Stuart M. Gerson, Member of the Firm in the Litigation and Health Care & Life Sciences practices, in the firm’s Washington, DC, and New York offices, was quoted in Law360, in “Attorneys React to High Court's HHS Rulemaking Decision.” (Read the full version – subscription required).
Following is an excerpt:
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected efforts by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to avoid seeking public comment on a multibillion-dollar Medicare policy — a ruling that could reverberate across HHS’ vast agenda of policymaking.
The decision directly applied to a process for calculating so-called disproportionate share hospital, or DSH, payments — which assist hospitals that treat relatively large numbers of low-income patients. But the ruling may also require more public input in other areas.
Here, attorneys discuss how the decision in Azar v. Allina Health Services could affect the department and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. …
“The Supreme Court has furnished yet another victory for textualism in conducting legislative and regulatory analysis. This is good news for hospitals and others that might challenge HHS administrative interpretations. Unless Congress later legislates otherwise, the court has firmly established that the Medicare Act does not offer a shortcut through the requirements of the APA. This should have a positive effect throughout administrative law.”