Santa Ana Hospital Medical Center v. Belshe
Decision Date | 23 July 1997 |
Docket Number | No. C024834,C024834 |
Citation | 56 Cal.App.4th 819,65 Cal.Rptr.2d 754 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | , 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5876, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9377 SANTA ANA HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. S. Kimberly BELSHE, as Director, etc., Defendant and Respondent. |
Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General, Dennis Eckhart and Barbara Haukedalen, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendant and Respondent.
Appellant Santa Ana Hospital Medical Center appeals from the trial court's denial of its petition for a writ of mandate (Code Civ. Proc. § 1085) against S. Kimberly Belshe, as director of the California Department of Health Services (for ease of reference referred to herein as "the Department"). Appellant contends the trial court erred in interpreting Welfare and Institutions Code section 14105.98 1 as precluding judicial relief to correct an error by the Department in determining appellant's share of supplemental Medi-Cal payments under the "disproportionate share hospital" (DSH) program which provides supplemental payments to hospitals serving a disproportionate number of low income patients. We shall affirm the trial court's denial of the writ petition.
Federal law originally required states to reimburse health care providers for the "reasonable cost" of services rendered, i.e., the cost of services actually incurred by the provider and otherwise allowable by Medicaid. (Kennedy Medical Center, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 751, 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 107, 919 P.2d 721.) In 1980 and 1981, "in an effort to contain spiraling Medicaid costs for hospital services," the federal law was changed to allow states to develop alternate methodologies to limit reimbursement based upon costs that would have been reasonably incurred by an "efficient and economically operated facility," even if a provider's actual costs were greater. (Id. at pp. 751-752, 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 107, 919 P.2d 721, citing 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(13)(A).)
In calculating Medi-Cal reimbursement in this state, the provider is given full credit for certain costs, such as rent and taxes, but not for other costs, such as costs of services that have increased significantly over those incurred in prior years. (Kennedy Medical Center, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 752, 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 107, 919 P.2d 721, citing Cal.Code Regs., tit. 22, § 50000 et seq.)
Thus, Medi-Cal reimbursement may not fully cover a hospital's costs.
In addition to reimbursement under the foregoing provisions, hospitals which provide care for a disproportionate share of low-income patients may be eligible to receive a supplemental payment under the state's "disproportionate share hospitals" (DSH) program, enacted to take advantage of a federal program making matching federal funds available to the states. (§ 14105.98; Stats.1991, ch. 279, pp. 1762-1779; Stats.1991, ch. 1046, pp. 4824-4845.) Under this program, governmental entities that operate hospitals (i.e., counties, hospital districts, and the University of California) transfer funds to the state. After deduction of an administrative fee for the state, these funds draw matching federal funds, and the combined monies are then distributed among public and private hospitals which qualify as DSHs based on their provision of services to a disproportionate number of Medi-Cal or other low-income patients. (§ 14105.98, subd. (a)(1); see Sen. Rules Com., 3d Reading Analysis of Assem. Bill No. 2804 (1996 Reg. Sess.) June 20, 1996 [giving background on DSH program].)
An uncodified section of the 1991 enactment of the DSH program stated in part: (Stats.1991, ch. 279, § 1, subd. (f), p. 1763.) The state enactment continues: (Stats.1991, ch. 279, § 1, subd. (i), p. 1764.)
The statutory scheme provides: (§ 14105.98, subd. (b).)
Section 14105.98, subdivision (f)(1), 2 provides for issuance of the disproportionate share list by the Department.
Section 14105.98, subdivision (f)(5), 3 prescribes finality of the list upon issuance and prohibits modification of the list after issuance, except for mathematical or typographical errors made in preparation of the list.
Section 14105.98, subdivision (s), 4 limits review of the list and provides there shall be no appeal from calculations which are final pursuant to subdivision (f)(5).
As will appear, the dispute in this case focuses on the question whether errors in a DSH list may be corrected. This implicates section 14105.98.
On November 16, 1995, appellant filed in the trial court a petition for writ of mandate (Code Civ. Proc., § 1085) seeking judicial review of the Department's refusal to correct an admitted inaccuracy in its DSH list for fiscal year 1994-1995, from which appellant's DSH payments for 1994-1995 were determined. The error assertedly resulted in reduced DSH payments to appellant.
Exhibits attached to the petition in the trial court included letters between the parties, recounting the following:
On December 16, 1994, the Department issued its DSH list for 1994-1995. As noted, once issued the list is final and cannot be modified, except for typographical or mathematical errors made in preparation of the list. (§ 14105.98, subd. (f)(5), fn. 3, ante; § 14105.98, subd. (s), fn. 4, ante.)
Sometime in December 1994, after the December 16th issuance of the list, appellant (a private hospital) contacted the Department by telephone and said the Department had made an error in counting appellant's 1993 patient days by failing to double the obstetric (OB) codes to take into account the newborns. 5
In a letter dated April 21, 1995, the Department responded to a February 7, 1995, letter from appellant (the February 7th letter is not part of the record) concerning this claim of error. The Department's letter stated it made a "cursory review" of appellant's claim and determined it was unfounded. The cursory nature of the review was because staff efforts were directed to issues which could be corrected, i.e., mathematical and typographical errors in preparation of the list. Such errors (unrelated to appellant) were found, and a modified list was issued January 31, 1995. Thereafter, upon receipt of appellant's February 7th letter, the Department researched the discrepancy between its determination of appellant's "cap days" and appellant's determination. The Department found appellant had changed from a "contracting OB rate-per-discharge hospital" to a "contracting all-inclusive rate-per-discharge hospital" during 1993. This change, not the count of newborn days, accounted for the discrepancy. The Department stated it had been unaware of the change. The Department indicated it would adjust the DSH program for future years but not for the 1994-1995 year.
By letter dated May 4, 1995, appellant asserted it had no obligation to notify the Department of changes in appellant's Medi-Cal contract so as to assist the Department in its mandated responsibilities.
In further correspondence, the Department acknowledged ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Henley v. Philip Morris Inc.
...rule 977(a).) Nor does a written opinion by a California trial court possess precedential value. (Santa Ana Hospital Medical Center v. Belshé (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 819, 831, 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 754; see Neary v. Regents of University of California (1992) 3 Cal.4th 273, 282, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 859, 8......
-
DCIPA, LLC v. Lucile Slater Packard Children's Hosp. at Stanford, Civ. 10–6131–AA.
...Budget Reform, April 28, 2003, 3:15 p.m.; copy of California Rules of Court, Rule 8.1115; Santa Ana Hospital Medical Center v. S. Kimberly Belshe, 56 Cal.App.4th 819, 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 754 (1997); and the Complaint and Civil Docket, filed in the Central District of California, for Cal. Hosp. A......
-
Am. Indian Health & Servs. Corp. v. Kent
...which would authorize such payment." ( Madera , supra , at p. 149, 201 Cal.Rptr. 768 ; see also Santa Ana Hospital Medical Center v. Belshé (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 819, 837, 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 754 [distinguishing Lackner because "there is no duty to disburse the funds claimed by appellant; to the......
-
Chun v. Bd. of Trustees of ERS
...the position that unpublished decisions of trial courts have no precedential value. See, e.g., Santa Ana Hosp. Med. Ctr. v. Belshe, 56 Cal.App.4th 819, 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 754, 761 (1997) (observing that "a written trial court ruling has no precedential value"); In re Marriage of McBride, 166 Il......
-
Appendix E
...is intended to provide another exception to the general rule and is based upon language from Santa Ana Medical Center v. Belshe (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 819, wherein it was noted that: “[T]rial court decisions may be considered instructive and persuasive, particularly where there is no binding......
-
Demurrers and Motions to Strike—they Aren't Just for Defendants Anymore
...Prac. Guide].5. Budrow v. Dave & Buster's of California, Inc., 171 Cal. App. 4th 875, 885 (2009); Santa Ana Hosp. Med. Ctr. v. Belshe, 56 Cal. App. 4th 819, 831 (1997).6. Ruth v. Unifund CCR Partners, 604 F.3d 908, 911 (6th Cir. 2010); MHC Invest. Co. v. Racom Corp., 323 F.3d 620 (8th Cir. ......