You are here: / / THE NYS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH’S CLARIFICATION OF BILLING PRACTICES...
, , ,

THE NYS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH’S CLARIFICATION OF BILLING PRACTICES FOR PHYSICIANS WHO DISPENSE PRESCRIPTION DRUGS UNDER THE MEDICAID PROGRAM IS VALID; THE CLARIFICATION IS NOT A “RULE” AND IS NOT VOID FOR VAGUENESS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Garry, determined a clarification issued by the respondent NYS Department of Health, was valid, was not a rule, and was not void for vagueness. The clarification concerned the billing practices for physicians who dispense prescription drugs:

As it regularly does, respondent [NYS Department of Health] took steps to clarify appropriate billing practices. This included issuance of the July 2022 edition of its official newsletter of the New York State Medicaid Program — Medicaid Update. In a section entitled “Policy Clarification for Practitioner Dispensing” … , which purported to “supersede[ ] previous communications on this topic,” respondent stated that the state Medicaid program reimburses for drugs furnished by practitioners to their patients on the basis of the acquisition cost to the practitioner and that additional registration or ownership of a pharmacy is not required. The clarification went on to provide that practitioners billing for medications dispensed to its fee-for-service patients should use the medical claim format and that practitioners still participating in managed care should check with the patient’s health plan to determine the billing policy for prescription drugs dispensed directly to patients. Reportedly confused by the alleged change in billing practice, petitioner subsequently contacted respondent for further clarification. In response, respondent reiterated that a practitioner that dispenses drugs to their patients is not considered a pharmacy under either statutory or enrollment requirements and therefore should not be enrolled or billing as a pharmacy provider.

Petitioner then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul the clarification as an unpromulgated rule, unconstitutionally vague, irrational and violative of section 504 the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (see 29 USC § 794). Citing anticipated financial losses for expenses attendant to medication dispensing, that is, beyond the acquisition cost of the drugs, petitioner argued that respondent’s alleged new rule would force it to cease its physician-dispensing services altogether, thereby both irrationally depriving cancer patients from effective treatment and discriminating against them by effectively precluding them from meaningful access to the provider of their choice. Matter of North Shore Hematology-Oncology Assoc., P.C. v New York State Dept. of Health, 2025 NY Slip Op 01985, Third Dept 4-3-25

You might also like
COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO NAME NECESSARY PARTIES, BECAUSE THE PARTIES WERE SUBJECT TO THE COURT’S JURISDICTION, THE COURT SHOULD HAVE ORDERED THE PARTIES JOINED (THIRD DEPT).
CLAIMANT, DECEDENT’S HUSBAND, WAS ENTITLED TO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION DEATH BENEFITS BASED UPON DECEDENT’S UNWITNESSED DEATH DUE TO CARDIAC ARREST (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE IN FAILING TO REQUEST A FRYE HEARING CONCERNING A COMPUTER PROGRAM USED TO INTERPRET MIXED DNA SAMPLES, APPEAL HELD IN ABEYANCE AND MATTER REMITTED FOR A HEARING (THIRD DEPT).
JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE “INNOCENT POSSESSION OF A WEAPON” DEFENSE, CONVICTIONS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
Applicant Eligible for Relief Under Drug Sentencing Reform Statute Must Be Afforded a Hearing
Question of Fact Whether Wife of Decedent Had Abandoned Decedent
PART-TIME ATTORNEY WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF SOLO PRACTITIONER.
THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT NOTIFIED HE WOULD BE CLASSIFIED AS A SEXUALLY VIOLENT OFFENDER, A VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS WHICH DEPRIVED HIM OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO CHALLENGE THE DESIGNATION ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS; MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT). ​

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PLAINTIFF’S WORKPLACE GENDER-DISCRIMINATION CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN... ISSUING A RULING BEFORE FATHER COMPLETED HIS TESTIMONY IN THIS CUSTODY PROCEEDING...