What You Want to Know about the Supreme Court’s Recent Allina Decision

07 June 2019 Health Care Law Today Blog
Authors: Lori A. Rubin Donald H. Romano

In a landmark decision on June 3, 2019, the Supreme Court held that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) was required to engage in notice and comment rulemaking before publishing methodology (Medicare Fractions) that affected the Medicare reimbursement amounts owed to hospitals that serve a significantly disproportionate number of low income patients.  And, the implications of the decision are much broader than that.  The decision is Azar v. Allina Health Servs., No. 17-1484, 587 U.S. __, 2019 WL 2331304 (2019).

Here are key takeaways about this Supreme Court decision from three different perspectives:

Know this if you are a hospital who serves a disproportionate number of low income patients:

In 2014, HHS published an instruction as to the Medicare Fractions to be used in calculating adjustments paid to hospitals that served a disproportionate number of low income patients for fiscal year 2012.  At the top of the spreadsheet containing those fractions, HHS noted that it had included Medicare Part C (Medicare Advantage) days in the Medicare Fractions – a practice that had not undergone notice and comment rulemaking and that reduced payments to hospitals.  In Allina, the Supreme Court held that HHS could not use the 2014 instruction to place Part C days in hospitals’ Medicare Fractions because the instruction had not undergone notice and comment rulemaking.

Know this if you want to know how the Supreme Court decision marks a departure in its analysis of rulemaking requirements under the Medicare Statute versus the APA:

The analysis of whether an agency is required to undergo notice and comment rulemaking is different depending whether the applicable standard is that set forth in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (applicable to many agencies but not to public benefit programs like Medicare), or the Medicare Statute (applicable to Medicare rules and policies).  The APA requires notice and comment rulemaking for “substantive rules,” whereas the Medicare Statute requires notice and comment rulemaking for “substantive legal standards.”  In Allina, the Supreme Court held that “substantive rules” are not the same as “substantive legal standards.” 

Know this if you are interested in challenging Medicare reimbursement policies that have not undergone notice and comment rulemaking:

In Allina, the Supreme Court chose not to disturb the D.C. Circuit’s holding that an HHS standard must undergo notice and comment rulemaking if it requires Medicare Administrative Contractors (fka fiscal intermediaries) to apply a new or different standard that impacts a hospital’s right to receive payment from the Medicare program.  This holding provides hospitals and their representatives new legal arguments against reimbursement policies implemented without notice and comment rulemaking, and requires HHS to give affected parties advance notice of potential changes in the law and an opportunity to be heard on those changes.  The U.S. District Court for D.C. – where the vast majority of challenges to Medicare rules and policies are brought – is bound by the D.C. Circuit’s holding.  Other jurisdictions may be inclined to follow suit.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services