Category Archives: Supreme Court

Dignity Health to pay $100 million, make mandatory pension contributions in settlement

Posted on by • Posted in District Court, District Court of Appeals, Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Supreme Court, Tax-Exempt Status • Leave a comment

https://www.pionline.com/courts/dignity-health-pay-100-million-make-mandatory-pension-contributions-settlement

Image result for drop in the bucket

Dignity Health, San Francisco, will pay $100 million to settle a long-running class-action lawsuit challenging its status as a church plan.

The settlement, set for final approval Aug. 1, calls for Dignity Health to contribute $50 million in 2020 and $50 million in 2021. It also requires mandatory funding contributions to the plan for five years and payment of $1.49 million to a related group of vested participants, according to motions filed June 27 with the U.S. District Court in San Francisco.

The settlement notice filed by the plaintiffs notes that Dignity Health has made previous voluntary contributions to the plan, including $271 million in fiscal 2018, but “has no obligation under the plan document to continue to do so,” and the impact of a merger into CommonSpirit Health on plan funding decisions is “unknown.”

Actuarial estimates provided by Dignity Health project required contributions of $162 million in 2021, $170 million in 2022, $178 million in 2023 and $187 million in 2024, according to the court filing.

The complaint in Rollins et al. vs. Dignity Health et al. was first filed in April 2013 by plaintiffs seeking more than $2 billion in missed pension contributions and other damages. Among other claims, the lawsuit challenged the interpretations made by the IRS and the Department of Labor that allowed the hospitals in the Dignity Health network, which have varying degrees of church associations, to be exempt from the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

By December 2013, the District Court had ruled that Dignity Health did not qualify for a church plan exemption from ERISA because only a church can sponsor and maintain a church plan. After various motions, that decision was affirmed in July 2016, by the 9th U.S. Circuit of Appeals in San Francisco.

In August 2016, Dignity Health asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the 9th Circuit’s decision, and the case was consolidated with two similar church plan challenges against Advocate Health Care Network and St. Peter’s Healthcare System.

The Supreme Court ruled in June 2017 that pension plans did not have to be established by a church to be exempt from ERISA, as long as they are controlled by or associated with one. Plaintiffs then filed an amended class-action complaint in November 2017 in the 9th Circuit.

 

The Battle for Health Care

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, ACA, Essential Health Benefits, Health Insurance Coverage Adequacy, Health Policy, High Deductible Health Plans, Individual Mandate, Out of Pocket Expenses, Preexisting Conditions, Supreme Court, Underinsured, Uninsured • Leave a comment

https://www.newyorker.com/podcast/comment/the-health-care-defense?reload=true

The Battle for Health Care

The latest Republican effort to destroy the Affordable Care Act appears likely to reach the Supreme Court in the heat of the 2020 Presidential race.

One of the central questions of the 2020 Presidential campaign was posed last week before the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, to a lawyer for the Trump Administration, who didn’t even pretend to have an answer. A three-judge panel was hearing the appeal of a ruling by Reed O’Connor, a Texas district-court judge, that the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, was unconstitutional in its entirety—an opinion that the Administration has endorsed. O’Connor had ordered that the government cease implementing or enforcing all aspects of the A.C.A., including its protections for people with preëxisting conditions, its ban on lifetime caps, its expansion of Medicaid and coverage for young adults on their parents’ plan, and its support for the treatment of addiction. The order could cost tens of millions of people all or much of their coverage, and throw the health-care system, which accounts for a fifth of the economy, into chaos. But O’Connor, in what Judge Jennifer Elrod, of the Fifth Circuit, described with no apparent irony as a “modest” act, had stayed his own order, pending appeals. Here, now, was the first appeal. So, if the stay is lifted, Elrod asked, “What’s the government planning to do?”

As the lawyer, August Flentje, struggled to answer (“This is a very complicated program—multifaceted, obviously”), it became clear that Republican opposition to the A.C.A. remains a project of blind destruction. One of President Trump’s few health-care initiatives, on drug prices, fell into disarray last week, with one measure defeated in court and another abandoned. Otherwise, he has mostly complained that Democrats want to extend care to, among others, undocumented people. His almost pathological need to undo President Obama’s legacy can be added to the mix; the restraint sometimes said to characterize conservatism can be subtracted. And there is a growing conviction among the A.C.A.’s opponents that the current Supreme Court, given the addition of Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, will back them up.

They may be right; the threat that this case, Texas et al. v. United States, presents to Obamacare should not be underestimated, especially as it is likely to reach the Court in the heat of the 2020 campaign. The case was brought by twenty states whose most distinct common quality is their redness. Maine and Wisconsin dropped out of the suit after the 2018 midterm elections, when their Republican governors were replaced by Democrats. When the Trump Administration declined to defend the law, a group of mostly blue states—currently twenty-one—got permission from the district court to do so. They were joined by a lawyer for the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives. When Kurt Engelhardt, another of the appeals judges, pointedly asked that lawyer why the Senate hadn’t sent someone to defend the law, he replied that the Senate “operates differently.” It is, after all, led by Mitch McConnell, not Nancy Pelosi.

The complaint concerns the so-called “individual mandate.” When the A.C.A. was enacted, in 2010, it directed every American to get insurance or face a penalty, which was calculated on a sliding scale (and dropped altogether for low-income people; other groups, such as prisoners, were exempt). The constitutionality of the mandate was the subject of an earlier challenge to the A.C.A., but Chief Justice John Roberts wrote an opinion classifying the penalty as a tax, which Congress has the power to levy. Trump’s 2017 tax package, however, reduced the penalty to zero. For the A.C.A.’s opponents, this led to a wild surmise: if the mandate had survived because the penalty was a tax, the absence of a tax might make the mandate unconstitutional. That point might seem academic—constitutional or not, the mandate is, for all practical purposes, already gone, now that there is no penalty for ignoring it. But Texas et al. makes a far more radical claim: The phantom mandate is not only unconstitutional but “inseverable” from the rest of the law. If it is invalid, then all nine hundred and six pages of Obamacare are also invalid.

This argument is as senseless as it is ruinous. It’s like saying that the 2017 tax bill was a stealth total repeal of the A.C.A., something that even leading Republicans denied at the time. And yet at least two of the judges, Elrod and Engelhardt, appeared inclined to accept it. The main issue for them seemed to be just how much of Obamacare to trash.

On that question, too, the Administration has been erratic. Initially, it argued that the court should invalidate only certain provisions, such as preëxisting-condition protections—a major feature that Trump has elsewhere claimed to like. Then, in March, the Administration said that it agreed with the Texas ruling: burn it all. Two months later, though, it argued that, while every word of the law was invalid, any relief that the lower court granted should be limited to damages suffered by Texas and the other states, without defining what those damages might be. This led to utter confusion in the oral arguments: Would there be different versions of the law for different states? Which provisions might the government want to keep? (“You would leave in place the calorie guides?” Judge Elrod asked.) Flentje, the Justice Department’s lawyer, told Elrod that, really, “things don’t need to get sorted out until there’s a final ruling”—that is, from the Supreme Court.

Obamacare has reduced the number of uninsured Americans by twenty million and, while the system is imperfect, premiums are more manageable than is often reported. But, as the Texas case suggests, it can still all be undone. And there is much more to do; the United States has not achieved universal coverage. All the Democratic Presidential front-runners share that goal, but they have what are sometimes sharply diverging proposals for getting there. Vice-President Joseph Biden, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, of South Bend, and former Representative Beto O’Rourke, of El Paso, want to build on the A.C.A. and make Medicare available to all as a public option, alongside private insurance. Senator Bernie Sanders, of Vermont, has a Medicare for All bill that aims to displace private insurance, and in most cases make it unlawful, leaving a public option as the only real option. Senators Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris have signed on to Sanders’s plan, although Harris has at times tried to downplay the impact on private insurance.

The next Democratic debates, which will be held on July 30th and 31st, may sharpen the candidates’ positions or further polarize them. The Democrats need a plan to protect Americans’ health coverage. And they need a plan to win in 2020. Those might even be the same thing. ♦

 

These are the judges holding Obamacare’s future in their hands

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, ACA, Appellate Court, Health Policy, Lawsuit, Supreme Court • Leave a comment

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-health-202/2019/07/02/the-health-202-these-are-the-judges-holding-obamacare-s-future-in-their-hands/5d1a5add1ad2e552a21d51e8/?utm_term=.a44fbc001f82

Image result for aca in court

The future of Obamacare is at stake next week, when the country’s most conservative appeals court will consider whether to uphold a ruling striking down the whole law. But the politically fraught, high-stakes case is at least likely to get a fair hearing by three judges whose names were announced yesterday, legal experts say.

Two of the judges were GOP-appointed; they include Jennifer Walker Elrod, a George W. Bush appointee, and Kurt Damian Engelhardt, an appointee of President Trump. But they’re known for being some of the more measured and thoughtful members of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, distinct from other judges who might be more politically inclined.

“There’s no doubt there are a couple firebrand jurists out there … but none of those judges are on this panel,” New Orleans litigator Harry Morse, who has argued before Engelhardt, told me.

“There’s nothing about these three that strikes me that they’ll be looking for headlines or take a stand on anything other than their fair reading of the law,” he added. “They’re all pretty careful folks.”

A third judge, Carolyn Dineen King, was appointed by former Democratic president Jimmy Carter. She, along with Elrod and Engelhardt, will hear oral arguments on July 9 in the closely watched lawsuit brought by nearly two dozen GOP-led states who are trying to unravel the ACA, even after it survived years of court challenges and repeal attempts in Congress.

It’s a deeply disturbing situation for California and other Democrat-led states defending the health-care law, who fear its consumer protections and insurance expansions could be wiped out in a moment. They’ve stepped up to defend the law because President Trump’s Justice Department is refusing to do so — even though a decision overturning the law would create a logistical and political mess for the administration.

The states, led by Texas, were certainly strategic in where they mounted the challenge. The 5th Circuit — whose 16 active judges include 11 appointed by Republicans — is widely viewed as being more sympathetic to Republican arguments that the ACA must now be struck down because Congress repealed the basis for its constitutionality, the individual mandate to buy coverage.

Because the panels are chosen randomly, it would have been unlikely for the trio hearing next week’s ACA lawsuit to include three or even two judges appointed by Democrats. The Elrod-Engelhardt-King panel is a good reflection of the 5th Circuit’s overall makeup, said Barry Edwards, a lecturer at the University of Central Florida who has written about U.S. appeals courts.

“I’d say the Democratic states were hoping for a better panel, but this is the panel they expected,” Edwards said.

Engelhardt was sent to the 5th Circuit by Trump, who relies heavily on recommendations from the influential Federalist Society. But he was initially made a federal district judge by George W. Bush, indicating he may not be as far to the political right as the judges Trump tends to favor, Edwards told me.

Engelhardt has been on the 5th Circuit for a little more than a year, while Elrod has been on its bench since 2007.

Even those familiar with the 5th Circuit find it hard to predict how the panel will land on last year’s district court ruling striking down the entire ACA, the decision the states are appealing. Its ruling will have bearing on whether the Supreme Court agrees to hear yet another challenge to the ACA, after upholding most of the law in 2012 and then again in 2015.

Edwards guesses the appeals court will upheld the lower-court decision scrapping the health-care law — a scenario in which the Supreme Court would almost certainly take up the case, given how many people the law has touched. But Morse said it’s hard for him to believe the judges would agree to strike down the ACA given how many times it has survived past legal challenges.

“I know it’s two Republican judges and one Democratic judge, but the ACA has been challenged twice in front of the Supreme Court,” Morse said. “The argument being made is the ACA can’t survive without the individual mandate, and Congress has implicitly rejected that.”

Nicholas Bagley, a law professor at the University of Michigan who has watched the case closely, said he’s certain the Supreme Court will hear the case if the 5th Circuit strikes the law. But he doesn’t expect a SCOTUS review if it leaves the law in place.

“If the panel reverses, I’m not at all sure that the Supreme Court will take the case,” Bagley wrote me in an email. “It’s that goofy.”

Last week, before the judges’ names were announced, the appeals court questioned whether the Democratic-led states and the U.S. House have the right to appeal the lower-court decision striking the law. Bagley and some other legal scholars interpreted the request as boding poorly for the law’s future, while others said it was a reasonable request, my Washington Post colleague Yasmeen Abutaleb reported.

 

Ominous sign in ACA case

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, ACA, District Court of Appeals, Health Policy, Supreme Court • Leave a comment

Image result for aca in court

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday added a new question to the high-stakes lawsuit over the Affordable Care Act’s survival: Whether Democratic attorneys general or the House of Representatives have the legal standing to defend the ACA in court.

Translation, from Axios’ Sam Baker: The court is asking whether it ought to kick out the entire pro-ACA side of the case.

  • Technically Texas (with a group of other red states) is suing the Trump administration. But the Trump administration says it agrees with Texas’ position.
  • Blue states and House Democrats stepped in so that somebody would be arguing the pro-ACA position.

The intrigue: If the 5th Circuit does boot Democrats off of this lawsuit, that would likely mean no one can appeal a lower court’s ruling striking down the entire law.

  • As University of Michigan law professor Nicholas Bagley explained on Twitter, it’s not necessarily clear how all that would play out.
  • Presumably, the Supreme Court would be disinclined to let a single district court judge have the final say on whether the Affordable Care Act lives or dies. So there would probably be fresh procedural wrangling to revive some kind of appeal.

The bottom line: This could be a bad development for the ACA — or it could end up not mattering much at all, if the court decides Democrats do have standing. But it’s definitely not a positive development for the health care law.

What’s next: The 5th Circuit will hear oral arguments July 9.

 

SUPREME COURT TAKES UP $12B DISPUTE OVER ACA RISK CORRIDOR PAYMENTS

Posted on by • Posted in ACA, ACA Risk Corridor Payments, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Dept of Health and Human Services (HHS), Government Accountability Office, Health Insurance Industry, Health Policy, Health System, Hospital, Individual Health Insurance, Supreme Court • Leave a comment

https://www.healthleadersmedia.com/finance/supreme-court-takes-12b-dispute-over-aca-risk-corridor-payments

U.S. Supreme Court

The justices agreed to hear arguments over whether Congress can pass riders that withhold funds in contravention of the relevant law’s intent without actually repealing the relevant law.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

The health plans argue the ACA’s mandate to issue risk corridor payments could not be repealed through an appropriations rider.

The approximately $12 billion in payments at issue in this dispute are for three benefit years: 2014-2016.

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Monday to take up three consolidated cases from health plans challenging Congress’ refusal to authorize $12 billion in risk-mitigation payments under the Affordable Care Act.

The cases—which were brought by Maine Community Health Options, Moda Health Plan Inc., and Land of Lincoln Mutual Health Insurance Co.—argue that the ACA’s risk corridor program obligated Health and Human Services to make payments that the law intended “to induce insurer participation in the health insurance exchanges by mitigating some of the uncertainty associated with insuring formerly uninsured customers.”

Following the 2014 midterm election, lawmakers on Capitol Hill enacted an appropriations law for fiscal year 2015 that “would potentially allot money to HHS to cover” any such payments for the 2014 benefit year, but the law included a rider that required HHS to maintain the budget neutrality of the risk corridor program, the health plans said in their petition.

Because the amounts collected under the risk corridor program for 2014 “came nowhere close to what the government owed to insurers,” the government paid out only 12.6% of the total owed for the year, prorating the funds it owed to each insurer, the health plans wrote.

Similar riders were included in appropriations bills for fiscal years 2016 and 2017. But HHS used the funds it collected from benefit years 2015 and 2016 to further pay what it owed from the 2014 benefit year, making no payments for the 2015 and 2016 benefit years, the health plans wrote. (The program ended after three years.)

The health plans proposed two questions in the petition for a writ of certiorari for the justices to consider, but the justices agreed to hear argument only on the first: “Given the ‘cardinal rule’ disfavoring implied repeals—which applies with ‘especial force’ to appropriations acts and requires that repeal not be found unless the later enactment is ‘irreconcilable’ with the former—can an appropriations rider whose text bars the agency’s use of certain funds to pay a statutory obligation, but does not repeal or amend the statutory obligation, and is thus not inconsistent with it, nonetheless be held to impliedly repeal the obligation by elevating the perceived ‘intent’ of the rider (drawn from unilluminating legislative history) above its text, and the text of the underlying statute?”

In its response to the health plans’ petition, the U.S. government argued that a Government Accountability Office report identified only two possible sources of funding for the risk corridor payments: (1) the funds collected by HHS under the program itself, and (2) any lump-sum appropriation to manage certain Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services programs. By enacting the appropriations laws as it did, Congress said that only the first funding source would be allowed, the response states.

America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) President and CEO Matt Eyles said in a statement that insurers need stability from the government.

“Millions of Americans rely on the individual and small group markets for their coverage and care. Health insurance providers are committed to serving these patients and consumers, working with the federal government to deliver affordable coverage and access to quality care,” Eyles said. “The Supreme Court’s decision to hear this case recognizes how important it is for American businesses, including health insurance providers, to be able to rely on the federal government as a fair and reliable partner. Strong, stable and predictable partnerships between the private and the public sector are an essential part of our nation’s economy, and our industry looks forward to having this matter heard before the Court.”

The justices allotted one hour for oral argument on the dispute.

 

 

 

Wonky Supreme Court Ruling on Medicare DSH Formula to Affect More Than Money

Posted on by • Posted in Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Dept of Health and Human Services (HHS), Health Policy, Health System, Hospital, Medicare Disproportionate Share Reimbursement, Notice-and-Comment Rulemaking, Supreme Court, Transparency, Uncertainty • Leave a comment

https://www.healthleadersmedia.com/strategy/wonky-supreme-court-ruling-medicare-dsh-formula-affect-more-money?spMailingID=15780781&spUserID=MTg2ODM1MDE3NTU1S0&spJobID=1660471453&spReportId=MTY2MDQ3MTQ1MwS2

Moving forward, the government will have to complete notice-and-comment rulemaking for a broader set of its decisions.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Monday’s decision by the Supreme Court kicks the dispute back to the District Court level. What happens next is unclear.

Beyond the money at stake, this case increases the rulemaking burden on HHS and CMS, though the extent of that burden is disputed.

Hospitals that treat high numbers of low-income patients secured a big win this week at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Seven of the justices agreed that officials in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services stepped out of line when they rejiggered a Medicare reimbursement formula for disproportionate share hospitals (DSH) five years ago without a formal notice-and-comment process.

The decision carries implications well beyond the money hospitals say they are owed.

“It’s a big deal for the hospitals, obviously,” says Helen R. Pfister, JD, a New York–based partner with Manatt Health.

By the government’s estimates, the dispute implicates $3-4 billion in payments over nine years. That’s how much more the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services would have paid in DSH reimbursements, had the formula not been changed, according to court records.

“But I think it’s also a big deal in terms of the fact that the Supreme Court has clearly indicated that, going forward, CMS is going to have to do notice-and-comment rulemaking for a much more expansive set of agency decisions than they thought and argued in this case that they would need to do,” Pfister adds.

Precisely how much of the routine work completed by HHS and CMS will be affected by this broader take on notice-and-comment rulemaking remains to be seen. While some stakeholders have raised concerns the added burden could stifle the government’s work, others contend any inconvenience imposed will be both manageable and beneficial.

In any case, the impact of Monday’s decision will flow along two distinct paths, affecting not only hospital finances but also, for better or worse, the way HHS and CMS operate.

What’s Next, Procedurally?

In 2016, nine hospitals led by Allina Health Services lost their case against HHS at the U.S. District Court in D.C., where a judge ruled that notice-and-comment rulemaking wasn’t required. In 2017, however, three judges at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s decision and sent the dispute back for further proceedings.

In 2018, attorneys for HHS asked the Supreme Court to review the appellate decision. Now that the justices have affirmed the Circuit Court’s decision, the parties have up to seven days to file a status report at the District Court level on where the case stands, according to court records. That filing, expected by early next week, could shed light on where things are headed procedurally.

Pfister says she doesn’t think anyone knows for the time being whether the government will automatically revise DSH payments for the affected fiscal years, pursue another round of notice-and-comment rulemaking, or take some other course of action in response to the Supreme Court ruling.

And the parties themselves aren’t saying much. When asked about the agency’s plans, a CMS spokesperson told HealthLeaders on Wednesday that the agency is still reviewing the decision. Allina referred questions to its law firm, which declined to comment.

Beyond the nine plaintiff hospitals involved in this week’s Supreme Court decision, there are hundreds of plaintiffs suing HHS on similar grounds. Dozens of follow-on lawsuits have been consolidated into a single docket pending before U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson. Parties to that proceeding have up to 14 days to file a status report in light of the Supreme Court’s decision, according to court records.

An Overly Burdensome Decision?

The government’s attorneys had issued dire warnings about the potential consequences of the decision the Supreme Court ultimately reached.

The notion that CMS must go through a notice-and-comment process for the sort of routine process at issue in this case could “substantially undermine effective administration of the Medicare program” because it would apply not just to DSH formula calculations but to “nearly every instruction” the agency gives to its contractors as well, U.S. Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco argued on HHS’ behalf.

Pfister largely rejects the government’s dire take on the decision’s impact.

“I think that might have been a little bit hyperbolic,” she says.

But other stakeholders outside the government have taken the Supreme Court’s ruling as a troubling sign of uncertainty to come.

“This is a frightening decision, that throws a lot of doubt on the validity of thousands of pages of Medicare sub-regulatory guidance,” Adam Finkelstein, JD, MPH, counsel with Manatt Health and a former health insurance specialist with the CMS Innovation Center, wrote in a tweet.

Stephanie A. Kennan, senior vice president of federal public affairs for McGuire Woods Consulting in Washington, D.C., tells HealthLeaders that she thinks the government’s argument “is somewhat overblown.” Officials should be able to manage any added burden from this ruling, even if it slows them down a bit, she says.

“I think it may mean they cannot move as quickly on some policies as they would like to,” Kennan says.

A Boon to Public Input?

The benefits of a more-transparent process justify any added hassle that may stem from having to go through a mandatory comment process more often as a result of this decision, Kennan says.

“In this case, they have to do 60-day comment periods, which can seem like an eternity if you want to keep the process moving, regardless of whether you’re the agency or a stakeholder,” she says. “The transparency is probably worth the 60 days.”

But others reject the notion that this decision should be seen as balancing effective governance with transparency.

“Allina isn’t a vindication of the importance of public participation in agency decision-making. It’s a testimonial to the heedlessness of lawyers who impose silly procedural rules on an administrative state they only dimly understand,” Nicholas Bagley, JD, a law professor at the University of Michigan who teaches on administrative law and health law, wrote in a series of tweets.

“Bear in mind,” he added, “that CMS is a tiny, beleaguered agency … To further encumber it will make Medicare more capricious, not less, as staffers tend to senseless procedures instead of doing their jobs.”

Moving forward, HHS and CMS will continue to have discretion to determine whether to go through notice-and-comment with a given action, Pfister says. The difference now, she says, is that there’s a stronger incentive for government officials to cover themselves; otherwise, another case like Allina’s could pull them into another round of prolonged litigation.

 

 

Supreme Court rejects HHS’ Medicare DSH changes

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, Health Policy, Health System, Hospital, Hospital Industry, Medicare, Medicare Disproportionate Share Reimbursement, Supreme Court • Leave a comment

https://www.modernhealthcare.com/legal/supreme-court-rejects-hhs-medicare-dsh-changes?utm_source=modern-healthcare-alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20190603&utm_content=hero-readmore

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled that HHS improperly changed its Medicare disproportionate share hospital payments when it made billions of dollars in cuts.

In a 7-1 decision, the justices said HHS needed a notice-and-comment period for the Medicare DSH calculation change. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the decision that HHS’ position for not following the procedure was “ambiguous at best.”

“Because affected members of the public received no advance warning and no chance to comment first, and because the government has not identified a lawful excuse for neglecting its statutory notice-and-comment obligations, we agree with the court of appeals that the new policy cannot stand,” Gorsuch wrote.

The case was highly technical, and hinged on a dueling interpretations of agency activity that constitutes a “substantive legal standard” in a payment policy change to Medicare.

Under the new Medicare DSH formula, the CMS began to lump Medicare Advantage enrollees in with traditional Medicare enrollees to calculate a hospital’s DSH payment.

But Medicare spending is about $700 billion per year, and the program covers nearly one-fifth of Americans.
“Not only has the government failed to document any draconian costs associated with notice and comment, it also has neglected to acknowledge the potential countervailing benefits,” Gorsuch wrote. “Notice and comment gives affected par-ties fair warning of potential changes in the law and an opportunity to be heard on those changes—and it affords the agency a chance to avoid errors and make a more informed decision.”

The majority opinion also emphasized the size and scope of Medicare, noting that “even seemingly modest modifications to the program can affect the lives of millions.” “As Medicare has grown, so has Congress’s interest in ensuring that the public has a chance to be heard before changes are made to its administration,” Gorsuch wrote.

During oral arguments in the case in January, Gorsuch and Justice Sonia Sotomayor doubled down on the economic magnitude of the change, which HHS estimated to be between $3 billion and $4 billion between fiscal 2005 and 2013.

Justice Stephen Breyer dissented from the majority, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh recused himself because he participated in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruling that the Supreme Court upheld.

Breyer wrote he believed the government had the legal grounds to skip the public comment period in this policy.
“The statutory language, at minimum, permits this interpretation, and the statute’s history and the practical consequences provide further evidence that Congress had only substantive rules in mind,” he wrote. “Importantly, this interpretation of the statute, unlike the court’s, provides a familiar and readily administrable way for the agency to distinguish the actions that require notice and comment from the actions that do not.”

 

 

 

ACA Litigation Round-Up: Risk Corridors, CSRs, AHPs, Short-Term Plans, And More

Posted on by • Posted in 2020 Election Issues, ACA, Appellate Court, Association Health Plans, Cost Sharing Reduction Payments, Dept of Health and Human Services (HHS), District Court, Health Policy, Risk Corridors, Short Term Health Insurance, Skinny Health Plans, Supreme Court • Leave a comment

https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20190523.823958/full/?utm_campaign=HASU&utm_medium=email&utm_content=ACA+Litigation+Round-Up%3B+Medication+Overload%3B+Surprise+Billing%3B+Uncertainty+About+DACA+And+Its+Impact+On+Health%3B+Recognizing+Trauma+In+The+Healer&utm_source=Newsletter

Litigation over various parts of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and related regulations continues. ACA challenges are now under consideration by the Supreme Court and federal appellate and district courts across the country. This post provides a status update on ongoing litigation over the risk corridors program, cost-sharing reductions, the risk adjustment program, association health plans, and short-term plans. A previous post discussed the status of litigation over the contraceptive mandate.

Risk Corridors

As regular readers know, insurers sued the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for failure to make more than $12 billion in outstanding risk corridors payments. Lower court rulings were mixed. In June 2018, a three-judge panel of the Federal Circuit held that the government did not have to pay insurers the full amount owed to them in risk corridors payments. By a 2-1 majority, the court concluded that the ACA required the government to make risk corridors payments, but this obligation was suspended by subsequent appropriations riders that required these payments to be budget neutral.

The insurers’ request for en banc review by the Federal Circuit (meaning the case would be reheard by the entire Federal Circuit bench) was denied in November 2018. The insurers then petitioned the Supreme Court to hear their appeal in early February 2019. The petitions from the four insurers can be found here: Moda Health Plan, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina, Land of Lincoln, and Maine Community Health Options. The case is focused on whether Congress can use the appropriations process to amend or repeal substantive statutory payment obligations and whether these changes can be applied retroactively.

In early March, an array of stakeholders filed nine amici briefs, all in support of the Supreme Court hearing the cases. Briefs were filed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, America’s Health Insurance Plans, the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, the Association for Community Affiliated Plans, 19 state attorneys general led by Oregon, six insurers led by Highmark, and economists and professors.

The federal government’s response was initially due on February 4 but the Trump administration requested and received two extensions to file its response on May 8, 2019. In its opposition brief, the federal government asks the Supreme Court not to accept the appeal. The brief includes many of the same arguments made in the lower courts. In the government’s view, it was not required to make full risk corridor payments under the ACA because there was no appropriation to make such payments. Even if there was an obligation to do so, this obligation was subsequently eliminated by appropriation riders added by Congress. The federal government asks the court to look at the congressional history and context of the appropriations riders in precluding HHS from making full risk corridor payments.

The insurers have one more opportunity to respond before the Supreme Court considers whether to accept the appeal or not. If the Supreme Court does not agree to hear the case, the ruling by the Federal Circuit will stand, and insurers will not receive the more than $12 billion they are seeking.

Cost-Sharing Reduction Payments

In a related challenge, insurers have sued HHS for at least $2.3 billion in unpaid cost-sharing reduction payments (CSRs) since the Trump administration decided to stop making the payments in October 2017. To date, six insurers—in front of three different judges at the Court of Federal Claims—have succeeded in their challenges over unpaid CSRs. One of these lawsuits, brought by Common Ground Healthcare Cooperative, is a class action that includes more than 90 insurers. More insurers are being added to the class action on a regular basis, including four March, four in April, and one in May.

Federal Circuit

Three of the cases—brought by Montana Health CO-OP, Sanford Health Plan, and Community Health Choice—have already been appealed to the Federal Circuit and were consolidated. This means the three cases will be heard and decided together by the same panel of judges. The federal government filed its opening brief on March 22. Montana Health CO-OP and Sanford Health Plan filed their brief on May 1. Other insurers with pending lawsuits for unpaid CSRs filed amicus briefs in support of the insurers. Amicus briefs were filed by Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Dakota, L.A. Health Care Plan, Molina, and Common Ground.

Rulings for Montana Health CO-OP and Sanford Health Plan were limited to unpaid CSRs for 2017. However, Judge Elaine D. Kaplan of the Court of Federal Claims suggested that insurers could recover for 2018 and beyond even if insurers had used silver loading to insulate themselves from losses. (In mid-April, both insurers filed new complaints before Judge Kaplan for unpaid CSRs for 2018. Montana Health CO-OP sued for an additional $27 million, and Sanford Health Plan sued for an additional $11 million. Judge Kaplan stayed both cases pending a decision in the Federal Circuit.) The third case, for Community Health Choice, includes unpaid CSRs for 2017 and 2018. The amount of unpaid CSRs for 2018 was agreed to by the federal government and estimated based on 2017 costs.

Lower Courts

At least nine cases for unpaid CSRs, including the class action lawsuit, remain pending in the Court of Federal Claims. Two additional cases, brought by Maine Community Health Options and Common Ground, remain before Judge Margaret M. Sweeney. Judge Sweeney previously held that the insurers were owed unpaid CSRs for 2017 and 2018 and recently allowed Maine Community Health Options to amend its complaint to include nearly $36 million in unpaid CSRs for 2018. Common Ground separately estimated that its class is owed more than $2.3 billion for 2017 and 2018.

These estimates notwithstanding, the final amount owed will be determined through the CSR reconciliation process. In theory, insurers will complete this process in May 2019 and then the court can enter a final judgment reflecting actual 2018 CSR amounts by June. Judge Sweeney directed the parties to file a status report proposing the amount due to the class for 2018 within seven days of when HHS notifies all of the CSR class members of actual 2018 payments.

In mid-April, the plaintiffs asked for an extension of HHS’s deadline for the CSR reconciliation process, arguing that some class members would not have sufficient time to complete the submission process by the May 3 deadline. Judge Sweeney denied this request but noted that the government assured the court that all class members who ask for an extension to May 31 will be granted one. If a class member cannot meet the extended May 31 deadline and the government refuses to provide an additional extension, the plaintiffs can refile their motion.

In a separate challenge, Judge Thomas C. Wheeler held that L.A. Health Care Plan was entitled to unpaid CSRs for 2017. While the parties disagreed on the amount owed, L.A. Care filed an amended complaint on March 29 to reflect unpaid CSRs for 2018 and 2019 in the amount of about $83.5 million. L.A. Care will no longer seek unpaid CSRs for 2017 because it received more in advance CSR payments in 2017 than it ultimately paid out.

Most other CSR lawsuits—with a few exceptions like the lawsuits brought by Blue Cross Blue Shield insurers in North Dakota and Vermont—have now been stayed pending a decision by the Federal Circuit. The lawsuit brought by Guidewell Mutual Holding Corporation (which includes Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Florida Health Care Plan, and Health Options) was recently stayed as was a lawsuit brought by Health Alliance Medical Plans. The lawsuit brought by Harvard Pilgrim Health Care was separately stayed , but the insurer received permission to file an amended complaint to include about $21.5 million in unpaid CSRs for 2018. Molina’s $160 million challenge remains stayed until after a final, non-appealable judgment is issued in Moda Health Plan.

Risk Adjustment Program

Litigation continues over the methodology used in the risk adjustment program. A lawsuit brought by New Mexico Health Connections (NMHC) resulted in the brief suspension of about $10.4 billion in 2017 risk adjustment payments. The suspension occurred after Judge James O. Browning set aside the part of the risk adjustment methodology that uses a statewide average premium from 2014 to 2018. He later denied a request from the federal government to reconsider and overturn this ruling.

The federal government then appealed the decision to the Tenth Circuit. In mid-February, the Tenth Circuit directed the parties to address whether the court has jurisdiction to review Judge Browning’s order and judgment. The court is interested in whether the judgment is ripe for review since Judge Browning vacated part of the risk adjustment methodology and remanded the case to HHS. The cases cited by the Tenth Circuit’s clerk suggest that courts have answered this question differently: some have treated remand to an agency as a final decision (meaning it is appealable) while others have not.

The federal government filed a revised opening brief on March 22, with a request for oral argument. The government reiterates the reasons why it adopted a statewide average premium and a budget-neutral risk adjustment program and argues that NMHC waived its objections because these issues were not raised during the rulemaking process. The government also takes issue with the district court’s decision to vacate parts of the rule entirely (as opposed to limiting its ruling to NMHC or New Mexico). The government believes vacatur was inappropriate, did not reflect a balance of equities or the public interest, and was nationally disruptive to the risk adjustment program.

This point was echoed in an amicus brief from America’s Health Insurance Plans and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, noting that vacating the entire rule was “not only inequitable, but also unworkable” and “needlessly and retrospectively pull[ed] the rug out from under health plans that have relied on the final risk adjustment rules.” The brief highlights the impracticalities of adjusting the risk adjustment methodology (and thus the billions of dollars in risk adjustment transfers and medical loss ratios) for 2014 to 2016. They encourage the court to remand the risk adjustment regulations to HHS, without vacating them, to allow the agency to provide an additional explanation for its methodology for the 2014 to 2016 benefit years. These organizations filed a similar statement with the district court after HHS unexpectedly froze risk adjustment payments for 2017.

NMHC filed its opening brief on April 22, taking issue again with HHS’ use of a statewide average premium and arguing that the district court’s remedy—to vacate part of the risk adjustment methodology—was appropriate. The federal government’s reply brief was due on May 13 but it requested and received an extension to June 3.

Second Challenge

Separately, HHS issued new final rules to justify its risk adjustment methodology for 2017 and 2018. In August 2018, NMHC filed a new lawsuit challenging the final rule on the 2017 risk adjustment methodology. This means there are currently two lawsuits pending against the federal government brought by NMHC over the risk adjustment program. In late January, the parties asked Judge Browning to stay the second lawsuit while the original lawsuit is on appeal to the Tenth Circuit.

Association Health Plans

In July 2018, a coalition of 12 Democratic attorneys general filed a lawsuit challenging the final rule to expand access to association health plans (AHPs). Judge John D. Bates of the District of Columbia ruled in March 2019 that the rule violated federal law and was “clearly an end-run around the ACA.” The court set aside the rule’s provisions related to working owners and commonality of interest and remanded the rule back to the Department of Labor (DOL) to determine how the regulation’s severability provision affected the remainder of the rule.

The Trump administration appealed the ruling to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (D.C. Circuit) where a panel of judges will consider the legal questions anew. The DOL also issued guidance that lays out its enforcement stance for already-in-existence AHPs, directs AHPs to pay claims, and prohibits AHPs from marketing to or enrolling new members.

On May 9, the federal government asked the D.C. Circuit for an expedited appeal in light of the fact that some consumers have already enrolled in AHPs. The DOL estimates that there are tens of thousands of enrollees in AHPs, many of whose plans will end between September and December 2019. Although the guidance and enforcement stance noted above are designed to mitigate disruption for enrollees, the administration urged a swift appeal. The D.C. Circuit granted this request. The government’s opening brief is due on May 31; the plaintiffs will file their opening brief on July 15. Final briefs will be due August 8. Oral argument has not yet been scheduled.

Short-Term Plans

Litigation continues over a separate final rule that expanded access to short-term plans. In September 2018, a coalition of consumer advocates and safety-net health plans sued over the new rule, arguing that it is contrary to Congress’s intent in adopting the ACA and should be invalidated. In November 2018, the plaintiffs withdrew their request for a preliminary injunction, and the case proceeded to the merits. The parties traded briefs throughout February and March, and amicus briefs were filed in support of the plaintiffs by patient advocates, AARP, and a range of medical associations.

Judge Richard J. Leon of federal district court in D.C. held oral argument on May 21. Media reports suggest that Judge Leon expressed continued skepticism of the plaintiffs’ arguments and whether (and the degree to which) they are harmed by the final rule. The court questioned enrollment data presented by the safety net health insurers and suggested that more time is needed to assess the impact of the new rule. Judge Leon also focused on why Congress had not acted to curb enrollment in short-term plans after the ACA if they were so harmful. He hopes to issue his decision this summer.