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.
The Supreme Court appeared receptive to the claim that Medicare overstepped its authority when it cut the amount that it paid certain hospitals for drugs they dispensed in their outpatient departments. None of the justices voiced sympathy with the government’s argument that Congress had precluded judicial review of the question. And while oral argument mainly involved a technical discussion about statutory meaning, several of the conservative justices toyed with the possibility of abandoning Chevron deference — the principle that the courts will defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of the statute that it administers.
It is always treacherous to try to anticipate what the justices will decide from the questions they ask at oral argument. Still, it’s safe to say that the hospitals challenging Medicare’s rate change had a good day in court. If they prevail, 340B hospitals will recoup billions in withheld payments and will continue to have an enormous incentive to dispense expensive drugs in their outpatient centers, even when cheaper and equally effective alternatives exist.
That’s a bad policy outcome, whatever the Supreme Court thinks the law requires. If Medicare lacks the legal power to fix it, however, it will be up to Congress to narrow the gap between 340B drug costs and Medicare payments. We could be waiting a very long time for a solution.
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 340B Drug Pricing Program, designed to increase access to specialty pharmaceuticals for low-income patients, is a perennial area of concern for health policy. The program has grown exponentially since its inception almost 30 years ago: 340B providers increased purchases of discounted drugs from $4B in 2009 to $38B in 2020, five times faster than the overall growth rate of US drug sales. Insurers and drug manufacturers are advocating for significant changes to the program, or even favor eliminating it entirely, claiming that 340B has grown beyond its original intent to help safety net facilities, and simply enriches providers without directly benefiting patients. Indeed, the profits from 340B have become essential for many hospitals’ sustainability; some systems tell us that 340B accounts for their entire margin.
In the graphic above, we outline the basics of revenue and product flow within this complex program. The 340B program is meant to allow hospitals that treat low-income, underserved patients to purchase drugs from manufacturers at a 25 to 50-plus percent discount, but still be reimbursed by payers at standard network rates. The discounts are intended to help hospitals overcome losses they incur in providing uncompensated care, but apply to drugs for all patients, regardless of income and insurance status. 340B providers often partner with independent pharmacies to dispense the drugs, and payers are billed the full list price for the medication. Thus, insured patients pay co-payments on the full price of drugs, leading to criticism that 340B savings are not passed on to patients. 340B providers share an estimated $40B in total annual profit with partner contract pharmacies.
The program has been targeted for overhaul by both the Trump and Biden administrations, and faces another threat later this month, when the US Supreme Court is set to hear a case between the hospital industry and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to decide whether the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has the authority to enact payment cuts through rulemaking.
If the court rules in favor of the agency, 340B providers could see significant cuts in payment rates. In our next edition, we’ll dive deeper into the potential impact of that ruling on the industry.
The pharmaceutical industry scored a muted win in its long-running feud with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) over 340B program discounts Friday when a federal court judge granted Eli Lilly’s bid to vacate two administrative actions aimed at drugmakers.
U.S. District Court Judge Sarah Evans Barker ruled that a December advisory opinion from HHS’ Office of the General Counsel and a May enforcement letter from the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) were “arbitrary and capricious” and in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act.
But while Barker ordered the two actions to be set aside and vacated, she also specified that HHS did not exceed its statutory authority or act unconstitutionally in regard to the May enforcement letter.
“Lilly is encouraged by Friday’s opinion, which confirms that the government’s enforcement decision against it was improper,” the drugmaker said in an email statement.
Further, the judge determined that Lilly and other drug manufacturers are not permitted under the current 340B statute “to impose unilateral extra-statutory restrictions on its offer to sell 340B drugs to covered entities utilizing multiple contract pharmacy arrangements.”
HHS may have “suddenly” changed its views on whether the agency could enforce penalties against drugmakers restricting sales of the discounted products to contract pharmacies, but the law as written makes it impossible to discern whether Congress intended for drug manufacturers to have “unlimited delivery obligations … untethered to the particular covered entity’s actual distribution needs,” the judge wrote.
As such, Barker underscored the need for lawmakers to settle the ambiguity with new, explicit legislation.
“We have no insight into why there is apparently so much reluctance to promulgate a holistic legislative proposal to bring clarity to the scope of the regulated parties’ obligations and entitlements … rather than engage in piecemeal interpretations and after the fact patchwork characterizing the history of the agency’s attempts to manage this program,” Barker wrote in the Friday order.
“What we have come to see, however, is that the 340B program can no longer be held together and implemented fairly for all concerned with non-binding interpretive guidelines and mixed, sometimes inconsistent messaging by the agency regarding the source and extent of its authority to enforce statutory compliance in the area of contract pharmacies.”
Eli Lilly’s case against HHS is the latest in a lengthy dispute between the agency and a slew of pharmaceutical companies including AstraZeneca, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi and United Therapeutics.
The 340B program requires drugmakers to offer discounted products to safety net hospitals, community health centers and other providers as a condition of participation in Medicare and Medicaid.
Beginning in July 2020, however, the drugmakers announced they would no longer provide 340B-discounted products to contract pharmacies or would be limiting sales unless a 340B-covered entity provided claims data ensuring there were no duplicative discounts being applied.
In response, HHS’ Office of the General Counsel issued the December advisory opinion, which stated that the restrictions violated federal law, and later through HRSA delivered enforcement letters threatening penalties to the six companies.
HHS’ pushback has generally taken a beating in the courts. In June, the agency decided to pull the December advisory opinion to “avoid confusion and unnecessary litigation” after courts took the side of AstraZeneca and struck down a motion from HHS to dismiss the case.
Industry supporters of HHS’ position focused on the silver lining of Friday’s decision.
In a statement, Maureen Testoni, president and CEO of 340B Health, a membership organization of more than 1,400 340B participants, said the group was encouraged by Barker’s position on the “unilateral” restrictions on drug discounts for contract pharmacies.
“We are encouraged that the court upheld HRSA’s view that Lilly is violating the law as one that ‘best aligns with congressional intent’ of the 340B program,” she said in a statement. “We urge the government to continue its work to enforce the law and restore the statutory drug discounts that enable 340B hospitals to care for patients with low incomes and those living in rural parts of the country.”
The US Supreme Court recently announced that it will hear an ongoing debate over cuts to 340B drug payments to Medicare hospitals.
The case will be heard during the Supreme Court’s upcoming term, which starts in October. A decision is expected sometime next year.
The case was brought on by the American Hospital Association (AHA) and other national hospital groups seeking to overturn HHS’ decision to reduce Medicare reimbursement to hospitals in the 340B Drug Pricing Program by nearly 30 percent.
HHS had finalized the cuts in the 2018 Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS) rule. The federal department said in a fact sheet that the cuts address the “recent trends of increasing drug prices, for which some of the cost burden falls to Medicare beneficiaries.”
Hospital groups led by the AHA challenged the cuts, arguing that reduced drug payments would harm access to care since the 340B Drug Pricing Program includes safety-net hospitals. An appeals court did not agree with their arguments in August 2020, ruling in favor of HHS.
“We are pleased that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the compelling arguments in our case on payments cuts to the 340B drug pricing program that are adversely impacting care to patients,” Melinda Hatton, the AHA’s general counsel, said publicly on Friday.
“We are hopeful that the Court will reject the appellate court decision deferring to the government’s interpretation of the law that clearly imperils the important services that the 340B program helps allow eligible hospitals and health systems to provide to vulnerable communities, many of which would otherwise be unavailable,” Hatton continued.
Other hospital groups also cheered the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the 340B drug payment case.
“We are pleased that the Supreme Court has agreed to review the appellate court decision, which we believe was legally flawed,” Maureen Testoni, CEO of 340B Health, said on the group’s website.* “We are hopeful that the justices will reverse the lower court decision that upheld these damaging cuts to many 340B hospitals treating patients with low incomes. In the meantime, we continue to urge the Biden administration to change this harmful policy by abandoning the payment cuts for 2022 and beyond.”
The other plaintiff, Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), also said it is looking forward to the consideration of the case.
“The current reimbursement rates reduce the 340B drug discounts granted to safety-net providers, many of which are teaching hospitals,”explained David J. Skorton, MD, AAMC president and CEO. “These hospitals use the current savings to deliver critical health care services to low-income and vulnerable patients, which includes providing free or substantially discounted drugs to low-income patients, establishing neighborhood clinics, and improving access to specialized care previously unavailable in some areas. A reversal of the cuts will ensure that low-income, rural, and other underserved patients and communities are able to access the vital services they need.”
Neither HHS nor CMS provided a public statement regarding the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the 340B drug payment case.
Why it matters:Democrats may be positioning themselves to push policy measures that assign value to drugs and then price them accordingly — a huge potential blow to the pharmaceutical industry.
To truly address its launch price, policymakers have to grapple with big questions the U.S. system currently avoids: How should we determine the value of a drug, and who gets to make that decision?
President Biden proposed giving an independent review board the power to determine the Medicare rate for new drugs that don’t have any competition.
Democrats’ most prominent drug legislation is a House bill that gives Medicare the power to negotiate drug prices.
Sen. Ron Wyden, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, recently called out Aduhelm by name in a document outlining the principles that will guide the Senate’s drug pricing bill, a hint that the Senate’s legislation will take a different direction than the House’s.
The bottom line:“Any kind of process for valuing new drugs like Aduhelm take you immediately into the controversial quagmire of how to quantify improvements in quality of life for people,” said KFF’s Larry Levitt.
UPDATE: May 21, 2021: Late Thursday, drug manufacturing giant Eli Lilly filed a motion in an Indiana district court to halt 340B-related monetary penalties, scant days after the Biden administration set a June 1 deadline for biopharmaceutical companies to comply with new conditions in the drug discount program and allow hospital contract pharmacies access to discounted drugs.
The suit alleges a Monday letter from Diana Espinosa, acting head of the Health Resources and Services Administration, gives “no legal explanation or justification for the arbitrary June 1 deadline.”
Lilly previously filed an almost identical lawsuit January 2020. The Indianapolis-based biopharma said it expected the government to follow the briefing schedule outlined in that suit before mandating compliance with 340B and forcing it to pay “substantial and irretrievable sums of money.”
“If the Court ultimately decides Lilly was required to extend 340B pricing to contract pharmacies, Lilly will comply with that decision. Conversely, if the Court ultimately decides manufacturers are not required to extend 340B pricing to contract pharmacies, then we surely expect the government will comply with that decision. But there is no explanation or justification for the government’s attempt to make Lilly pay now, other than to evade this Court’s review and leave Lilly without recourse for such payments,” the motion reads.
In the petition, Lilly, which brought in $6.2 billion in profit last year, alleges the shifting terms of the program are due to HHS director Xavier Becerra bending to political pressure to “take action” against drug manufacturers, as pharmaceutical prices continue to climb.
Lilly asked the district court to temporarily block HHS from moving against Lilly until the drugmaker’s request for a preliminary injunction is resolved; and for an accelerated legal schedule to settle its claims before the looming June deadline.
An HRSA spokesperson declined to comment on the suit.
HHS’ Health Resources and Services Administration called out six pharmaceutical companies Tuesday for violating rules under the 340B drug discount program, ordering them to repay affected providers for previous overcharges and warning of more penalties if they don’t comply.
In July 2020 some drugmakers stopped giving the 340B ceiling price on their products sold to covered entities and dispensed through contract pharmacies, while others limited sales by requiring specific data or selling products only after a covered entity demonstrated 340B compliance, according to HRSA.
In letters from Diana Espinosa, acting administrator of HRSA, the agency requested AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, United Therapeutics, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk and Novartis give an update on their plans to restart selling covered outpatient drugs at the 340B price to covered entities that dispense medications through contract pharmacies by June 1.
Providers and drugmakers have sparred for years over the 340B drug discount program that requires pharmaceutical companies to give discounts on outpatient drugs for providers serving low-income communities.
AHA along with five other provider groups in December filed a federal lawsuit against HHS, alleging the department failed to enforce 340B program requirements and allowed actions from drug companies that undermined the program. That lawsuit was later dismissed.
But with the change in administrations, providers now seem to have an ally in the fight.
Previously, as California’s Attorney General, newly minted HHS chief Xavier Becerra led a group of states pushing the agency to force drugmakers to comply with the law late last year.
Provider groups cheered the move after raising the alarm last year that an increasing number of drug companies were refusing to offer discounts to such eligible hospitals.
“The denial of these discounts has damaged providers and patients and must stop. It is vital that these companies immediately begin to repay the millions of dollars owed to these providers,” 340B Health CEO Maureen Testoni said in a statement.
In separate letters to drugmakers, HRSA outlines complaints against them and their actions, ultimately saying their policies violated the statute and resulted in overcharges that need to be refunded. The companies must work to ensure all impacted entities are contacted and efforts are made to pursue mutually agreed upon refund arrangements, according to the letters.
Any additional violations will be subject to a $5,000 penalty for each instance of overcharging under the program’s Ceiling Price and Civil Monetary Penalties final rule.
The American Hospital Association also praised the agency in a release for “taking the decisive action we’ve called for against drug companies that skirt the law by limiting the distribution of certain 340B drugs through community pharmacies.”
Hospitals in the 340B program provide 60% of all uncompensated care in the U.S. and 75% of all hospital care to Medicaid patients, according to 340B Health.
Hospitals enrolled in the 340B drug discount program may no longer be eligible after the pandemic shifted their payer mix, according to a Wednesday letter the American Hospital Association sent to HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra.
Depleted patient volumes and canceled elective surgeries lowered the proportion of hospital patients who are Medicaid and Medicare SSI patients in 2020, according to AHA. When hospitals file their Medicare cost reports reflecting those changes, they may no longer meet the criteria for the program and lose access.
AHA wants HHS to waive certain eligibility requirements for hospitals in the program to allow them continued access during the public health emergency, according to the letter.
Throughout the pandemic HHS has issued a number of regulatory flexibilities to help providers, and the hospital lobby is asking it to do so again by waiving the current eligibility requirements for the 340B drug discount program before providers experiencing a temporary shift in payer mix are kicked out.
The program requires drug companies to give discounts on outpatient drugs to providers serving a large share of low-income patients, particularly those in rural areas.
The discounts can range from 25% to 50% of the cost of the drugs, according to HRSA, which operates the program.
But many of those patients did not seek care last year, hampering hospitals’ finances and altering the mix of payers.
Hospitals currently qualify for the program based on their volume of inpatient Medicaid and Medicare SSI patients, reported through their most recently filed Medicare cost reports.
“Losing access to 340B discounted drugs and program savings could jeopardize the ability of these hospitals to provide critical services for their communities, which would be particularly catastrophic at a time when they remain on the front lines of the ongoing pandemic,” AHA said in its letter.
This latest issue comes after several years of clashes over the 340B program.
Last year, a federal appeals court sided against the hospital lobby, ruling that HHS’ significant rate cut for some 340B drugs could remain in place. HHS made the reimbursement cut arguing that the hospitals already received steep discounts for the drugs and could be incentivized to overuse them.
At the time, AHA said it was weighing its options over whether to appeal to the Supreme Court.
To head off other issues, HRSA finalized a rule late last year that created a dispute resolution process for when hospitals believed they were overcharged for 340B drugs. The drug manufacturers have a similar mechanism to raise concerns about whether hospitals received duplicate discounts.
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.