SCOTUS Rejects HHS Rulemaking Shortcut On Hospital DHS Payments Policy Change

DP
Day Pitney LLP

Contributor

Day Pitney LLP logo
Day Pitney LLP is a full-service law firm with more than 300 attorneys in Boston, Connecticut, Florida, New Jersey, New York and Washington, DC. The firm offers clients strong corporate and litigation practices, with experience on behalf of large national and international corporations as well as emerging and middle-market companies. With one of the largest individual clients practices on the East Coast, the firm also has extensive experience assisting individuals and their families, fiduciaries and tax-exempt entities plan for the future.
In a 7-1 decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled on June 3, 2019 that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) failed to go through the required notice
United States Food, Drugs, Healthcare, Life Sciences
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

In a 7-1 decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled on June 3, 2019 that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) failed to go through the required notice and comment rulemaking process before announcing a policy that significantly reduced payments to hospitals serving low-income patients. In 2014, HHS changed the reimbursement formula for disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments, sidestepping the formal rulemaking process. The court found that HHS did not provide a sufficient exception for avoiding the formal rule making process. The implications of this ruling include up to $4 billion in payments to hospitals. The full opinion can be found here.

Susan Huntington, chair of the firm's Healthcare and Life Sciences practice group, was quoted in an article, "Attorneys React To High Court's HHS Rulemaking Decision," published by Law360. In response to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision rejecting efforts by U.S. the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to avoid seeking public comment on a multibillion-dollar Medicare policy, the article focuses on healthcare attorney's reactions to how the ruling could affect the department and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). Huntington told Law360, "The impact of this case goes well beyond hospital payments. The ruling makes it clear that CMS' expanding reliance on its 'interpretive' authority to make substantive changes in Medicare without notice-and-comment rulemaking is not acceptable. It will be interesting to see what other past interpretive rulings will be revisited — either through formal rulemaking or litigation challenges."

For HEALTHCARE blogs - please put the following before the disclaimer:

For more articles and regular updates on legislative changes, regulatory developments and other news of interest to businesses, professionals and investors in the healthcare industry, please subscribe to Day Pitney's mailing lists.


Click here for more Healthcare Blogs from Day Pitney

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More