Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Supreme Court Backs HHS in DSH Payment Battle

Client Alert
July 6, 2022

What are DSH Payments?

DSH payments are statutorily required payments intended to offset hospitals’ uncompensated care costs to improve patient access to Medicare and Medicaid. The payments also serve to help the financial stability of safety-net hospitals that oftentimes treat uninsured or underinsured patients. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) specifically makes DSH payments to hospitals that serve a high number of low-income patients. The Medicare DSH adjustment is calculated based on two factors: the hospital’s Medicare patients with low incomes and those with low incomes, but not on Medicare. 

HHS issued a rule in 2004 that said if patients meet the basic criteria for Medicare—for example, they meet age or disability thresholds—then they count in calculating the Medicare DSH payment, regardless of whether Medicare is the primary payer for hospital care. Because the rule includes all patients entitled to Medicare benefits, hospitals argue that it dilutes the Medicare DSH adjustment.

A Breakdown of the Ruling

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States recently upheld the HHS interpretation of a formula that decides how to calculate the Medicare and Medicaid fractions of a hospital’s Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) adjustment. The case, Becerra v. Empire Health Foundation, validates the current procedure HHS uses to calculate Medicare DSH payments.

Medicare’s DSH adjustment is an additional payment made to hospitals that treat a significant share of low-income patients. The specific question at issue in the case was how to count patients who qualify for Medicare Part A when Medicare is not paying for their hospital treatment. In 2004, HHS issued a regulation interpreting the Medicare statute to count these patients, resulting in lower DSH payments for most hospitals. 

In this case, Empire Health Foundation challenged the calculation of its 2008 Medicare DSH payments based on HHS’ longstanding procedure. Empire argued that the methodology results in lower payments than the hospitals should receive.

Previously, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals voided the HHS rule and sided with Empire. However, the Supreme Court reversed course and sided with HHS. According to Justice Kagan, tasked with drafting the opinion:

Text, context, and structure all support calculating the Medicare fraction HHS’s way. In that fraction, individuals ‘entitled to [Medicare Part A] benefits’ are all those qualifying for the program, regardless of whether they are receiving Medicare payments for part or all of a hospital stay. That reading gives the ‘entitled’ phrase the same meaning it has throughout the Medicare statute. And it best implements the statute’s bifurcated framework by capturing low-income individuals in each of two distinct populations a hospital serves.

Justice Kagan also clarified the statute’s purpose: to compensate safety-net hospitals for serving a disproportionate share of low-income patients; not to pay hospitals the most money possible.

What this Ruling Means for Safety-Net Hospitals

Going forward, safety-net hospitals are still required to follow HHS' interpretation of the formula for the Medicare DSH adjustments hospitals receive in exchange for serving low-income patients. According to hospitals like Empire Health, the practical impact of this ruling is reduced Medicare DSH payments to safety-net hospitals.

For more information, please reach out to your local BMD Healthcare Attorney, Daphne L. Kackloudis at dlkackloudis@bmdllc.com or Ashley Watson at abwatson@bmdllc.com.

dsh payments
Client Alert

Enhancing Privacy Protections for Substance Use Disorder Patient Records

February 16, 2024On February 8, 2024, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) finalized updated rules to 42 CFR Part 2 (“Part 2”) for the protection of Substance Use Disorder (“SUD”) patient records. The updated rules reflect the requirement that the Part 2 rules be more closely aligned with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) privacy, breach notification, and enforcement rules as mandated by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act of 2020.Client Alert

Columbus, Ohio Ordinance Prohibits Employers from Inquiries into an Applicant’s Salary History

January 30, 2024Effective March 1, 2024, Columbus employers are prohibited from inquiring into an applicant’s salary history. Specifically, the ordinance provides that it is an unlawful discriminatory practice to:Client Alert

The Ohio Chemical Dependency Professionals Board’s Latest Batch of Rules: What Providers Should Know

January 26, 2024The Ohio Chemical Dependency Professionals Board has introduced new rules and amendments, covering various aspects such as CDCA certificate requirements, expanded services for LCDCs and CDCAs, remote supervision, and reciprocity application requirements. Notable changes include revised criteria for obtaining a CDCA certification, expanded services for LCDCs and CDCAs, and updated ethical obligations for licensees and certificate holders, including non-discrimination, confidentiality, and anti-sexual harassment measures.Client Alert

Governor Mike DeWine and The Ohio State University Introduce the SOAR Study on Ohio Mental Illness

January 22, 2024On January 19, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine and The Ohio State University announced a new research initiative, the State of Ohio Adversity and Resilience (“SOAR”) study, which will investigate all factors influencing Ohio’s mental illness and addiction epidemic.Client Alert

CHANGING TIDES: Summary and Effects of Burnett et. al. v. National Ass’n of Realtors, et. al.

January 17, 2024In April 2019, a class-action Complaint was filed in federal court for the Western District Court for Missouri arguing that the traditional payment agreements employed by many across the United States amounted to conspiracy resulting in the artificial increase in brokerage commissions. Plaintiffs, a class-action group comprised of sellers, argued that they paid excessive brokerage commissions upon the sale of their home as a result of the customary payment structure where Sellers agree to pay the full commission on the sale of their property, with Seller’s agent notating the portion of commission they are willing to pay to a Buyer’s agent at closing on the MLS or other similar system.
Older posts
Newer posts