throbber
USCA Case #19-5260 Document #1871008 Filed: 11/13/2020 Page 1 of 4
`
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
`
`
`
`Decided November 13, 2020
`
`Argued September 11, 2020
`
`
`No. 19-5260
`
`BETHESDA HEALTH, INC., DOING BUSINESS AS BETHESDA
`MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, ET AL.,
`APPELLEES
`
`v.
`
`ALEX M. AZAR, II, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY
`OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
`APPELLANT
`
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court
`for the District of Columbia
`(No. 1:18-cv-00875)
`
`
`Jennifer L. Utrecht, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice,
`argued the cause for appellant. With her on the briefs were
`Mark B. Stern, Attorney, Robert P. Charrow, General Counsel,
`U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Janice L.
`Hoffman, Associate General Counsel, Susan Maxson Lyons,
`Deputy Associate General Counsel for Litigation, and Debra
`M. Laboschin, Attorney.
`
`Ashley C. Parrish argued the cause for appellees. With
`him on the brief were Mark D. Polston, Christopher P. Kenny,
`and Gabriel Krimm.
`
`
`
`
`

`

`USCA Case #19-5260 Document #1871008 Filed: 11/13/2020 Page 2 of 4
`
`2
`Before: SRINIVASAN, Chief Judge, KATSAS, Circuit Judge,
`and GINSBURG, Senior Circuit Judge.
`
`Opinion for the Court filed by Senior Circuit Judge
`
`GINSBURG.
`
`GINSBURG, Senior Circuit Judge: The Social Security Act
`
`provides hospitals treating a disproportionate number of
`patients under Medicaid with a higher rate of reimbursement
`under Medicare. 42 U.S.C. § 1395ww(d)(5)(F). In calculating
`the proportion of treatment a hospital provided to Medicaid
`patients (the Medicaid fraction), the statute and relevant
`regulations permit the hospital to include not just patients
`covered under traditional Medicaid plans, but also patients
`eligible
`for
`treatment under
`experimental Medicaid
`“demonstration projects” approved by the Secretary of Health
`and Human Services. See id.; 42 C.F.R. § 412.106(b)(4).
`
`In calculating their Medicaid fractions, the plaintiff
`
`hospitals sought to include days of care funded by Florida’s
`Low Income Pool, an approved Medicaid demonstration
`project. Through the Low Income Pool, the State of Florida
`and the federal government jointly reimbursed hospitals for
`care provided to uninsured and underinsured patients. The
`Secretary, however, refused to allow the hospitals to include
`these patients in their Medicaid fraction, on the ground that the
`patients were treated out of charity rather than as designated
`beneficiaries of a demonstration project.
`
`The district court disagreed with the Secretary’s analysis.
`
`Bethesda Health, Inc. v. Azar, 389 F. Supp. 3d 32 (2019). As
`the court explained, the Secretary’s own regulation states that,
`for the purposes of calculating the Medicaid fraction,
`“hospitals may include all days attributable to populations
`eligible for [Medicaid] matching payments
`through a
`
`
`
`

`

`USCA Case #19-5260 Document #1871008 Filed: 11/13/2020 Page 3 of 4
`
`3
`[demonstration project]” so long as the services provided under
`the demonstration project include “inpatient hospital services.”
`42 C.F.R. § 412.106(b)(4)(i)-(ii). It was “obvious to the [c]ourt
`that uninsured and underinsured patients received inpatient
`hospital services” through the Low Income Pool, because (1)
`the Secretary authorized federal matching funds to reimburse
`hospitals for these services, and (2) the hospitals rigorously
`documented the services provided using funds from the Pool.
`Bethesda, 389 F. Supp. 3d at 45.
`
`The district court found the Secretary’s arguments to the
`
`contrary unpersuasive. The Secretary argued the text of the
`regulation allows hospitals to include days of care provided
`under a demonstration project only if the project entitles
`specific patients to specific benefit packages. Id. at 47-48. As
`the court noted, however, this is not what the regulation says.
`Rather, a patient must have been “eligible for inpatient
`services,” meaning the demonstration project enabled the
`patient to receive inpatient services, regardless whether the
`project gave the patient a right to these services or allowed the
`patient to enroll in an insurance plan that provided the services.
`Id. at 43-44, 47-48. Here, it is not disputed the patients who
`received inpatient care were eligible to do so because each was
`either uninsured or underinsured. Id. at 48. The court also
`rejected the Secretary’s reliance upon Adena Reg’l Med. Ctr. v.
`Leavitt, 527 F.3d 176 (D.C. Cir. 2008), as that case did not
`involve a demonstration project. Bethesda, 389 F. Supp. 3d at
`51-52.
`
`Just last year, the Fifth Circuit considered the same issues
`
`in another case in which the Secretary tried to exclude from the
`Medicaid
`fraction days of care
`funded
`through an
`“uncompensated care pool” created by a demonstration project.
`Forrest Gen. Hosp. v. Azar, 926 F.3d 221 (2019). The pool
`reimbursed hospitals in Mississippi for services provided to
`
`
`
`

`

`USCA Case #19-5260 Document #1871008 Filed: 11/13/2020 Page 4 of 4
`
`4
`uninsured patients affected by Hurricane Katrina, but did not
`entitle specific patients to specific services. Id. at 226. The
`Secretary made arguments nearly identical to those he presents
`here, but the Fifth Circuit held the “plain regulatory text
`demands that such days be included — period.” Id. at 234
`(citing HealthAlliance Hosps., Inc. v. Azar, 346 F. Supp. 3d 43,
`60 (D.D.C. 2018)). The district court here reached the same
`well-reasoned conclusion.
`
` We see no flaw in Judge Collyer’s analysis and therefore
`embrace the district court’s opinion as the law of this circuit.
`The judgment of the district court is, accordingly,
`
`
`Affirmed.
`
`
`
`

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