• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Protecting and Enhancing Revenue for Hospitals

  • Services
    • Reimbursement Services
    • Revenue Integrity
  • Insights
  • Blog
  • About
    • Core Values
    • Management Team
    • News
    • Careers
      • Current Openings
  • Contact
  • 877.4BESLER info@besler.com
  • Search
May 16

What you should know about United States House of Representatives v. Burwell

Blog, News besler

David Bongiovanni

David Bongiovanni, General Counsel

There has been a multitude of lawsuits challenging various features of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“PPACA”) since it was signed into law six years ago.  As a result, one might have a tendency to overlook the latest court ruling as simply another politically-motivated effort to derail the PPACA.

The United Stated District Court for the District of Columbia issued a decision earlier this month in the case United States House of Representatives v. Burwell (May 12, 2016).[1]/  If the court’s holding prevails through appeals, the impact on the PPACA will likely be significant.

The PPACA requires insurers offering qualified health plans through the PPACA’s Exchanges to reduce deductibles, coinsurance, copayments, and similar charges for eligible insured individuals enrolled in their plans. These reductions are referred to in the statute as “cost-sharing reductions.”  The PPACA also directs the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) to make periodic payments to the insurers of the qualified health plans making these cost-sharing reductions, with such payments being equal to the value of these cost-sharing reductions.  The central issue in this case is whether the government, which has paid perhaps as much as $150 billion dollars in cost-sharing reductions, was authorized under the United States Constitution to do so starting in 2014.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit – the United States House of Representatives – contend that, while the PPACA authorizes the government to make these cost-sharing reduction payments to the insurers of qualified health plans, Congress had not appropriated funds for these payments since January 2014.  The court analyzed the complicated issue of whether these payments were funded through a “permanent appropriation” (similar to the permanent appropriation under the PPACA that funded premium tax credits to low-income individuals), or whether such payments were subject to “current appropriations” (which allows an agency to obligate funds only in the year or years for which they were appropriated).

The court concluded that: (i) the cost-sharing reductions were not funded by a permanent appropriation; (ii) Congress had not otherwise appropriated funds for the payment of these cost-sharing reductions; and (iii) therefore, the government’s actions in making these payments were not authorized by law.  The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and enjoined any further payments by HHS for cost-sharing reductions. The judge, however, stayed her injunction pending appeals by the parties.

Developments in this lawsuit merit your attention in view of the far-reaching effects should the House of Representatives ultimately prevail.  A copy of the decision is available at:

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2014cv1967-73


[1]/             In 2015, this court ruled that the House of Representatives has standing to pursue its claim that the government violated the United States Constitution by spending public monies that were not appropriated by Congress.  The May 12 ruling addressed the merits of the plaintiff’s case.  Article I, § 9, cl. 7 of the United States Constitution states, in pertinent part, that “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law ….”

Related Posts

sidebar

Blog Sidebar

Click here to follow our blog. Get the latest news and resources related to hospital reimbursement delivered to your inbox weekly.

Categories

  • Blog
  • Bundled Payments
  • Compliance
  • Covid-19
  • News
  • Readmissions
  • Reimbursement
  • Revenue Cycle
  • Revenue Integrity
  • The Hospital Finance Podcast®

Footer

Besler

Let’s Connect

609.514.1400 | 877.4BESLER
116 Village Blvd., Suite 200
Princeton, New Jersey 08540

Twitter Feed

  • Telemedicine may lead to more in-person follow-up visits, study finds hubs.ly/H0L39gc0 pic.twitter.com/eNLaw6AnQT

    About 2 hours ago

  • Medicare Advantage organizations can do more to curb improper billing, inspector general says… twitter.com/i/web/status/13830…

    About 5 hours ago

Follow our blog

Get weekly Medicare reimbursement insights

©2021 BESLER. BESLER is a service mark of Besler & Co., Inc. d/b/a BESLER | info@besler.com
Terms of Use / Privacy Policy / Website by Web Savvy Marketing
*HFMA staff and volunteers determined that Revenue Integrity Solutions including Transfer DRG Revenue Recovery Service, Inpatient DRG Validation and IME Revenue Recovery and Easy Work Papers have met certain criteria developed under the HFMA Peer Review Process. HFMA does not endorse or guarantee the use of this service.