throbber
Case 1:21-cv-01538-RDM Document 1 Filed 06/08/21 Page 1 of 36
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
`
`PALOMAR MEDICAL CENTER
`2185 Citracado Parkway
`Escondido, CA 92029
`
`PROVIDENCE HOLY CROSS MEDICAL CENTER
`15031 Rinaldi Street
`Mission Hills, CA 91345
`
`PROVIDENCE SAINT JOSEPH MEDICAL CENTER
`501 South Buena Vista Street
`Burbank, CA 91505
`
`PROVIDENCE LITTLE COMPANY OF MARY
`MEDICAL CENTER
`4101 Torrance Boulevard
`Torrance, CA 90503
`
`CPMC MISSION BERNAL CAMPUS
`3555 Cesar Chavez Street
`San Francisco, CA 94110
`
`SUTTER MEDICAL CENTER OF SANTA ROSA
`30 Mark West Springs Road
`Santa Rosa, CA 95403
`
`Case No.
`
`KUAKINI MEDICAL CENTER
`347 North Kuakini Street
`Honolulu, HI 96817
`
`ADVENTIST HEALTH SIMI VALLEY HOSPITAL
`2975 North Sycamore Drive
`Simi Valley, CA 93065
`
`SOUTH SHORE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL
`301 East Main Street
`Bay Shore, NY 11706
`
`THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
`MEDICAL CENTER
`5841 South Maryland Avenue
`Chicago, IL 60637
`
`7015736.7
`39095151.1
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01538-RDM Document 1 Filed 06/08/21 Page 2 of 36
`
`SSM HEALTH SAINT ANTHONY HOSPITAL
`1000 North Lee
`Oklahoma City, OK 73102,
`
` Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`XAVIER BECERRA, SECRETARY,
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
`AND HUMAN SERVICES
`200 Independence Avenue, S.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20201,
`
`Defendant.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW AND DECLARATORY AND INJUCTIVE
`RELIEF UNDER THE MEDICARE ACT
`
`NATUIRE OF ACTION
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiffs Palomar Medical Center et al. (the “Hospitals”), by and through the un-
`
`dersigned legal counsel, challenge the Secretary of Health and Human Services’ (the “Secre-
`
`tary”) computation of the Medicare disproportionate share hospital (“DSH”) adjustment relating
`
`to inpatients enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan under Part C of the Medicare Act (some-
`
`times referred to here as the “DSH Part C Policy”). The Hospitals filed jurisdictionally proper
`
`appeals challenging the DSH Part C Policy with the Provider Reimbursement Review Board
`
`(“Board” or “PRRB”) fully in compliance with the governing statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1395oo(a).
`
`The Secretary seeks to thwart this appeal. First, the Secretary persists in applying the DSH Part
`
`C Policy although the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court have invalidated it. Second,
`
`through unauthorized administrative action based on a mere proposed rule the Secretary deprives
`
`the Hospitals of the statutory appeal rights to which they are entitled The Court should find this
`
`39095151.1
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01538-RDM Document 1 Filed 06/08/21 Page 3 of 36
`
`action prototypically “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accord-
`
`ance with law.” 5 U.S.C. §706(2)(A).
`
`2.
`
`At issue is Medicare payment for fiscal years ended 12/31/1999 for all but one of
`
`the Hospitals (SSM Saint Anthony Hospital which appeals its fiscal year ended 12/31/2006)).
`
`The Hospitals’ challenge to the DSH Part C Policy is definitively supported by decisions of the
`
`Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. Specifically, in Northeast Hosp. Corp. v. Sebelius, 657
`
`F.3d 1, 16–17 (D.C. Cir. 2011) the Secretary attempted to apply its DSH Part C Policy through a
`
`retroactive rule change for cost years prior to the October 1, 2004 effective date of the rule. The
`
`Court of Appeals found that the retroactive application to periods prior to October 1, 2004 vio-
`
`lated the Supreme Court’s longstanding decision in Bowen v. Georgetown University Hospital,
`
`488 U.S. 204, 208 (1988). 657 F.3d at 16. The Court held that “the Secretary’s present interpreta-
`
`tion, which marks a substantive departure from his prior practice of excluding [Part C] days from
`
`the Medicare fraction, may not be retroactively applied” to the fiscal years at issue. Id. at 17.1
`
`See also Allina Health Services v. Sebelius, 746 F.3d 1102, 1105 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (“Allina I”)
`
`(vacating 2004 rule as not a logical outgrowth of proposed rule); Allina Health Servs. v. Price,
`
`863 F.3d 937, 943–44 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (“Allina II”) (agency required to conduct notice-and-
`
`comment rulemaking before the policy of the 2004 vacated rule can take effect); Azar v. Allina
`
`Health Servs., 139 S. Ct. 1804 (2019) (affirming Allina II).
`
`1 TDL-1239, which was issued following the Northeast Hosp. Corp. decision, instructed contrac-
`tors to “include any disallowed patient days attributable to patients who were enrolled in a Medi-
`care Part C Plan and also eligible for Medicaid for discharges occurring on or after January 1, 1999
`through September 30, 2004 in the Medicaid fraction” of the DSH calculation. This instruction
`applies to the Hospitals’ properly filed appeals. Id. at 1–2.
`
`39095151.1
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01538-RDM Document 1 Filed 06/08/21 Page 4 of 36
`
`3.
`
`Apparently undaunted by these judicial decisions, the Secretary, through the Cen-
`
`ters for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) continues to apply the DSH Part C Policy adopt-
`
`ed in the now-vacated 2004 rule. The Court should find that the application of the DSH Part C
`
`Policy unlawful because it is procedurally invalid, as the Court of Appeals has now twice ruled
`
`(and as the Supreme Court has affirmed), fails any test of reasoned decision-making, and is incon-
`
`sistent with congressional intent in adopting the Medicare DSH statute.
`
`4.
`
`As part of its apparent “denial” of the Allina I and Allina II, on August 6, 2020
`
`CMS published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking announcing a proposal
`
`to adopt retroactively for periods prior to October 1, 2013 (and even prior to the vacated 2004
`
`rule) the same DSH Part C Policy previously vacated in Allina I and Allina II. 85 Fed. Reg.
`
`47,723 (the “Proposed Rule”). (Exhibit 3) The Proposed Rule posits that, due to the vacatur of
`
`the 2004 rule, the agency has no rule governing the treatment of Part C days and must, under the
`
`Supreme Court decision in Allina II requiring notice-and-comment rulemaking, engage in retro-
`
`active rulemaking. Id. at 47,724. The Proposed Rule erroneously relies on two bases for its use of
`
`retroactivity: (1) that retroactive rulemaking is necessary to comply with the statutory require-
`
`ment to calculate Medicare DSH payments, and (2) that retroactive rulemaking is in the “public
`
`interest” because, absent retroactive rulemaking, the agency “would be unable to calculate and
`
`confirm proper DSH payments for the time periods before FY 2014 . . . .” Id. Remarkably, CMS
`
`states in the preamble to the Proposed Rule “[w]e do not expect this proposal to have an effect on
`
`payments as payments previously made reflect the proposed policy.” Id. at 47726.
`
`5.
`
`On August 17, 2020 CMS then issued CMS Ruling 1739-R (the “Ruling”) (Ex-
`
`hibit 4), purporting to deprive the PRRB of jurisdiction over any pending jurisdictionally proper
`
`administrative appeals “regarding the treatment of patient days associated with patients enrolled
`
`39095151.1
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01538-RDM Document 1 Filed 06/08/21 Page 5 of 36
`
`in [Part C] Medicare Advantage plans in the Medicare and Medicaid fractions of the dispropor-
`
`tionate patient percentage” so that contractors can apply the result of the retroactive rulemaking
`
`to those pending appeals once the new rule is in place. Ruling at 1-2. The purported authority
`
`for the Ruling is merely the Proposed Rule. The Ruling addresses appeals of the “Part C day
`
`DSH issue” for periods prior to October 1, 2013, including for periods prior to the enactment of
`
`the 2004 rule. Id. at 7–8. The Ruling, which is “binding” and affects hospitals’ substantive Medi-
`
`care payment and appeal rights, was not adopted through notice-and-comment rulemaking. See
`
`id. at 1; see also 42 C.F.R. § 405.1867 (requiring the Board to comply with CMS rulings); id. §
`
`401.108 (defining CMS ruling and explaining they are binding on agency adjudicators).
`
`6.
`
`Before taking any action on an appeal of the DSH Part C Policy, the Ruling re-
`
`quires the Board to determine whether an appeal “satisfies the applicable jurisdictional and proce-
`
`dural requirements of section 1878 of the [Medicare] Act, the Medicare regulations, and other
`
`agency rules and guidance.” Ruling at 7. The Ruling generally provides for remand of jurisdic-
`
`tionally proper appeals of the “Part C day DSH issue” pending at the Board back to the contrac-
`
`tors that issued the payment determinations under appeal. Id. at 2, 7-8. Despite depriving the Hos-
`
`pitals of the relief to which they are entitled, although the Proposed Rule has not been finalized,
`
`and while CMS concedes that the Proposed Rule has no payment effect, the Ruling claims the
`
`Proposed Rule “eliminates any actual case or controversy regarding the hospital’s previously cal-
`
`culated SSI and Medicaid fractions and its DSH payment adjustment and thereby renders moot
`
`each properly pending claim in a DSH appeal involving the issue resolved by the Supreme Court
`
`in Allina . . . .” Id. at 8.
`
`39095151.1
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01538-RDM Document 1 Filed 06/08/21 Page 6 of 36
`
`7.
`
`The Hospitals filed a jurisdictionally proper appeal with the Board in compliance
`
`with the Medicare Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1395oo(a), challenging their DSH determinations based on
`
`the DSH Part C Policy.
`
`8.
`
`The Board remanded the Hospitals’ jurisdictionally proper appeals solely in reli-
`
`ance on the Proposed Rule and the Ruling entirely in disregard to Northeast Hosp. Corp. (Ex-
`
`hibits 1 and 2).
`
`9.
`
`The Hospitals seek judicial review of the final remand order issued by the Board.
`
`The Board’s remand order, which states the PRRB’s finding that it possessed jurisdiction over
`
`each Hospital’s appeal, are the final agency decisions of the Secretary for purposes of judicial
`
`review because no further payment determination will be made upon remand. As noted, CMS
`
`states in the preamble to the Proposed Rule “[w]e do not expect this proposal to have an effect on
`
`payments as payments previously made reflect the proposed policy.” Id. at 47726. As the re-
`
`mand simply confirms the very payment determinations that the Hospitals challenge, it consti-
`
`tutes final payment determinations.
`
`a.
`
`The Board’s remand decision must be set aside because, inter alia, the Ruling
`
`unilaterally, arbitrarily, and otherwise unlawfully (a) declares the Hospitals’ long-pending juris-
`
`dictionally-proper PRRB appeals moot, (b) remands them for recalculation of the DSH payments
`
`at issue using criteria that were set forth in a proposed notice-and-comment rule that purports to
`
`have retroactive effect but that has not yet been finalized while, at the same time, prohibits reo-
`
`pening, which is the action necessary to issue the recalculated payments, (c) declares that the
`
`PRRB lacks jurisdiction over the appeals while, at the same time, requiring the PRRB to find that
`
`it has jurisdiction before remanding the appeals and (d) is based solely on the purported authority
`
`of the Proposed Rule. Further, there are no provisions in the Ruling that provide for review of
`
`39095151.1
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01538-RDM Document 1 Filed 06/08/21 Page 7 of 36
`
`the final payment calculations, as required by Medicare’s statutory appeal provisions. Nor does
`
`the Ruling establish any definitive time period for the contractors to act. Simply put, the Ruling
`
`requires remands for recalculated payments that apparently will never be made, thus effectively
`
`extinguishing the Hospitals’ statutory appeal rights for the payments at issue.
`
`b.
`
`Moreover, even if the Secretary issues the payment criteria to be used when mak-
`
`ing the recalculated payments in a final rule, the remands required under the Ruling unlawfully
`
`prejudice the Hospitals by limiting (if not depriving them entirely of) their statutory right under
`
`42 U.S.C. §1395oo and other authorities to (a) challenge the effect of the finalized payment crite-
`
`ria on the DSH payments at issue in the remanded appeals by prohibiting the issuance of recalcu-
`
`lated DSH payments that the Hospitals could appeal to the PRRB, and (b) seek interest for their
`
`incorrect DSH payments, some of which extend back more than 15 years (the fiscal periods at
`
`issue all predate October 1, 2013, but some go back much further in time). The Ruling is also
`
`unlawful procedurally because it was not adopted using notice-and-comment rulemaking, as re-
`
`quired by statute, despite its substantive impact on the Hospitals’ Medicare payment rights, and
`
`has an unlawful retroactive effect.
`
`10.
`
`But for the Proposed Rule and the Ruling, either at the Hospitals’ request or on its
`
`own motion the Board would order expedited judicial review (“EJR”), 42 U.S.C. 1395oo(f)(1).
`
`An EJR order requires a determination that the PRRB possesses jurisdiction and that it is bound
`
`by statute, regulation or CMS ruling. Id. Both of those requirements is satisfied here. The
`
`PRRB’s remand orders on their face evidence that the Hospitals filed jurisdictionally proper ap-
`
`peals challenging the DSH Part C Policy. And, the PRRB is bound by the DSH Part C Policy,
`
`which is set forth in a CMS regulation. It is, therefore, a certainty that the PRRB would order
`
`EJR. Accordingly, the Court should assert its jurisdiction over and review the merits of the Hos-
`
`39095151.1
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01538-RDM Document 1 Filed 06/08/21 Page 8 of 36
`
`pitals’ claims. Thus, the Court should find that each of their DSH determinations is invalid be-
`
`cause it continues to apply the DSH Part C Days policy which has been invalidated by the Court
`
`of Appeals and the Supreme Court, supra.
`
`11.
`
`Alternatively, because the Ruling is unlawful procedurally and substantively, the
`
`Hospitals seek an order (a) setting aside the provisions of the Ruling that declare the Hospitals’
`
`appeals to the PRRB moot and require the PRRB to remand their Allina II claims to the Secre-
`
`tary’s contractors for recalculation of the Hospitals’ DSH payments, (b) reversing the PRRB’s
`
`remand orders, and (c) instructing the PRRB to reinstate the Hospitals’ appeals.
`
`12.
`
`Because the Board’s remand order relies solely on the Ruling, which in turn relies
`
`solely on the Proposed Rule, the Hospitals also seek judicial review of the legal validity of the
`
`Proposed Rule. It is apparent that CMS believes that the Proposed Rule authorized it to take ac-
`
`tion via the Ruling. Of course, justice mandates that the Hospitals should have the right to chal-
`
`lenge, and that this Court should possess jurisdiction to review, such action. Under these novel
`
`circumstances the Court should find that it possesses jurisdiction over the Proposed Rule and the
`
`Court should find that it is invalid to the extent that it prejudices the Hospitals’ statutory appeal
`
`rights.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`13.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1395oo(f) (appeal of final Medicare
`
`program agency decision) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (federal question) and 1361 (mandamus).
`
`14.
`
`Venue lies in this judicial district under 42 U.S.C. § 1395oo(f) and 28 U.S.C.
`
`§1391.
`
`PARTIES
`
`15.
`
`During the relevant periods, the Hospitals were qualified as Medicare-
`
`participating, general acute-care hospital-providers under the federal Medicare program pursuant
`
`39095151.1
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01538-RDM Document 1 Filed 06/08/21 Page 9 of 36
`
`to the Medicare Act. The Hospitals, Medicare provider numbers and cost reporting periods at
`
`issue in this action are as follows:2
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`i.
`
`j.
`
`k.
`
`Palomar Medical Center, Medicare Provider No. 05-0115, appeals fiscal year
`ended (“FYE”) 6/30/1999,
`
`Providence Holy Cross Medical Center, Medicare Provider No. (05-0278), ap-
`peals FYE 12/31/1999,
`
`Providence Saint Joseph Medical Center, Medicare Provider No. (05-0235), ap-
`peals FYE 12/31/1999,
`
`Providence Little Company of Mary Medical Center, Medicare Provider No. (05-
`0353), appeals FYE 6/30/1999,
`
`CPMC Mission Bernal Campus (formerly known as Saint Luke's Hospital), Med-
`icare Provider No. (05-0055), appeals FYE 6/30/1999,
`
`Sutter Medical Center of Santa Rosa, Medicare Provider No. (05-0291), appeals
`FYE 6/30/1999,
`
`Kuakini Medical Center, Medicare Provider No. (12-0007), appeals FYE
`6/30/1999,
`
`Adventist Health Simi Valley Hospital, Medicare Provider No. (05-0236), appeals
`FYE 12/31/2000,
`
`South Shore University Hospital (formerly known as Southside Hospital), Medi-
`care Provider No. (33-0043), appeals FYE 12/31/1999,
`
`The University of Chicago Medical Center, Medicare Provider No. (14-0088),
`appeals FYE 6/30/1999,
`
`SSM Health Saint Anthony Hospital, Medicare Provider No. (37-0037), appeals
`FYE 12/31/2006.
`
`16.
`
`The defendant is Xavier Becerra in his official capacity as Secretary of the United
`
`States Department of Health and Human Services (“Secretary”), the federal agency that adminis-
`
`2 The Hospitals, their Medicare provider numbers and the fiscal years on appeal are stated
`in the decisions of the PRRB attached as Exhibits 1 and 2 with the exception of Parkview
`Community Hospital and Victor Valley Global Medical Center which do not participate in this
`Complaint. In the event of any other discrepancy between this listing and Exhibits 1 and 2, the
`latter shall govern.
`
`39095151.1
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01538-RDM Document 1 Filed 06/08/21 Page 10 of 36
`
`ters the Medicare program. References to the Secretary herein are meant to refer to him, to his
`
`subordinates, and to his official predecessors or successors as the context requires.
`
`17.
`
`The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) is the component of the
`
`Secretary’s agency with responsibility for day-to-day operation and administration of the Medi-
`
`care program. CMS was formerly known as the Health Care Financing Administration. Refer-
`
`ences to CMS herein are meant to refer to the agency and its predecessors.
`
`LEGAL AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND
`
`Medicare DSH Payment
`
`18.
`
`Part A of the Medicare Act covers “inpatient hospital services.” 42 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1395d(a)(l). Since 1983, the Medicare program has paid most hospitals for the operating costs
`
`of inpatient hospital services under the prospective payment system (“PPS”). 42 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1395ww(d); 42 C.F.R. Part 412. Under PPS, Medicare pays predetermined, standardized
`
`amounts per discharge, subject to certain payment adjustments. Id. One of the PPS payment ad-
`
`justments is the DSH payment. See 42 U.S.C. § 1395ww(d)(5)(F); 42 C.F.R. § 412.106.
`
`19.
`
`A hospital that serves a disproportionate share of low-income patients is entitled
`
`to an upward percentage adjustment to the standard PPS rates per discharge. See 42 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1395ww(d)(5)(F); see also 42 C.F.R. § 412.106. A hospital may qualify for a DSH adjustment
`
`based on its “disproportionate patient percentage.” See 42 U.S.C. §§ 1395ww(d)(5)(F)(i)(I) and
`
`(d)(5)(F)(v); 42 C.F.R. § 412.106(c)(1). The disproportionate patient percentage determines both
`
`a hospital’s qualification for the DSH payment and the amount of the payment. See 42 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 1395ww(d)(5)(F)(iv) and (vii)-(xiii); 42 C.F.R. § 412.106(d). The disproportionate patient
`
`percentage is defined as the sum of two fractions expressed as percentages. 42 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1395ww(d)(5)(F)(vi).
`
`39095151.1
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01538-RDM Document 1 Filed 06/08/21 Page 11 of 36
`
`20.
`
`The first fraction that is used to compute the DSH payment is commonly known
`
`as the “Medicaid fraction.” The statute defines the Medicaid fraction as:
`
`the fraction (expressed as a percentage), the numerator of which is the
`number of the hospital’s patient days for such period which consist of pa-
`tients who (for such days) were eligible for medical assistance under a
`State plan approved under [the Medicaid statute, title XIX of the Social
`Security Act], but who were not entitled to benefits under part A of [the
`Medicare statute, title XVIII of the Social Security Act], and the denomi-
`nator of which is the total number of the hospital’s patient days for such
`period.
`
`42 U.S.C. § 1395ww(d)(5)(F)(vi)(II) (emphasis added). As reflected in the italicized language
`
`above, the numerator of the Medicaid fraction consists of days for patients who were both eligi-
`
`ble for medical assistance under the Medicaid statute and “not entitled to benefits under part A”
`
`of the Medicare statute.
`
`21.
`
`The other fraction that is used to compute the DSH payment is the “Medicare part
`
`A/SSI fraction” or “SSI fraction.” The statute defines this fraction as:
`
`the fraction (expressed as a percentage), the numerator of which is the
`number of such hospital’s patient days for such period which were made
`up of patients who (for such days) were entitled to benefits under part A of
`[the Medicare statute] and were entitled to supplemental security income
`benefits (excluding any State supplementation) . . . , and the denominator
`of which is the number of such hospital’s patient days for such fiscal year
`which were made up of patients who (for such days) were entitled to bene-
`fits under part A of [the Medicare statute]...
`
`42 U.S.C. § 1395ww(d)(5)(F)(vi)(I) (emphasis added). As the italicized language indicates, the
`
`Medicare part A/SSI fraction consists solely of days for patients who were “entitled to benefits
`
`under part A” of Medicare. The denominator includes all Medicare part A days, whereas the nu-
`
`merator includes only those part A days for patients who are also entitled to social security in-
`
`come (“SSI”) benefits under title XVI of the Social Security Act. The Medicare part A/SSI frac-
`
`tion is computed for each federal fiscal year by CMS, and must be used to compute a hospital’s
`
`39095151.1
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01538-RDM Document 1 Filed 06/08/21 Page 12 of 36
`
`DSH payment for the cost reporting period beginning in the federal fiscal year. 42 C.F.R. §§
`
`412.106(b)(2)-(3).
`
`Medicare Part C
`
`22.
`
`Section 4001 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Pub. Law No. 105-33, added a
`
`new part C to the Medicare statute to establish a Medicare program that was originally called the
`
`Medicare+Choice program and is now called Medicare Advantage.3 A Medicare beneficiary can
`
`elect to receive Medicare benefits either through the original fee-for-service program under Med-
`
`icare parts A and B, or through enrollment in a Medicare Advantage plan under Medicare part C.
`
`42 U.S.C. § 1395w-21(a)(1); 42 C.F.R. § 422.50; see also 63 Fed. Reg. 34,968, 34,968 (June 26,
`
`1998) (“Under section 1851(a)(1), every individual entitled to Medicare Part A and enrolled un-
`
`der Part B ... may elect to receive benefits through either the existing Medicare fee-for-service
`
`program or a Part C M+C plan.”) (emphasis added).
`
`23.
`
`Prior to the 2004 rulemaking at issue, in which the agency attempted to adopt a
`
`new policy on the treatment of part C days in the Medicare DSH payment calculation, “the Sec-
`
`retary treated Part C patients as not entitled to benefits under Part A.” Allina I, 746 F.3d at 1106.
`
`The pre-2004 regulation limited the Medicare part A/SSI fraction to Medicare patient days that
`
`were covered, or paid, by Medicare part A and included other Medicare patient days (not cov-
`
`ered under part A) in the numerator of the Medicaid fraction to the extent that those patients
`
`were also eligible for Medicaid. See 42 C.F.R. § 412.106(b)(2)(i) (2003); see also 42 C.F.R.
`
`§ 409.3 (defining “covered” as services for which payment is authorized). As the Secretary ex-
`
`plained when he adopted it, the pre-2004 regulation mandated that only “covered Medicare Part
`
`A inpatient days” be included in the part A/SSI fraction. 51 Fed. Reg. 16,772, 16,788 (May 6,
`
`3 The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (Pub.
`L. 108173), amended part C and renamed it.
`
`39095151.1
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01538-RDM Document 1 Filed 06/08/21 Page 13 of 36
`
`1986); see also 51 Fed. Reg. 31,454, 31,460-61 (Sept. 3, 1986) (stating that limiting the Medi-
`
`caid fraction to days where “the Medicaid program is the primary payor” was “consistent with”
`
`the part A/SSI fraction being limited to “covered days”); Catholic Health Initiatives-Iowa Corp.
`
`v. Sebelius, 718 F.3d 914, 921 n.5 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (noting that the pre-2004 regulation unam-
`
`biguously limited the part A/SSI fraction to “covered Medicare Part A inpatient days”).
`
`24.
`
`Further, written guidance prior to 2004 repeatedly expressed the Secretary’s policy
`
`that part C days, as days for which patients were not entitled to part A payment, were to be ex-
`
`cluded from the part A/SSI fraction. This guidance included instructions to hospitals and program
`
`memoranda transmitting the part A/SSI fractions on an annual basis. See, e.g., Northeast Hosp.
`
`Corp. v. Sebelius, 657 F.3d 1, 15 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (describing written guidance).
`
`25.
`
`The agency’s consistent policy and practice, before the adoption of the 2004 rule,
`
`was to treat part C days as not part A days. Northeast Hosp. Corp., 657 F.3d at 16-17 (policy an-
`
`nounced in 2004 “contradicts [Secretary’s] former practice of excluding M+C days from the
`
`Medicare fraction”); Sw. Consulting DSH Medicare + Choice Days Grps. v. BlueCross
`
`BlueShield Ass’n, PRRB Dec. No. 2010–D52, 2010 WL 4211391, at *12 (Sept. 30, 2010), re-
`
`printed in MEDICARE & MEDICAID GUIDE (CCH) ¶ 82,679 (reviewing evidence that from
`
`1999 to 2004, the Secretary “never count[ed] M+C days in the [Medicare] fraction except rarely,
`
`and then by mistake”).
`
`26.
`
`In a 2003 proposed rule, the Secretary proposed “to clarify” his long-held position
`
`that “once a beneficiary elects Medicare Part C, those patient days attributable to the beneficiary
`
`should not be included in the Medicare fraction of the DSH patient percentage.” 68 Fed. Reg.
`
`27,154, 27,208 (May 19, 2003). Further, the agency explained that “[t]hese days should be in-
`
`cluded in the count of total patient days in the Medicaid fraction (the denominator), and the pa-
`
`39095151.1
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01538-RDM Document 1 Filed 06/08/21 Page 14 of 36
`
`tient’s days for a [part C] beneficiary who is also eligible for Medicaid would be included in the
`
`numerator of the Medicaid fraction.” Id. The Secretary explained that “once a beneficiary has
`
`elected to join a Medicare Advantage plan, that beneficiary’s benefits are no longer administered
`
`under Part A.” Id.
`
`27.
`
`In the preamble to a final rule adopted in 2004, however, the Secretary reversed
`
`course and “abruptly announced a change in policy.” Allina Health Servs. v. Sebelius,
`
`904 F. Supp. 2d 75, 78 (D.D.C. 2012), aff’d, 746 F.3d at 1107-10. That 2004 rule announced that
`
`the Secretary would “adopt a policy” to include part C days in the Medicare part A/SSI fraction
`
`and exclude them from the Medicaid fraction effective October 1, 2004. 69 Fed. Reg. 48,916,
`
`49,099 (Aug. 11, 2004); see also Northeast Hosp.Corp., 657 F.3d at 16 (“[I]n the 2004 rulemak-
`
`ing [the Secretary] announced that she was ‘adopting a policy’ of counting [part C] days in the
`
`Medicare fraction”).
`
`28.
`
`In the 2004 final rule, the Secretary amended the regulation text by deleting the
`
`word “covered.” 69 Fed. Reg. at 49,246. When CMS initially transmitted the part A/SSI frac-
`
`tions for federal fiscal years 2005 and 2006, however, those fractions continued to exclude part C
`
`days. See CMS Pub. 100-04, Transmittal 1091 (Oct. 27, 2006), reprinted in MEDICARE &
`
`MEDICAID GUIDE (CCH) ¶ 156,277 (transmitting federal fiscal year 2005 part A/SSI fractions
`
`and specifying that the fractions include only “covered Medicare days,” and referring to the ratio
`
`of SSI days and “covered Medicare days” as “the ratio of Medicare Part A patient days attributa-
`
`ble to SSI recipients”); CMS Pub. 100-04, Transmittal 1396 (Dec. 14, 2007), reprinted in id. ¶
`
`156,930 (same for federal fiscal year 2006 fractions).
`
`29.
`
`In July 2007, CMS issued a revision to a Medicare program manual, with a “pur-
`
`ported ‘effective date’ of October 1, 2006,” that permitted hospitals to submit the data necessary
`
`39095151.1
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01538-RDM Document 1 Filed 06/08/21 Page 15 of 36
`
`to implement the new policy regarding part C days. Allina Health Servs., 904 F. Supp. 2d at 82.
`
`Thereafter, in August 2007, the Secretary further amended the text of the DSH regulation gov-
`
`erning part C days without affording hospitals prior notice or opportunity for comment. 72 Fed.
`
`Reg. 47,130, 47,384 (Aug. 22, 2007). Following the amendments in 2004 and 2007, the regula-
`
`tion provided that the part A/SSI fraction includes all patient days (not just “covered” days) for
`
`“patients entitled to Medicare Part A (or Medicare Advantage (Part C)).” Id. at 47,411 (amend-
`
`ing §§ 412.106(b)(2)(i)(B) and (iii)(B)) (emphasis added). The amendment of the regulation was
`
`made effective October 1, 2007, the beginning of federal fiscal year 2008. Id. at 47,130; see also
`
`Allina Health Servs., 904 F. Supp. 2d at 82.
`
`The Northeast Hosp. Corp. Litigation
`
`30.
`
`In Northeast Hosp. Corp. v. Sebelius, 657 F.3d 1, 16–17 (D.C. Cir. 2011) the Sec-
`
`retary attempted to apply its DSH Part C Policy through a retroactive rule change for cost years
`
`prior to the October 1, 2004 effective date of the rule. The Court of Appeals found that the retro-
`
`active application to periods prior to October 1, 2004 violated the Supreme Court’s longstanding
`
`decision in Bowen v. Georgetown University Hospital, 488 U.S. 204, 208 (1988). 657 F.3d at 16.
`
`The Court held that “the Secretary’s present interpretation, which marks a substantive departure
`
`from his prior practice of excluding [Part C] days from the Medicare fraction, may not be retro-
`
`actively applied” to the fiscal years at issue. Id. As noted, at issue is Medicare payment for fiscal
`
`years ended 12/31/1999 for all but one of the Hospitals (SSM Saint Anthony Hospital which ap-
`
`peals its fiscal year ended 12/31/2006)).
`
`The Allina I Litigation
`
`39095151.1
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01538-RDM Document 1 Filed 06/08/21 Page 16 of 36
`
`31.
`
`In July 2009, the Secretary first published part A/SSI fractions for hospital cost
`
`reporting periods beginning in federal fiscal year 2007. These fractions for the first time included
`
`part C days.
`
`32.
`
`In Allina I, hospitals challenged the applicability of the 2004 rule on the treatment
`
`of part C days in the DSH payment calculation for cost reporting periods beginning in federal fis-
`
`cal year 2007, contending, among other things, that the abrupt reversal in policy did not meet no-
`
`tice and comment requirements and was not the product of reasoned decision making because the
`
`agency failed to acknowledge or explain its departure from past policy.
`
`33.
`
`This Court agreed and held that the policy announced in the 2004 final rule re-
`
`garding part C days was not the logical outgrowth of the 2003 proposed rule. 904 F. Supp. 2d at
`
`89-92. This Court also held that the “cursory explanation in the 2004 Final Rule failed to meet
`
`the requirements of the APA” because “the Secretary [] fail[ed] to acknowledge her
`
`‘about-face,’” and “her reasoning for the change was brief and unconvincing.” Id. at 93 (quoting
`
`Northeast Hosp. Corp., 657 F.3d at 15). Accordingly, this Court concluded that “[t]he portion of
`
`the 2004 Final Rule ... that announced the Secretary’s interpretation of the Medicare Dispropor-
`
`tionate Share Hospital Fraction, as codified in 2007 at 42 C.F.R. § 412.106(b)(2) and as further
`
`modified in 2010, will be vacated, and the case will be remanded to the Secretary for further ac-
`
`tion consistent with this Opinion.” Id. at 95.
`
`34.
`
`On April 1, 2014, the D.C. Circuit affirmed this Court’s Allina I decision on the
`
`merits, “agree[ing] with the district court that the Secretary’s final rule was not a logical out-
`
`growth of the proposed rule.” 746 F.3d at 1109. Because this procedural failure was a sufficient
`
`basis to vacate the rule, the D.C. Circuit did not reach the arbitrariness of the Secretary’s expla-
`
`nation. Id. at 1111.
`
`39095151.1
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01538-RDM Document 1 Filed 06/08/21 Page 17 of 36
`
`35. With respect to remedy, the D.C. Circuit held that this Court “correctly concluded
`
`that vacatur was warranted.” Id. The court reversed, however, a part of this Court’s order that
`
`required “the Secretary to recalculate the hospitals’ reimbursements ‘without using the interpre-
`
`tation set forth in the 2004 Final Rule.’” Id. (quoting the Post-Judgment Order). The Court of
`
`Appeals instead remanded, n

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket