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. For many years this young man was "family" being my cousin's son. Then he decided to ignore my existence and that of my daughter who was very hurt by his actions after growing up admiring, Jason. Glad he is doing well, as for his opinion, if you care so much you wouldn't ignore the feelings of those who cared so much about you for years, Jason.

  2. Good riddance to this dangerous activist judge

  3. What is the one thing the Hoosier legal status quo hates more than a whistleblower? A lawyer whistleblower taking on the system man to man. That must never be rewarded, must always, always, always be punished, lest the whole rotten tree be felled.

  4. I want to post this to keep this tread alive and hope more of David's former clients might come forward. In my case, this coward of a man represented me from June 2014 for a couple of months before I fired him. I knew something was wrong when he blatantly lied about what he had advised me in my contentious and unfortunate divorce trial. His impact on the proceedings cast a very long shadow and continues to impact me after a lengthy 19 month divorce. I would join a class action suit.

  5. The dispute in LB Indiana regarding lake front property rights is typical of most beach communities along our Great Lakes. Simply put, communication to non owners when visiting the lakefront would be beneficial. The Great Lakes are designated navigational waters (including shorelines). The high-water mark signifies the area one is able to navigate. This means you can walk, run, skip, etc. along the shores. You can't however loiter, camp, sunbath in front of someones property. Informational signs may be helpful to owners and visitors. Our Great Lakes are a treasure that should be enjoyed by all. PS We should all be concerned that the Long Beach, Indiana community is on septic systems.

ADVERTISEMENT