Averett v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., Civil Action No. 16–cv–02815

CourtUnited States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Tennessee
Citation306 F.Supp.3d 1005
Decision Date24 January 2018
Docket NumberCivil Action No. 16–cv–02815
Parties Andrew AVERETT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al., Defendants.

306 F.Supp.3d 1005

Andrew AVERETT, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 16–cv–02815

United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division.

Signed January 24, 2018


306 F.Supp.3d 1007

Alison K. Grippo, Brittain Weaks Sexton, David A. King, Michael A. Cottone, Bass, Berry & Sims, Nashville, TN, for Plaintiffs.

Andrew Marshall Bernie, Benjamin Thomas Takemoto, U.S. Department of Justice (Civil Division), Washington, DC, for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF # 22); (2) DENYING DEFENDANTS' CROSS–MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF # 29); AND (3) REMANDING TO THE CENTERS FOR MEDICARE AND MEDICAID SERVICES FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

MATTHEW F. LEITMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

In this action, a group of Tennessee physicians who provide primary care services to Medicaid recipients seek to invalidate an administrative rule adopted by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS"). The rule relates to a physician's eligibility for enhanced payments for primary care services under Medicaid. The parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment. (See Pls.' Mot. for Summ. J., ECF # 22; Defs.' Cross–Mot. for Summ. J., ECF # 29.) For the reasons explained below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion and DENIES Defendants' motion.

306 F.Supp.3d 1008

I

A

In March 2010, Congress passed, and President Barack Obama signed, comprehensive healthcare reform legislation known as the Affordable Care Act (the "ACA"). The ACA was designed to "increase the number of Americans covered by health insurance and decrease the cost of health care." Nat'l Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius , 567 U.S. 519, 538, 132 S.Ct. 2566, 183 L.Ed.2d 450 (2012). The ACA "was not one single health care bill that became law, but two—the initial health care legislation, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (HCERA), passed almost immediately after the PPACA to amend that legislation." John Cannan, A Legislative History of the Affordable Care Act: How Legislative Procedure Shapes Legislative History , 105 Law Libr. J. 131, 133–34 (2013). Congress passed the PPACA on March 21, 2010, and President Obama signed it into law on March 23, 2010. Congress passed the HCERA on March 25, 2010, and President Obama signed that bill into law on March 30, 2010.1

Among other things, the ACA incentives physicians to provide primary care services to vulnerable populations. It does so by authorizing enhanced payments to certain doctors who provide primary care to participants in Medicare and Medicaid. These increased payments are set out in two separate ACA provisions, one for Medicare and another for Medicaid.

The provision that authorizes increased payments for primary care services under Medicare appears in Section 5501 of the PPACA, 42 U.S.C. § 1395l(x) (the "Medicare Payment Statute"). The Medicare Payment Statute authorizes enhanced payments to "primary care practitioners" for "primary care services furnished on or after January 1, 2011, and before January 1, 2016...." It defines the term "primary care practitioner" as a physician (1) "who has a primary specialty designation of family medicine, internal medicine, geriatric medicine, or pediatric medicine" and (2) "for whom primary care services accounted for at least 60 percent of the allowed charges" under Medicare during a prior period of time determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.2

The provision that authorizes increased payments for primary care services under

306 F.Supp.3d 1009

Medicaid appears in Section 1202 of the HCERA, 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(13)(C) (the "Medicaid Payment Statute"). Like the Medicare Payment Statute, the Medicaid Payment Statute authorizes enhanced payments to physicians with certain specified "primary specialty designation[s]"—essentially the same designations listed in the Medicare Payment Statute.3 But unlike the Medicare Payment Statute, the Medicaid Payment Statute does not require physicians to meet any billing metric in order to qualify for the enhanced payments. In its entirety, the Medicaid Payment Statute provides:

A State plan for medical assistance must—

...

(13) provide—

...

(C) payment for primary care services (as defined in subsection (jj) ) furnished in 2013 and 2014 by a physician with a primary specialty designation of family medicine, general internal medicine, or pediatric medicine at a rate not less than 100 percent of the payment rate that applies to such services and physician under part B of subchapter XVIII of this chapter (or, if greater, the payment rate that would be applicable under such part if the conversion factor under section 1395w–4(d) of this title for the year involved were the conversion factor under such section for 2009);

42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a).

B

After Congress passed the ACA, CMS, an agency within the United States Department of Health and Human Services, adopted rules to implement the Medicare Payment Statute and the Medicaid Payment Statute.

CMS promulgated the final rule implementing the Medicare Payment Statute, 42 C.F.R. § 414.80(a), on November 29, 2010 (the "Final Medicare Payment Rule"). As relevant here, the Final Medicare Payment Rule confirms that a "primary care practitioner" is eligible to receive enhanced Medicare payments for primary care services. 42 C.F.R. § 414.80(b). It further defines "eligible primary care practitioner" as a physician who satisfies two criteria:

(A) Enrolled in Medicare with a primary specialty designation of 08–family practice, 11–internal medicine, 37–pediatrics, or 38–geriatrics.

(B) At least 60 percent of the physician's allowed charges under the physician fee schedule (excluding hospital inpatient care and emergency department visits) during a reference period specified by the Secretary are for primary care services.

42 C.F.R. § 414.80(a)(i). Notably, the Final Medicare Payment Rule does not define the term "primary specialty designation" nor does it establish any criteria for determining whether a physician has one of the specified "primary specialty designations."

CMS promulgated the final rule implementing the Medicaid Payment Statute, 42 C.F.R. § 447.400(a), on November 6, 2012 (the "Final Medicaid Payment Rule"). The Final Medicaid Payment Rule authorizes enhanced Medicaid payments to a physician with one of the specified "primary specialty designation[s]" listed in the Final

306 F.Supp.3d 1010

Medicaid Payment Statute. But, unlike the Final Medicare Payment Rule, the Final Medicaid Payment Rule narrowly defines the term "primary specialty designation." Under the Final Medicaid Payment Rule, a physician is deemed to have one of the specified "primary specialty designation[s]" only if she attests that she:

(1) Is Board certified with such a specialty or subspecialty [of family medicine, general internal medicine or pediatric medicine or a recognized subspecialty] and/or

(2) Has furnished evaluation and management services and vaccine administration services under codes described in paragraph (b) of this section that equal at least 60 percent of the Medicaid codes he or she has billed during the most recently completed CY or, for newly eligible physicians, the prior month.

42 C.F.R. § 447.400(a). (For ease of reference, the Court will refer to the billing metric in subsection (2) of the Final Medicaid Payment Rule as the "60% Billing Code Threshold.")

CMS explained that it included the 60% Billing Code Threshold in the definition of "primary specialty designation" in part because Congress included a 60 percent allowed-charge threshold requirement in the Medicare Payment Statute:

We developed this [60% Billing Code Threshold] proposal for the use of a supporting history of codes billed to qualify physicians for increased payment after review of the statutory requirements for the Medicare Incentive Payments for Primary Care Services payments authorized by section 5501(a) of the Affordable Care Act [i.e. , the Medicare Payment Statute] .... That provision specifically requires that primary care services account for at least 60 percent of the allowed charges billed by a practitioner for services to be eligible for increased payment. We propose that the same standard be applied to the Medicaid payments under section 1902(a)(13)(C) of the Act [i.e. , the Medicaid Payment Statute] although we propose that verification would be based on the number of codes billed for the specified primary care services, rather than charges.

(Admin. R., ECF # 21–2 at Pg. ID 305.)

During the notice and comment period for the Final Medicaid Payment Rule, a number of commentators objected that the 60% Billing Code Threshold was contrary to Congress' intent. These commentators highlighted that Congress included a billing metric in the Medicare Payment Statute but did not include such a provision in the Medicaid Payment Statute. The commentators argued that Congress'...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 practice notes
  • Boulger v. Woods, Case No.: 2:17–cv–186
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Southern District of Ohio
    • January 24, 2018
    ...false light invasion of privacy claim where "statements forming the basis for the alleged invasion of privacy were ... constitutionally 306 F.Supp.3d 1005protected statements of opinion not susceptible of a determination as to their truth or falsity.")As explained supra , Woods's tweet is c......
  • Nitta v. Dep't of Human Servs., CAAP-17-0000432
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Hawai'i
    • February 11, 2022
    ...943 F.3d 313, 319 (6th Cir. 2019), affirming the lower court's decision invalidating CMS's Final Medicaid Payment Rule. Averett, 306 F. Supp. 3d 1005, 1020-21 (M.D. Tenn. 2018). We ordered, and the parties filed, supplemental briefing as to the effect, if any, Averett has on this appeal. Dr......
2 cases
  • Boulger v. Woods, Case No.: 2:17–cv–186
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Southern District of Ohio
    • January 24, 2018
    ...light invasion of privacy claim where "statements forming the basis for the alleged invasion of privacy were ... constitutionally 306 F.Supp.3d 1005protected statements of opinion not susceptible of a determination as to their truth or falsity.")As explained supra , Woods's tweet ......
  • Nitta v. Dep't of Human Servs., CAAP-17-0000432
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Hawai'i
    • February 11, 2022
    ...943 F.3d 313, 319 (6th Cir. 2019), affirming the lower court's decision invalidating CMS's Final Medicaid Payment Rule. Averett, 306 F. Supp. 3d 1005, 1020-21 (M.D. Tenn. 2018). We ordered, and the parties filed, supplemental briefing as to the effect, if any, Averett has on this appeal. Dr......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT