U.S. Supreme Court Sides with Hospitals in Allina DSH Part C Days Decision

June 7, 2019 Alerts and Newsletters

On June 3, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court ("Court") issued a 7-1 decision in Azar v. Allina Health Services, favoring hospitals that had sued the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS") over a Medicare payment policy change. The Court ruled that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services ("CMS"), the HHS agency that oversees the Medicare program, impermissibly failed to undertake the formal notice-and-comment rulemaking required by the Medicare Act before announcing a revised approach to calculating disproportionate share hospital ("DSH") payments for fiscal year 2012 ("FY 2012"). More specifically, CMS issued DSH percentages in 2014 that, for FY 2012, counted Medicare Part C patients as Medicare Part A-entitled patients for purposes of DSH payment calculations, meaning that the inpatient days of Medicare beneficiaries who had elected Part C/Medicare Advantage coverage would be included in the Medicare DSH fraction. The Court found that CMS did so impermissibly, as this was a change to a "substantive legal standard" that required CMS to engage in notice-and-comment rulemaking that the Medicare Act requires. Apart from the potential impact on DSH payments, the decision could have a broader effect on other changes CMS has made and on how CMS rolls out or changes "substantive legal standards" going forward.

Part C Patients and CMS' DSH Calculation

In 2004, CMS issued a final rule that instituted a new methodology for calculating DSH payments by counting Medicare Part C participants as Part A-entitled patients and whose days belonged in the Medicare fraction. However, the final rule differed from the proposed rule that CMS had issued in 2003, which proposed excluding Part C patients from the Medicare fraction. Numerous hospitals filed lawsuits, eventually causing the 2004 final rule to be vacated as impermissibly retroactive. In 2013, CMS tried again, issuing a new rule prospectively readopting the policy of including Part C patients in the Medicare fraction. Challenges to the 2013 rule as being in violation of the statute are pending.

Meanwhile, in possible recognition of the fact that it could not enforce the vacated 2004 rule and the fact that the 2013 rule is prospective only, CMS posted Medicare fractions for FY 2012 on its website, noting that the fractions included Part C patients in its count of Part A-entitled patients. CMS did not engage in the usual notice-and-comment process. Hospitals again sued CMS over the posting, arguing that CMS had changed a "substantive legal standard" without complying with the Medicare Act's specific requirement to provide public notice and a 60-day comment period for any such change.

Allina Decision

The Court agreed with the hospitals or, rather, did not buy CMS' arguments and held that CMS, by tweaking the reimbursement formula for FY 2012 DSH payments without going through the proper public notice-and-comment rulemaking period, had violated the Medicare Act. In doing so, the Court heavily reviewed CMS' argument that a "substantive legal standard" under the Medicare Act is analogous to an interpretive rule under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), which does not require notice-and-comment rulemaking. The Court rejected CMS' argument for several reasons, the thrust of the Court's reasoning being that CMS' reading of the Medicare Act in conjunction with the APA simply did not make sense. The Court also hesitantly considered CMS' legislative history and policy arguments, but failed to see merit in those arguments either. Thus, in the end, the Court found that CMS had changed a "substantive legal standard" and had done so in violation of the Medicare Act's notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements.

The decision is significant, both in terms of DSH payments and in terms of the potential application of the Medicare Act's notice-and-comment requirements in other Medicare contexts. On the reimbursement front, the government estimates that the financial impact of this decision, and the thousands of appeals that have been filed for fiscal years 2005-2013, could total between $3 and $4 billion. More generally, if CMS has made similar missteps in informally announcing new "substantive legal standards" in other Medicare reimbursement areas or other Medicare areas more generally, without going through notice-and-comment rulemaking, hospitals or other aggrieved parties could potentially rely on the Allina decision to challenge other CMS actions.

While the Allina decision is of great significance, how CMS responds to the decision will be of perhaps even more interest and importance to hospitals. Verrill Dana will continue to monitor and bring you updates on this matter. If you have questions about the Allina case, please reach out to Gary Rosenberg, Cecilie MacIntyre, or your regular Verrill Dana attorney.

Firm Highlights

Matter

Common Rule

Guided multiple clients through the implementation of the revised HHS regulations (the "Common Rule"), including reviewing and revising policies and procedures, and assisting with institutional approaches to implementation.

Matter

European Union GDPR—Institution

Counseled a preeminent health system and academic medical center on its compliance with the European Union General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in relation to its clinical and research activities, including its international research studies...

Publication/Podcast

FDA Issues Guidance on IRB Review of Non-Emergency Individual Patient Expanded Access Requests for Investigational Drugs and Biological Products to Treat COVID-19

Prompted by a substantial increase in requests for individual patient access to investigational drugs and biologics to treat COVID-19, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (“FDA”) issued guidance on June 2, 2020 that outlines...

Publication/Podcast

FDA Updates its Guidance on Conducting Clinical Trials During COVID-19 Public Health Emergency

On April 16, 2020, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (“FDA”) again updated its guidance on the “Conduct of Clinical Trials of Medical Products during COVID-19 Public Health Emergency,” adding seven new questions and...

News

38 Verrill Attorneys, Across Four Offices, Recognized in 2020 Chambers & Partners Guide

(April 27, 2020) – Verrill has been rated as a Leading Firm in a total of ten categories and subcategories as evaluated by London-based Chambers & Partners , one of the world's most respected...

Matter

Multi-Site Global Research

Developed and negotiated site and coordinating center agreements in connection with a multi-site, international, National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded study, and advised on regulatory issues related to the conduct of the study and subsequent...

Publication/Podcast

OHRP Issues Guidance on the Conduct of Research During COVID-19 Public Health Emergency

The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Office for Human Research Protections (“OHRP”) issued guidance , dated April 8, 2020, on the application of Common Rule requirements to research being conducted during the...

Matter

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewed medical center's systems, policies and procedures for identifying, assessing, and managing investigator and institutional conflicts of interest.

Publication/Podcast

Updated FDA COVID-19 Guidance for Conduct of Clinical Trials

On March 27, 2020, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (“FDA”) updated its prior guidance on the “ Conduct of Clinical Trials of Medical Products during COVID-19 Pandemic ,” with an appendix adding a...

News

Michael K. Fee to Lead Verrill’s Health Care and Life Sciences Defense Practice

(January 22, 2020) – Verrill is pleased to welcome Michael K. Fee to the firm’s Boston office as a Partner in its nationally recognized Health Care & Life Sciences Group and as the leader...