Children's Hosp. Ass'n of Tex. v. Azar
Decision Date | 06 March 2018 |
Docket Number | Civil Action No. 17–844 (EGS) |
Citation | 300 F.Supp.3d 190 |
Parties | CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION OF TEXAS; Children's Health Care d/b/a Children's Hospital and Clinics of Minnesota; Gillette Children's Specialty Healthcare; Children's Hospital of the King's Daughters, Inc.; and Seattle Children's Hospital, Plaintiffs, v. Alex AZAR, in his official capacity, Secretary of Health and Human Services; Seema Verma, in her official capacity, Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ; and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Bridget Springer McCabe, Baker & Hostetler LLP, New York, NY Christopher H. Marraro, Baker & Hostetler LLP, Geraldine E. Edens, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Washington, DC, Susan Feigin Harris, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Houston, TX, for Plaintiffs.
Steven A. Myers, James C. Luh, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendants.
Medicaid is a federal program that helps to cover the costs of providing medical care to qualified individuals. Some hospitals treat significantly higher percentages of Medicaid-eligible patients than others. Because Medicaid does not generally provide the same level of reimbursement as other types of insurance coverage, such hospitals are often at a financial disadvantage. To rectify this disadvantage, and thereby encourage hospitals to serve Medicaid-eligible patients, Congress has provided for supplemental Medicaid payments to such hospitals. The supplemental payments are subject to limits to ensure that no hospital receives payments that would result in a profit, rather than covering Medicaid-related costs to rectify the disadvantage. This case concerns the method of calculating the limit of these supplemental payments.
Specifically, this lawsuit challenges a final rule that defines how "costs" are to be calculated for purposes of determining the limit on the amount of the supplemental payment a hospital serving a disproportionate share of Medicaid-eligible individuals is entitled to receive. See Medicaid Program: Disproportionate Share Hospital Payments—Treatment of Third Party Payers in Calculating Uncompensated Care Costs, 82 Fed. Reg. 16114–02, 16117 (Apr. 3, 2017) ("Final Rule"). Defendants—the Secretary of Health and Human Services ("the Secretary"), Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS"), and the CMS Administrator—claim that the Medicaid Act permits them to define "costs" in the Final Rule as "costs net of third-party payments, including, but not limited to, payments by Medicare and private insurance." 42 C.F.R. § 447.299(c)(10)(i). Plaintiffs—one children's hospital association, whose members are eight free-standing children's hospitals in the state of Texas, and four other free-standing children's hospitals located in Minnesota, Virginia, and Washington—ask the Court to vacate the Final Rule as contrary to the plain language of the Medicaid Act and as arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedures Act.
Pending before the Court are plaintiffs' combined motion for a preliminary injunction and for summary judgment, defendants' motion to strike exhibits supporting plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, defendants' motion for summary judgment, and plaintiffs' motion for a status hearing. Upon consideration of the parties' memoranda, the parties' arguments at the motions hearing, the administrative record, the applicable law, and for the following reasons, the Court grants plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and vacates the Final Rule. The Court further grants defendants' motion to strike, denies defendants' motion for summary judgment, denies plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, and denies plaintiffs' motion for a status hearing.
Medicaid is a "joint state-federal program in which healthcare providers serve poor or disabled patients and submit claims for government reimbursement." Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. United States , ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 1989, 1996–97, 195 L.Ed.2d 348 (2016). In addition to serving low-income individuals, Medicaid also provides benefits to children with certain serious illnesses, without regard to family income. See, e.g. , 42 U.S. C. § 1396a(a)(10)(A)(i)(II) ( ); 20 C.F.R. § 416.934(j) ( ).
To encourage states to participate in Medicaid, "[f]ederal and state governments jointly share the cost." Va. Dep't of Med. Assistance Servs. v. Johnson , 609 F.Supp.2d 1, 2 (D.D.C. 2009). Participating states administer their own program "pursuant to a state Medicaid plan which must be reviewed and approved by the Secretary of HHS." Id. ; see also 42 U.S.C. § 1396a. Once the Secretary or the Secretary's designee approves a state plan, the state receives federal financial participation to cover part of the costs of its Medicaid program. 42 U.S.C. § 1396b(a)(1). If a state fails to comply with the statutory or regulatory requirements governing Medicaid, the federal government may recoup federal funds from the state. See id. §§ 1316(a), (c)–(e).
In 1981, facing "greater costs ... associated with the treatment of indigent patients," D.C. Hosp. Ass'n v. District of Columbia , 224 F.3d 776, 777 (D.C. Cir. 2000), Congress amended Medicaid to require states to ensure that payments to hospitals "take into account ... the situation of hospitals which serve a disproportionate number of low-income patients with special needs," 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(13)(A)(iv). This amendment reflected "Congress's concern that [M]edicaid recipients have reasonable access to medical services and that hospitals treating a disproportionate share of poor people receive adequate support from [M]edicaid." W. Va. Univ. Hosps. v. Casey , 885 F.2d 11, 23 (3d Cir. 1989).
These payments do not compensate a hospital for providing a particular service to a particular patient; rather, they seek to rectify in part any deficit the hospital may face solely because it treats more Medicaid-eligible patients than most. See Johnson , 609 F.Supp.2d at 3 (). Accordingly, the amendment created "payment adjustment[s]" for qualifying hospitals. See 42 U.S.C. § 1396r–4(c). Such payments are available to any hospital that treats a disproportionate share of Medicaid patients (a disproportionate-share hospital or "DSH").See id. § 1396r–4(b). In particular, Congress "deemed" hospitals to be DSH hospitals if "the hospital's medicaid inpatient utilization rate ... is at least one standard deviation above the mean medicaid inpatient utilization rate for hospitals receiving medicaid payments in the State" or if "the hospital's low-income utilization rate ... exceeds 25 percent." Id. § 1396r–4(b)(1).
In 1993, the Medicaid program was amended to limit DSH payments on a hospital-specific basis to assuage concerns that some hospitals were receiving DSH payments in excess of "the net costs, and in some instances the total costs, of operating the facilities." H.R. Rep. No. 103–111, at 211 (1993), reprinted in 1993 U.S.C.C.A.N. 278, 538. Congress was particularly concerned by reports that some states were "making DSH payment adjustments to hospitals that d[id] not provide inpatient services to Medicaid beneficiaries" at all. Id. Because the very purpose of DSH payments was "to assist those facilities with high volumes of Medicaid patients," Congress wanted to ensure that payments were directed to hospitals that were "unlikely to have large numbers of privately insured patients through which to offset their operating losses on the uninsured." Id. To mitigate these concerns, the amendment provided that a DSH payment may not exceed:
[T]he costs incurred during the year of furnishing hospital services (as determined by the Secretary and net of payments under this subchapter, other than under this section, and by uninsured patients) by the hospital to individuals who either are eligible for medical assistance under the State plan or have no health insurance (or other source of third party coverage) for services provided during the year.
42 U.S.C. § 1396r–4(g)(1)(A). Thus, for Medicaid patients, the Medicaid Act sets the hospital-specific limit ("HSL") for DSH payments as "the costs incurred during the year of furnishing hospital services" to Medicaid-eligible individuals "as determined by the Secretary and net of payments" under the Medicaid Act ( ). Id.
To ensure that DSH payments comply with statutory requirements, the Medicaid Act was again amended in 2003 to require that each state provide an annual report and an audit of its DSH program. See id. § 1396r–4(j). The audit must confirm, among other things, that:
Id. § 1396r–4(j)(2). Overpayments must be recouped by the state within one year of their discovery or the federal government may reduce its future contribution to that state. See id. §...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tenn. Hosp. Ass'n v. Azar
...final rule was "inconsistent with the plain language of the Medicaid Act," and vacated the rule. See Children’s Hosp. Ass’n of Tex. v. Azar , 300 F.Supp.3d 190, 205, 211 (D.D.C. 2018). That case is currently on appeal before the D.C. Circuit.Notwithstanding CMS’s purported payment-deduction......
-
Tex. Children's Hosp. v. Azar
...33 lacks the "power to persuade" in view of the plain language of the Medicaid Act, see Children's Hosp. Ass'n of Texas v. Azar , 300 F.Supp.3d 190, 205–11, 2018 WL 1178024, at *10–14 (D.D.C. 2018), and therefore is not entitled to deference.In sum, because FAQ 33 makes a substantive change......
-
Huisha-Huisha v. Mayorkas
... ... (N.D. Tex. Mar. 4, 2022) (finding CDC's July 2021 and ... See, e.g., ... Child.'s Hosp. Ass'n of Texas v. Azar, 300 ... F.Supp.3d 190, 205 ... ...
-
Children's Hosp. Ass'n of Tex. v. Azar
...The district court agreed that the definition is inconsistent with the Act and vacated the 2017 Rule. Children’s Hosp. Ass’n of Tex. v. Azar , 300 F. Supp. 3d 190 (D.D.C. 2018). We now reverse.I. Background"Medicaid is a cooperative federal-state program through which the Federal Government......