Latest News

ArMA member and emergency medicine physician Dr. Amish Shah won Arizona’s 1st Congressional District, bringing a physician’s voice to Congress.

A federal judge rejected CMS’ narrowed “medically frail” standard for Medicaid work requirements. Here’s what it means for Arizona and AHCCCS.

CMS finalized the 2027 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule with lower conversion factors, a Modifier 25 payment cut, and a traditional MIPS phaseout.

The Arizona Medical Association is a plaintiff in the In re MultiPlan Health Insurance Provider Litigation , a federal antitrust case alleging that MultiPlan and major health insurers colluded to suppress out-of-network reimbursement rates paid to physicians and other providers. Litigation Enters Depositions The litigation has reached the depositions phase, an important stage of discovery where witnesses answer questions under oath. We are beginning to question key witnesses from MultiPlan and major health insurer defendants. Gathering evidence from these witness examinations is an important step in preparing cases for trial. At the October 9, 2026, case management conference, the court addressed several ongoing discovery issues, including questions about MultiPlan’s preservation and potential deletion of text messages relevant to the litigation. The court directed the parties to gather more information on the issue so it can be resolved at the next conference without delaying the case, and set schedules for resolving other open discovery disputes. How to Get Involved Members of the Arizona Medical Association interested in joining the lawsuit as litigants are eligible for discounted contingency fees. If you believe you've been impacted by MultiPlan's practices, you are encouraged to reach out to an attorney . For more information, visit our dedicated webpage .

The American Osteopathic Association urged residency programs to end the expectation that osteopathic medical students take both the COMLEX-USA and USMLE licensing exams in a public statement this week. To back its position, the AOA cited a new report generated during the Single GME Accreditation System Summit, which is convened by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. In June, summit participants — which included leadership from the AOA, ACGME, the Association of American Medical Colleges, and others — examined the first decade of single accreditation for graduate medical education. They concluded that single accreditation achieved "structural integration and expanded opportunities for osteopathic learners." They also found that a lack of cultural, operational, and informational awareness continues to "affect parity, specialty access, and how residency programs understand osteopathic training." Ultimately, stakeholders concluded that dual licensing expectations for osteopathic medical students must be eliminated. The post-summit report underscored the additional burdens dual licensing expectations place on students, including financial and logistical challenges. According to the group's analysis, these added burdens have no "educational justification." The report outlines straightforward steps for achieving an effective alternative to the dual licensing model: Universal acceptance of degree-specific licensing exams Elimination of differential clinical rotation fees for osteopathic medical students Clearer, more comparable information from residency programs; stronger education for program directors and coordinators on osteopathic training, certification pathways and professional identity; and better competency-based assessment information for residency selection Shared responsibility and coordinated action across the medical education continuum In its statement, the AOA shared that the report's priorities closely align with its ongoing parity advocacy. The national organization has committed to serving as a planning partner on several initiatives outlined in the report. Source: American Osteopathic Association

Drugmakers and hospitals continue to clash over the 340B program following the federal government's proposal of a new pilot model, which is scheduled to move forward in 2027 after undergoing revisions earlier this year. As outlined, the program would replace upfront drug discounts for hospitals with a post-sale rebate. Hospitals have fought vehemently against the model for more than a year, citing heavier administrative burdens and costs, and most recently filed another lawsuit requesting the program be blocked. Where the Program Stands After a long battle in the courts, the Health Resources and Services Administration revised its rebate program in mid-2026. The reworked model would require drug manufacturers to validate claims before paying out rebates, which would give HRSA more transparency into individual transactions. However, hospitals asserted that the agency's project cost analyses did not fully account for increased compliance costs and disruptions to cash flow. Opponents of the rebate model also stated that, ultimately, the program would undermine patient care if implemented. Despite negative feedback from stakeholders, the agency moved forward with plans for implementation. Drugmakers were given a deadline to submit their rebate plans, with approved plans being scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2027. Approved Participants & Covered Drugs After reviewing proposals submitted by drug manufacturers, HRSA authorized 10 to be part of the updated pilot program, including AbbVie, Pfizer, Merck, AstraZeneca, and Teva. A total of 21 pharmaceutical drugs are impacted, including Eliquis, Jardiance, Enbrel, Xtandi, Farxiga, Januvia, and Ibrance. How the Model Works According to Becker's Hospital Review , "covered entities will keep buying through their 340B wholesaler accounts at wholesale acquisition cost, then submit limited claims data within 45 days of dispense through a manufacturer-funded platform." The manufacturers then have ten days after receiving a complete rebate request to either pay or deny it. Denials related to eligibility, diversion, or concerns about duplicate discounts are not allowed. These concerns must be routed through a different audit channel. Hospitals, Others Respond The American Hospital Association and a coalition of safety-net hospitals filed another lawsuit in early October 2026 to block the revised pilot. The opponents estimate that the pilot will incur more than $1 billion in administrative costs for hospitals. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine, which, notably, is the same court that ruled in favor of critics and blocked the first iteration of the rebate pilot program. Appellate courts previously settled the question of whether drugmakers can switch to a rebate program autonomously, ruling that they cannot do so without approval from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Now, with 10 drugmakers approved for the rebate program by HHS, the question is whether the court will intervene once again. While the legal battle plays out, upfront 340B discounts remain intact. Source: Becker's Hospital Review, American Hospital Association

Free Prescription Discount Program Saved Participants More Than $1 Million, According to Recent Data

Lower Premiums, Faster Payments Act Seeks to End No Surprises Act’s Independent Dispute Resolution Process Beginning in 2028

Early Ballots Arrive Via Mail; In-person Early Voting Continues Through October 30 — Prepare to Vote Today!