Skip to main content

Daryl M. Berke

Associate

DMB[email protected]

+1.202.434.7410

Share:

Daryl advises on compliance matters pertaining to federal and state health law statutes and represents clients in health law matters before state and federal courts.

He has counseled clients on transactional and regulatory issues relating to the Beneficiary Inducement Prohibition, federal and state anti-kickback statutes, the Stark Law, and Medicaid and managed care reimbursement. He conducts regulatory analyses on health care transactions and regularly reviews and drafts hospital affiliation agreements, provider group agreements, and managed care contracts.

Prior to joining Mintz, Daryl was an associate in a DC-area law firm with a significant focus on health law. While attending law school, he served as an articles editor for the American Journal of Law & Medicine and as an intern with the Children’s Disability Project at Greater Boston Legal Services, where he assisted with Supplemental Security Income appeals for low-income families of children with disabilities.

Education

  • Boston University School of Law (JD)
  • Yale University (MPH)
  • Hamilton College (BA)

Viewpoints

Viewpoint General

Key Takeaways from CMS’s Final Rule Requiring the Disclosure of Affiliates during Provider Enrollment

September 12, 2019 | Blog | By Daryl Berke, Sarah Beth Kuyers, Karen Lovitch

The Centers for Medicare & Medicare Services (CMS) recently published a final rule with comment period (the “Final Rule”) that is designed to increase CMS’s ability to identify and prevent bad actors from participating in Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP. Providers and suppliers should take note because implementation will be costly and burdensome. Among other things, the Final Rule requires the disclosure of certain provider and supplier affiliations and permits CMS to revoke or deny enrollment where those affiliations pose an undue risk of fraud and abuse. The Final Rule also grants CMS several additional authorities to revoke or deny a provider’s Medicare enrollment and increases the duration of such revocations and denials. The Final Rule takes effect on November 4, 2019. Comments on the Final Rule are due by 5:00 p.m. on that same day.
Viewpoint
On July 11, 2019, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued its Home Health Prospective Payment System proposed rule for 2020. The proposed rule implements a previously finalized reimbursement methodology for Home Health Agencies (HHAs) called the Patient-Driven Groupings Model (PDGM). The proposal reflects CMS’s continued efforts to shift towards value-based payment models in the Medicare program.
Viewpoint General
On June 3, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Azar v. Allina Health Services. The case involved a challenge by hospitals over whether the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) was required to proceed through notice-and-comment rulemaking before promulgating a retroactive Medicare rate calculation methodology for Disproportionate Share (DSH) payments to hospitals. In a 7-1 decision by Justice Gorsuch, the Court ruled in favor of the hospitals, holding that the new rate calculation established a substantive legal standard, and therefore notice-and-comment was required under the Medicare Act.

CMS Finalizes Medicare Advantage and Part D Drug Pricing Rule

May 28, 2019 | Blog | By Bridgette Keller, Daryl Berke, Lauren Moldawer

Earlier this month, CMS issued a final rule aimed at lowering drug prices and reducing out-of-pocket expenses in Medicare Advantage and Medicare Part D. This rule is the Administration’s latest effort to address prescription drug prices and builds off the Administration’s Blueprint to Lower Drug Prices and Reduce Out-of-Pocket Costs and arrive on the heels of CMS publishing a rule requiring the disclosure of drug prices in TV ads. Below we’ve provided a brief overview of the major provisions in the final rule, noting changes from the proposed rule that was issued in November 2018.
Viewpoint General

CMS’s New Part D Policies Address the Opioid Epidemic

April 3, 2019 | Blog | By Daryl Berke

In recent months, we’ve highlighted several changes that CMS is implementing to combat opioid misuse. In this post, we focus on CMS’s new Medicare Part D Opioid Overutilization Policies.


Last year, CMS published a road map outlining the agency’s approach to addressing the nation’s opioid epidemic. CMS’s strategy has three prongs: (1) prevent new cases of opioid use disorder (OUD); (2) expand treatment for individuals with OUDs; and (3) leverage data to improve the agency’s prevention and treatment options.


In line with that strategy, the agency published an article detailing its Medicare Part D Opioid Overutilization Policies for 2019. The policies focus on improving communication between and among Part D plans (PDPs) and providers to better coordinate efforts to prevent opioid misuse. As CMS points out, “Providers are in the best position to identify and manage potential opioid overutilization in the Medicare Part D population. Medicare prescription drug plans can assist providers by alerting them about unusual utilization patterns in prescription claims.”
Viewpoint General
On January 15, 2019, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Azar v. Allina Health Services, a prominent case involving a challenge by hospitals over when Medicare’s instructions to its contractors impact a “substantive legal standard” and thus must be issued through formal rulemaking. As discussed in our prior post, the Court is reviewing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit’s decision that threw out a Medicare rate calculation methodology for Disproportionate Share Payments (DSH) to hospitals adopted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for its failure to undergo notice and comment rulemaking. During oral arguments, the Court grappled with a broader question: what is the legal standard for when HHS must use formal rulemaking and not “interpretative” instructions to its contractors in the administration of the Medicare program?
Viewpoint General
On January 15, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in a hotly-contested case involving a challenge by hospitals over when Medicare’s instructions to its contractors impact a “substantive legal standard” and thus must be issued through formal rulemaking.  In Azar v. Allina Health Services, the Court will review the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit’s decision that threw out a new Medicare rate calculation methodology for Disproportionate Share Payments (DSH) to hospitals adopted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) because the agency promulgated it through “interpretative guidance” but failed to undergo notice-and-comment rulemaking. The Supreme Court is now tasked with answering a broader question: what is the legal standard for when HHS must use formal rulemaking and not “interpretative” instructions to its contractors in the administration of the Medicare program?
Viewpoint General

HHS Continues the “Sprint to Coordinated Care”

September 28, 2018 | Blog | By Daryl Berke

On August 27, 2018 the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a request for information (RFI) seeking comment on the anti-kickback statute (AKS) and the beneficiary inducement prohibition to the civil monetary penalties (CMP) as potential barriers to coordinated and value-based care. The August 27 RFI was the second RFI issued as part of HHS’s “Regulatory Sprint to Coordinated Care,” an ongoing effort to accelerate the transition from fee for-service to a value-based system that emphasizes care coordination.
Viewpoint General
On August 9, 2018, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a proposed rule to overhaul the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP).