Martin v. Shalala

• Decision Date: 31 July 1995
• Docket Number: No. 94-2844,94-2844
• Parties: , Medicare & Medicaid Guide P 43,505 Lois MARTIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated and Alan R. Kohlhaas, M.D., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Donna E. SHALALA, in her capacity as Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services and Associated Insurance Companies Incorporated, doing business as Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Indiana, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

Page 497

63 F.3d 497

48 Soc.Sec.Rep.Ser. 686, Medicare & Medicaid Guide

P 43,505

Lois MARTIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly

situated and Alan R. Kohlhaas, M.D., on behalf of

himself and all others similarly

situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Donna E. SHALALA, in her capacity as Secretary of the

Department of Health and Human Services and Associated

Insurance Companies Incorporated, doing business as Blue

Cross and Blue Shield of Indiana, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 94-2844.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued Feb. 13, 1995.

Decided July 31, 1995.

Rodney V. Taylor, Christopher & Taylor, Indianapolis, IN, and Richard S. Pitts, Sydney L. Steele, and Scott R. Alexander (argued), Lowe, Gray, Steele & Hoffman, Indianapolis, IN, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Sue Hendricks Bailey, Asst. U.S. Atty., Office of the U.S. Atty., Indianapolis, IN, Alvin N. Jaffe (argued), Dept. of Health and Human Services, Region V, Office of the Gen. Counsel, Chicago, IL, Thomas G. Stayton, Ellen E. Boshkoff, Baker & Daniels, Indianapolis, IN, and Carol Clendening, Adminastar, Inc., Indianapolis, IN, for defendants-appellees.

Before POSNER, Chief Judge, BAUER and RIPPLE, Circuit Judges.

RIPPLE, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiffs-appellants Lois Martin, a Medicare beneficiary, and Dr. Alan Kohlhaas, a physician who receives assignments of Medicare payments for his services to Medicare beneficiaries, brought suit against the Secretary of Health and Human Services ("Secretary") and Associated Insurance Companies (d/b/a Blue Cross Blue Shield) ("Associated"), the insurance carrier designated to administer benefits under Medicare's Part B program in the State of Indiana. One of Associated's duties is to establish the "locality classification" of geographical areas of Indiana. The plaintiffs object to their classification as a "Category 03" non-urban locality. The district court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It concluded that, as a suit seeking an "amount determination," the plaintiffs were required to exhaust their administrative remedies before filing a court action. For the reasons that follow, we affirm that jurisdictional decision.

I BACKGROUND

A. Statutory Framework

Title XVIII of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1395 et seq., known as "Medicare," provides federal reimbursement for medical care to the aged and disabled and is administered by the Secretary. There are two components to the program. Part A provides hospital insurance benefits, and is funded out of social security taxes. Part B makes available supplementary medical insurance benefits for medical and other health services, including physicians' services, on a voluntary basis to eligible persons for a monthly premium. ¹ As such, it is similar to private medical insurance programs but with substantial federal subsidies. See Schweiker v. McClure, 456 U.S. 188, 190, 102 S.Ct. 1665, 1667, 72 L.Ed.2d 1 (1982). Like private insurance policies, Part B excludes or limits payment on certain medical items and services; thus, actual reimbursement on health-related services may be less than what was requested. ²

By statute the Secretary is authorized to contract with insurance carriers like Associated to perform administrative functions under the Medicare Act on behalf of the Secretary.

                The functions include administering the payment of qualified claims.  42 U.S.C. Sec. 1395u.  The Congress has required carriers to assure that, "where payment ... for a service is on a charge basis, such a charge will be reasonable."   Id. at Sec. 1395u(b)(3)(B).  Under that mandate, therefore, carriers must determine whether benefits are due, and in what amount, and to whom payment should be made (i.e., the beneficiary or his or her assignee, the physician or other person furnishing the services). 3  When deciding upon a "reasonable charge" for a medical item or service, the carriers must give consideration to the physician's or supplier's "customary charge" and the locality's "prevailing charge."  42 U.S.C. Sec. 1395u(b)(3)(L);  42 C.F.R. Sec. 405.501 et seq.   The amount established by the carrier as "reasonable" is considered a "screen" above which a charge is not reasonable and reimbursement will not be paid
                

B. Facts

In this case, Associated is the carrier responsible for administering the Medicare Part B program in Indiana. It established the "prevailing charges in the locality for similar services" under Sec. 1395u(b)(3) and the "locality" classifications under 42 C.F.R. Sec. 405.505. ⁴ Associated classified Dearborn County as a "Category 03" rural locality, with the lowest Medicare Part B reimbursement in Indiana. The complaint before us challenges this determination.

Ms. Martin is a resident of Dearborn County, Indiana, who received medical services covered by Part B of Medicare. Dr. Alan Kohlhaas, the other plaintiff, is a physician practicing medicine in Dearborn County, Indiana, and is on the staff of Dearborn County Hospital. He is an assignee of his patients who have received medical services from him that are covered by Medicare Part B. Ms. Martin and Dr. Kohlhaas filed a class action complaint against the Secretary and Associated to challenge "the methods used by which Part B Medicare benefit amounts for medical services provided in Dearborn County, Indiana, were and are determined under ... 'Medicare.' " R.10 at p 1. ⁵ According to the complaint, the plaintiffs were "deprived of their property rights to full payment of their respective Part B Medicare benefit amounts," in particular "because the methods used by the Carrier to determine 'the prevailing charges in the locality for similar services' for medical services rendered in Dearborn County ... were grossly negligent and wrongful." Id. They contend that Associated's classification of Dearborn County as a "Category 03" or rural locality results in unjustifiably lower benefit payments than those paid in nearby Cincinnati, which is classified as an urban area and which therefore is given higher reimbursements for the same medical services. Id. at pp 20, 23. The complaint alleges that the carrier's failure to determine properly the prevailing charges "caus[ed] plaintiffs and the class to be deprived of the full Part B The complaint also asserts that there is no administrative remedy available to these plaintiffs to challenge Associated's method for establishing the locality classification of Dearborn County. Id. at p 32. The plaintiffs seek a declaration that the prevailing charges in Dearborn County for its medical services are comparable to those in the Cincinnati area; they also seek an order that they be granted a fair hearing, damages for the losses caused by the wrongful methods used to determine the prevailing charges, as well as fees and expenses.

                Medicare benefit to which each is entitled."   Id. at p 24
                

C. District Court Opinion

The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ⁶ Order of June 30, 1994, R.2 (elec. dkt.) at 18. When evaluating the plaintiffs' post-1986 claims, ⁷ the court noted that the Medicare Amendments effective January 1, 1987 gave courts the same jurisdiction over Part B that they had over Part A, and provided for an administrative hearing by the Secretary under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 405(b) and subsequent judicial review of the Secretary's final decision under Sec. 405(g). ⁸ Because the judicial review available for Part B was identical to that available for Part A of the Act, the court analyzed this case under the framework established by the Supreme Court in Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 615, 104 S.Ct. 2013, 2021-22, 80 L.Ed.2d 622 (1984). In Ringer, the Court held that Sec. 405(h) barred federal question jurisdiction over a claim seeking payment of Part A benefits. ⁹ In Bowen v. Michigan Academy of Family Physicians, 476 U.S. 667, 106 S.Ct. 2133, 90 L.Ed.2d 623 (1986), however, the Court found that federal question jurisdiction was available for certain actions in which the methodology used to determine benefits, rather than the amount of benefits, was challenged. Although Ms. Martin and Dr. Kohlhaas had characterized their complaint as a challenge to the methodology for establishing locality classification, the district court determined that the plaintiffs' claims were "inextricably intertwined" with the claim for Medicare benefits because they essentially sought higher benefits. As a result, the court concluded, judicial review was available only after exhaustion of administrative remedies and a final decision by the Secretary under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 405(g).

Turning to the requirements of Sec. 405(g), the court determined that the plaintiffs' allegation that they had presented their claims to Associated satisfied the nonwaivable requirement of Sec. 405(b) that they present their claims to the Secretary. However, continued the court, the plaintiffs failed to pursue adequately their administrative remedies by raising their claims in a reimbursement hearing. Reasoning that the plaintiffs' locality designation claim was part and parcel of their claim for benefits, the court also held that their claim could not be considered wholly collateral to the benefits claim. As a result of the plaintiffs' failure to exhaust their administrative remedies, the court concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction

                over plaintiffs' claims. 10  The court dismissed the claims against both the Secretary and her carrier because, under Sec. 405(h), plaintiffs cannot proceed against a carrier when they cannot proceed against the Secretary.  Bodimetric Health Servs., Inc. v. Aetna Life & Casualty, 903 F.2d 480, 487-88 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1012, 111 S.Ct. 579, 112 L.Ed.2d 584 (1990)
                

II DISCUSSION

A. Federal Question Jurisdiction

1.

The plaintiffs submit that the district court did have federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331. They urge us to...