Kaweah Delta Health Care District v. Xavier Becerra

Kaweah Delta Health Care District v. Becerra · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · December 11, 2024 · No. 23-55157, 23-55209

Summary

This Ninth Circuit opinion addresses a challenge to the Department of Health and Human Services' 2020 low-wage-index policy, which artificially inflated Medicare wage index values for hospitals in the lowest quartile to aid recruitment in lower-income areas. The panel held that the Secretary of HHS exceeded his statutory authority because the manipulated index failed to reflect actual regional wage differences as required by the Medicare statute. While affirming the district court's finding that the policy was unauthorized, the appellate court vacated the remand order without vacatur, ruling that the appropriate remedy is full vacatur when an agency lacks the power to issue the challenged rule.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Writing for the Court
Kenneth K. Lee; Danny J. Boggs; Jacqueline H. Nguyen
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decision date
December 11, 2024
Docket number
23-55157, 23-55209
Procedural posture
The hospitals challenged HHS's authority under the Medicare Act to implement the 2020 low-wage-index policy. The district court granted the hospitals summary judgment, denied HHS's summary-judgment motion, held that HHS lacked authority under both relevant statutory provisions, and remanded without vacating the policy. HHS appealed and the hospitals cross-appealed the remand-without-vacatur decision.
Standard of review
De novo review of the district court's statutory interpretation.
Precedential value
Published Ninth Circuit opinion; precedential
Parties
Xavier Becerra, United States Department of Health and Human Services v. Kaweah Delta Health Care District, doing business as Kaweah Delta Medical Center, Antelope Valley Healthcare District, doing business as Antelope Valley Hospital, County of San Bernardino, Heart Hospital of BK, LLC, doing business as Bakersfield Heart Hospital, Beverly Community Hospital Association, doing business as Beverly Hospital, Casa Colina Hospital and Centers for Healthcare, Chinese Hospital Association, CMCM, Inc., doing business as College Hospital Costa Mesa, CHLB, LLC, doing business as College Medical Center, Community Memorial Health System, doing business as Community Memorial Hospital San Buenaventura, Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula, County of Contra Costa, doing business as Contra Costa Regional Medical Center, Dameron Hospital Association, doing business as Dameron Hospital, Eisenhower Medical Center, El Camino Hospital, City of El Centro, doing business as El Centro Regional Medical Center, Enloe Medical Center, Good Samaritan Hospital, San Benito Health Care District, doing business as Hazel Hawkins Memorial Hospital, Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital, doing business as Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital, CHA Hollywood Medical Center, L.P., doing business as Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Center, Pasadena Hospital Association, Ltd., doing business as Huntington Hospital, Kern County Hospital Authority, doing business as Kern Medical Center, Lompoc Valley Medical Center, American Hospital Management Corporation, doing business as Mad River Community Hospital, Madera Community Hospital, Marin General Hospital, doing business as MarinHealth Medical Center, Marshall Medical Center, Martin Luther King Jr.-Los Angeles Healthcare Corporation, doing business as Martin Luther King, Jr. Community Hospital, Methodist Hospital of Southern California, Deanco Healthcare, LLC, doing business as Mission Community Hospital, County of Monterey, doing business as Natividad Medical Center, NorthBay Healthcare Group, doing business as NorthBay Medical Center, Oak Valley Hospital District, Oroville Hospital, Pacifica of the Valley Corporation, doing business as Pacifica Hospital of the Valley, Pioneers Memorial Healthcare District, Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center, Redlands Community Hospital, County of Riverside, doing business as Riverside County Regional Medical Center, Salinas Valley Memorial Health Care System, doing business as Salinas Valley Memorial Hospital, San Antonio Regional Hospital, Inc., San Gorgonio Memorial Healthcare District, County of San Mateo, doing business as San Mateo Medical Center, County of Santa Clara, doing business as O'Connor Hospital, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, and St. Louise Regional Hospital, Sierra View Local Health Care District, Somona Valley Health Care District, doing business as Somona Valley Hospital, Saint Agnes Medical Center, Tri-City Hospital District, doing business as Tri-City Medical Center, Valley Presbyterian Hospital, Washington Township Health Care District, doing business as Washington Hospital, Watsonville Hospital Corporation, doing business as Watsonville Community Hospital, County of Ventura, doing business as Ventura County Medical Center
Disposition
other

Topics

statutory interpretationplain meaning ruleadministrative lawjudicial review of agency actionrulemaking

Practice areas

administrative lawhealth lawMedicare reimbursementstatutory interpretationjudicial review of agency action

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Ninth Circuit had appellate jurisdiction over the hospitals' cross-appeal challenging the district court's remand without vacatur.
  2. Whether the Medicare Wage Index Provision, 42 U.S.C. § 1395ww(d)(3)(E)(i), authorized HHS to increase the wage-index values of the lowest-quartile hospitals for policy reasons.
  3. Whether the Medicare Exceptions and Adjustments Provision, 42 U.S.C. § 1395ww(d)(5)(I)(i), independently authorized the low-wage-index policy.
  4. Whether the district court erred by remanding without vacating the unlawful policy.

Holdings

  1. The Ninth Circuit had jurisdiction to review the hospitals' cross-appeal because appellate jurisdiction extended to the district court's entire remand decision once HHS's appeal properly placed that decision before the court.
  2. The Wage Index Provision does not authorize HHS to artificially increase the wage-index values of the lowest-quartile hospitals to pursue the policy objective of recruiting and retaining medical staff in lower-income communities.
  3. The general Exceptions and Adjustments Provision cannot independently authorize the low-wage-index policy or override the specific requirements of the Wage Index Provision.
  4. The district court erred by remanding without vacating the low-wage-index policy because HHS lacked statutory authority to promulgate the policy and had not shown that the defect could be corrected on remand.

Key quotations

We thus hold that the Wage Index Provision requires that the wage index “reflect” HHS’s best estimate of the relative wage levels of hospitals across the country—free from other policy goals that distort, rather than reflect, the regional wage differences. (20)
Here, HHS cannot correct its error on remand because the agency lacks statutory authority to promulgate the low-wage-index policy. (27)

Factual background

Medicare inpatient hospital payments are calculated using a prospective-payment system that includes a wage index reflecting regional differences in hospital wage levels. In 2020, HHS increased the wage-index values for hospitals in the lowest quartile, while reducing payments to all hospitals by approximately 0.2 percent to maintain budget neutrality. The hospitals alleged that the policy exceeded HHS's statutory authority and reduced their Medicare payments by approximately $3.8 million.

Procedural history

After the Provider Reimbursement Review Board granted expedited judicial review, the hospitals sued under the Administrative Procedure Act. The Central District of California granted the hospitals summary judgment and remanded to HHS, but declined to vacate the policy because of potential disruption to the Medicare prospective-payment system. The Ninth Circuit held that it had jurisdiction over both appeals, affirmed the lack-of-authority ruling, vacated the remand-without-vacatur ruling, and remanded for further proceedings.

Remand instructions

The court affirmed the district court's holding that HHS exceeded its statutory authority, vacated the district court's decision to remand without vacating the policy, and remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. The low-wage-index policy must be vacated because HHS lacks statutory authority to promulgate it.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…