regulated utility's certificated service territory, the district cannot build or own them without the utility's written consent and must convey them to the utility upon completion. Our Take For most master-planned residential work, and for a wide range of commercial and industrial development, a SAID will be the most efficient infrastructure-financing structure Arizona has offered. The right time to evaluate it is early in the acquisition and pre-development process, while the capital stack, the development agreement, and the entitlement strategy are still being set. Once the district's boundaries, general plan, and financing parameters are set, it is cumbersome at best to bring those into conformance later. Our Dorsey team has begun advising our developer clients on SAID formation on residential, commercial, and industrial projects statewide. If you would like us to assess whether a SAID fits a project you are working on, please reach out.

News

Patent Partners Al Araiza and Lena Petrovic Join Dorsey in Palo Alto

Patent partners Al Araiza and Lena Petrovic have joined Dorsey & Whitney LLP in Palo Alto, the international law firm announced today. Al Araiza works with clients to develop and implement patent strategies that align with corporate objectives, supporting growth initiatives, financing efforts, and successful exits, including initial public offerings and acquisitions. He advises on building, managing, and optimizing patent portfolios across a broad range of emerging and frontier technologies, with depth in wireless communications, artificial intelligence, and energy innovation. Before practicing law, Al gained engineering experience in the defense industry, working on energy system modeling and communications circuitry design. He also conducted biomedical research, with findings published in peer-reviewed journals. He has been recognized in the IAM Patent 1000 for his work advising clients on patent strategy and portfolio development. Al received his J.D. from Duke University School of Law, his M.E. in Biomedical Engineering from Tulane University, and his B.S. in Electrical Engineering from UCLA. Lena Petrovic works across the software and hardware industries to develop clear, well-supported patent applications. She guides clients through the prosecution process and advises on global trademark and copyright matters, including licensing and portfolio management. Lena regularly supports clients developing technologies such as artificial intelligence and machine learning, fintech, cryptography, interactive and immersive experiences, and digital media, and works with companies in entertainment, gaming, and sports. Before practicing law, Lena spent a decade at Pixar, where she contributed to major films including The Incredibles, Ratatouille, WALL‑E, and Brave. Lena received her J.D. from Santa Clara University School of Law, her M.S. in Computer Science from Princeton University, and her B.S. from California Institute of Technology. “Al and Lena bring a practical, technical, and business-focused approach informed by extensive experience working with technology companies, startups, and investors,” said Gina Cornelio, Patent Practice Group Co-Leader. “We are thrilled to welcome them to the Patent team and our growing Palo Alto office.” “Dorsey’s Patent practice is dedicated to understanding each client's business deeply, tailoring patent strategies that directly advance their goals,” said Al Araiza. “We are proud to join this outstanding team and look forward to driving success for our clients.”

Insights

Litigation Privilege Does Not Automatically Protect Communications with Funders: The Commercial Court Clarifies the Limits of Privilege in the Context of Litigation Funding

In Uber London Ltd & Ors v Garry White & Ors; Mishcon de Reya LLP [2026] EWHC 1610 (Comm), the Commercial Court held that documents created to help a funder decide whether to invest in a claim will not ordinarily attract litigation privilege. This means that information a firm gathers while acting for a funder can later fall within the control of the claimants it goes on to represent in the same matter. Background The Claimants (a claim group of over 10,000 individual London black cab drivers and the assignee of two former minicab operators) alleged that the Defendants (three companies in the Uber group) obtained and retained their private hire operator's licence through an unlawful means conspiracy alleged to involve fraud. Because the claims were issued outside the ordinary six-year limitation period, the Claimants relied on section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980, contending they could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered the fraud before June 2018. A preliminary issue trial was listed to determine the question of whether the Claimants discovered, or could have discovered with reasonable diligence, the alleged fraud and/or deliberate concealment only after June 2018. The Claimants were represented by Mishcon de Reya ("MdR"). However, before MdR’s engagement with the individual drivers had begun, in late 2017 it was engaged by the litigation funder Harbour to investigate the merits and value of the potential claim. During that stage, MdR corresponded extensively with Harbour and with the Licensed Taxi Drivers' Association ("LTDA"), a black cab drivers' trade association. MdR was not formally engaged by the Claimants until October 2018 onwards. Once the proceedings had started, the Defendants sought disclosure of communications exchanged between MdR and Harbour before the engagement of MdR by the Claimants (the "Harbour Communications"). This included correspondence between MdR and Harbour, communications with the LTDA, and documents held on MdR's file opened in Harbour's name in connection with the potential claim. The Claimants resisted disclosure on four grounds: (i) that the documents were not relevant; (ii) on the grounds of litigation privilege; (iii) that the documents were outside their control; and (iv) that disclosure occurring so close to trial would be disproportionate. Judgment (i) Were the Harbour Communications relevant to the preliminary issue? The Court held that the Harbour Communications were likely to contain relevant material, on two bases. First, where the Claimants or the LTDA had communicated directly with MdR, that material could shed light on individual Claimants' actual knowledge of the alleged facts. Secondly, what MdR and Harbour had discovered during their investigation could inform the question of what a Claimant could reasonably have discovered at the time (even though the Defendants accepted that MdR's knowledge could not simply be imputed to the Claimants). (ii) Were the Harbour Communications protected by litigation privilege? As set out in the classic cases of Three Rivers (No. 6) [2005] 1 AC 610 and WH Holding Ltd v E20 Stadium LLP [2018] EWCA Civ 2652, communications between parties or their solicitors and third parties for the purpose of obtaining information or advice in connection with existing or contemplated litigation are privileged when the following conditions are satisfied: Litigation must be in progress or in reasonable contemplation. The communications must have been made for the sole or dominant purpose of conducting litigation. The litigation must be adversarial, not investigative or inquisitorial. The Court rejected the Claimant’s claim to be able to withhold the Harbour Communications on the basis of litigation privilege. The Court confirmed that litigation privilege protects only communications created for the dominant purpose of conducting litigation. The Court found that Harbour had instructed MdR so that Harbour could decide whether to fund the proceedings. As such, the dominant purpose of the communications was in relation to funding, not the conduct of litigation. This was distinguished from the situation where an individual litigant who takes its own funding decision. In that situation, the decision whether to fund and the decision whether to litigate are one and the same, made by the person who will actually be the claimant, and so it forms a part of that person's conduct of their own litigation. In contrast, a third-party funder's commercial decision whether to fund someone else's claim is not necessarily part of conducting that litigation. The fact that litigation privilege can, in principle, be claimed by a non-party funder (as recognised in the case of Al Sadeq v Dechert [2024] EWCA 28) did not assist Harbour, since there was no evidence it intended to play any role in the litigation itself beyond funding it. Communications between Harbour and MdR did remain capable of attracting another kind of privilege: legal advice privilege, because of the solicitor-client relationship between Harbour and MdR. But communications with third parties such as the LTDA were not automatically protected in the same way. (iii) Were the Harbour Communications within the Claimants' control? The Court also rejected the argument that the Harbour Communications sat outside the Claimants' control because they belonged to Harbour and not the Claimants. The Court’s reasoning was that once the individual Claimant drivers became MdR's clients, MdR also owed them a duty to disclose material information. That included information that MdR had originally acquired while acting for Harbour. As held in the case of Hilton v Barker Booth & Eastwood (a firm) [2005] 1 WLR 567, a solicitor owing duties to two clients cannot simply prefer one over the other, and it was unrealistic to suppose MdR would investigate the same claims for Harbour, then represent the Claimants, while disregarding everything it had already learned. The obvious commercial expectation was that this earlier work would be used to advance the Claimants' case. MdR sought to rely on a confidentiality clause in a 2024 retainer agreement between it and RGL Management Ltd (a claims management company acting on behalf of the Claimants) to argue that it was relieved of any duty to disclose information obtained while acting for other clients. The provision stated that MdR may "have acted for persons in the same or similar sector as yours and by agreeing to the terms of this letter you agree that will have no duty to disclose to you any confidential information that we have obtained, or might in the future obtain, from acting for such persons or which is derived from any other source". The Court rejected this on several grounds. Claimants who had already become MdR's clients had an existing right to information in the Harbour Communications where it was relevant to their claims before the 2024 retainer agreement. If they were to surrender that right, it would have required their informed consent (also required under the SRA Code of Conduct). The Court found no evidence that such informed consent had been given. The terms had simply been made available to the Claimants through a portal, with no indication that Claimants understood they were giving up existing rights to relevant information. The Court found that even if the terms had been contractually binding, that would not have amounted to informed consent. In addition, the wording of the clause was not sufficiently clear to show that the Claimants had agreed to waive access to this information. (iv) Was disclosure reasonable, proportionate, and necessary at this stage? The Claimants argued that it was neither reasonable nor proportionate for disclosure to be given at such a late stage (approximately two weeks before the start of the preliminary issue trial) and that it was not necessary for the just disposal of the proceedings. The Court rejected this, but it drew a distinction between two categories of documents within the Harbour Communications: Documents bearing on the actual knowledge of the individual drivers, including communications with the LTDA, were not privileged, likely straightforward to review, and directly relevant to the preliminary issue. Their disclosure was ordered as reasonable, proportionate, and necessary. Documents reflecting only MdR's or Harbour's own assessment of the merits were of more marginal, indirect relevance and largely likely to fall under legal advice privilege. A review to isolate the smaller pool of non-privileged material in this category would be time-consuming for limited benefit, so this was excluded from the order. Key Points to Note The judgment is an important reminder of several practical points: However closely a funder is involved in evaluating a claim's merits, litigation privilege will only apply to communications where the sole or dominant purpose of the communication is the conduct of litigation, not the funder's own decision on whether to finance it. Unless that communication separately attracts legal advice privilege, it may need to be disclosed. The same considerations apply to other communications. For example, in RBS Rights Litigation [2017] 1 WLR 3539 the argument that an After the Event (ATE) policy was subject to litigation privilege was rejected on a similar basis. Whilst in this case, there was no dispute as to whether litigation was in contemplation, it is important to note that litigation privilege will not automatically apply to the investigative stages of a claim, i.e. before litigation is in contemplation. Even where litigation is reasonably contemplated, the dominant purpose test must still be satisfied. Material created primarily for fact-finding, risk assessment, or other investigative purposes will not attract litigation privilege unless those activities are actually undertaken for the dominant purpose of conducting the litigation. (See The Director of the Serious Fraud Office v Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Ltd [2017] EWHC 1017 (QB)). When engaging a law firm, clients should ensure that they understand whether the firm has previously obtained information about their claim while acting for another party (for example, a funder or another interested party) and how that information will be handled. Any restrictions on the firm’s ability to share relevant information with the client should be explained clearly at the outset, including what information may be withheld and why. If this decision raises questions about your own funding arrangements, disclosure strategy, or privilege position, please get in touch with our Commercial Litigation team.