throbber
Case 1:21-cv-02020 Document 1 Filed 07/26/21 Page 1 of 28
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
`THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
`
`
`
`HOSPITAL FOR SPECIAL SURGERY
`535 East 70th St.
`New York, NY 10021
`
`
`and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 21-cv-2020
`
`
`BANNER UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER
`PHOENIX
`1111 E. McDowell Rd.
`Phoenix, AZ 85006
`
`
`and
`
`
`BANNER UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER
`SOUTH CAMPUS
`2800 E. Ajo Way
`Tucson, AZ 85713
`
`
`and
`
`
`BANNER UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER
`TUCSON
`1625 N. Campbell Ave.
`Tucson, AZ 85719
`
`
`and
`
`
`BARNES-JEWISH HOSPITAL
`One Barnes-Jewish Hospital Plz.
`Saint Louis, MO 63110
`
`
`and
`
`BRIDGEPORT HOSPITAL
`267 Grant St.
`Bridgeport, CT 06610
`
`
`and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02020 Document 1 Filed 07/26/21 Page 2 of 28
`
`MEMORIAL HERMANN TEXAS MEDICAL
`CENTER
`6411 Fannin St.
`Houston, TX 77030
`
`
`and
`
`
`METHODIST HEALTHCARE - MEMPHIS
`HOSPITALS
`1211 Union Ave.
`Memphis, TN 38104
`
`
`and
`
`
`MICHIGAN MEDICINE
`1500 E. Medical Center Dr.
`Ann Arbor, MI 48109
`
`
`and
`
`
`MILTON S. HERSHEY MEDICAL CENTER
`500 University Dr.
`Hershey, PA 17033
`
`
`and
`
`ST. JOSEPH’S REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER
`703 Main St.
`Paterson, NJ 07503
`
`
`and
`
`
`TRUMAN MEDICAL CENTER HOSPITAL HILL
`2301 Holmes St.
`Kansas City, MO 64108
`
`
`and
`
`
`UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI HEALTH CARE
`One Hospital Dr.
`Columbia, MO 65212
`
`
`and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02020 Document 1 Filed 07/26/21 Page 3 of 28
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`YALE NEW HAVEN HOSPITAL
`20 York St.
`New Haven, CT 06510
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`
`XAVIER BECERRA
`Secretary of the United States Department of
`Health and Human Services
`200 Independence Ave., S.W.
`
`Washington, DC 20201
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND SUMS DUE
`UNDER THE MEDICARE ACT
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`This is a civil action brought to obtain judicial review of agency decisions
`
`regarding Medicare reimbursements rendered by Xavier Becerra (the “Secretary” or
`
`“Defendant”) in his official capacity as the Secretary of the United States Department of Health
`
`and Human Services. Plaintiffs are hospitals that participate in the Medicare program and
`
`qualify for direct graduate medical education (“DGME”) payments for training medical
`
`residents. Plaintiffs seek an order setting aside the Secretary’s regulation at 42 C.F.R. §
`
`413.79(c)(2)(iii), which unlawfully reduces Plaintiffs’ DGME payments by decreasing the
`
`number of residents that Plaintiffs may claim during a fiscal year.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiffs operate approved medical training programs for physician interns,
`
`residents, and fellows (collectively, “residents”). Plaintiffs receive Medicare DGME payments,
`
`which are calculated, in part, based on the number of full-time equivalent (“FTE”) residents that
`
`train at each hospital. If a resident’s training time exceeds the number of years designated as the
`
`“initial residency period” (“IRP”), the resident’s time is weighted at 0.5, which means that the
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02020 Document 1 Filed 07/26/21 Page 4 of 28
`
`hospital may only count one-half of the resident’s time that exceeds the IRP. Also, the number
`
`of FTEs that a hospital may claim for payment in any given year is generally capped at the
`
`number of unweighted FTEs that it trained in its 1996 fiscal year.
`
`3.
`
`The regulation at 42 C.F.R. § 413.79(c)(2)(iii) is contrary to the Medicare statute
`
`because it calculates a hospital’s DGME payments using a weighted FTE cap rather than an
`
`unweighted FTE cap. 42 U.S.C. § 1395ww(h)(4)(F). The effect of the unlawful regulation is to
`
`impose on Plaintiffs a weighting factor on residents that are within their IRP or, viewed
`
`differently, results in a reduction of greater than 0.5 for many residents who are beyond the IRP,
`
`which prevents Plaintiffs from claiming DGME reimbursement up to their full FTE caps
`
`authorized by statute. Thus, the calculations of the current-year, prior-year, and penultimate-year
`
`weighted DGME FTEs (all three of which are elements of a hospital’s DGME calculation in a
`
`given year) and the FTE caps are contrary to the statutory provision at 42 U.S.C. § 1395ww(h),
`
`and, as a result, Plaintiffs’ DGME payments are unlawfully understated.
`
`4.
`
`The Secretary’s application of this regulation violates the Administrative
`
`Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq. (the “APA”); is contrary to the Medicare statute; is
`
`arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion; and is otherwise contrary to law. Accordingly,
`
`Plaintiffs asks this Court to reverse the Secretary’s decisions and to order the Secretary to
`
`recalculate Plaintiffs’ DGME payments as required by statute.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`5.
`
`This action arises under Title XVIII of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1395
`
`et seq. (the “Medicare statute”), which establishes the Medicare program, and the APA.
`
`6.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1395oo(f)(1), which grants
`
`Medicare providers the right to obtain expedited judicial review (“EJR”) of any action involving
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02020 Document 1 Filed 07/26/21 Page 5 of 28
`
`“a question of law or regulations relevant to the matters in controversy” when the Secretary’s
`
`Provider Reimbursement Review Board (the “Board”) “determines . . . that it is without authority
`
`to decide the question, by a civil action commenced within sixty days of the date on which
`
`notification of such determination is received.” The Board granted EJR to Plaintiffs in decisions
`
`dated May 28, 2021, and June 22, 2021. Accordingly, this action is timely filed within the sixty-
`
`day limitations period established at 42 U.S.C. § 1395oo(f)(1).
`
`7.
`
`Venue in this Court is proper under 42 U.S.C. § 1395oo(f)(1).
`
`PARTIES
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiff Hospital for Special Surgery is an academic medical center located in
`
`New York, New York. Hospital for Special Surgery participates in the Medicare program and
`
`has been assigned Medicare Provider Number 33-0270. Hospital for Special Surgery operates
`
`graduate medical education programs and receives Medicare DGME payments. Hospital for
`
`Special Surgery contests the Medicare reimbursement decision for its fiscal years ending
`
`December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2018.
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff Banner University Medical Center Phoenix (“BUMCP”) is an academic
`
`medical center located in Phoenix, Arizona. BUMCP participates in the Medicare program and
`
`has been assigned Medicare Provider Number 03-0002. BUMCP operates graduate medical
`
`education programs and receives Medicare DGME payments. BUMCP contests the Medicare
`
`reimbursement decision for its fiscal year ending December 31, 2016.
`
`
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiff Banner University Medical Center South Campus (“BUMCSC”) is an
`
`academic medical center located in Tucson, Arizona. BUMCSC participates in the Medicare
`
`program and has been assigned Medicare Provider Number 03-0111. BUMCSC operates
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02020 Document 1 Filed 07/26/21 Page 6 of 28
`
`graduate medical education programs and receives Medicare DGME payments. BUMCSC
`
`contests the Medicare reimbursement decision for its fiscal year ending December 31, 2016.
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiff Banner University Medical Center Tucson (“BUMCT”) is an academic
`
`medical center located in Tucson, Arizona. BUMCT participates in the Medicare program and
`
`has been assigned Medicare Provider Number 03-0064. BUMCT operates graduate medical
`
`education programs and receives Medicare DGME payments. BUMCT contests the Medicare
`
`reimbursement decision for its fiscal year ending December 31, 2016.
`
`12.
`
`Plaintiff Barnes-Jewish Hospital is an academic medical center located in Saint
`
`Louis, Missouri. Barnes-Jewish Hospital participates in the Medicare program and has been
`
`assigned Medicare Provider Number 26-0032. Barnes-Jewish Hospital operates graduate
`
`medical education programs and receives Medicare DGME payments. Barnes-Jewish Hospital
`
`contests the Medicare reimbursement decision for its fiscal year ending December 31, 2016.
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiff Bridgeport Hospital is an academic medical center located in Bridgeport,
`
`Connecticut. Bridgeport Hospital participates in the Medicare program and has been assigned
`
`Medicare Provider Number 07-0010. Bridgeport Hospital operates graduate medical education
`
`programs and receives Medicare DGME payments. Bridgeport Hospital contests the Medicare
`
`reimbursement decision for its fiscal year ending September 30, 2016.
`
`
`
`14.
`
`Plaintiff Memorial Hermann Texas Medical Center is an academic medical center
`
`located in Houston, Texas. Memorial Hermann Texas Medical Center participates in the
`
`Medicare program and has been assigned Medicare Provider Number 45-0068. Memorial
`
`Hermann Texas Medical Center operates graduate medical education programs and receives
`
`Medicare DGME payments. Memorial Hermann Texas Medical Center contests the Medicare
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02020 Document 1 Filed 07/26/21 Page 7 of 28
`
`reimbursement decision for its fiscal years ending June 30, 2016; June 30, 2018; and June 30,
`
`2019.
`
`15.
`
`Plaintiff Methodist Healthcare - Memphis Hospitals is an academic medical
`
`center located in Memphis, Tennessee. Methodist Healthcare - Memphis Hospitals participates
`
`in the Medicare program and has been assigned Medicare Provider Number 44-0049. Methodist
`
`Healthcare - Memphis Hospitals operates graduate medical education programs and receives
`
`Medicare DGME payments. Methodist Healthcare - Memphis Hospitals contests the Medicare
`
`reimbursement decision for its fiscal years ending December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2017.
`
`16.
`
`Plaintiff Michigan Medicine is an academic medical center located in Ann Arbor,
`
`Michigan. Michigan Medicine participates in the Medicare program and has been assigned
`
`Medicare Provider Number 23-0046. Michigan Medicine operates graduate medical education
`
`programs and receives Medicare DGME payments. Michigan Medicine contests the Medicare
`
`reimbursement decision for its fiscal years ending June 30, 2016; June 30, 2017; June 30, 2018;
`
`and June 30, 2019.
`
`17.
`
`Plaintiff Milton S. Hershey Medical Center is an academic medical center located
`
`in Hershey, Pennsylvania. Milton S. Hershey Medical Center participates in the Medicare
`
`program and has been assigned Medicare Provider Number 39-0256. Milton S. Hershey Medical
`
`Center operates graduate medical education programs and receives Medicare DGME payments.
`
`Milton S. Hershey Medical Center contests the Medicare reimbursement decision for its fiscal
`
`years ending June 30, 2016 and June 30, 2017.
`
`18.
`
`Plaintiff St. Joseph’s Regional Medical Center is an academic medical center
`
`located in Paterson, New Jersey. St. Joseph’s Regional Medical Center participates in the
`
`Medicare program and has been assigned Medicare Provider Number 31-0019. St. Joseph’s
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02020 Document 1 Filed 07/26/21 Page 8 of 28
`
`Regional Medical Center operates graduate medical education programs and receives Medicare
`
`DGME payments. St. Joseph’s Regional Medical Center contests the Medicare reimbursement
`
`decision for its fiscal year ending December 31, 2016.
`
`19.
`
`Plaintiff Truman Medical Center Hospital Hill is an academic medical center
`
`located in Kansas City, Missouri. Truman Medical Center Hospital Hill participates in the
`
`Medicare program and has been assigned Medicare Provider Number 26-0048. Truman Medical
`
`Center Hospital Hill operates graduate medical education programs and receives Medicare
`
`DGME payments. Truman Medical Center Hospital Hill contests the Medicare reimbursement
`
`decision for its fiscal years ending June 30, 2016 and June 30, 2017.
`
`20.
`
`Plaintiff University of Missouri Health Care is an academic medical center
`
`located in Columbia, Missouri. University of Missouri Health Care participates in the Medicare
`
`program and has been assigned Medicare Provider Number 26-0141. University of Missouri
`
`Health Care operates graduate medical education programs and receives Medicare DGME
`
`payments. University of Missouri Health Care contests the Medicare reimbursement decision for
`
`its fiscal years ending June 30, 2016; June 30, 2017; and June 30, 2018.
`
`21.
`
`Plaintiff Yale New Haven Hospital is an academic medical center located in New
`
`Haven, Connecticut. Yale New Haven Hospital participates in the Medicare program and has
`
`been assigned Medicare Provider Number 07-0022. Yale New Haven Hospital operates graduate
`
`medical education programs and receives Medicare DGME payments. Yale New Haven
`
`Hospital contests the Medicare reimbursement decision for its fiscal year ending September 30,
`
`2016.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02020 Document 1 Filed 07/26/21 Page 9 of 28
`
`22.
`
`Defendant Xavier Becerra is the Secretary of the Department of Health and
`
`Human Services and is the federal officer responsible for administering the Medicare program
`
`pursuant to the Social Security Act. Defendant is sued in his official capacity.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`I.
`
`The Medicare Program and Payment for Hospital Services
`
`23. Medicare is a public health insurance program that generally furnishes health
`
`benefits to participating individuals once they reach the age of 65. 42 U.S.C. § 1395c. The
`
`Secretary has delegated much of the responsibility for administering the Medicare program to the
`
`Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”), which is a component of the Department
`
`of Health and Human Services.
`
`24.
`
`Under the Medicare statute, an eligible Medicare beneficiary is entitled to have
`
`payment made by Medicare on his or her behalf for, inter alia, inpatient and outpatient hospital
`
`services provided by a hospital participating in the Medicare program as a provider of health care
`
`services. Id. The Medicare program consists of four Parts: A, B, C, and D. Inpatient hospital
`
`services are paid under Part A of the Medicare statute. Id. § 1395d. Physician, hospital
`
`outpatient, and certain other services are paid under Medicare Part B. Id. § 1395k. Medicare
`
`Part C is an optional managed care program that pays for services that would otherwise be
`
`covered under Medicare Parts A and B. Id. §§ 1395w-21–1395w-29. Medicare Part D is an
`
`optional insurance program for prescription drugs. Id. §§ 1395w-101–1395w-154. This action
`
`concerns Medicare Part A.
`
`II.
`
`Direct Graduate Medical Education
`
`25.
`
`The Medicare statute reimburses hospitals for the direct costs of graduate medical
`
`education. Id. § 1395ww(h). The DGME payment is calculated by multiplying a hospital’s
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02020 Document 1 Filed 07/26/21 Page 10 of 28
`
`“patient load” times its “approved amount.” Id. § 1395ww(h)(3)(A). The “patient load” is “the
`
`fraction of the total number of inpatient-bed-days . . . during the period which are attributable to
`
`patients with respect to whom payment may be made under [Medicare] part A.” Id. §
`
`1395ww(h)(3)(C). The “approved amount” is the product of a hospital’s base-period per-
`
`resident amount (“PRA”) and its weighted average number of FTE residents. Id. §
`
`1395ww(h)(3)(B); 42 C.F.R. § 413.76(a). The weighted average number of FTEs is calculated
`
`using the average of “the actual full-time equivalent resident counts for the cost reporting period
`
`and the preceding two cost reporting periods.” 42 U.S.C. § 1395ww(h)(4)(G). The following is
`
`the basic formula for calculating a hospital’s DGME payment:
`
`PRA x (3-Year FTE Average) x (Medicare Patient Load) = DGME Payment
`
`26.
`
`The Medicare statute requires that residents who are training beyond their IRP are
`
`weighted at 0.5, so that only half their time is counted. Id. § 1395ww(h)(4)(C)(iv). The IRP is
`
`defined as the period necessary for board eligibility in the resident’s training program, not to
`
`exceed five years. Id. § 1395ww(h)(5)(F). Most, though not all, residents who are training
`
`beyond the IRP are participating in post-residency fellowship programs.
`
`27.
`
`For cost reporting periods beginning on or after October 1, 1997, Congress
`
`established a cap on the number of unweighted DGME FTEs that a hospital may count, which is
`
`set at each hospital’s number of unweighted FTEs during its most recent fiscal year that ended on
`
`or before December 31, 1996. Id. § 1395ww(h)(4)(F). Thus, a hospital’s three-year FTE
`
`average in the DGME formula is limited by the number of unweighted FTEs that the hospital
`
`trained in its 1996 cost reporting period. The FTE cap is determined “before application of
`
`weighting factors” based on the IRP. Id. § 1395ww(h)(4)(F)(i).
`
`28.
`
`In 1997, the Secretary promulgated an unlawful regulation to implement the 1996
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02020 Document 1 Filed 07/26/21 Page 11 of 28
`
`cap that calculates a weighted 1996 FTE cap to be used in the payment calculation:
`
`For purposes of determining direct graduate medical education payment, for cost
`reporting periods beginning on or after October 1, 1997, a hospital’s unweighted
`FTE count for residents in allopathic and osteopathic medicine may not exceed
`the hospital’s unweighted FTE count for these residents for the most recent cost
`reporting period ending on or before December 31, 1996. If the hospital’s number
`of FTE residents in a cost reporting period beginning on or after October 1, 1997,
`exceeds the limit described in this paragraph (g), the hospital’s weighted FTE
`count (before application of the limit) will be reduced in the same proportion that
`the number of FTE residents for that cost reporting period exceeds the number of
`FTE residents for the most recent cost reporting period ending on or before
`December 31, 1996.
`
`42 C.F.R. § 413.86(g)(4) (1997).
`
`29. When issuing this regulation, the Secretary stated, “We believe this proportional
`
`reduction in the hospital’s unweighted FTE count is an equitable mechanism for implementing
`
`the statutory provision.” Medicare Program; Changes to the Hospital Inpatient Prospective
`
`Payment Systems and Fiscal Year 1998 Rates, 62 Fed. Reg. 45,966, 46,005 (Aug. 29, 1997);
`
`Medicare Program; Changes to the Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment Systems and Fiscal
`
`Year 1998 Rates, 63 Fed. Reg. 26,318, 26,330 (May 12, 1998) (hereinafter the “FY 1998 IPPS
`
`Rule”).
`
`30.
`
`On August 1, 2001, the Secretary amended the regulation to determine separate
`
`weighted 1996 FTE caps for primary care residents and non-primary care residents, effective for
`
`cost reporting periods beginning on or after October 1, 2001. 42 C.F.R. § 413.86(g)(4)(iii)
`
`(2001); Medicare Program; Changes to the Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment Systems and
`
`Rates and Costs of Graduate Medical Education: Fiscal Year 2002 Rates; Provisions of the
`
`Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999; and Provisions of the Medicare, Medicaid, and
`
`SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000, 66 Fed. Reg. 39,828, 39,893-96 (Aug.
`
`1, 2001) (hereinafter the “FY 2002 IPPS Rule”). The Secretary did not change the formula for
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02020 Document 1 Filed 07/26/21 Page 12 of 28
`
`determining the weighted 1996 FTE cap. Rather, the Secretary used the same methodology as in
`
`the 1997 rule to calculate a primary care weighted 1996 FTE cap and a non-primary care
`
`weighted 1996 FTE cap, which are then added together to determine an overall cap. 42 C.F.R. §
`
`413.86(g)(4)(iii) (2001); FY 2002 IPPS Rule, 66 Fed. Reg. at 39,894.
`
`31.
`
`In 2004, CMS redesignated the regulation from 42 C.F.R. § 413.86(g)(4)(iii) to 42
`
`C.F.R. § 413.79(c)(2)(iii). Medicare Program; Changes to the Hospital Inpatient Prospective
`
`Payment Systems and Fiscal Year 2005 Rates, 69 Fed. Reg. 48,916, 49,112, 49,258-64 (Aug. 11,
`
`2004).
`
`32.
`
`The regulation in effect during all fiscal years at issue in this action states as
`
`follows:
`
`If the hospital’s number of FTE residents in a cost reporting period beginning on
`or after October 1, 2001 exceeds the limit described in this section [i.e., the 1996
`unweighted cap], the hospital’s weighted FTE count (before application of the
`limit) for primary care and obstetrics and gynecology residents and nonprimary
`care residents, respectively, will be reduced in the same proportion that the
`number of FTE residents for that cost reporting period exceeds the number of
`FTE residents for the most recent cost reporting period ending on or before
`December 31, 1996.
`
`42 C.F.R. § 413.79(c)(2)(iii) (2016-2019). This regulation is still in effect today.
`
`33.
`
`If a hospital’s unweighted 1996 FTE count exceeds its unweighted FTE cap, the
`
`Secretary’s regulation at 42 C.F.R. § 413.79(c)(2)(iii) calculates the ratio of a hospital’s
`
`unweighted FTE cap to the hospital’s current-year unweighted FTE count. Id. § 413.79(c)(2)(ii)-
`
`(iii) (the “proportion that the number of FTE residents for that cost reporting period exceeds the
`
`number of FTE residents for the most recent cost reporting period ending on or before December
`
`31, 1996”). This ratio represents the percentage by which the hospital’s 1996 cap is above the
`
`current-year unweighted FTE count. The ratio is then multiplied by the current-year weighted
`
`FTE count (both residents within and beyond their IRP) and thereby reduces that already
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02020 Document 1 Filed 07/26/21 Page 13 of 28
`
`weighted FTE count. Id. The resulting number is the weighted 1996 FTE cap. The Secretary’s
`
`methodology is expressed in the following equation:
`
` (Unweighted FTE Cap)/(Unweighted FTEs) x Weighted FTEs = Weighted FTE Cap
`
`The Secretary describes the result of this formula as “the hospital’s reduced cap.” FY 2002 IPPS
`
`Rule, 66 Fed. Reg. at 39,894.
`
`34.
`
`The regulation calculates a hospital’s DGME payment based on its weighted
`
`FTEs, which may not exceed its weighted 1996 FTE cap. 42 C.F.R. §§ 413.76(a),
`
`413.79(c)(2)(iii).
`
`35.
`
`In Milton S. Hershey Medical Center. v. Becerra, No. 19-CV-3411, 2021
`
`WL 1966572 (D.D.C. May 17, 2021), the plaintiff teaching hospitals sought an order
`
`setting aside the Secretary’s regulation at 42 C.F.R. § 413.79(c)(2)(iii), asserting that the
`
`regulation is contrary to the Medicare statute and is an arbitrary and capricious exercise
`
`of agency discretion under the APA. The United States District Court for the District of
`
`Columbia held that the application of 42 C.F.R. § 413.79(c)(2)(iii) to compute the
`
`teaching hospitals’ FTE residents “was contrary to law because the regulation effectively
`
`changed the weighting factors statutorily assigned to residents and fellows.” Milton S.
`
`Hershey Med. Ctr., 2021 WL 1966572, at *1, 4-7 (D.D.C. May 17, 2021). The court
`
`stated that “the statue is clear: the Secretary’s rules ‘shall provide, in calculating the
`
`number of full-time-equivalent residents in an approved residency program,” that
`
`residents be weighted at 1.0 and fellows at 0.5.’” Id. at *5. On July 16, 2021, the
`
`Secretary filed a notice of appeal.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02020 Document 1 Filed 07/26/21 Page 14 of 28
`
`III. Medicare Cost Report Appeals
`
`36.
`
`At the close of a hospital’s fiscal year, it is required to submit to its designated
`
`Medicare Administrative Contractor (“MAC”) a “cost report” showing both the costs incurred by
`
`the hospital during the fiscal year and the appropriate share of these costs to be apportioned to
`
`Medicare. 42 C.F.R § 413.24(f). MACs are private companies under contract with the Secretary
`
`to pay Medicare claims and audit hospital cost reports, among other duties. 42 U.S.C. §
`
`1395kk-1.
`
`37.
`
`The MAC must analyze and audit the cost report and inform the hospital of a final
`
`determination of the amount of Medicare reimbursement through a Notice of Program
`
`Reimbursement (“NPR”). 42 C.F.R. § 405.1803(a). A hospital’s DGME payment is among the
`
`components of the final payment determination reported in the NPR.
`
`38.
`
`A hospital may appeal a final determination of its Medicare reimbursement to the
`
`Board. 42 U.S.C. § 1395oo(a). The Board has jurisdiction over appeals from MAC
`
`determinations if the following requirements are met: (1) the hospital is dissatisfied with the
`
`final determination; (2) the amount in controversy is at least $10,000; and (3) the hospital
`
`requests a hearing within 180 days of receiving the final determination. Id.
`
`39.
`
`A group of hospitals may appeal a common dispute to the Board if the following
`
`requirements are met: (1) the hospitals are dissatisfied with the final determination; (2) the
`
`amount in controversy is, in the aggregate, at least $50,000; and (3) the hospitals request a
`
`hearing within 180 days of the final determination. Id. § 1395oo(a), (b).
`
`40.
`
`In addition, for group appeals, the matter at issue must involve “a single question
`
`of fact or interpretation of law, regulations, or CMS Ruling that is common to each provider in
`
`the group.” 42 C.F.R. § 405.1837(a)(2).
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02020 Document 1 Filed 07/26/21 Page 15 of 28
`
`41.
`
`If the MAC fails to issue a timely final determination, the Medicare statute
`
`entitles a provider to a Board hearing under the following conditions: (1) the provider has not
`
`received a final determination from the MAC after filing an original or amended cost report; (2)
`
`the provider’s cost report complied with the applicable rules and regulations; (3) the provider
`
`filed a request for a hearing within 180 days after notice of the contractor’s determination would
`
`have been received if the determination had been timely; and (4) the amount in controversy is at
`
`least $10,000 (or at least $50,000 for a group appeal). 42 U.S.C. § 1395oo(a)(1)(B)-(C), (2)-(3).
`
`The Secretary’s regulation implementing § 1395oo(a)(1)(B)-(C) states that a final determination
`
`is deemed untimely if not received, through no fault of the provider, within one year after the
`
`date of receipt by the contractor of the provider’s last-filed cost report for the period. 42 C.F.R.
`
`§ 405.1835(c)(1).
`
`42.
`
`The Board lacks the authority to decide the validity of a Medicare regulation. Id.
`
`§ 405.1867. If a hospital (or group of hospitals) appeals an issue that involves a question that is
`
`beyond the Board’s authority, the Board may authorize EJR of the case. 42 U.S.C. §
`
`1395oo(f)(1); 42 C.F.R. § 405.1842.
`
`43.
`
`The Board must grant EJR if it determines that (1) the Board does not have the
`
`authority to decide the legal question because the question is a challenge either to the
`
`constitutionality of a statute or to the substantive or procedural validity of a regulation or CMS
`
`Ruling; and (2) the Board has jurisdiction to hold a hearing on the specific matter at issue. 42
`
`U.S.C. § 1395oo(f)(1); 42 C.F.R. § 405.1842(f)(1).
`
`44.
`
`If the Board issues an EJR decision, the CMS Administrator has the right to
`
`“review the Board’s jurisdictional finding, but not the Board’s authority determination.” 42
`
`C.F.R. § 405.1842(a)(3). The Board’s decision to grant EJR “becomes final and binding on the
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02020 Document 1 Filed 07/26/21 Page 16 of 28
`
`parties unless the decision is reversed, affirmed, modified, or remanded by the Administrator.”
`
`Id. § 405.1842(g)(1)(iii).
`
`45.
`
`If the Board grants the hospital’s request for EJR, the hospital may seek judicial
`
`review of the action involving a question of law or regulations by commencing a civil action
`
`within sixty days of the date on which notification of the Board’s determination is received. 42
`
`U.S.C. § 1395oo(f)(l); 42 C.F.R. § 405.1842(g)(2).
`
`FACTS SPECIFIC TO THIS CASE
`
`46.
`
`Plaintiffs are teaching hospitals that receive Medicare DGME payments.
`
`Plaintiffs all trained residents in their fiscal year 1996 (“FY 1996”) cost reporting periods.
`
`Accordingly, the Secretary established DGME FTE caps for each Plaintiff based on its FY 1996
`
`resident FTE count.
`
`47.
`
`During the fiscal years at issue in this action, Plaintiffs’ FTE counts exceeded
`
`their 1996 FTE caps. Plaintiffs’ FTE counts included residents who were both within and
`
`beyond the IRP. The Secretary employed the methodology of the regulation at 42 C.F.R. §
`
`413.79(c)(2)(iii) when applying the FTE weighting factors for residents beyond their IRP to
`
`Plaintiffs’ DGME FTE caps.
`
`I.
`
`Board Case Numbers 19-2083G, 20-1605G, 20-1919G, and 21-1135G
`
`48.
`
`Plaintiffs Barnes-Jewish Hospital, Hospital for Special Surgery, Memorial
`
`Hermann Texas Medical Center, Methodist Healthcare - Memphis Hospitals, Michigan
`
`Medicine, Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, St. Joseph’s Regional Medical Center, Truman
`
`Medical Center Hospital Hill, and University of Missouri Health Care contest the application of
`
`42 C.F.R. § 413.79(c)(2)(iii) to their fiscal years ending in 2016. Plaintiffs Barnes-Jewish
`
`Hospital, Hospital for Special Surgery, Memorial Hermann Texas Medical Center, Michigan
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02020 Document 1 Filed 07/26/21 Page 17 of 28
`
`Medicine, Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, St. Joseph’s Regional Medical Center, Truman
`
`Medical Center Hospital Hill, and University of Missouri Health Care timely filed appeals with
`
`the Secretary’s Board following the receipt of their final determinations from their MACs,
`
`pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1395oo. Plaintiff Methodist Healthcare - Memphis Hospitals filed an
`
`appeal with the Board pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1395oo(a)(1)(C) based on the failure of the MAC
`
`to issue timely final determination. Plaintiff Methodist Healthcare - Memphis Hospitals, through
`
`no fault of its own, did not receive a final determination within one year after the date of receipt
`
`by the MAC of its last-filed cost report for its fiscal year ending December 31, 2016. Plaintiff
`
`Methodist Healthcare - Memphis Hospitals filed its appeal with the Board within the 180-day
`
`window following the expiration of the 12-month period for issuance of the final contractor
`
`determination.
`
`49.
`
`Plaintiffs Barnes-Jewish Hospital, Hospital for Special Surgery, Memorial
`
`Hermann Texas Medical Center, Methodist Healthcare - Memphis Hospitals, Michigan
`
`Medicine, Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, St. Joseph’s Regional Medical Center, Truman
`
`Medical Center Hospital Hill, and University of Missouri Health Care joined a group appeal,
`
`with an aggregate amount in controversy of over $50,000, contesting the application of 42 C.F.R.
`
`§ 413.79(c)(2)(iii) to their cost reports ending in 2016. The Board assigned case number 19-
`
`2083G to these Plaintiffs’ group appeal.
`
`50.
`
`Plaintiffs Hospital for Special Surgery, Memorial Hermann Texas Medical
`
`Center, Michigan Medicine, and University of Missouri Health Care contest the application of 42
`
`C.F.R. § 413.79(c)(2)(iii) to their fiscal years ending in 2018. Plaintiffs Hospital for Special
`
`Surgery, Memorial Hermann Texas Medical Center, Michigan Medicine, and University of
`
`Missouri Health Care filed an appeal with the Board pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1395oo(a)(1)(B)-
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-02020 Document 1 Filed 07/26/21 Page 18 of 28
`
`(C) based on the failure of the MACs to issue timely final determinations. Plaintiffs Hospital for
`
`Special Surgery, Memorial Hermann Texas Medical Center, Michigan Medicine, and University
`
`of Missouri Health Care, through no fault of their own, did not receive final determinations
`
`within one year after the date of receipt by the MACs of their last-filed cost report for their fiscal
`
`year ending in 2018. Plaintiffs Hospital for Special Surgery, Memorial Hermann Texas Medical
`
`Center, Michigan Medicine, and University of Missouri Health Care filed their appeals with the
`
`Board within the 180-day window following the expiration of the 12 month period for issuance
`
`of the final contractor determination.
`
`51.
`
`Plaintiffs Hospital for Special Surgery, Memorial Hermann Texas Medical
`
`Center, Michigan Medicine, and University of Missouri Health Care joined a group appeal, with
`
`an aggregate amount in controversy of over $50,000, contesting the application of 42 C.F.R. §
`
`413.79(c)(2)(iii) to their cost reports ending in 2018. The Board assigned case number 20-
`
`1605G to these Plaintiffs’ group appeal.
`
`52.
`
`Plaintiffs Methodist Healthcare - Memphis Hospitals, Michigan Medicine, Milton
`
`S. Hershey Medical Center, and Truman Medical Center Hospital Hill contest the application of
`
`42 C.F.R. § 413.79(c)(2)(iii) to their fiscal years ending in 2017. Plaintiffs Michigan Medicine,
`
`Milton

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