Limitations on Adjudicating Disputes Involving Medicare Provider Agreements
Leslie A. Berkoff and Krista L. Kulp of Moritt Hock & Hamroff write: The power of bankruptcy courts to adjudicate Medicare provider agreements has been addressed by several circuit courts in recent years. Given the distressed nature of the health care industry and the continued bankruptcy filings by health care providers, this issue has become more prominent. However, several circuit courts determined that bankruptcy courts lack jurisdiction to adjudicate these issues; and, recently, the First Circuit took an unusual approach.
June 13, 2017 at 12:00 AM
16 minute read
The power of bankruptcy courts to adjudicate Medicare provider agreements has been addressed by several circuit courts in recent years. Given the distressed nature of the health care industry and the continued bankruptcy filings by health care providers, this issue has become more prominent. Insolvent health care providers often have issues with Medicare involving their provider agreements. However, several circuit courts determined that bankruptcy courts lack jurisdiction to adjudicate these issues; and, recently, the First Circuit took an unusual approach.
In order to receive payments from Medicare and/or Medicaid, providers must enter into provider agreements with the federal and state governments. The provider agreements provide reimbursements to providers who provide medical services to Medicare and Medicaid patients. Parkview Adventist Med. Ctr. v. United States, 842 F.3d 757, 761 (1st Cir. 2016). However, in order to qualify, providers must satisfy certain regulatory requirements and, if they do not comply, then the Department of Health and Human Services (DHS) may terminate the provider agreement without a hearing if there is an immediate threat to the health and safety of patients. See 42 U.S.C. §1395(i)-3(h)(2)(A). As Medicare reimbursement is a large or largest source of income, providers may turn to bankruptcy in order to hopefully stave off this loss of income.
However, the power of bankruptcy courts to adjudicate issues involving the Medicare Act is currently unclear. In Fla. Agency for Health Care Admin v. Bayou Shores SNF (In re Bayou Shores SNF), the Eleventh Circuit determined the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §405(h) and 28 U.S.C. §1334 to resolve claims under the Medicare Act. 828 F.3d at 1304. Bayou Shores SNF was a nursing facility whose income was generated from Medicare or Medicaid. Id. at 1300-01. DHS sent a letter to Bayou stating that it was “not in substantial compliance with the Medicare program requirements, and that the conditions in its facility constituted an immediate jeopardy to residents' health and safety” and that the provider agreements would terminate approximately two weeks later. Id. at 1300. Thereafter, Bayou filed for bankruptcy protection. Id. After the bankruptcy court entered an order assuming the provider agreements, the district court reversed and upheld DHS's jurisdictional challenge; Bayou then appealed. Id. at 1303-04.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllUS Bankruptcy Filings Rise 16.2% as Interest Rates, Inflation, and End of COVID Relief Hit Hard
3 minute read200 Hrs. of Partner Prep Guides Quinn Emanuel's Incredibly Detailed Mock Bankruptcy Trial
Corporate Bankruptcies Slow Down in Q3 as Weil, Davis Polk and Sidley Earn Major Retentions
Supreme Court Expands Insurers' Rights by Holding That Insurers Are 'Parties in Interest' in Bankruptcy Proceedings
9 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Commission Confirms Three of Newsom's Appellate Court Picks
- 2Judge Grants Special Counsel's Motion, Dismisses Criminal Case Against Trump Without Prejudice
- 3GEICO, Travelers to Pay NY $11.3M for Cybersecurity Breaches
- 4'Professional Misconduct': Maryland Supreme Court Disbars 86-Year-Old Attorney
- 5Capital Markets Partners Expect IPO Resurgence During Trump Administration
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250