Ethos Partners’ Post

There are going to be big changes with Medicare Prescription Drug Plans in 2024 and years going forward. In some cases it may lead to increased costs and in other cases it may lead to lower costs. What's sure to be true for all? It's more important than ever to consult with a licensed professional to choose the best plan for you. Listen to Ken and Amy Schaefer of Schaefer Business Associates explain in this WNCN My Carolina segment. #medicare #medicareaep #medicareannualenrollment #medicarecoverage #medicareinsurance #raleigh #northcarolinaemedicare #medicarespecialist https://lnkd.in/gW6Ypfuu

There are going to be big changes with Medicare Prescription Drug Plans in 2024 and years going forward. In some cases it may lead to increased costs and in other cases it may lead to lower costs. What's sure to be true for all? It's more important than ever to consult with a licensed professional to choose the best plan for you. Listen to Ken and Amy Schaefer of Schaefer Business Associates explain in this WNCN My Carolina segment. #medicare #medicareaep #medicareannualenrollment #medicarecoverage #medicareinsurance #raleigh #northcarolinaemedicare #medicarespecialist https://lnkd.in/ggdBjaQy

The Consolidated Appropriations Act (CAA) is new federal law aiming to level the playing field between PBMs and their healthcare benefit plan clients. Learn more in a recent article by my colleagues.

Frier Levitt attorneys Jonathan Levitt Dae Y. Lee, Pharm.D, Esq., CPBS and Adam Farkas have put together a 3 part article series that offers Plan Sponsors valuable insights and five key action items to reduce total drug spend and comply with statutory obligations. In Part 3, they discuss the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021’s (the “CAA”) gag clause prohibition rule and plan fiduciary duty to monitor and audit PBMs. To learn more, read the full article here: https://lnkd.in/enPRVbjk #FrierLevitt #PlanSponsors #PBMs #CAA

Calling all strategic buyers in the health care industry, including private equity investors. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has taken action against U.S. Anesthesia Partners and private equity group Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe, alleging anticompetitive practices in the Texas anesthesia market through a series of acquisitions that were individually all below the Hart-Scott-Rodino premerger reporting thresholds. This marks the first time in years that the FTC has targeted a "roll-up" under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, aiming to prevent market consolidation and increased prices for consumers. Click the image below to read the article by James Burns to learn more. #antitrustlaw #legalalert #healthcare

Fiore Updates: ✨️Additional provisional CAURD licensees filed a motion to intervene yesterday. ✨️OCM and CAURD intervenors have purportedly pulled out of settlement discussions with the Coalition for Access to Regulated & Safe Cannabis (CARSC) (and perhaps the veteran plaintiffs in Fiore as well) according to a letter filed by CARSC with the Court today. ✨️Social Equity Impact Ventures GP I, LLC, the manager of the Social Equity Fund, filed a motion to intervene in the Fiore lawsuit today, claiming it would be harmed by an injunction because it has expended considerable resources to support CAURD including, among other things, working with real estate consultants to identify dispensary locations. ✨️In its opposition papers filed today, OCM says that it expects to grant approximately 125 licenses to service-disabled veterans in the initial cohort of Social and Economic Equity Applicant licenses issued when general licensing opens (currently estimated to happen in October 2023) and that it expects to issue hundreds more to those veterans in 2024. There could be a million reasons why OCM may have withdrawn from settlement talks, but if true, the filing of new intervention motions may have played a major role. With a settlement looking less likely, August 25th becomes that much more pivotal to the fate of the New York cannabis industry. #newyorknewyork #litigation #article78 #ocm #newyorkcannabis #neveradullmoment #lawyerlife Rudick Law Group, PLLC

🚨 #CAURD LICENSING UPDATE. 🚨 **Edited** It appears, based on a careful reading of this morning's letter from Chris Alexander to #CAURD licensees, that the settlement agreement in the #Fiore litigation may allow 436 provisional CAURD licensees to continue the process of opening a #dispensary. However, it is clear that nothing is final yet, and so we shall see what the settlement agreement actually says when it gets publicly-filed, and we shall see if the Court approves the settlement agreement as proposed. However, if #OCM gets a settlement agreement finalized that allows 436 provisional CAURD licensees a pathway to opening, then I know a bunch of folks who have something extra to be thankful for this #Thanksgiving! 🦃 #cannabisnews #cannabislicensing #cannabislaw #MRTA New York State Office of Cannabis Management NY Cannabis Insider Green Market Report Rosalind Adams New York Cannabis Retail Association

Benjamin Rattner thanks for sharing. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that I share in your optimism. To me, a careful reading of Chris's letter in which he references reaching a fair settlement with all the parties and the injunction ending, is written in the future tense. Had a settlement actually been reached, I would have expected to see different language being used to describe the settlement. Specifically, rather than to suggest that a few critical things have to happen in order to get there (a full and final resolution of the matter), he could have written "a few critical things had to happen." Chris goes on to state that one of those things that "have to happen" is that the parties must agree to settlement terms which must then be outlined in written agreements. I don't see any language suggesting that even that initial step has been accomplished. In my experience, prior to referencing a settlement in principle which the parties did in their letter to the Third Department, you would have been confident that you had an agreement on all material terms. Apparently, this was not the case here. Am I wrong? How do you interpret that language, and what specifically leads you to the conclusion that the settlement is imminent? I really want to believe that we are almost there. Anyone? Jeffrey Hoffman Wei Hu, Esq. David B. Feder, Esq Matt Leonardo Jeffrey Schultz Paula Collins Joseph Bondy Duncan Delano

Munich court exceptionally extends time limit for preliminary objections in Edwards Lifesciences vs Meril case, citing challenges with new procedural rules. This isn't a precedent for future extensions. 👀 Read the details in Maximilian Häger's article on the EIP Amar Knowledge hub. #UnifiedPatentCourt #IPLaw #EIPAmar

Looking forward to this seminar and discussing recent patent issues with this panel. Hopefully you can attend.