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

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 AttorneyDaphne L. Kackloudis at dlkackloudis@bmdllc.com or Ashley Watson at abwatson@bmdllc.com.


Trump vs. Harris: What Could Their Presidencies Mean for Employment Law?

In the latest 2 episodes of Employment Law After Hours, BMD Partner Bryan Meeks dives deep into the potential employment law changes we could see under two very different 2024 election outcomes with Kamala Harris or Donald Trump.

Charitable Planning: A Menu of Options

Find out ways you can take advantage of charitable planning to minimize the amount of estate taxes due. Here are some of the popular charitable planning techniques, their uses, and some general advice regarding their formation.

Nationwide Ban on Non-Compete Agreements: Requirements and Texas Court Decision Explained

Watch this Employment Law After Hours video to find out about the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) groundbreaking Final Rule that bans non-compete agreements nationwide. This video also explores the recent decision by the Northern District of Texas to enjoin and delay the implementation and enforcement of the Final Rule banning non-compete agreements nationwide.

Parental Approval Mandate for Diagnosing Gender-Related Conditions in Minors under Ohio House Bill 68

Ohio House Bill 68, effective August 6, 2024, introduces strict guidelines for mental health professionals diagnosing and treating minors with gender-related conditions. The law mandates parental or guardian consent before any diagnosis or treatment can proceed. Additionally, professionals must first screen for other comorbidities and assess for any history of abuse. Failure to adhere to these requirements can result in disciplinary action for unprofessional conduct.

Navigate the Latest Employment Law Changes with Confidence

BMD Partner and Co-Chair of the Employment & Labor Law Group, Bryan Meek, presented this webinar on trending HR topics. Topics include the new Fair Labor Standards Act changes for exempt employees and Federal Trade Commission's nationwide ban on non-competes. Discover how these groundbreaking changes will impact organizations nationwide and what they need to do to ensure compliance.