ILNews

Hospitals seek Medicare reimbursement

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Several Indiana hospitals are suing the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services over a Medicare reimbursement dispute.

Twenty-four hospitals claim the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), which administers the Medicare program as an agent of the Secretary of HHS, has made inadequate payments to the hospitals. The hospitals include Bloomington Hospital, Indiana University Medical Center, Memorial Hospital of South Bend, and Wishard Memorial Hospital.

The suit, Ball Memorial Hospital, et al., v. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, No. 1:11-CV-81, was filed Tuesday in the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. The suit says Congress has required CMS to pay hospitals on a prospective basis for inpatient services provided to Medicare beneficiaries. Congress has also mandated an adjustment in prospective payments for hospitals that serve a disproportionate number of low-income patients through the Disproportionate Share Hospital program.

To be eligible for the DSH payment, hospitals must meet a disproportionate patient percentage as defined in the Medicare statute. It’s determined by adding two statutorily defined fractions – Medicare and Medicaid fractions. The proper calculation of the plaintiffs’ Medicaid fraction is at issue. The fraction is made up of the “hospital’s total patient days for such period which consists of patients who (for such days) were eligible for assistance under a State plan approved under Title XIX [the Medicaid Program] but who were not entitled benefits under Part A of this title.”

At issue in the instant case are the patient days for patients covered under the state’s “Hospital Care for the Indigent” program. The program was a part of Indiana’s Medicaid program and for all the years in dispute – which aren’t defined in the suit – was included in the state plan submitted by Indiana and was approved by the Secretary of HHS under Title XIX.

The hospitals argue that the patient days related to the HCI program meet the statutory requirements for inclusion in the numerator of the Medicaid Proxy when determining a hospital’s eligibility and payment under the DSH program. They also claim for the years in dispute that the Secretary of HHS arbitrarily, capriciously, and not in accordance with the law refused to include those days related to the HCI program. The suit claims that HHS has a history of failing to implement the DSH program and refusing to count “Medicaid eligible days” as mandated by law.

The hospitals appealed the decision to the Provider Reimbursement Review Board, which issued an adverse decision to the plaintiffs. The hospitals filed this suit seeking a court finding that CMS and the fiscal intermediary erred in excluding HCI patient days when determining DSH eligibility and payments, that the CMS needs to recalculate the eligibility and payments to include those days, and that the hospitals receive all funds, including interest due.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Mr. Ricker, how foolish of you to think that by complying with the law you would be ok. Don't you know that Indiana is a state that welcomes monopolies, and that Indiana's legislature is the one entity in this state that believes monopolistic practices (such as those engaged in by Indiana Association of Beverage Retailers) make Indiana a "business-friendly" state? How can you not see this????

  2. Actually, and most strikingly, the ruling failed to address the central issue to the whole case: Namely, Black Knight/LPS, who was NEVER a party to the State court litigation, and who is under a 2013 consent judgment in Indiana (where it has stipulated to the forgery of loan documents, the ones specifically at issue in my case)never disclosed itself in State court or remediated the forged loan documents as was REQUIRED of them by the CJ. In essence, what the court is willfully ignoring, is that it is setting a precedent that the supplier of a defective product, one whom is under a consent judgment stipulating to such, and under obligation to remediate said defective product, can: 1.) Ignore the CJ 2.) Allow counsel to commit fraud on the state court 3.) Then try to hide behind Rooker Feldman doctrine as a bar to being held culpable in federal court. The problem here is the court is in direct conflict with its own ruling(s) in Johnson v. Pushpin Holdings & Iqbal- 780 F.3d 728, at 730 “What Johnson adds - what the defendants in this suit have failed to appreciate—is that federal courts retain jurisdiction to award damages for fraud that imposes extrajudicial injury. The Supreme Court drew that very line in Exxon Mobil ... Iqbal alleges that the defendants conducted a racketeering enterprise that predates the state court’s judgments ...but Exxon Mobil shows that the Rooker Feldman doctrine asks what injury the plaintiff asks the federal court to redress, not whether the injury is “intertwined” with something else …Because Iqbal seeks damages for activity that (he alleges) predates the state litigation and caused injury independently of it, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not block this suit. It must be reinstated.” So, as I already noted to others, I now have the chance to bring my case to SCOTUS; the ruling by Wood & Posner is flawed on numerous levels,BUT most troubling is the fact that the authors KNOW it's a flawed ruling and choose to ignore the flaws for one simple reason: The courts have decided to agree with former AG Eric Holder that national banks "Are too big to fail" and must win at any cost-even that of due process, case precedent, & the truth....Let's see if SCOTUS wants a bite at the apple.

  3. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  4. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  5. Please I need help with my class action lawsuits, im currently in pro-se and im having hard time findiNG A LAWYER TO ASSIST ME

ADVERTISEMENT