Nixon Peabody LLP

  • People
  • Capabilities
  • Insights
  • About

Trending Topics

    • People
    • Capabilities
    • Insights
    • About
    • Locations
    • Events
    • Careers
    • Alumni

    Practices

    View All

    • Affordable Housing
    • Community Development Finance
    • Corporate & Finance
    • Cybersecurity & Privacy
    • Environmental
    • Franchising & Distribution
    • Government Investigations & White Collar Defense
    • Healthcare
    • Intellectual Property
    • International Services
    • Labor & Employment
    • Litigation
    • Private Wealth & Advisory
    • Project Finance
    • Public Finance
    • Real Estate
    • Regulatory & Government Relations

    Industries

    View All

    • Cannabis
    • Consumer
    • Energy
    • Entertainment
    • Financial Services
    • Healthcare
    • Higher Education
    • Infrastructure
    • Manufacturing
    • Non Profit
    • Real Estate
    • Technology

    Value-Added Services

    View All

    • Alternative Fee Arrangements

      Developing innovative pricing structures and alternative fee agreement models that deliver additional value for our clients.

    • Continuing Education

      Advancing professional knowledge and offering credits for attorneys, staff and other professionals.

    • Crisis Advisory

      Helping clients respond correctly when a crisis occurs.

    • DEI Strategic Services

      Providing our clients with legal, strategic, and practical advice to make transformational changes in their organizations.

    • eDiscovery

      Leveraging law and technology to deliver sound solutions.

    • Global Services

      Delivering seamless service through partnerships across the globe.

    • Innovation

      Leveraging leading-edge technology to guide change and create seamless, collaborative experiences for clients and attorneys.

    • IPED

      Industry-leading conferences focused on affordable housing, tax credits, and more.

    • Legal Project Management

      Providing actionable information to support strategic decision-making.

    • Legally Green

      Teaming with clients to advance sustainable projects, mitigate the effects of climate change, and protect our planet.

    • Nixon Peabody Trust Company

      Offering a range of investment management and fiduciary services.

    • NP Capital Connector

      Bringing together companies and investors for tomorrow’s new deals.

    • NP Second Opinion

      Offering fresh insights on cases that are delayed, over budget, or off-target from the desired resolution.

    • NP Trial

      Courtroom-ready lawyers who can resolve disputes early on clients’ terms or prevail at trial before a judge or jury.

    • Social Impact

      Creating positive impact in our communities through increasing equity, access, and opportunity.

    1. Home
    2. Insights
    3. Alerts
    4. Hospital DSH payments negatively impacted by D.C. Circuit’s reinstatement of 2017 CMS rule on dual eligibilityAlerts

    Alert / Health Care Alert

    Hospital DSH payments negatively impacted by D.C. Circuit’s reinstatement of 2017 CMS rule on dual eligibility

    Aug 14, 2019

    Share

    By Morgan Nighan and Rebecca Simone

    The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated a 2017 CMS rule, the effect of which is that hospitals must now subtract payments received from private insurers and third parties in determining their costs incurred for the purpose of calculating their net financial shortfall under the Medicaid Act.

    The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated a 2017 rule[1] promulgated by the Secretary of United States Department of Health and Human Services (the Secretary), the effect of which is that hospitals must now subtract payments received from private insurers and other third parties in determining their “costs incurred” for the purpose of calculating their net financial shortfall under the Medicaid Act (the Medicaid Shortfall).[2] The 2017 Rule results in many hospitals experiencing a significant reduction in Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) reimbursement payments which Congress authorizes in order to offset costs incurred by hospitals that serve a disproportionate share of low-income patients. Children’s hospitals are particularly negatively impacted by the 2017 Rule.

    In its opinion, the D.C. Circuit reversed the district court, thoroughly rejecting the plaintiff hospital’s arguments that the 2017 Rule exceeds the Secretary’s authority under the Medicaid Act, or that it is arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedures Act. First, the court held that, under the analytical framework established in Chevron,[3] the statute is not ambiguous because it contains an express delegation of authority to the Secretary to determine “costs incurred.”[4] Next, the court found that the 2017 Rule is reasonable, dispensing with all four of the plaintiff hospital’s arguments to the contrary. The plaintiff hospital’s primary argument adopted by the district court was that the statute exclusively specifies which payments can be considered in calculating “costs incurred,” and therefore the 2017 Rule cannot add additional payments to consider. Rejecting this argument, the court stated that “[a]lthough the statute establishes that payments by Medicaid and the uninsured must be considered, it nowhere states that those are the only payments that may be considered.”[5]

    The court also disagreed with the plaintiff hospital’s argument that the 2017 Rule is arbitrary and capricious in reasoning. Specifically, the court was unpersuaded by the fact that, according to the administrative record, “CMS reduces DSH payments to the plaintiff hospitals when it considers private insurance payments, notwithstanding [that] ‘they have among the highest Medicaid inpatient utilization rates in their respective states and the highest net financial shortfalls in serving Medicaid patients.’”[6] The court found that “the statute does not consider a hospital’s actual costs; it considers only those costs that Medicaid pays for.”[7] In other words, while ancillary programs and services that hospitals provide to patients “may be laudable,” they are not to be considered for purposes of determining DSH payments.[8]

    Implications

    Hospitals that receive DSH payments will now have to net out payments received from Medicare and third-party payors from their Medicaid Shortfall calculation. Depending on the applicable state plan specifics, this netting out may reduce the actual DSH reimbursement. Further, because the 2017 Rule has been reinstated, audits completed during the time that the 2017 Rule was invalid and on appeal could be reopened to account for the third-party payment requirement. Hospitals should analyze how this change will impact issued and anticipated reimbursements. Overpayments could result in future set-offs.


    1. See “Medicaid Program; Disproportionate Share Hospital Payments — Treatment of Third-Party Payers in Calculating Uncompensated Care Costs,” 82 Fed. Reg. 16,114 16,122 (Apr. 3, 2017) (“the 2017 Rule”).
      [Back to reference]
    2. The Secretary previously attempted to enact the policies now codified in the 2017 Rule by posting FAQs on its website in 2010, without notice and comment required by the Administrative Procedures Act. Nixon Peabody successfully blocked the Secretary’s attempt to end-run the APA on behalf of NP’s New Hampshire hospital clients. See N.H. Hosp. Ass’n v. Azar, 887 F.3d 62, 75 (1st Cir. 2018). The First Circuit ruled that the 2010 FAQs were procedurally invalid, but declined to rule on the validity of the substantive policies contained in the FAQs (now codified in the 2017 Rule). Id.; see also Children’s Health Care v. Ctrs. for Medicare & Medicaid Servs., 900 F.3d 1022, 1025 (8th Cir. 2018); Children’s Hosp. of the King’s Daughters, Inc. v. Azar, 896 F.3d 615, 621 (4th Cir. 2018). Our prior alert on this subject is available here.
      [Back to reference]
    3. See Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843-44 (1984).
      [Back to reference]
    4. See 42 U.S.C. § 1396r-4(g)(1)(A).
      [Back to reference]
    5. See Children’s Hosp. of Texas v. Azar, No. 17-cv-00844, p. 7 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 13, 2019) (emphasis in original).
      [Back to reference]
    6. Id. at 15 (citing Plaintiffs’ Br. 65).
      [Back to reference]
    7. Id.
      [Back to reference]
    8. Id.(quoting 82 Fed. Reg. at 16,118).
      [Back to reference]

    Practices

    HealthcareHealthcare Dispute ResolutionMedicare & Medicaid and Other Government PayorsLitigation

    Industries

    Healthcare

    Insights And Happenings

    • Alert

      Providers may be precluded from participating in Medicare and Medicaid under CMS’s new affiliation disclosure requirements

      Sep 12, 2019
    • Alert

      California’s Medi-Cal program expands Telehealth Reimbursement

      Aug 21, 2019

    Subscribe to stay informed of the latest legal news, alerts, and business trends.Subscribe

    • People
    • Capabilities
    • Insights
    • About
    • Locations
    • Events
    • Careers
    • Alumni
    • © 2023 Nixon Peabody. All rights reserved
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms of Use
    • Statement of Client Rights
    • Supplier Diversity Program
    • Nixon Peabody International LLC
    • PAL