Advocate Christ Medical Center v. Kennedy
The Facts
Medicare pays a DSH adjustment based on the proportion of patient days for low-income Medicare and Medicaid patients. The hospitals argued HHS was incorrectly excluding days when a Medicare-enrolled patient's particular admission was not covered by Medicare, such as because they had exhausted their benefit period. HHS's exclusion reduced DSH payments to safety-net hospitals. The dispute turned on whether being enrolled in Medicare Part A constitutes being entitled to benefits for a given admission.
The Application
The Court applied the statutory interpretation rule governing the DSH formula to the hospitals' challenge of HHS's counting methodology. Specifically, the Court had to interpret whether 'entitled to benefits' in 42 U.S.C. § 1395ww(d)(5)(F) refers to Medicare Part A enrollment status or only to admissions actually covered under the program on a given day. Exercising post-Loper Bright independent judgment, the Court examined the statutory term's ordinary meaning in the context of the DSH formula's purpose (measuring the proportion of low-income patients a hospital serves) rather than deferring to the agency's narrower reading. The Court's application of this statutory interpretation rule determined whether patient days for Part A enrollees whose specific admissions lacked coverage would be counted in the Medicare fraction, directly affecting DSH reimbursement for safety-net hospitals nationwide.
The Conclusion
**Advocate Christ Medical Center resolves a long-running dispute about Medicare DSH calculation methodology with significant financial consequences for safety-net hospitals nationwide.** The ruling, rendered without Chevron deference, determines whether enrollment-based or coverage-based counting governs the Medicare fraction, directly affecting reimbursement levels for hospitals treating disproportionate shares of low-income patients, including many urban and rural facilities that operate on thin margins.
No circuit court data for this case.
Case Analysis
Overview
A group of hospitals challenged HHS's calculation of the Medicare disproportionate share hospital adjustment, which supplements payments to hospitals serving high proportions of low-income patients. The Supreme Court, applying independent statutory interpretation after Loper Bright, addressed whether patients enrolled in Medicare Part A but whose specific admission was not covered by Medicare should be counted in the DSH fraction's Medicare numerator.
Facts
Medicare pays a DSH adjustment based on the proportion of patient days for low-income Medicare and Medicaid patients. The hospitals argued HHS was incorrectly excluding days when a Medicare-enrolled patient's particular admission was not covered by Medicare, such as because they had exhausted their benefit period. HHS's exclusion reduced DSH payments to safety-net hospitals. The dispute turned on whether being enrolled in Medicare Part A constitutes being entitled to benefits for a given admission.
Issue
Whether, for purposes of the Medicare DSH payment formula, patient days during which a Medicare Part A enrollee's specific hospital admission was not covered by Medicare should be counted in the Medicare fraction's numerator. Hospitals argued entitled to benefits means enrolled in the program; HHS argued it means the specific admission was covered during those days.
Rule
42 U.S.C. Section 1395ww(d)(5)(F) governs the DSH adjustment formula. Post-Loper Bright, courts exercise independent judgment in interpreting such provisions without deferring to agency readings. The Court applied the ordinary meaning of entitled to benefits in the context of the DSH formula's structure, which is designed to capture the overall share of low-income patients a hospital treats.
Analysis
The Court applied the statutory interpretation rule governing the DSH formula to the hospitals' challenge of HHS's counting methodology. Specifically, the Court had to interpret whether 'entitled to benefits' in 42 U.S.C. § 1395ww(d)(5)(F) refers to Medicare Part A enrollment status or only to admissions actually covered under the program on a given day. Exercising post-Loper Bright independent judgment, the Court examined the statutory term's ordinary meaning in the context of the DSH formula's purpose, measuring the proportion of low-income patients a hospital serves, rather than deferring to the agency's narrower reading. The Court's application of this statutory interpretation rule determined whether patient days for Part A enrollees whose specific admissions lacked coverage would be counted in the Medicare fraction, directly affecting DSH reimbursement for safety-net hospitals nationwide.
Conclusion
**Advocate Christ Medical Center resolves a long-running dispute about Medicare DSH calculation methodology with significant financial consequences for safety-net hospitals nationwide.** The ruling, rendered without Chevron deference, determines whether enrollment-based or coverage-based counting governs the Medicare fraction, directly affecting reimbursement levels for hospitals treating disproportionate shares of low-income patients, including many urban and rural facilities that operate on thin margins.
Notes
OT2024. Added via SCOTUS bulk import 2026-05-14
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support