Tenn. Hosp. Ass'n v. Azar
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
| Writing for the Court | KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. |
| Citation | Tenn. Hosp. Ass'n v. Azar, 908 F.3d 1029 (6th Cir. 2018) |
| Decision Date | 14 November 2018 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 17-597/6033,s. 17-597/6033 |
| Parties | TENNESSEE HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION; Takoma Regional Hospital; Delta Medical Center; Parkwest Hospital, Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, v. Alex M. AZAR, II, in His Official Capacity as Secretary of Health and Human Services; Seema Verma, Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees. |
ARGUED: Tara S. Morrissey, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellants/Cross-Appellees. William H. West, BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellees/Cross-Appellants. ON BRIEF: Tara S. Morrissey, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellants/Cross-Appellees. William H. West, BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellees/Cross-Appellants.
Before: MOORE, KETHLEDGE, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.
MOORE, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which STRANCH, J., joined, and KETHLEDGE, J., joined in the result. KETHLEDGE, J. (pp. 1047–50), delivered a separate opinion concurring in the judgment.
This case marks the latest in a string of lawsuits brought by hospitals across the country challenging efforts by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS") to direct states to recoup certain reimbursements made under the Medicaid program. Here, plaintiffs are the Tennessee Hospital Association and three of its member hospitals, Takoma Regional Hospital, Delta Medical Center, and Parkwest Hospital. These hospitals serve a disproportionate share of Medicaid-eligible patients and are thereby entitled to supplemental payments under the Medicaid Act, known as "DSH payments" or "DSH payment adjustments." The Medicaid Act limits the amount of DSH payments each hospital can receive in a given year, and CMS contends that plaintiffs in this case miscalculated their DSH payment-adjustments for fiscal year 2012 and received extra payments as a result. Plaintiffs, in turn, insist that CMS’s approach to calculating DSH payment adjustments is out of step with the Medicaid Act and the regulations that CMS implemented in 2008 pursuant to the Medicaid Act. The district court agreed with plaintiffs and held that CMS’s methodology was inconsistent with both the Medicaid Act and CMS’s 2008 regulation. Although we agree that CMS’s policy is inconsistent with its 2008 rule and cannot be enforced against plaintiffs unless it is promulgated pursuant to notice-and-comment rulemaking, we disagree with the district court’s conclusion that CMS’s policy exceeds the agency’s authority under the Medicaid Act. We therefore AFFIRM the final judgment of the district court on the sole ground that CMS may not enforce an invalidly promulgated policy against plaintiffs and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Plaintiffs in this case—the Tennessee Hospital Association and three of its member hospitals—are challenging efforts by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS") to direct Tennessee to recoup certain reimbursements paid to the hospitals under the Medicaid program. Plaintiffs are "Disproportionate Share Hospitals" ("DSH"), which means that they serve a disproportionate share of Medicaid-eligible and low-income patients. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1396a(a)(13)(A)(iv) ; 1396r-4(b). As DSH hospitals, plaintiffs receive supplemental "DSH payments" under the Medicaid Act to help offset the cost of caring for indigent individuals. See id . § 1396r-4(c). The Medicaid Act limits the amount of funds any given DSH hospital can receive in a given year to its uncompensated cost of care—i.e., the cost of caring for Medicaid-eligible and uninsured patients less certain payments made on behalf of those patients. Id . § 1396r-4(g)(1)(A).
Congress amended the Medicaid Act in 2003 to require states to audit and report the amount of DSH payments distributed to each hospital. Id . § 1396r-4(j). In 2008, CMS issued a final rule pursuant to notice-and-comment rulemaking implementing the 2003 auditing requirements. See Medicaid Program; Disproportionate Share Hospital Payments, 73 Fed. Reg. 77,904 (Dec. 19, 2008). To "permit verification of the appropriateness of [each hospital’s DSH] payments," the rule requires "each DSH hospital to which the State made a DSH payment" to submit certain data to CMS. 42 C.F.R. § 447.299(c) (2016).1 The preamble to the rule refers to the various categories of required data as "data elements," 73 Fed. Reg. at 77,948, and we adopt that terminology here. For the purposes of this case, the most relevant data elements are displayed in the chart below.
Provision Data Element Description
42 C.F.R. § 447.299(c)(9) Total Medicaid The sum of the "IP/OP Medicaid fee-for-service
IP/OP2 Payments (FFS) basic rate
payments,"3 the "IP/OP Medicaid
managed care organization payments,"4
and the "Supplemental/enhanced
Medicaid IP/OP payments."5
42 C.F.R. § 447.299(c)(10) Total Cost of "The total annual costs incurred by
Care for each hospital for furnishing inpatient
Medicaid IP/OP hospital and outpatient hospital
Services services to Medicaid eligible
individuals."
42 C.F.R. § 447.299(c)(11) Total Medicaid "The total amount of uncompensated
Uncompensated care attributable to Medicaid inpatient
Care and outpatient services. The amount
should be the result of subtracting the
amount identified in § 447.299(c)(9)
from the amount identified in
§ 447.299(c)(10). The uncompensated
care costs of providing Medicaid
physician services cannot be included
in this amount."
42 C.F.R. § 447.299(c)(12) Uninsured IP/OP "Total annual payments received by the
revenue hospital by or on behalf of individuals
with no source of third party coverage
for inpatient and outpatient hospital
services they receive. This amount
does not include payments made by a
State or units of local government, for
services furnished to indigent patients."
42 C.F.R. § 447.299(c)(13) Total Applicable "Federal Section 1011 payments6 for
Section 1011 uncompensated inpatient and outpatient
Payments hospital services provided to Section
1011 eligible aliens with no source of
third party coverage for the inpatient
and outpatient hospital services they
receive."
42 C.F.R. § 447.299(c)(14) Total cost of "[T]he total costs incurred for
IP/OP care for furnishing inpatient hospital and
the uninsured outpatient hospital services to
individuals with no source of third
party coverage for the hospital services
they receive."
42 C.F.R. § 447.299(c)(16) Total annual "The total annual uncompensated care
uncompensated cost equals the total cost of care for
care costs furnishing inpatient hospital and
outpatient hospital services to Medicaid
eligible individuals and to individuals
with no source of third party coverage
for the hospital services they receive
less the sum of regular Medicaid FFS
rate payments, Medicaid managed care
organization payments, supplemental/enhanced
Medicaid payments
uninsured revenues, and Section 1011
payments for inpatient and outpatient
hospital services. This should equal the
sum of paragraphs (c)(9),(c)(12), and
(c)(13) subtracted from the
...Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Oakbrook Land Holdings, LLC v. Comm'r
...duties’ " such as this regulation does, they must engage in a process known as notice-and-comment rulemaking. Tennessee Hosp. Ass'n v. Azar , 908 F.3d 1029, 1042 (6th Cir. 2018) (quoting Michigan v. Thomas , 805 F.2d 176, 182–83 (6th Cir. 1986) ). See also 5 U.S.C. § 553(b). There are three......
-
Arizona v. Biden
...the two types of agency action will help.20 "For one, legislative rules have the ‘force and effect of law,’ " Tenn. Hosp. Ass'n v. Azar , 908 F.3d 1029, 1042 (6th Cir. 2018) (quoting Perez , 575 U.S. at 96, 135 S.Ct. 1199 ), and policy statements do not, Dyer v. Sec'y Health & Hum. Servs. ,......
-
Oakbrook Land Holdings, LLC v. Comm'r
...Health Ctr. for Women v. Knoll, 61 F.3d 170, 181 (3d Cir. 1995)), aff'd, 923 F.3d 296 (3d Cir. 2019); see Tenn. Hosp. Ass'n v. Azar, 908 F.3d 1029, 1042 (6th Cir. 2018). A legislative rule, on the other hand, "creates rights, assigns duties, or imposes obligations, the basic tenor of which ......
-
Skyworks, Ltd. v. Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention
...statutory construction’ to determine whether ‘Congress had an intention on the precise question at issue.’ " Tennessee Hosp. Ass'n v. Azar , 908 F.3d 1029, 1037 (6th Cir. 2018) (quoting Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. , 467 U.S. 837, 843 n.9, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed......
-
Tax Court In Brief | Green Valley Investors v. Comm'r (consolidated) | Notice 2017-10 Deemed Improperly Issued; Syndicated Conservation Easements
...the legal status of regulated parties. Chen Zhou Chai v. Carroll, 48 F.3d 1331, 1340 (4th Cir. 1995); see also Tenn. Hosp. Ass'n v. Azar, 908 F.3d 1029, 1042 (6th Cir. 2018) (explaining that legislative rules impose new rights or duties and change the legal status of the parties, whereas in......
-
New Medicaid DSH Audit Guidance: Its Impact on Pending and Recent State DSH Audits
...33 and 34. * FFP means Federal Financial Participation, the federal funds component of Medicaid. William West Tenn. Hosp. Ass'n v. Azar, 908 F.3d 1029 (6th Cir. Nov. 14, 2018); Children's Health Care v. CMS, 900 F.3d 1022 (8th Cir. Aug. 20, 2018); Children's Hosp. of the King's Daughters, I......
-
CHAPTER 10 KEEP CALM AND CARRY ON--JUDICIAL DEFERENCE TO AGENCY INTERPRETATIONS
...v. Duncan ex rel. Duncan, 889 F.3d 293, 308 (6th Cir. 2018) (Kethledge, J., concurring in the judgment). [137] Tenn. Hosp. Ass'n v. Azar, 908 F.3d 1029, 1050 (6th Cir. 2018) (Kethledge, J., concurring in the judgment).[138] Raymond M. Kethledge, Ambiguities and Agency Cases: Reflections Aft......