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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT