Supreme Court pulls Medicaid work requirements case off docket

The Supreme Court announced Thursday it will no longer hear oral arguments later this month on an appeal over the controversial Medicaid work requirements program in New Hampshire and Arkansas.

Legal experts say the move likely means the case won’t be heard this term and possibly may not be heard at all, especially with the Biden administration signaling a different approach to work requirements.

“By taking the cases off the docket, the court is signaling that it won’t hear them this term and probably that it’ll never hear them at all,” University of Michigan Law Professor Nicholas Bagley told Fierce Healthcare.

A major question mark, though, is whether the court will vacate the decisions by several appellate courts that upheld lower court rulings that the programs should be struck down. 

“If the Supreme Court is not going to vacate the D.C. Circuit ruling, that means the decision on the books is one that clearly explains why work requirements are not permitted under the Medicaid statute,” said Rachel Sachs, associate professor of law at Washington University, in an interview with Fierce Healthcare. 

She added that it is unlikely for the case to come back and “extremely unlikely that this issue will return in the near future.”

The Biden administration asked the court back in February to cancel the oral arguments originally scheduled for March 29. The administration said in a filing that allowing the requirements to take effect won’t promote the objectives of Medicaid to extend health insurance to low-income people.

President Joe Biden’s Department of Justice called for the court to vacate judgments of appeals courts and remand the case back to the Department of Health and Human Services so it can finish a review of all the waivers.

Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge said in a statement back in February that the legal filing seeking the delay was a “politically motivated stunt designed to avoid a Supreme Court decision upholding a program that encourages personal responsibility while still providing healthcare coverage for those seeking gainful employment.”

Arkansas’ work requirements program was installed in 2018 and led to approximately 18,000 people losing Medicaid coverage before the program was struck down by a federal judge.

Appellate courts upheld judgments from lower courts that New Hampshire and Arkansas’ programs did not meet the objectives of the Medicaid program. The states appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the cases late last year.

Court rulings have also struck down programs in other states including Kentucky and Michigan. Kentucky pulled its program in 2019 after a Democrat was elected governor.

Arkansas and New Hampshire’s attorneys general did not return requests for comment on the Supreme Court’s decision Thursday.

Jefferson Health and Einstein Healthcare merger moves forward after FTC withdraws challenge

https://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/jefferson-health-and-einstein-healthcare-network-merger-moves-forward-after-ftc-withdraws-0

Jefferson Health and Einstein Healthcare Network merger clear final hurdle after  FTC will no longer challenge - 6abc Philadelphia

Jefferson’s hospital network will grow to 18 locations with Einstein’s three general acute care hospitals and an inpatient rehabilitation hospital.

The merger between Pennsylvania-based Jefferson Health and Einstein Healthcare Network can now close after the Federal Trade Commission voted to withdraw its opposition to the deal, Jefferson Health announced this week.

The deal is now expected to be finalized within the next six months.

Earlier this year, the FTC voted 4-0 to voluntarily dismiss its appeal to the Third Circuit of the district court, according to the commission’s case summary.

Once the deal is complete, Jefferson’s network of hospitals will grow to 18 with the addition of Einstein’s three general acute care hospitals and an inpatient rehabilitation hospital.

WHY IT MATTERS

Merger plans were first announced in 2018 in a deal estimated to be worth $599 million.

The FTC initially blocked the merger because it believed it would reduce competition in the Philadelphia and Montgomery counties.

It alleged the deal would give the two health systems control of at least 60% of the inpatient general acute care hospital services market in North Philadelphia, at least 45% of that market in Montgomery County, and at least 70% of the inpatient acute rehabilitation services market in the Philadelphia area.

But late last year, a federal judge blocked the FTC’s attempt to stop the merger. Judge Gerald Pappert of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania wrote that the FTC failed to demonstrate that there’s a credible threat of harm to competition. He pointed to other competitors in the region, such as Penn Medicine, Temple Health and Trinity Health Mid-Atlantic.

The FTC and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania attempted to appeal the court’s decision, but after Jefferson and Einstein filed a motion to withdraw the case, the commission unanimously voted to drop its appeal.

THE LARGER TREND

The FTC is taking a closer look at healthcare mergers and acquisitions to better understand how physician practice and healthcare facility mergers affect competition. Earlier this year, it sent orders to Aetna, Anthem, Florida Blue, Cigna, Health Care Service Corporation and United Healthcare to share patient-level claims data for inpatient, outpatient and physician services across 15 states from 2015 through 2020.

Although M&A activity was down in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Kaufman Hall called the 79 transactions that did take place “remarkable” for falling within the range of the 92 deals from the year before.

The analysts expect activity to ramp up moving forward, however. They predict that as health systems evaluate their business strategies post-pandemic, those in strong positions will take advantage of other systems’ divestitures to grow their capabilities and expand into new markets.

ON THE RECORD

“We are excited to have Einstein and Jefferson come together, as our shared vision will enable us to improve the lives of patients, the health of our communities and enhance our health education and research capabilities,” said Ken Levitan, the interim president and CEO of Einstein Healthcare Network.

“By bringing our resources together, we can offer those we care for – particularly the historically underserved populations in Philadelphia and Montgomery County – even greater access to high-quality care.”

Hospitals ask Supreme Court to reverse payment cuts

Image result for Supreme Court

The American Hospital Association, other trade groups and individual hospitals filed petitions Feb. 10 asking the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse appeals court decisions in two cases involving outpatient payment cuts to hospitals. 

One lawsuit hospitals are asking the Supreme Court to hear challenges HHS’ payment reductions in 2019 for certain outpatient off-campus provider-based departments. 

Under the 2019 Medicare Outpatient Prospective Payment System final rule, CMS made payments for clinic visits site-neutral by reducing the payment rate for evaluation and management services provided at off-campus provider-based departments by 60 percent.

In an attempt to overturn the rule, the AHA, the Association of American Medical Colleges and dozens of hospitals across the nation sued HHS. They argued CMS exceeded its authority when it finalized the payment cut in the OPPS rule. They further claimed the site-neutral payment policy violates the Medicare statute’s mandate of budget neutrality. 

HHS argued that under the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 it has authority to develop a method for controlling unnecessary increases in outpatient department services. Since “method” is not defined in the statute, the government argued its approach satisfies generic definitions of the term. U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer rejected that argument and set aside the regulation implementing the rate reduction in September 2019.

HHS filed an appeal in the case, and the appellate court reversed the lower court’s decision July 17.

The second lawsuit hospitals are asking the Supreme Court to hear challenges HHS’ nearly 30 percent cut to 2018 and 2019 outpatient drug payments for certain hospitals participating in the 340B Drug Pricing Program. 

A district court sided with hospitals and found the payment reductions were unlawful. Two members of a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals overturned that ruling in July. 

The hospitals argue in both petitions that the Supreme Court should review the cases because of the “excessive deference” the appeals court gave to HHS’ interpretation of the respective governing statutes. 

New Jersey school board sues Horizon, says insurer threatened to stop paying claims for 14,000 workers

Jersey City BOE sues Horizon over alleged 'threat' to stop paying claims  for 14,000 employees | mainlynews.gr

Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey threatened to stop paying medical claims for about 14,000 employees of the Jersey City Board of Education, a lawsuit filed by the board alleges, according to NJ.com.

Horizon Healthcare Services, the district’s medical claim manager, planned to stop processing insurance claims Nov. 25 amid an ongoing dispute over payment, the lawsuit alleges. On Nov. 24, a judge granted a temporary restraint aimed at protecting the insured until Dec. 17. 

The school board accused Horizon of not complying with lowering out-of-network rates and charging hidden fees, among other allegations, according to the lawsuit. 

Horizon denied the allegations. In a statement to NJ.com, Thomas Vincz, public relations manager for Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey, said: “At no time did Horizon ever threaten to terminate the [Board of Education]’s coverage and Jersey City Board of Education employees should know that their coverage has remained in place, uninterrupted, while we continue to work with Board staff to resolve the issues preventing them from paying the charges owed under their existing contract.”

The lawsuit was filed in the Hudson County Superior Court. Horizon has until Dec. 9 to respond to the lawsuit, according to NJ.com.

Purdue Pharma pleads guilty to federal criminal charges related to nation’s opioid crisis

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/24/us/purdue-pharma-oxycontin-guilty-plea/index.html?fbclid=IwAR2DM1jxDtKxFaCW1o-HJ45Tuh1-HOVw5DjNx_ncuhfajyjdkvP9wnMHUMg

Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin, pleaded guilty Tuesday to three federal criminal charges related to the company’s role in creating the nation’s opioid crisis. Purdue Pharma board chairman Steve Miller pleaded guilty on behalf of the company during a virtual federal court hearing in front of US District Judge Madeline Cox Arleo.

The counts include one of dual-object conspiracy to defraud the United States and to violate the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and two counts of conspiracy to violate the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute.

The plea deal announced in October includes the largest penalties ever levied against a pharmaceutical manufacturer, including a criminal fine of $3.544 billion and an additional $2 billion in criminal forfeiture, according to a Department of Justice press release.

The company, which declared bankruptcy last year, will be dissolved as a part of the plea agreement, and its assets will be used to create a new “public benefit company” controlled by a trust or similar entity designed for the benefit of the American public.

The Justice Department has said Purdue Pharma will function entirely in the public interest rather than to maximize profits. Its future earnings will go to paying the fines and penalties, which in turn will be used to combat the opioid crisis.

In pleading guilty to the criminal charges, the company is taking responsibility for past misconduct, Purdue Pharma said in a statement to CNN Tuesday.”Having our plea accepted in federal court, and taking responsibility for past misconduct, is an essential step to preserve billions of dollars of value for creditors and advance our goal of providing financial resources and lifesaving medicines to address the opioid crisis,” the statement said. “We continue to work tirelessly to build additional support for a proposed bankruptcy settlement, which would direct the overwhelming majority of the settlement funds to state, local and tribal governments for the purpose of abating the opioid crisis.”

According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 70,000 Americans died of drug overdoses in 2018, just one year of the opioid crisis, and about 70% of those deaths were caused by prescription or illicit opioids like OxyContin. In that year, an estimated 10.3 million Americans 12 and older misused opioids, including 9.9 million prescription pain reliever abusers and 808,000 heroin users, according to the US Department of Health and Human Services Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

The Sackler family, and other current and former employees and owners of the company, still face the possibility that federal criminal charges will be filed against them. The court did not set a date for a sentencing hearing.

Appeals court sides with hospitals in latest challenge of DSH payment calculations

lady justice

A federal appeals court upheld a ruling that would allow hospitals to calculate their disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments using Medicaid patients as well as patients eligible for treatment under experimental Medicaid “demonstration projects” approved by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

The opinion, issued Friday, upheld the decision of a lower court that sided with 10 Florida hospitals seeking to include days of care funded by Florida’s Low Income Pool, an approved Medicaid demonstration project. Through the pool, the state and federal governments jointly reimbursed hospitals for care provided to uninsured and underinsured patients.

HHS argued against allowing the hospitals to include those patients in their Medicaid fraction on the ground that the patients were treated out of charity rather than as designated beneficiaries of a demonstration project.

“The district court found the Secretary’s arguments to the contrary unpersuasive. The Secretary argued the text of the regulation allows hospitals to include days of care provided under a demonstration project only if the project entitles specific patients to specific benefit packages,” the judges said (PDF). “As the court noted, however, this is not what the regulation says. Rather, a patient must have been ‘eligible for inpatient services,’ meaning the demonstration project enabled the patient to receive inpatient services, regardless whether the project gave the patient a right to these services or allowed the patient to enroll in an insurance plan that provided the services.”

DSH payments have traditionally been calculated using the costs incurred to treat Medicaid and uninsured patients. However, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid’s 2017 rule says costs incurred treating other patients are applicable. For example, a dually eligible patient who’s admitted to the hospital will likely have their stay paid for by Medicare, the agency said, as Medicaid is treated as the “payer of last resort.” As such, those costs would be eligible to be subtracted from DSH payouts.

In backing the hospitals on the DSH dispute, the judges pointed to a similar case considered by the Fifth Circuit last year in which the agency sought to exclude from the Medicaid fraction days of care funded through an “uncompensated care pool” created by a demonstration project. That pool reimbursed hospitals in Mississippi for services provided to uninsured patients affected by Hurricane Katrina but did not entitle specific patients to specific services.

In that case, the Fifth Circuit held “plain regulatory text demands that such days be included—period.”

“We see no flaw in Judge Collyer’s analysis and therefore embrace the district court’s opinion as the law of this circuit,” the judges said.

Los Angeles hospital can force Anthem to cover ER visits, court rules

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/legal-regulatory-issues/los-angeles-hospital-can-force-anthem-to-cover-er-visits-court-rules.html?utm_medium=email

Innovating in Emergency Medicine: CMS Launches ET3 — A New Treatment Model  for EMS | by StartUp Health | StartUp Health

A federal appellate court recently ruled that Anthem is required to pay Martin Luther King Jr. Community Hospital in Los Angeles for about 75 emergency room visits from covered patients, according to Bloomberg Law

The appeal centered on whether Anthem was required to cover services MLK Jr. Community Hospital rendered to employees of Budco Group, an Ohio company, when the hospital was assigned the patients’ benefit payments. Anthem is the administrator of Budco’s Employee Retirement Income Security Act plan, and the employees who received services at the hospital were beneficiaries of the plan. 

Between 2015 and 2017, Budco employees visited MLK Jr. Community Hospital’s emergency room at least 75 times and assigned their benefits under the company’s ERISA plan to the hospital as a condition of receiving care. Instead of paying MLK Jr. Community Hospital, which was out of Anthem’s network, the insurance company paid the beneficiaries, forcing the hospital to attempt to recover payment from the beneficiaries. The Budco employees deposited payment into their personal accounts and did not send any of the benefit payments to the hospital. 

The hospital sued Anthem and Budco in 2016, seeking benefit payments and declaratory relief. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the hospitals, and Anthem and Budco appealed. 

On appeal, Anthem argued the case was blocked by a provision in its health plan that prevented patients from assigning their rights to third parties such as MLK Jr. Community Hospital, according to Bloomberg Law. The hospital argued that the “anti-assignment” provision did not bar assignments in this case. 

In an unpublished split decision filed Oct. 2, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of the hospital, holding that the language cited by Anthem allowed assignments to healthcare providers, including those that were out of network. 

“The provision lists three entities other than the beneficiary that Anthem may pay directly. Providers are included among those entities,” the court stated. “In the same paragraph, and only two sentences later, the anti-assignment provision forbids beneficiaries from assigning benefits to ‘anyone else.’ This sentence restricting assignment must be read consistently with the entire paragraph, which concerns benefit payments to entities other than the beneficiary. Thus, we interpret the anti-assignment provision’s reference to ‘anyone else’ to permit assignments to those entities, including ‘providers.'”

Alternatively, the appellate court held that the anti-assignment provision is not part of the health plan documents. 

“The anti-assignment provision is plainly not a benefit, and therefore the district court correctly determined it should not be incorporated as a description of the plan’s benefits,” the appellate court held. 

In his dissenting opinion, Judge Daniel Collins said the anti-assignment provision is an express term of the documents that govern the Budco plan. He also disagreed with the majority’s alternative conclusion that the language of the anti-assignment provision did not bar the assignments that plan beneficiaries made to MLK Jr. Hospital. 

Blue Cross Blue Shield sues AllianzGI over investment strategies

https://www.pionline.com/courts/blue-cross-blue-shield-sues-allianzgi-over-investment-strategies

Blue Cross Blue Shield’s national employee benefits committee filed a lawsuit against Allianz Global Investors and its investment consultant Aon Investments USA, charging both with breaches of fiduciary responsibilities and breach of contract regarding more than $2 billion in losses in the insurer’s defined benefit plan trust.

The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in New York, alleges that AllianzGI took “reckless actions” in the management of three funds the manager had said offered downside protection against market declines and volatility, according to the court filing.

As of Jan. 31, the National Retirement Trust of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association had a total of $2.9 billion invested in the AllianzGI Structured Alpha Multi-Beta Series LLC I, AllianzGI Structured Alpha Emerging Markets Equity 350 LLC, and the AllianzGI Structured Alpha 1000 LLC, according to the filing.

The numerical values in the strategy names correspond to the amount of alpha in basis points above a corresponding index the strategy is expected to achieve.

After the funds experienced heavy losses in February and March, the investments were liquidated and redeemed, and the committee received about $540 million, according to the filing.

As of Dec. 31, 2018, the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association National Retirement Trust had $4.6 billion in assets, according to its most recent Form 5500 filing.

The lawsuit, which includes claims breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract against both AllianzGI and Aon, alleges that AllianzGI “caused the (benefits) committee to believe that structured alpha’s risk profile was consistent with Allianz’s stated investment strategy rather than the actual risk profile, either by making false or misleading representations about structured alpha or failing to disclose information necessary to correct prior representations that were inconsistent with how Allianz was actually managing the strategy.”

The suit alleges Aon breached its obligations by “failing to monitor and inform the committee of breakdowns in Allianz’s risk management protocols, learning only after the catastrophic events of March 2020 that Allianz had inadequate risk management in place.”

AllianzGI’s structured alpha strategies have historically been designed to be both long and short volatility, according to a September 2016 presentation: Taking range-bound spread positions, to sell options that were most likely to expire worthless (short volatility); hedged positions designed to protect against market crashes (long volatility); and directional spread positions designed to generate returns when equity indexes rise or fall more than usual during multiweek periods (long/short volatility).

The lawsuit alleges that “when equity markets declined, volatility spiked and the funds’ option positions were exposed to a heightened risk of loss in February and March 2020, those promised protections were absent.”

The lawsuit seeks relief including restoration of all losses, actual damages and accounting and disgorgement of fees and profits.

John Wallace, AllianzGI spokesman, said in an email: “While the losses sustained by the Structured Alpha portfolio during the market downturn in late February and March were disappointing, AllianzGI believes the allegations made by Blue Cross Blue Shield are legally and factually flawed. We will defend ourselves vigorously against these claims. Blue Cross Blue Shield was advised by a sophisticated investment consultant to evaluate the Structured Alpha strategy. These funds sought to deliver substantial returns of as much as 10% above, net of fees, the returns of the fund’s benchmark, an index like the S&P 500. As was fully disclosed to Blue Cross Blue Shield, the Structured Alpha strategy involved risks commensurate with those higher returns. Blue Cross Blue Shield and their consultant determined that the Structured Alpha Portfolio fit with their overall investment goals and risk tolerances.”

The $15.3 billion Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, Little Rock, filed its own lawsuit against Allianz Global Investors and subsidiaries in July, regarding its own losses in structured alpha strategies.

Robert Elfinger, Aon spokesman, said the company does not comment on pending litigation.

Sean W. Gallagher, Adam L. Hoeflich, Nicolas L. Martinez, Abby M. Mollen and Mark S. Ouweleen, partners at Bartlit Beck, attorney for the plaintiffs, could also not be immediately reached for comment.

 

 

 

 

Chicago hospital defeats allegations of ‘ghost payroll’ scheme

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/chicago-hospital-defeats-allegations-of-ghost-payroll-scheme.html?utm_medium=email

False Claims Act & Physicians - Basic Primer

An Illinois federal court has dismissed a whistleblower lawsuit alleging University of Chicago Medical Center, Medical Business Office and Trustmark Recovery Services violated the False Claims Act, according to Bloomberg Law

MBO and Trustmark provided medical billing and debt collection services for UCMC. The whistleblowers, Kenya Sibley, Jasmeka Collins and Jessica Lopez, alleged MBO and Trustmark engaged in a “ghost payroll” scheme that involved regularly falsifying UCMC invoices, listing employes who didn’t work on the hospital’s collections and time charges from people who were not employees.

The whistleblowers, former employees of MBO and Trademark, alleged the companies and UCMC knew about the “ghost payroll” scheme, and that the allegedly falsified invoices caused the hospital to report overstated wages to the federal government, triggering a larger Medicare reimbursement than it was entitled to.

The complaint further alleged that MBO and Trustmark engaged in a “bad debt” scheme. “MBO would regularly write-off Medicare bad debts for amounts a Medicare beneficiary owed without conducting a reasonable collection effort, when Medicare beneficiaries were still paying on the debts, or when Medicare beneficiaries did not actually owe a debt,” the amended complaint states.

After writing off the bad debt, MBO would allegedly send the bad debt to Trustmark or another collection agency for further collection efforts.

On Sept. 14, Judge Harry Leinenweber of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed the amended complaint, saying the whistleblowers failed to adequately allege the defendants engaged in a scheme to inflate bad debts and falsify invoices in University of Chicago’s cost reports. 

The allegations of a “ghost payroll” scheme fail because the whistleblowers failed to allege that defendants certified compliance with any regulation, which is required when filing a false claims case, the judge said in the decision. The amended complaint also fails to establish sufficiently UCMC’s knowledge of the alleged scheme.

The judge also ruled that the amended complaint failed to adequately allege a “bad debt” scheme. Allegations related to MBO’s and Trustmark’s bad debt reports to clients cannot satisfy the requirements to show that companies or their clients submitted improper claims for bad debt reimbursements to the government, reads the decision.

 

 

 

 

Payers win again, court rules Admininistration violated law in axing ACA cost-sharing payments

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/payers-win-again-court-rules-trump-admin-violated-law-in-axing-aca-cost-sh/583565/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Issue:%202020-08-17%20Healthcare%20Dive%20%5Bissue:29123%5D&utm_term=Healthcare%20Dive

Payers win again, court rules Trump admin violated law in axing ...

Dive Brief:

  • A federal court ruled Friday that insurers are owed subsidies mandated by the Affordable Care Act to help them cover people with low incomes in the exchanges and the Trump administration violated the law when it halted the payments in 2017.
  • In a separate but related ruling, the same court found that payers that were able to raise premiums to offset the loss of those payments in 2018, however, should not receive the entire unpaid amount.
  • The judges with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal District in their decision relied on a recent ruling in favor of insurers from the U.S. Supreme Court on a separate cost-sharing program in the ACA. “We see no sufficient basis for reaching a different conclusion,” they wrote.

Dive Insight:

The Affordable Care Act took into account that payers participating in the exchanges it created would be somewhat flying blind when setting premium rates for a new population. To safeguard them, multiple programs were established to help manage the inherent risk.

One of them was the risk corridors program, which was supposed to redistribute some of the profits insurers received in the exchanges to other companies seeing losses. But far more companies reported losses than profits, and the program quickly ran out of funds to pay out.

The Trump administration argued the ACA does not properly appropriate the funding anyway. 

The high court, however, ruled in April those insurers are owed about $12 billion from the program and that the language indeed creates what is called a money-mandating provision.

The decisions released Friday use that precedent for one of the other risk programs, which provided the subsidies for coverage of people with low-incomes, called cost-sharing reduction payments.

HHS abruptly stopped making the payments in October 2017, making the argument that the money had not been appropriated. But litigation of the issue goes back farther. Republicans in Congress sued HHS in 2014 making the same claim.

In 2018, with the payments still halted, payers increased their premium rates to help account for the lack of cost-sharing reduction payments, and thus received additional premium tax credits (a practice known as silver loading). The judges Friday said that although they agreed with a February 2019 decision from the U.S. Court of Federal Claims that the payers were owed the payments, they disagreed that insurers should be reimbursed in full despite the 2018 premium adjustments.

“The complexity of the process cannot obscure the underlying economic reality that the government is paying at least some of the increased costs that the insurers incurred as a result of the government’s failure to make cost-sharing reduction payments,” they wrote.

The judges remanded the case back to the Court of Federal Claims to determine the amount Maine Community Health Options is owed, and instructed them to take into account what amount of silver loading can be attributed to the loss of the payments.

Montana Co-op is owed $1.23 million for missed 2017 payments and Sanford Health Plan is owed $360,254.