Supreme Court rules against hospitals in DSH formula case
This story was originally published on Healthcare Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily Healthcare Dive newsletter.
The Supreme Court ruled against hospitals Tuesday in a case over how disproportionate share hospital payments, or reimbursements for facilities serving a large portion of low-income patients, are calculated.
In the lawsuit, more than 200 hospitals argued the HHS had underfunded their operations by including in the DSH calculation only Medicare enrollees who received a Supplemental Security Income cash payment during the month they were hospitalized, instead of any beneficiaries who were enrolled in the SSI system.
The court issued a 7-2 decision. 'The hospitals have lost at every stage of this litigation,' Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the majority opinion.
How the HHS pays out DSH reimbursements have become a contested issue in recent years, with some lawsuits going all the way to the nation's highest court.
The latest case, Advocate Christ Medical Center v. Kennedy, centers on how the HHS calculates a hospital's DSH adjustment, based on the proportion of low-income Medicare patients and Medicaid patients the facility serves.
The Medicare portion of the formula is determined by the number of hospital patient days for those entitled to Medicare Part A and SSI benefits.
The HHS interpreted the calculation as the number of patients who would receive an SSI payment during the month they were hospitalized, but hospitals said it should apply to all patients who were enrolled in the SSI system when they were admitted.
The hospital plaintiffs argued some people might not be eligible for cash payments in a given month, but they could qualify for other SSI program benefits, like vocational rehabilitation services or Medicare Part D subsidies. They estimated the HHS' interpretation had cost hospitals across the country $1.5 billion each year.
But the Supreme Court disagreed, upholding lower court rulings. The noncash benefits don't fit the description of an income benefit, Barrett wrote in the majority opinion. The statute also says eligibility decisions for SSI are made based on an individual's income and resources monthly, she wrote.
'For purposes of the Medicare fraction, an individual is 'entitled to [SSI] benefits' when she is eligible to receive an SSI cash payment during the month of her hospitalization. We must respect the formula that Congress prescribed,' Barrett said.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson argued that Congress was using the SSI cash benefits program to determine how many of the nation's neediest patients a hospital was serving, not to assess 'the wholly irrelevant fact' of whether a patient was receiving cash benefits during a specific month. Incomes for people struggling with poverty can be volatile from month to month, she added.
Safety-net hospitals were also disappointed with the court's ruling, arguing the decision allows the HHS to underrepresent patients who should count toward hospitals' DSH payments.
'DSH payments are key to the financial stability of essential hospitals and help to ensure access and high-quality care for all. We will continue to advocate for adequate payment to support our nation's essential hospitals,' Beth Feldpush, senior vice president of policy and advocacy at America's Essential Hospitals, said in a statement Tuesday.
Recommended Reading
Court strikes down HHS change to low-income payment formula in win for Texas hospitals
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What's next for President Trump's tariffs after whiplash court rulings?
President Donald Trump's steepest tariffs fell into legal limbo this week, casting uncertainty over a major swath of the president's signature economic policy. The Trump administration could ultimately prevail in a court battle over the levies or seek other legal authorities to reimpose some of the tariffs, experts told ABC News, but a complete revival of the policy now faces formidable obstacles. Two separate federal courts invalidated far-reaching levies on dozens of countries unveiled in a Rose Garden ceremony that Trump had dubbed "Liberation Day." The rulings also struck down 30% tariffs imposed on China as well as a baseline 10% levy slapped on nearly all imports, among other measures. MORE: Trump claims China 'totally violated' trade agreement with US A federal appeals court moved to temporarily reinstate the tariffs on Thursday afternoon, however, keeping the levies in place while judges weigh the underlying legal justification. Here's what to know about what's next for Trump's tariffs and what happens to the tax revenue already paid, according to experts. The court rulings this week set off a legal battle over the tariffs that could stretch on for more than a year and make its way to the Supreme Court, experts told ABC News. The rulings against the levies in two federal courts – the U.S. Court of International Trade and the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. -- centered on Trump's unprecedented invocation of the International Economic Emergency Powers Act as a legal justification for tariffs. The 1977 law allows the president to stop all transactions with a foreign adversary that poses a threat, including the use of tools like sanctions and trade embargoes. But the measure does not explicitly permit tariffs, putting Trump in untested legal territory. "These are momentous actions to reverse a major initiative of the president of the United States," Alan Wolff, a former deputy director-general of the World Trade Organization, told ABC News. "It's a real loss for the White House." The temporary reinstatement of the tariffs allows the policy to continue as the legal fight plays out, but the ruling does not indicate how judges will weigh in on the merits of the case, Wolff added. "It doesn't change the circumstances in court all that much," Wolff said. "I'm sure the White House would like this to get straightened out as soon as possible." In a social media post, Trump slammed the judges at the U.S. Court of International Trade and touted the benefits of his tariff policy. "Where do these initial three Judges come from? How is it possible for them to have potentially done such damage to the United States of America? Is it purely a hatred of 'TRUMP?' What other reason could it be?" Trump said. The three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of International trade included one judge appointed by Ronald Reagan, one judge appointed by Barack Obama and one judge appointed by Trump himself. Trump added: "In this case, it is only because of my successful use of Tariffs that many Trillions of Dollars have already begun pouring into the U.S.A. from other Countries, money that, without these Tariffs, we would not be able to get. It is the difference between having a rich, prosperous, and successful United States of America, and quite the opposite." As of Wednesday, U.S. tariffs had generated about $68 billion in revenue so far this year, though only a portion of those funds owes to levies at risk of being struck down, according to a Politico analysis. The duration of the legal battle may depend on the rulings handed down from the two appeals courts handling each of the Trump administration's challenges, Patrick Childress, a former trade official under President Joe Biden and Trump, told ABC News. If the two appellate courts handed down opposing decisions, it would raise the likelihood that the case will take over a year and ultimately reach the Supreme Court, Childress said. But, he added, a pair of similar rulings at the appeals court level could fast-track resolution of the case. For now, the fate of the tariffs at issue remains highly unclear, even after the appeals court temporarily reinstated them, Childress added. "There's still a very similar amount of uncertainty," Childress said. If the courts ultimately rule against Trump's tariffs, the White House may explore other legal authorities as a means of reviving some of the levies, experts said. In some cases, however, the alternative legal statutes would require time-consuming investigations at federal agencies and put limits on the scope of the levies. Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 allows the executive to invoke temporary tariff authority in response to an adverse trade policy taken up by another country. Trump's tariffs on a wide swath of Chinese goods during his first term relied on Section 301, which Biden invoked in service of tariffs of his own. The White House may use Section 301 to reimpose tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China over the nations' respective roles in the transport of fentanyl to the U.S., Childress said. But a wide-ranging invocation of Section 301 for tariffs on dozens of countries could pose administrative challenges, since each use of the measure requires a federal investigation of the alleged abuses, he added. "It wouldn't be impossible but it would require a lot of investigations," Childress said. The Trump administration is weighing the use of a separate provision of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose country-specific tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days, The Wall Street Journal reported. The White House could also expand its use of Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which allows the executive to impose tariffs on a specific product if the Commerce Department deems foreign production a threat to national security. Trump already has invoked the measure to slap 25% tariffs on cars, steel and aluminum. Additional sector-specific tariffs may hit pharmaceuticals and semiconductor chips, according to recent comments from Trump. Importers who have paid the tariffs at issue will receive government refunds if the levies fall victim to legal challenges, experts told ABC News. "Companies should get the money back if that's the result -- and it's a lot of money," Wolff said. MORE: Appeals court reinstates Trump's tariffs for now after ruling blocking them The federal government will likely slow down the issuance of refunds until the legal cases are resolved, Childress said. "Importers who made the payments could be looking at one or even two years until those refunds get paid," Childress added. When seeking a refund, companies will need to provide detailed information about their imports, the date of shipment and where the products entered the U.S. "All of that information is necessary to get a refund further down the road," Childress said. What's next for President Trump's tariffs after whiplash court rulings? originally appeared on
Axios
an 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."
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump warns court ruling against tariffs could lead to 'economic ruination' of US
President Donald Trump on Sunday said if the courts rule against the administration's sweeping tariffs, it would mean the "economic ruination" of the country. The post comes after the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) ruled unanimously on Wednesday to block the use of an emergency law to enact punishing import taxes. Members of the three-judge panel, who were appointed by Trump, former President Barack Obama and former President Ronald Reagan, said Trump has overstepped and does not have "unbounded authority" to impose the tariffs. Federal Judge Blocks 5 Trump Tariff Executive Orders "If the Courts somehow rule against us on Tariffs, which is not expected, that would allow other Countries to hold our Nation hostage with their anti-American Tariffs that they would use against us," Trump wrote on Truth Social Sunday afternoon. "This would mean the Economic ruination of the United States of America!" Trump administration lawyers have until 5 p.m. Monday to file their response. Read On The Fox Business App Trump Denounces Court's 'Political' Tariff Decision, Calls On Supreme Court To Act Quickly Following the court decision, a federal appeals court on Thursday ruled in favor of the Trump administration, delaying a lower court's ruling blocking the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to enact a 10% baseline tariff and "reciprocal tariffs." The reciprocal taxes, announced by the White House on April 2, were being used by the Trump administration as a negotiating tactic with other countries prior to the court battles. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit gave the plaintiffs until Thursday to file a response, and the Trump administration until June 9. Fox News Digital's Breanne Deppisch contributed to this article source: Trump warns court ruling against tariffs could lead to 'economic ruination' of US
