The American Hospital Association, on behalf of its nearly 5,000 healthcare organizations, is urging the Justice Department to probe routine denials from commercial health insurance companies.
Specifically, the AHA is asking the Justice Department to establish a task force to conduct False Claims Act investigations into the insurers that routinely deny payments to providers, according to a May 19 letter to the department.
The request from the AHA comes after HHS’ Office of Inspector General released a report April 27 that found Medicare Advantage Organizations sometimes delayed or denied enrollees’ access to services although the provider’s prior authorization request met Medicare coverage rules.
“It is time for the Department of Justice to exercise its False Claims Act authority to both punish those MAOs that have denied Medicare beneficiaries and their providers their rightful coverage and to deter future misdeeds,” the AHA said in a letter to the Justice Department. “This problem has grown so large — and has lasted for so long — that only the prospect of civil and criminal penalties can adequately prevent the widespread fraud certain MAOs are perpetrating against sick and elderly patients across the country.”
Private insurance plans paid hospitals on average 224% more compared with Medicare rates for both inpatient and outpatient services in 2020, a new study found.
Researchers at RAND Corporation looked at data from 4,000 hospitals in 49 states from 2018 to 2020. While the 224% increase in rates is high, it is a slight reduction from the 247% reported in 2018 in the last study RAND performed.
“This reduction is a result of a substantial increase in the volume of claims in the analysis from states with prices below the previous average price,” the study said.
The report showed that plans in certain states wound up paying hospitals more than others. It found that Florida, West Virginia and South Carolina had prices that were at or even higher than 310% of Medicare.
But other states like Hawaii, Arkansas and Washington paid less than 175% of Medicare rates.
“Employers can use this report to become better-informed purchasers of health benefits,” study lead author Christopher Waley said in a statement. “The work also highlights the levels and variation in hospital prices paid by employers and private insurers, and thus may help policymakers who may be looking for strategies to curb healthcare spending.”
The data come as the federal government has explored ways to lower healthcare costs, including going toe-to-toe with the hospital industry. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has in recent years sought to cut payments to off-campus outpatient clinics in order to bring Medicare payments in line with payments paid to physicians’ offices but has met with stiff legal and lobbying opposition from the hospital industry that argues the extra payments are needed.
CMS has also published regulations that call on hospitals to increase transparency of prices, including a rule that mandates hospitals publish online the prices for roughly 300 shoppable services.
The hospital industry pushed back against RAND’s findings, arguing that the study is based on incomplete data. The industry group American Hospital Association said researchers only looked at 2.2% of overall hospital spending, a small portion of overall expenses.
“Researchers should expect variation in the cost of delivering services across the wide range of U.S. hospitals – from rural critical access hospitals to large academic medical centers,” said AHA CEO Rick Pollack in a statement to Fierce Healthcare. “Tellingly, when RAND added more claims as compared to previous versions of this report, the average price for hospital services declined.”
The CMS proposed payment increase of 3.2 percent, or $1.6 billion, for fiscal year 2023, is inadequate due to inflation and labor and supply costs, Stacey Hughes, executive vice president of the American Hospital Association, said April 18.
Hospitals would actually see a net decrease in payments from this year to next year because of proposed cuts to Disproportionate Share Hospital payments and other payment cuts, Ms. Hughes said.
“This is simply unacceptable for hospitals and health systems and their caregivers that have been on the front lines of the COVID-19 pandemic for over two years now,” she stated in an April 18 news release. “While we have made great progress in the fight against this virus, our members continue to face a range of challenges that threaten their ability to continue caring for patients and providing essential services for their communities.”
The association is happy with the proposed 5 percent cap on a decrease to a hospital’s wage index, but Ms. Hughes asked that this be used in a “non-budget neutral” way.
CMS released the Inpatient Prospective Payment System proposed rule April 18 and is now accepting comments on it through June 17.
Read the full American Hospital Association statement here.
House Republicans are demanding the Biden administration starts winding down the COVID-19 public health emergency, while hospital lobbying groups are pressing it to do the opposite.
A group of more than 70 House Republicans wrote Thursday to Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra asking to start the process to wind down the COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE), which was recently extended until April. At the same time, several hospital advocacy groups are hoping the agency keeps the PHE beyond this spring and wants a 60-day notice as to when it will end.
“Although the PHE was certainly necessary at the outset of the pandemic, it was always meant to be temporary,” according to the GOP letter led by Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Washington, ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Republicans want HHS to release a concrete timeline for when the agency plans to exit the PHE.
“We recognize that the PHE cannot end overnight, and that certain actions must be taken to avoid significant disruption to patients and healthcare providers, including working with Congress to extend certain policies like maintaining access to telehealth services for our nation’s seniors,” the letter added.
The PHE granted major flexibilities for providers to get reimbursed by Medicare for telehealth, but those powers will go away after the PHE. It also gave flexibility on several reporting requirements and eased other regulatory burdens.
Another major issue is that states are going to be able to start eligibility redeterminations for Medicaid, which have been paused since the PHE went into effect in January 2020. State Medicaid directors are seeking a heads-up on when the emergency will go away, as states can start to disenroll ineligible beneficiaries after the PHE expires.
Republicans also want Becerra to cite any programs that should be made permanent, and they want “swift action” to lift all COVID-19 vaccine mandates.
The Supreme Court upheld the Biden administration’s healthcare worker vaccine mandate, overturning a lower court’s stay that affected half of the country. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has deadlines for states to comply with the vaccination mandate, and facilities that don’t fully comply could risk losing participation in Medicare and Medicaid.
The Republicans charge that the mandates have not “stopped the spread of COVID-19 but have alienated many Americans and have caused staff shortages at hospitals and other healthcare facilities.”
Key drivers of the staff shortages, however, have been a massive surge of the virus overwhelming facilities caused by the omicron variant along with increased expenses facilities have faced for temporary nursing staff. Those lingering expenses are the reason hospital groups are pressing for HHS to do the opposite and extend the PHE beyond April.
The Federation of American Hospitals (FAH) also wrote to Becerra Thursday (PDF) seeking to continue to extend the PHE “well beyond its current expiration date in April 2022.” Even though the omicron surge appears to be easing, the virus is still creating major operational challenges for providers, FAH said.
It also wants the administration to give hospitals a 60-day heads-up when it plans to end the PHE.
“Unwinding the complex web of PHE waiver-authorized operations, programs and procedures—which will have been in place and relied on for more than two years—is a major undertaking that, if rushed, risks destabilizing fragile healthcare networks that patients rely on for care,” the letter said.
The American Hospital Association also wrote to congressional leaders Tuesday seeking for more relief from Congress to help systems overcome staffing shortages that have exacerbated due to the omicron surge.
“The financial pressures hospitals and health systems faced at the beginning of the public health emergency continue, with, for example, ongoing delays in non-emergent procedures, in addition to increased expenses for supplies, medicine, testing and protective equipment,” the letter said.
FAH President Chip Kahn told Fierce Healthcare on Friday that the issues Republicans address in the letter are different from the priorities of the FAH, namely that the association doesn’t focus on mask or vaccine mandates.
“What we are saying is that the PHE has many aspects to it, and so … we think [it] should be extended, but if you don’t then we need to have a lengthy or carefully thought through transition,” Kahn said.
He added that Becerra’s predecessor, acting Secretary Eric Hargan, told providers that they would get a 60-day notice before the end of the PHE. That deadline for such a 60-day notice is Feb. 15.
Kahn said he understands the administration may be under political pressure to end the emergency, but prior notice is absolutely needed.
“I don’t know how they will respond but if they do choose to pull out, we just want to make sure that it doesn’t leave anything behind,” he said.
Independent physician groups, which include telehealth docs, must now accept a rate that someone elsehas negotiated, expert says.
The No Surprises Act has providers scrambling to understand the implications of a law that went into effect earlier this month.
Under the law, patients treated by an out-of-network physician can only be billed at the in-network rate. It protects patients from receiving surprise medical bills from the ER or air ambulance providers or for non-emergency services from out-of-network physicians at in-network facilities.
Patients can no longer receive balance bills – the difference between what the provider charges and what the insurer pays – or be charged a larger cost-sharing amount.
The congressional intent was to save patients sometimes thousands of dollars in unexpected, or surprise, medical bills. But applying the No Surprises Act to clinical care is being left to providers to sort out.
A big question is the definition of an emergency and the benchmark used to determine when it ends, according to Kyle Faget, a partner at Foley who is co-chair of the firm’s Health Care and Life Sciences Practice Groups. She asked: Does the emergency end when the patient is stabilized, or should another standard apply? This includes emergency services for mental health and substance-use disorders.
Another question is around pre-planned services. Patients have to be notified who is providing the care and whether the physician is in-network. If the physician is out-of-network, patients must provide consent. But that can be tricky, for instance, if a patient scheduled for a planned C-section gets an out-of-network doctor who was not scheduled at the time the appointment was made.
At some hospitals, a new layer of administration is needed to comply with the law, Faget said.
Another area not well understood is how the law affects telehealth consults in the ER.
TELEHEALTH AND THE NO SURPRISES ACT
The law states that if treated by a telehealth clinician, the patient can only be billed the in-network rate, said Faget, who specializes in telehealth law.
Telehealth is often used in the ER, according to Faget. Most ER visits require a physician consultation, with hands-on medical care provided by a clinician other than the physician.
Pre-COVID-19, providers were in the embryonic stage of providing virtual emergency care, she said. The pandemic, and a shortage of physicians, spurred virtual care in the ER.
These telehealth providers often work on a contracted basis. They are likely credentialed at the hospital but are not hospital employees, Faget said.
This means they are not credentialed with the insurer. Under the No Surprises Act, they are now subject to the in-network rates negotiated by the hospital.
Telehealth ER physicians could negotiate their own contracts with insurers, but as a small group, they are not likely to get the higher rates they had prior to the implementation of the No Surprises Act.
“It’s an arduous contracting process, and small-group bargaining power is low,” Faget said. “The big hospital system has bargaining power. Those groups providing telehealth services won’t necessarily have agreements in place and, by definition, are out-of-network.”
Independent physician groups, which include telehealth docs, must now accept a rate that someone else has negotiated, Faget said. This fact can be more of an issue than the lower rate they’re now being paid, she said.
“I think telehealth will adapt,” Faget said. “I think it will become the way of doing business.”
WHY THIS MATTERS
The bottom line is that the No Surprises Act is doing what it promised to do – saving patients from getting a large bill not covered by insurance.
Surprise bills are a moral and ethical issue, Faget said. Patients, at their most vulnerable in the ER, are sent home only to get a $5,000 bill they never saw coming.
“It’s like kicking a person when they’re down,” Faget said.
However, in the larger healthcare ecosystem, ending surprise medical bills will ultimately result in cost-shifting, she said.
“Think about the system globally: somebody is paying for something somewhere,” Faget said. “At the end of the day, somebody’s going to have to pay.”
THE LARGER TREND
Providers have told her that the No Surprises Act incentivizes insurance companies to lower their payments, Faget said.
The American Society of Anesthesiologists has accused BlueCross BlueShield of North Carolina of doing this. A letter sent by BCBS of North Carolina to anesthesiology and other physician practices this past November threatens to terminate physicians’ in-network status unless they agree to payment reductions ranging from 10% to over 30%, according to ASA.
The ASA saw this as proof of its prognostication to Congress upon passage of the No Surprises Act: that insurers would use loopholes in the law to leverage their market power.
The AHA and AMA have sued the Department of Health and Human Services over implementation of a dispute-resolution process in the law they say favors the insurer. The arbitrator must select the offer closest to the qualifying payment amount. Under the rule, this amount is set by the insurer, giving the payer an unfair advantage, according to the lawsuit.
The American Hospital Association (AHA) is asking Congress for an additional $25B to help hospitals offset high labor costs, largely incurred by the need to rely on travel nurse staffing firms that charge two to three times pre-pandemic rates. The AHA, along with 200 members of Congress, is urging the Federal Trade Commission to investigate the staffing agencies for anti-competitive activity, although the agency has previously declined to do so.
The Gist: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is now releasing$2B in of provider relief dollars from the CARES Act. Beyond that, after nearly two years and $178B of federal support, hospitals shouldn’t count on additional funds from the government, even as costs of labor and supplies continue to rise.
Instead, we’d expect more scrutinyover how the remaining relief dollars are spent. Federal support during the pandemic has masked structural economic flaws in provider economics, and we expect 2022 will be a year of financial reckoning for many hospitals and health systems.
CMS is preparing to enforce its vaccine mandate for health care workers, but the agency may not have an accurate count of how many remain unvaccinated—and five health systems are pushing back on federal hospital vaccination data, calling it “extremely erroneous,” Cheryl Clark writes for MedPage Today.
The Supreme Court earlier this month ruled that CMS could require most health care workers to be vaccinated against Covid-19—but U.S. officials currently do not know exactly how many workers remain unvaccinated, primarily due to a lack of reliable immunization data.
At the end of December, CDC reported that 77.6% of hospital workers were fully vaccinated. However, that figure was based on data from only about 40% of the nation’s hospitals. Hospitals currently send vaccination data to the agency on a voluntary basis, but beginning May 15, they will be required to send in weekly data, just like nursing homes have been.
According to Janis Orlowski, chief health care officer at the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), CDC’s data is likely representative of providers nationwide, as an AAMC survey of 125 academic hospitals found similar results. More than 99% of doctors and close to 90% of nurses were vaccinated, she said, but vaccination rates dropped off to the 30% to 40% range for those in more operational roles, such as transportation and food service workers.
Is federal vaccination data for hospitals inaccurate?
Further adding to the confusion about health care workers’ vaccination rates are potential inaccuracies in a federal database that tracks Covid-19 vaccinations among workers in hospitals across the country. According to five health systems listed as having the highest numbers of unvaccinated workers, the database is “extremely erroneous,” Clark writes.
In the database, Adventist Health Orlando (AHO) is shown to have 18,576 unvaccinated workers, 637 partially vaccinated workers, and 25,253 fully vaccinated workers. However, Jeff Grainger, director of external communications for AdventHealth in Central Florida, said those numbers weren’t possible since the organization “[doesn’t] have 44,000 employees in one hospital.” He added that 96% of AHO’s team members have already complied with CMS’ mandate.
The University of Illinois Hospital (UI) was listed in the database as having 12,049 unvaccinated workers and 272 partially vaccinated workers. Jacqueline Carey, from health system’s public affairs department, disputed these numbers, saying UI had 6,530 workers as of Jan. 19, with 96% of them fully vaccinated. The remainder were either partially vaccinated or had approved exemptions.
The hospital with the third highest number of unvaccinated workers was Mount Sinai Hospital, Clark writes, but Lucia Lee, a hospital spokesperson, said the federal data was inaccurate. According to Lee, Mount Sinai Health System, of which the hospital is a part, has vaccinated 99% of its more than 43,000 employees.
A representative for Ochsner Medical Center, which is listed as having the fourth highest number of unvaccinated workers, also pushed back on the statistics in the database. Currently, 99.57% of Ochsner’s over 34,000 employees are compliant with its Covid-19 policy, with 95% of workers Ochsner Health and Ochsner LSU Health Shreveport fully vaccinated.
Finally, Kena Lewis, a spokesperson for Orlando Regional Medical Center, said that federal data showing the hospital has 44,154 workers is inaccurate. Instead, she said the hospital is one of 10 in the Orlando network, which has 23,709 total employees. Although Lewis did not give the health system’s vaccination rates, she said it “continues to review the guidelines regarding Covid-19 vaccination requirements for health care organizations and will take appropriate steps.”
Although it is not clear why there are discrepancies between the federal data and what these health systems are reporting regarding vaccination rates, there are some potential explanations, Clark writes.
According to Carey, the federal database only includes vaccination information provided by the UI health system and employee health services. This means that vaccinations workers received elsewhere, such as through a personal provider or pharmacy, are not included in the data, and they will show up as being unvaccinated.
Separately, a spokesperson for another of the five organizations told Clark on background that short-term nursing staff contracted through agencies may show up as unvaccinated in the federal database. Although the agencies assure employers the nurses are vaccinated, hospitals do not independently verify this information.
Earlier this week, the American Hospital Association (AHA) made its case before the US Supreme Court, in opposition to Medicare reimbursement cuts to hospitals that participate in the 340B Drug Pricing Program. The program allows hospitals that serve low-income patients to purchase outpatient drugs at a discount.
In the graphic above, we look at what’s at stake for hospitals in the case. Beginning in 2018, Medicare cut reimbursement for 340B-eligible drugs purchased by most hospitals by 28.5 percentage points, amounting to roughly $1.6B annually—which was a significant hit to hospitals’ 340B revenue. As we recently discussed, that revenue has become essential for many hospitals’ financial sustainability. However, the true impact on hospital bottom lines is more nuanced, as the savings from 340B rate cuts are being redistributed to all hospitals that participate in the Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS), regardless of their 340B status, via a 3.2 percent payment bump for non-drug Part B services.While the cut negatively impacts those with large 340B programs—generally larger hospitals located in urban areas—the resulting redistribution actually provides a net benefit to about four in five hospitals.
Although 340B program revenues are at stake, the broader legal question before the Court centers on the level of authority federal agencies like the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) have to create regulations to interpret ambiguous laws. (If the justices rule against CMS, it will overturn a key legal doctrine known as the Chevron Defense, which compels courts to defer to an agency’s interpretation of unclear statutes.)
A ruling isn’t expected until next spring, but regardless of the outcome, the 340B program faces other threats, chiefly from several lawsuits involving large pharmaceutical manufacturers’ moves to restrict discounted product sales to contract pharmacies. Undoubtedly, the ongoing scrutiny of the 340B program will continue to raise questions about whether there are better ways to subsidize the operations of hospitals serving low-income patients and ensure that underserved patients have access to lifesaving treatments.
How much should we pay for drugs? That’s the question at the center of American Hospital Association v. Becerra, a sleeper of a case involving billions of dollars in federal spending and a chance to reshape two doctrines at the heart of administrative law.
Drugs, money, and the law: Sounds sexy, right? Still, you could be forgiven for never having heard of the case, which will be argued on Tuesday. It arises out of a technical dispute over how Medicare, the federal program that insures 63 million elderly and disabled people, pays for some of the drugs that hospitals dispense to patients in outpatient departments — in particular, chemotherapy drugs and other expensive anti-cancer medications.
The case centers on part of a 2003 law that gives Medicare two options for how to pay for those drugs. Under the first option, Medicare would survey hospitals about what it cost them to acquire the drugs. Medicare would then draw on the survey data and reimburse hospitals for their “average acquisition costs,” subject to variations for different types of hospitals. It’s a rough-cut way to make hospitals whole without requiring them to submit receipts for every drug purchase.
But Medicare immediately encountered a problem: It just wasn’t practical to survey hospitals about their acquisition costs. Fortunately, the law anticipated that possibility and gave Medicare a second option. In the absence of survey data, Medicare could pay the “average price” for the drug, “as calculated and adjusted by the Secretary [of Health and Human Services] as necessary for purposes of this [option].”
This approach turned out to be costly. A drug’s “average price” is fixed elsewhere in the Medicare statute, typically at 106% of the drug’s sale price. As a policy matter, this “average sales price plus 6%” approach is hard to defend. Because 6% of a large number is bigger than 6% of a small number, hospitals have an incentive to dispense more expensive drugs, even when there are cheaper and equally effective therapies.
Other developments soon made the payment policy look even more dubious. Back in 1992, Congress created something called the 340B program to support health-care providers that serve poor and disadvantaged communities. Eligible providers get steep discounts on the drugs that they purchase — anywhere between 20% and 50% of the normal price.
Initially, few hospitals qualified for the 340B program. Today, more than two-thirds of nonprofit hospitals participate. (For-profits are excluded from the program.) For years, Medicare kept paying those 340B hospitals 106% of the average sales price of their outpatient drugs. The upshot was that hospitals were buying highly discounted drugs and then charging the federal government full price. That heightened the incentive to prescribe very expensive medications — which is partly why Medicare spending on outpatient drugs has ballooned, growing an average of 8.1% per year from 2006 through 2017.
Federal regulators were troubled by the gap between hospital costs and Medicare payments. In their view, the point of the 2003 statute was to cover hospitals’ costs, not to subsidize 340B hospitals. That jibes with the Medicare statute more generally: Its “overriding purpose” is to provide “reasonable (not excessive or unwarranted) cost-based reimbursement.”
So Medicare adopted a rule that, starting in 2018, slashed the reimbursement rate for 340B hospitals’ outpatient drugs (or, more precisely, a subset of them) to 22.5% less than the average sales price. That was still generous, since on average the 340B discount is about one-third of a drug’s price. But it was much less generous than before, and Medicare estimated that the change would save taxpayers $1.6 billion every year.
The American Hospital Association, together with two hospital trade groups and three hospitals, filed suit. Had Medicare chosen option one, the plaintiffs argued, it could have focused on acquisition costs and even distinguished among hospital groups in setting payment rates. Instead, it chose option two, which says that Medicare must pay a drug’s “average price” — not its acquisition price — and doesn’t provide for discriminating between hospitals. While the plaintiffs acknowledged that Medicare could “adjust” the average price, they argued that a cut from 106% to 77.5% of the average sales price was not really an adjustment. It was a wholesale revision of the statutory scheme.
The plaintiffs encountered an obstacle right out of the gate. To prevent courts from second-guessing Medicare’s choices about how much to pay for outpatient care, the Medicare statute says that “[t]here shall be no administrative or judicial review” of those choices. In the government’s telling, Congress precluded review because Medicare has a fixed annual budget for outpatient care. Increasing payments for one type of care thus requires cutting payments for other types of care.
That linkage means that, if the plaintiffs win, it’s not just that they should have been paid more for certain drugs. It’s that all hospitals should have been paid less for other services. (That helps explains why coalitions representing rural and for-profit hospitals have filed amicus briefs in support of Medicare.) Unwinding that decision would be an administrative nightmare — which is why Congress precluded review in the first place.
As the plaintiffs see it, however, the government simply misreads the scope of the preclusion language. Though it generally precludes review of reimbursement decisions relating to outpatient care, it doesn’t cross-reference the subsection relating to outpatient drugs. Both the district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed, invoking the strong presumption favoring judicial review of agency action.
On the merits, the plaintiffs fared less well. Though they won in the district court, the D.C. Circuit held that Medicare reasonably read the 2003 law to allow it to align hospital reimbursement with hospital acquisition costs. Medicare’s interpretation — and the scope of its authority to “adjust” payment rates — was thus owed deference under Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, a 1984 decision holding that courts generally should defer to agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes. Judge Cornelia Pillard dissented, arguing that the statute unambiguously foreclosed Medicare’s interpretation.
The plaintiffs asked the Supreme Court to review a single question: whether Medicare should receive Chevron deference for interpreting the 2003 law in the manner that it did. Tantalizingly, the plaintiffs noted that “[i]t is no secret that members of this Court have raised concerns about whether Chevron deference, particularly when applied as indiscriminately as it was in this case, violates the separation of powers.”
The Supreme Court bit. In its order granting certiorari, however, the court instructed the parties to brief an additional question: whether the Medicare statute precludes the lawsuit. What that means is that — in addition to resolving whether hospitals are entitled to billions of taxpayer dollars — the court will have the chance to address two foundational doctrines of administrative law: the presumption of reviewability and Chevron deference.
Arguably, AHA v. Becerraoffers an unusually vivid example of the costs of a strong presumption of reviewability. If the plaintiffs win, what’s the remedy? Is Medicare supposed to reopen every outpatient payment decision that it’s made since 2018, given that paying more for 340B drugs means it should have paid less for other services? The plaintiffs say no, arguing that Medicare wouldn’t be required to make any retroactive adjustments. But the government fears otherwise and the answer is not at all clear. Isn’t that the kind of mess that preclusion is meant to avoid?
I’ve called in my academic work for abandoning the presumption of reviewability precisely because it disrespects Congress’ reasonable desire to shield some administrative decisions from judicial review. In recent years, however, the Supreme Court has evinced no interest in doing so — the presumption of reviewability remains “strong.” We may soon find out just how strong it is.
But the big question about the case is whether the court will use it as a vehicle to reconsider Chevron deference. In the plaintiffs’ view, it is galling — “an affront to the separation of powers” — that the courts would defer when Medicare has exploited a purported ambiguity to sidestep Congress’ clear instructions about how much to pay hospitals. Several of the conservative justices, including in particular Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, may be receptive to the argument. If so, the right wing of the court could use the case to narrow or even overturn Chevron, with potentially dramatic implications for the scope of executive-branch power.
Whether the court will do so is anyone’s guess. The justices could easily resolve the case on narrower grounds. Maybe the statute unambiguously forecloses Medicare’s interpretation of the law, as the plaintiffs argue. Or maybe, as the government claims, Medicare properly exercised its explicit authority to “adjust” prices for outpatient drugs.
Neither of those holdings would be the sexiest decision that the Supreme Court has ever issued. It would be technical, arcane — even boring. Given the financial stakes, however, it would be significant nonetheless.
The American Hospital Association, the American Medical Association and the American Nurses Association teamed up to release a new “Forever Grateful” TV and digital ad campaign on Monday to thank health care workers.