logo
Hospitals Lose Supreme Court Case: Key Implications for DSH Patients

Hospitals Lose Supreme Court Case: Key Implications for DSH Patients

Forbes29-04-2025

WASHINGTON, DC - OCTOBER 07: United States Supreme Court (front row L-R) Associate Justice Sonia ... More Sotomayor, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts, Associate Justice Samuel Alito, and Associate Justice Elena Kagan, (back row L-R) Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pose for their official portrait at the East Conference Room of the Supreme Court building on October 7, 2022 in Washington, DC. The Supreme Court has begun a new term after Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was officially added to the bench in September. (Photo by)
n a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled against hospitals in Advocate Christ Medical Center v. Kennedy, addressing how to account for patients in Disproportionate Share Hospitals (DSHs). A DSH serves a high volume of low-income, Medicaid-eligible and uninsured patients, receiving special payments to offset uncompensated care costs.
The case, led by Advocate Christ Medical Center in Oak Lawn, Illinois, and joined by over 200 hospitals, sought to clarify patient eligibility for enhanced DSH payments. Plaintiff hospitals argued they were entitled to additional DSH payments for any patient eligible for Supplemental Security Income (SSI), a federal program supporting low-income disabled, blind, or elderly individuals. However, Medicare, represented as Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr, maintained that only patients actively receiving SSI cash payments should count, excluding those merely eligible or enrolled.
This distinction impacts billions in Medicare payments to hospitals serving low-income populations. Associate Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor dissented, advocating for broader eligibility. The ruling reinforces stricter criteria for DSH calculations, potentially straining hospital finances, particularly for safety-net systems. As healthcare costs rise, this decision underscores ongoing tensions between federal policy, hospital reimbursement and healthcare's growing dependency on government reimbursement for fiscal solvency.
Commonly known as safety-net hospitals, physicians at DSHs treat a significant proportion of low-income, Medicaid-eligible, and uninsured patients, often at an academic trauma center. For these patients, alternative care options are frequently unavailable.
Mandated by federal law, Medicaid programs provide DSH payments to qualifying hospitals to ensure financial stability and maintain access to care for vulnerable populations. This was established during the 1985 Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, the DSH program uses a formula based on the hospital's DSH patient percentage, which includes Medicare patients receiving Supplemental Security Income and Medicaid-eligible inpatient days.
These facilities incur significant financial losses caring for underserved populations, and DSH payments supplement reimbursements to support their operation.
It's not a trivial program. In 2021, Medicaid DSH payments totaled $18.9 billion, funded by federal and state contributions
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is a federal program administered by the Social Security Administration that provides monthly financial assistance to individuals with limited income and resources who are disabled, blind, or aged 65 and older. SSI aims to ensure a minimum income for basic needs like food, clothing, and shelter. Eligibility requires meeting income and asset limits, and disability must prevent substantial gainful activity. In 2025, the maximum federal SSI payment is $967 for an individual and $1,450 for a couple.
In essence, the federal government has established a formula to assess the proportion of indigent patients served by a health system. This determines eligibility for DSH payments.
The DSH patient percentage is the sum of two fractions: the Medicaid fraction and the Medicare/SSI fraction. The formula looks at what percentage of the total patients treated are Medicaid eligible and what percentage of Medicare patients treated received SSI payments. These are indicators for low-income patients.
Generally, a hospital qualifies for DSH payments if the DSH patient percentage exceeds 15% or meets state-specific threshold. There some nuances, but that's the broad policy strokes.
Hospitals reported losses exceeding $1.5 billion annually in DSH payments from 2006 to 2009 due to restrictive patient accounting methods. This interpretation creates an estimated 15% payment shortfall based on eligibility criteria. The Supreme Court's ruling in Advocate Christ Medical Center v. Kennedy upheld two lower court decisions, reinforcing that DSH calculations should include only patients actively receiving SSI cash payments. In 2022, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in favor of the government, a decision affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
The legal consensus centers on the variability of SSI eligibility, which depends on monthly income and assets. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, explained, 'Recipients must apply and be deemed eligible for benefits, and eligibility can fluctuate monthly based on income and resources.'
This dynamic underscores why only active SSI recipients are counted, aligning with federal policy to ensure precise DSH funding allocation. The ruling, while clarifying eligibility, may exacerbate financial challenges for safety-net hospitals serving low-income populations.
Hospitals are increasingly reliant on government funding for fiscal solvency, a trend perhaps warned by Frederick Hayek et al. Safety-net facilities face significant financial strain, prompting strategic responses. Immediate tactics will include lobbying Congress to delay DSH cuts, adopting value-based care models and perhaps enhancing operational efficiencies through digital tools and artificial intelligence. Leveraging the 340B Drug Pricing Program offers another avenue to offset losses. Rising labor costs further complicate finances, hospitals were certainly look to curb that growth. It's importance to recognize that a large majority of physicians are now employees of DSHs, not independent providers. Will they be caught up in the downward pressure on hospital labor costs?
At it's core, stakeholders must closely monitor the sector for ripple effects, such as reduced services or closures, which could disproportionately impact low-income communities.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Exclusive: HHS watchdog finds more than $16B in health savings
Exclusive: HHS watchdog finds more than $16B in health savings

Axios

timean hour ago

  • Axios

Exclusive: HHS watchdog finds more than $16B in health savings

The Department of Health and Human Services' watchdog identified more than $16 billion in overpayments, fraudulent billings and possible cost savings in health programs over a half year spanning the Biden and Trump administrations, including more than $3.5 billion to be returned to the government. Why it matters: The semiannual summary, first shared publicly to Axios, comes as the Trump administration says it's prioritizing government efficiency and rooting out waste, fraud and abuse. It reflects growing concern over federal payments to Medicare Advantage plans, along with enforcement actions like McKinsey agreeing to pay $650 million to settle charges that its advice caused Purdue Pharma to submit fraudulent claims stemming from the opioid crisis. The report was sent to Congress late Friday. By the numbers: The HHS Office of Inspector General identified $16.6 billion in real and potential savings from October 2024 through March of this year. The office's investigations identified $3.5 billion in funds due back to the federal government, and its audits found another $451 million that the government will recoup. More than $12 billion in potential cost savings were identified if HHS makes recommended policy changes. The office issued 165 recommendations over the six months. In one example, OIG found that Medicare could have saved $7.7 billion if it lowered payments for swing beds at critical access hospitals so that they match skilled nursing facilities. The change would require action from Congress, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said it didn't agree with the recommendation. Nearly 400 civil actions, including settlements, resulted from OIG's work during the period. OIG says its work returned $11 to the federal government for each $1 invested in its office. "Whether it's us, whether it's [the Government Accountability Office], whether it's DOGE, whether it's state auditors, there's always a need for program integrity and oversight," said John Hagg, assistant inspector general in the IG's office of audit services. Zoom in: OIG over the six months covered in the report continued its investigations that raise concerns over improper payments in Medicare Advantage. OIG found that many patient diagnoses reported by privately run Medicare plans were supported only through health risk assessments. That allowed plans to be paid more to care for sicker, more expensive patients without enough supporting documentation, raising questions about their validity, per OIG. OIG recommended that Medicare further restrict plans' abilities to get higher payments based on diagnoses reported only on in-home health risk assessments in order to save an estimated $4.2 billion for Medicare. The office plans to do more work on Medicare Advantage in the near future, Melicia Seay, assistant inspector general in the office of evaluation and inspection, told Axios. "There's a lot of areas in terms of Medicare Advantage that we're exploring, whether it is the payment policy related to the program, the service delivery, quality of care," she said. Catch up quick: President Trump in January abruptly fired several agency inspectors general, including longtime HHS watchdog Christi Grimm. He claimed that"some were not doing their job."

‘Absolute Disaster:' Senate Dems Take Aim At Trump's Tax Bill
‘Absolute Disaster:' Senate Dems Take Aim At Trump's Tax Bill

Yahoo

time5 hours ago

  • Yahoo

‘Absolute Disaster:' Senate Dems Take Aim At Trump's Tax Bill

Senate Democrats laid into President Donald Trump's sweeping tax bill on Sunday, emphasizing the impact it is poised to make on millions of Americans on Medicaid. 'This Republican budget bill is an absolute disaster for the country, in particular for middle-class and poor people,' Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) said in an interview on CNN's State of the Union, noting that it seeks to pay for tax cuts by curbing spending on social programs. Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-GA) echoed these concerns in an interview on NBC News's Meet the Press, stressing that 'Republicans are trying to push forward this big ugly bill that's going to literally cut as many as seven million Americans off of their healthcare.' Murphy and Warnock's statements come as Republicans' massive tax and spending bill heads to the Senate, where it's likely to face staunch Democratic opposition as well as GOP dissent. The bill slashes spending on social programs like SNAP and Medicaid, while proposing trillions in tax cuts and billions in investments to strengthen border security. According to an initial analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, it would push 7.6 million people off Medicaid, in part by making it more difficult to qualify for the program. One way it does so is by imposing a new work requirement, which would force many able-bodied recipients to prove that they've worked, volunteered or attended a training program to obtain Medicaid coverage. Warnock stressed that a similar policy in Georgia has added new barriers for people in need of healthcare. This 'work reporting requirement is very good at kicking people off of their health care,' he said. 'It's not very good at incentivizing work at all.' Earlier this May, House Republicans narrowly passed the bill by just one vote. It'll take a simple majority – which Republicans have – to advance again in the Senate, though some GOP lawmakers have said they'd like to make changes of their own to tax and Medicaid provisions. GOP Senators like Rick Scott (R-FL) have also raised concerns about how the bill could add to the federal debt, an issue Murphy alluded to as well on Sunday. 'It's just unreal the amount of gaslighting this administration is doing,' Murphy said, while referring to the White House's claims that the legislation won't alter the deficit at all.

‘Absolute Disaster:' Senate Dems Take Aim At Trump's Tax Bill
‘Absolute Disaster:' Senate Dems Take Aim At Trump's Tax Bill

Yahoo

time6 hours ago

  • Yahoo

‘Absolute Disaster:' Senate Dems Take Aim At Trump's Tax Bill

Senate Democrats laid into President Donald Trump's sweeping tax bill on Sunday, emphasizing the impact it is poised to make on millions of Americans on Medicaid. 'This Republican budget bill is an absolute disaster for the country, in particular for middle-class and poor people,' Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) said in an interview on CNN's State of the Union, noting that it seeks to pay for tax cuts by curbing spending on social programs. Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-GA) echoed these concerns in an interview on NBC News's Meet the Press, stressing that 'Republicans are trying to push forward this big ugly bill that's going to literally cut as many as seven million Americans off of their healthcare.' Murphy and Warnock's statements come as Republicans' massive tax and spending bill heads to the Senate, where it's likely to face staunch Democratic opposition as well as GOP dissent. The bill slashes spending on social programs like SNAP and Medicaid, while proposing trillions in tax cuts and billions in investments to strengthen border security. According to an initial analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, it would push 7.6 million people off Medicaid, in part by making it more difficult to qualify for the program. One way it does so is by imposing a new work requirement, which would force many able-bodied recipients to prove that they've worked, volunteered or attended a training program to obtain Medicaid coverage. Warnock stressed that a similar policy in Georgia has added new barriers for people in need of healthcare. This 'work reporting requirement is very good at kicking people off of their health care,' he said. 'It's not very good at incentivizing work at all.' Earlier this May, House Republicans narrowly passed the bill by just one vote. It'll take a simple majority – which Republicans have – to advance again in the Senate, though some GOP lawmakers have said they'd like to make changes of their own to tax and Medicaid provisions. GOP Senators like Rick Scott (R-FL) have also raised concerns about how the bill could add to the federal debt, an issue Murphy alluded to as well on Sunday. 'It's just unreal the amount of gaslighting this administration is doing,' Murphy said, while referring to the White House's claims that the legislation won't alter the deficit at all.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store