Lloyd A. Bookman
speaker
311 appearances
1 recordings
1 series
first heard Jul 2026
last heard 17 Jul
Lloyd A. Bookman’s voice in public audio — every appearance, attributed to the second.
Trend
recordings per month · last 12 monthsRecordings per month over the last 12 months — 1 in all, peaking in Jul 2026 with 1.
Appearances
Uh good morning everybody.
I'm Lloyd Bookman, um, founding partner of Hooper Lundy and Bookman, where we just celebrated our thirty ninth year.
Hard to believe.
Um I'm a healthcare lawyer.
My uh representation focuses on healthcare providers and a significant portion of my uh work over the last four decades has dealt with the Medicare and Medicaid programs, including in particular Medicaid, and there including in particular provider fees, supplemental payments, and the like.
Yeah, you've got um uh uh twenty-four states and uh the District of Combl Columbia and a couple of other plaintiffs who are ticked off.
Um obviously they're concerned with the restrictions on coverage, but they're also thinking that CMS has led them down a primrose path.
Um the states have been in constant contact with CMS concerning the implement you know implementation of the eligibility requirements, significant uh revamping of state eligibility um uh processes.
Uh and when the interim final rugs came out, they had the rug pulled out from under them and all of a sudden they have to revamp everything and notices are due to the beneficiaries on August thirty first.
So the states are extraordinarily concerned about the uh impact of this on on just their ability to do the work that they have to do.
Um the lawsuit challenges three things, three components of the interim final rule.
Uh we talked a little bit about the frailty rules, and was Anne and and Harsh both described them a bit.
The interopinal rule, in addition to showing that you are frail, that you meet a condition that would be defined as medical frailty, they have to also show that that frailty under the interopinal rule significantly impairs the patient's uh ability to comply with the community engagement requirement.
The lawsuit alleges that that last um gloss on the um frailty exclusion is impermissible.
It's
inconsistent with the statute, which doesn't have that clause, and as we'll discuss in a minute or two, is also in in the plaintiff's view, arbitrary and capricious.
So they're really concerned about that.
Um the interference rule also uh adds the same type of gloss to um areas in which the president has declared that there's a um national emergency, emerge a disaster, kind of in a di if you're in a disaster zone, you can um be excluded from the work requirements.
Well, they said only if you can show that the fact that you're in that disaster zone or there's a disaster declared by the president.
also impacts your ability to comply with the work requirements.
Showing 1–20 of 311 · page 1 of 16
Next →