Justia Public Benefits Opinion Summaries

Relator filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729-3733, alleging that defendants submitted false certifications under 42 C.F.R. 422.504(l)(l)2), by conducting retrospective reviews of medical records designed to identify and report only under-reported diagnosis codes (diagnosis codes erroneously not submitted to CMS despite adequate support in an enrollee’s medical records), not over-reported codes (codes erroneously submitted to CMS absent adequate record support). The district court denied relator leave to file a proposed fourth amended complaint. The court concluded that the district court erred by concluding that amendment would be futile where relator's proposed fourth amended complaint asserts a cognizable legal theory. Relator alleged that Medicare Advantage organizations design retrospective reviews of enrollees’ medical records deliberately to avoid identifying erroneously submitted diagnosis codes that might otherwise have been identified with reasonable diligence. The court also concluded that the district court abused its discretion by denying leave to amend based on undue delay. In this case, leave to amend is proper given the early stage of litigation, relator does not seek to assert a new legal theory, and this is relator's first attempt to cure deficiencies. Therefore, because the district court abused its discretion in denying leave to amend, the court vacated the district court's dismissal and remanded with instructions. View "Swoben v. United Healthcare" on Justia Law

The amount of additional Medicare reimbursements that a hospital is entitled to receive for serving a disproportionate share of low-income patients depends, in part, on the number of days that the hospital served patients who were “eligible for medical assistance under a State plan approved under [the Medicaid statute].” 42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(5)(F)(vi)(II). Kentucky hospitals contend that because Kentucky has chosen in its Medicaid plan to award additional Medicaid funds to hospitals based on how many days they treat patients who are eligible for the Kentucky Hospital Care Program (KHCP), a state program that provides medical coverage to low-income individuals who do not qualify for Medicaid, KHCP patient days should be counted in the calculation of the additional Medicare reimbursements. The Sixth Circuit affirmed rejection of the state’s argument on summary judgment, stating that the statutory term “eligible for medical assistance under a State plan approved under [the Medicaid statute]” is synonymous with “eligible for Medicaid” and KHCP patients are, by definition, not eligible for Medicaid. View "Owensboro Health, Inc. v. United States Dept. of Health & Human Servs." on Justia Law

O’Connor-Spinner, age 47, suffers from depression and several physical impairments, including degenerative disk disease, bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, sleep apnea, “restrictive lung disease,” and obesity. Several times since 2001 she has applied for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. In 2010, the Seventh Circuit invalidated the Social Security Administration’s denial of her 2004 request for benefits, noting that the ALJ had not asked a testifying vocational expert to assess how O’Connor-Spinner’s employment prospects would be affected by her moderate limitation on concentration, persistence, and pace, and had ignored a psychologist’s opinion that O’Connor-Spinner also faces a moderate limitation on her ability to accept instructions from, and respond appropriately to, supervisors. On remand, a different ALJ contradicted his colleague and declared that O’Connor-Spinner’s depression is not, and never was a severe impairment. The Seventh Circuit again vacated and remanded, stating that the medical evidence contradicts the ALJ’s assertion. The court noted symptoms including recurring agitation, impulsivity, fatigue, crying spells, and two or three “explosive episodes” weekly involving violent behavior and memory blackouts. View "O'Connor-Spinner v. Colvin" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a class action against United Healthcare, alleging claims of unfair competition, unjust enrichment, and financial elder abuse. Plaintiff had enrolled in a private health plan offering benefits to persons 65 and over as well as disabled persons under the federally funded Medicare Advantage program, 42 U.S.C. 1395w-21 et seq. After he went to an urgent care center outside of the plan's network, he was forced to pay a $50 copayment instead of the $30 copayment for in-network centers. Plaintiff alleged that the plan’s marketing materials misled him (and other enrollees) as to the availability of in-network urgent care centers (and their smaller copayments) and that the absence of any in-network urgent care centers in California rendered the plan’s network inadequate. The court concluded that plaintiff’s misrepresentation and adequacy-of-network based claims was expressly preempted by the preemption clause applicable to Medicare Advantage plans, 42 U.S.C. 1395w-26(b)(3). The court also concluded that plaintiff’s claims, to the extent they challenge a denial of benefits, are subject to dismissal because plaintiff did not first exhaust his administrative remedies under the Medicare Act, 42 U.S.C. 405(g), (h) and 1395ii. Accordingly, the court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the complaint. View "Roberts v. United Healthcare" on Justia Law

In order to determine how much federal funding goes to each hospital for providing care, the Secretary of HHS makes certain “estimates” as required by the Affordable Care Act, 42 U.S.C. 1395ww(r). Tampa General filed suit arguing that the Secretary’s reliance on “obsolete” data rather than “the most recent data available” violated federal law. The district court dismissed the hospital’s claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that section 1395ww(r)(3), which precludes judicial review of the Secretary’s “estimate” of a hospital’s amount of uncompensated care, bars review of the Secretary’s choice of data used in determining that estimate. The court agreed and held that the bar on judicial review of the Secretary's estimates precludes review of the underlying data and affirmed that section 1395ww(r)(3) bars Tampa General’s challenge. View "Florida Health Sciences v. Secretary of DHHS" on Justia Law

The Secretary determined that Bayou Shores was not in substantial compliance with the Medicare program participation requirements, and that conditions in its facility constituted an immediate jeopardy to residents’ health and safety. The bankruptcy court assumed authority over Medicare and Medicaid provider agreements as part of the debtor’s estate, enjoined the Secretary from terminating the provider agreements, determined for itself that Bayou Shores was qualified to participate in the provider agreements, required the Secretary to maintain the stream of monetary benefit under the agreements, reorganized the debtor’s estate, and finally issued its Confirmation Order. The district court upheld the Secretary’s jurisdictional challenge and reversed the Confirmation Order with respect to the assumption of the debtor’s Medicare and Medicaid provider agreements. The court concluded that the statutory revision in this case does not demonstrate Congress's clear intention to vest the bankruptcy courts with jurisdiction over Medicare claims. Therefore, the court agreed with the district court that the bankruptcy court erred as a matter of law when it exercised subject matter jurisdiction over the provider agreements in this case. The bankruptcy court was without 28 U.S.C. 1334 jurisdiction under the 42 U.S.C. 405(h) bar to issue orders enjoining the termination of the provider agreements and to further order the assumption of the provider agreements. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Florida Agency for Health Care Admin. v. Bayou Shores" on Justia Law

In 2005, D.U., then three years old, was severely injured in a car accident. She qualified for Wisconsin Medicaid services on financial grounds and was provided extensive medical care until August 2013. After a change in family circumstances, D.U. no longer qualified on financial grounds. Wisconsin continued to provide the same services under its “Katie Beckett Program,” which funds Medicaid benefits for children who are otherwise ineligible because of the assets or income of their parents, 42 U.S.C. 1396a(e)(3). The state noted that D.U., whose condition had substantially improved over the years, was “borderline” for meeting the criteria to qualify for private duty nursing care and later informed D.U. and her father that D.U. no longer qualified for those services. D.U.filed a new request for 70 hours per week of private duty nursing and submitted additional information, but the request was denied. D.U. did not appeal the denial, but sought a preliminary injunction. The district court concluded that the evidence that D.U. submitted in support of her request for injunctive relief failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that D.U. failed to demonstrate that she will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is denied. View "D. U. v. Rhoades" on Justia Law

Caring Hearts Personal Home Services, Inc. provided physical therapy and skilled nursing services to “homebound” Medicare patients. It sought reimbursement from Medicare for services provided. The definition of who qualified as "homebound" or what services qualified as "reasonable and necessary" was unclear, even to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). CMS has developed its own rules on both subjects that had been repeatedly revised and expanded over time. In an audit, CMS purported to find that Caring Hearts provided services to at least a handful of patients who didn’t qualify as “homebound” or for whom the services rendered weren’t “reasonable and necessary.” As a result, CMS ordered Caring Hearts to repay the government over $800,000. It was later found that in reaching its conclusions CMS applied the wrong law: the agency did not apply the regulations in force in 2008 when Caring Hearts provided the services in dispute. Instead, it applied considerably more onerous regulations the agency adopted years later, "[r]egulations that Caring Hearts couldn’t have known about at the time it provided its services." The Tenth Circuit found that Caring Hearts "[made] out a pretty good case that its services were entirely consistent with the law as it was at the time they were rendered" when CMS denied Caring Hearts' request for reconsideration. The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment affirming CMS' denial to Caring Hearts for reimbursement, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Caring Hearts v. Burwell" on Justia Law

A class of Tennessee residents who applied for Medicaid sought declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that the delays they have experienced in receiving eligibility determinations on their applications violate 42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(8) of the Medicaid statute, and that the state’s failure to provide a fair hearing on their delayed applications violates that statute and the Due Process Clause. Regulations implementing the statute provide that “the determination of eligibility for any applicant may not exceed” 90 days for those “who apply for Medicaid on the basis of disability” and 45 days for all other applicants. The district court certified a class and granted a preliminary injunction, which requires the state to grant a fair hearing on delayed applications to class members who request one. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction, holding that the matter is not moot and that the federal government is not a required party. The court noted that the federal government submitted an amicus brief, supporting plaintiffs’ position. Despite the passage of the Affordable Care Act, states remain ultimately responsible for ensuring their Medicaid programs comply with federal law. View "Wilson v.Gordon" on Justia Law

VRC filed suit against HHS and the Secretary, seeking the recoupment of payments VRC returned to Medicare after it was issued notice of an overpayment. At issue is the reimbursement rate of the intravitreal injection of Lucentis. VRC did not follow the Lucentis label’s instructions limiting dosage to one per vial. Instead, VRC treated up to three patients from a single vial. Because VRC was extracting up to three doses from a single vial, it was reimbursed for three times the average cost of the vial and three times the amount it would have received had it administered the drug according to the label. The court affirmed the denial of recoupment, concluding that VRC's charge to Medicare did not reflect its expense and was not medically reasonable; the Secretary's decision was supported by substantial evidence; and VRC is liable for the overpayment. View "Vitreo Retinal Consultants v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs." on Justia Law