Skip to main content
Subscribe
  • Sign Up Free
  • Login
  • Subscribe
  • News
    • Current News
    • Providers
    • Insurance
    • Government
    • Finance
    • Technology
    • Safety & Quality
    • Digital Health
    • Transformation
    • ESG
    • People
    • Regional News
    • Digital Edition (Web Version)
    • Patients
    • Operations
    • Care Delivery
    • Payment
    • Midwest
    • Northeast
    • South
    • West
  • Blogs
    • AI
    • Deals
    • Layoff Tracker
    • HIMSS 2023
  • Opinion
    • Breaking Bias
    • Commentaries
    • Letters
    • From the Editor
  • Events & Awards
    • Awards
    • Conferences
    • Galas
    • Virtual Briefings
    • Webinars
    • Nominate/Eligibility
    • 100 Most Influential People
    • 50 Most Influential Clinical Executives
    • Best Places to Work in Healthcare
    • Excellence in Governance
    • Health Care Hall of Fame
    • Healthcare Marketing Impact Awards
    • Top 25 Emerging Leaders
    • Top Innovators
    • Diversity in Healthcare
      • - Luminaries
      • - Top 25 Diversity Leaders
      • - Leaders to Watch
    • Women in Healthcare
      • - Luminaries
      • - Top 25 Women Leaders
      • - Women to Watch
    • Digital Health Transformation Summit
    • ESG: The Implementation Imperative Summit
    • Leadership Symposium
    • Social Determinants of Health Symposium
    • Women Leaders in Healthcare Conference
    • Best Places to Work Awards Gala
    • Health Care Hall of Fame Gala
    • Top 25 Diversity Leaders Gala
    • Top 25 Women Leaders Gala
    • - Hospital of the Future
    • - Value Based Care
    • - Hospital at Home
    • - Workplace of the Future
    • - AI and Digital Health
    • - Future of Staffing
    • - Hospital of the Future (Fall)
  • Multimedia
    • Podcast - Beyond the Byline
    • Sponsored Podcast - Healthcare Insider
    • Sponsored Video Series - One on One
    • Sponsored Video Series - Checking In with Dan Peres
  • Data & Insights
    • Data & Insights Home
    • Hospital Financials
    • Staffing & Compensation
    • Quality & Safety
    • Mergers & Acquisitions
    • Data Archive
    • Resource Guide: By the Numbers
    • Surveys
    • Data Points
  • Newsletters
  • MORE+
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise
    • Media Kit
    • Jobs
    • People on the Move
    • Reprints & Licensing
MENU
Breadcrumb
  1. Home
  2. Legal
November 30, 2021 03:36 PM

Supreme Court hears case on 340B payments

Jessie Hellmann
  • Tweet
  • Share
  • Share
  • Email
  • More
    Reprints Print
    drugs-money_i.png

    Hospitals made their case before the Supreme Court Tuesday that reimbursement cuts to the 340B Drug Pricing Program made by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services were made unlawfully.

    The American Hospital Association, the Association of American Medical Colleges, America's Essential Hospitals and other provider groups asked the court to reverse a nearly 30% cut in 340B reimbursements CMS initiated in 2018, arguing the changes were illegal because the agency didn't conduct a survey to determine hospitals' average drug acquisition costs.

    Instead, CMS based 340B payments on the "average price" for the drug, a calculation formulated by the secretary that resulted in a $1.6 billion reduction in reimbursements in the first year of the changes.

    Those are the two options allowed under the law to determine Medicare reimbursement for drugs purchased by hospitals.

    But the plaintiffs argued CMS illegally set different reimbursement rates for hospitals participating in the 340B program and non-340B hospitals, which are mostly for-profit institutions.

    "Congress spoke directly to the question of when rates can be based on acquisition costs and vary by hospital groups and that's when it conducts a cost study," said Donald Verrilli, counsel for the plaintiffs in the case.

    He later added: "If you don't want to do that, if you think it's too burdensome or you think it's bad policy, then you go to Congress and say 'change the law.' But they didn't do either of those things. Instead, they took a shortcut that the statute doesn't authorize."

    The 340B drug pricing program allows providers serving large numbers of low-income patients to buy drugs at deep discounts from drug manufacturers and to sell them for higher prices to Medicare and commercial insurers. 340B providers and supporters of the program argue those "savings" help participating not-for-profit hospitals provide services to low-income patients and cover uncompensated care costs.

    But the Trump administration in 2018 reduced reimbursement rates to 340B providers, arguing it needed to be brought more in line with what hospitals were paying for the drugs.

    The government on Tuesday argued its cuts are allowed under under the law and that Congress permitted it to vary reimbursement rates between 340B hospitals and non-340B hospitals.

    Non-340B providers are still reimbursed by Medicare for drugs at the average sales price plus 6%. Under the changes made in 2018, 340B providers are paid 22.5% less than the average sales price.

    This still amounts to a profit for 340B hospitals, but not as large as what they received before the changes were made.

    The justices on Tuesday expressed skepticism with the government's argument.

    "You're reading the text of the provision ... as though the provision says 'use average acquisition cost if you have survey data or if you don't have survey data, do the same thing.' That's not what the provision says," Justice Elena Kagan said. "This provision says if you have survey data, you do one thing, and if you don't have survey data, you do a different thing."

    The difference between reimbursement rates based on hospital acquisition data and rates based on average price could mean lost money for 340B hospitals.

    Justice Clarence Thomas asked the government's attorney, Christopher Michel, why HHS would ever change rates under the first option—through conducting a survey—when it could just skip the survey and set reimbursement by average cost.

    "The survey still provides a lot of benefit to the agency," Michel said.

    But he added that HHS only conducted the study once— in 2020 while the case was pending—and that the data was similar to the average price used by the agency to calculate rates.

    Hospitals and other onlookers worried that if the Supreme Court sided with CMS, it could give the government more power over how to interpret laws passed by Congress.

    Justice Neil Gorsuch asked the government council how much ambiguity is necessary for an agency to claim they should be given wide latitude to interpret the law, but Michel said it believes the congressional statute is clear.

    Verrilli revisited Gorsuch's question later on, saying: "How much ambiguity is enough? I think the answer is way more than you have here."

    The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit sided with HHS. A lower court earlier sided with AHA.

    Letter
    to the
    Editor

    Send us a letter

    Have an opinion about this story? Click here to submit a Letter to the Editor, and we may publish it in print.

    Recommended for You
    legal money settlement.png
    Lab testing scheme results in $372 million judgment
    legal columns gavel money
    How health systems are battling price-gouging allegations
    Most Popular
    1
    Centene to lay off 2,000 workers
    2
    How health systems are battling price-gouging allegations
    3
    Senate advances bill to temporarily aid hospitals, health centers
    4
    Elevance, Blue Cross Louisiana halt $2.5B proposed deal
    5
    Tower Health to sell urgent care centers, close others
    Sponsored Content
    Daily Dose Newsletter: Sign up to receive a late afternoon weekday roundup of that day’s breaking news and developments in healthcare.
    Get Newsletters

    Sign up for enewsletters and alerts to receive breaking news and in-depth coverage of healthcare events and trends, as they happen, right to your inbox.

    Subscribe Today
    MH Magazine Cover

    MH magazine offers content that sheds light on healthcare leaders’ complex choices and touch points—from strategy, governance, leadership development and finance to operations, clinical care, and marketing.

    Subscribe
    Connect with Us
    • LinkedIn
    • Twitter
    • Facebook
    • RSS

    Our Mission

    Modern Healthcare empowers industry leaders to succeed by providing unbiased reporting of the news, insights, analysis and data.

    Contact Us

    (877) 812-1581

    Email us

     

    Resources
    • Contact Us
    • Help Center
    • Advertise with Us
    • Ad Choices
    • Sitemap
    Editorial Dept
    • Submission Guidelines
    • Code of Ethics
    • Awards
    • About Us
    Legal
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Privacy Request
    Modern Healthcare
    Copyright © 1996-2023. Crain Communications, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
    • News
      • Current News
      • Providers
      • Insurance
      • Government
      • Finance
      • Technology
      • Safety & Quality
      • Digital Health
      • Transformation
        • Patients
        • Operations
        • Care Delivery
        • Payment
      • ESG
      • People
      • Regional News
        • Midwest
        • Northeast
        • South
        • West
      • Digital Edition (Web Version)
    • Blogs
      • AI
      • Deals
      • Layoff Tracker
      • HIMSS 2023
    • Opinion
      • Breaking Bias
      • Commentaries
      • Letters
      • From the Editor
    • Events & Awards
      • Awards
        • Nominate/Eligibility
        • 100 Most Influential People
        • 50 Most Influential Clinical Executives
        • Best Places to Work in Healthcare
        • Excellence in Governance
        • Health Care Hall of Fame
        • Healthcare Marketing Impact Awards
        • Top 25 Emerging Leaders
        • Top Innovators
        • Diversity in Healthcare
          • - Luminaries
          • - Top 25 Diversity Leaders
          • - Leaders to Watch
        • Women in Healthcare
          • - Luminaries
          • - Top 25 Women Leaders
          • - Women to Watch
      • Conferences
        • Digital Health Transformation Summit
        • ESG: The Implementation Imperative Summit
        • Leadership Symposium
        • Social Determinants of Health Symposium
        • Women Leaders in Healthcare Conference
      • Galas
        • Best Places to Work Awards Gala
        • Health Care Hall of Fame Gala
        • Top 25 Diversity Leaders Gala
        • Top 25 Women Leaders Gala
      • Virtual Briefings
        • - Hospital of the Future
        • - Value Based Care
        • - Hospital at Home
        • - Workplace of the Future
        • - AI and Digital Health
        • - Future of Staffing
        • - Hospital of the Future (Fall)
      • Webinars
    • Multimedia
      • Podcast - Beyond the Byline
      • Sponsored Podcast - Healthcare Insider
      • Sponsored Video Series - One on One
      • Sponsored Video Series - Checking In with Dan Peres
    • Data & Insights
      • Data & Insights Home
      • Hospital Financials
      • Staffing & Compensation
      • Quality & Safety
      • Mergers & Acquisitions
      • Data Archive
      • Resource Guide: By the Numbers
      • Surveys
      • Data Points
    • Newsletters
    • MORE+
      • Contact Us
      • Advertise
      • Media Kit
      • Jobs
      • People on the Move
      • Reprints & Licensing