MARC Coalition

  • Home
  • About
    • Accomplishments
  • MSP POLICY WINS
    • PAID ACT - 12/11/20
    • SMART ACT - 1/10/13
  • Membership
  • Policy Priorities
    • PAID Act Implementation
    • Section 111 Penalties
    • Ongoing Responsibility for Medicals (ORM)
    • Treasury Offset Program (TOP)
    • Future Medicals in Liability Cases
  • Newsroom
  • Contact
  • Home
  • About
    • Accomplishments
  • MSP POLICY WINS
    • PAID ACT - 12/11/20
    • SMART ACT - 1/10/13
  • Membership
  • Policy Priorities
    • PAID Act Implementation
    • Section 111 Penalties
    • Ongoing Responsibility for Medicals (ORM)
    • Treasury Offset Program (TOP)
    • Future Medicals in Liability Cases
  • Newsroom
  • Contact

Newsroom

Secondary Payer: Brief Says Supreme Court Review Needed On Limits to Settlement Recovery Authority 

8/7/2012

 
​The federal government overstepped its Medicare Secondary Payer Act authority when it sought recovery of all of its costs of caring for a Medicare beneficiary from that beneficiary’s third-party settlement, the beneficiary argued in a brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court Aug. 7 (Hadden v. United States, U.S., No. 11-1197, reply brief filed 8/7/12).

A reply brief filed on behalf of Vernon Hadden said high court review of the issue—whether the government may recover all, as opposed to only an apportioned share, of a beneficiary’s settlement with a responsible third party—is necessary because of a split in the federal appeals court circuits that have addressed the issue and because the approach adopted by the appeals court below is at odds with the approach used by courts addressing government settlement recoveries under Medicaid and other federal health care payment programs.

The brief disputed the government’s claims, asserted in a brief in opposition filed July 26, that the case was not appropriate for high court review. The government claimed that there is no circuit split, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit properly resolved the case, and that the issue is not of ‘‘national importance,’’ which otherwise might justify Supreme Court review.

The government said the Sixth Circuit properly determined that the United States may seek full repayment from a Medicare beneficiary of the amount Medicare provided when the beneficiary settles with a responsible tortfeasor for more than the amount Medicare paid. A petition challenging the Sixth Circuit’s November 2011 decision—a 2-1 ruling—was filed March 30.

Petition Seeks Reversal. Hadden, in his petition, argued that the Sixth Circuit majority misinterpreted the MSPA and issued a decision that conflicts with a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Bradley v. Sebelius, 621 F.3d 1330 (11th Cir. 2010) and is inconsistent with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Arkansas Dep’t of Health & Human Services v. Ahlborn, 547 U.S. 282 (2006). The high court, in Ahlborn, rejected a state’s efforts to recover all of its Medicaid costs from a third-party settlement.

‘‘The court’s holding is unsupported by the text of the Act and interprets the law contrary to Congress’s intent. Attempting to avoid the impact of this Court’s Ahlborn decision, the court of appeals rewrote the statute to deny Mr. Hadden recovery,’’ the petition said.

The Sixth Circuit, in its decision, rejected Hadden’s argument that he should repay only one-tenth of Medicare’s claim based on the fact that his settlement covered only 10 percent of his total damages. The court ruled that the Medicare statute clearly provides for full reimbursement when a settlement resolves a claim, even if the party believes the settlement only reflected a partial recovery.

A dissent filed in the case said that the majority was incorrect that the statute was clear regarding the amount of recovery. Rather, according to the dissent, the statute is ambiguous and the government’s ‘‘absolute priority’’ theory of full reimbursement, similar to the Medicaid proposal rejected by the Supreme Court in Ahlborn, was not entitled to deference and raised a serious impediment to settlements in a large number of cases

​Read More Below:
brief_says_supreme_court_review_needed_on_limits_to_settlement_recovery_authority.pdf
File Size: 50 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File


Comments are closed.

    Archives

    December 2020
    September 2020
    April 2020
    February 2020
    December 2019
    August 2019
    June 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    November 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    February 2017
    October 2016
    July 2016
    January 2015
    July 2014
    April 2014
    December 2013
    December 2012
    August 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    October 2011
    August 2011
    June 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010
    December 2009
    November 2009
    October 2009
    October 2008

    RSS Feed

MARC COALITION

Picture
Picture

Copyright ©2020