Monthly Archives: April 2024
The Chevron Deference Rule: Pay Attention, Health Care Providers! CMS May Lose Control!
It has been nearly 40 years since the Supreme Court indicated in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council that courts should defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court heard arguments abolishing the Chevron deference rule. It that good or bad? Well, let’s hash it out. Regardless your opinion, the Supreme Court will decide the Chevron deference rule’s legality this summer. And, listening to the oral arguments earlier this year, it seems that a majority of the justices seemed ready to jettison the doctrine or at the very least significantly limit it.
The Chevron deference rule is a critical aspect of administrative law that often remains in the shadows of legal discourse but holds immense implications for the functioning of our government: the Chevron deference rule. This rule, born out of a Supreme Court case in 1984, has been a cornerstone of administrative law, dictating how courts should defer to federal agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous statutes. But as with any legal doctrine, it invites debate, scrutiny, and calls for reform.
In simple terms, the Chevron deference rule mandates that if a statute is ambiguous, courts should defer to the reasonable interpretation of that statute made by the agency tasked with implementing it, unless that interpretation is unreasonable. In essence, it grants federal agencies significant leeway in interpreting laws passed by Congress. This deference has profound effects on the balance of power between the branches of government. For example: CMS is an agency that is allowed deference in its rules that are not laws. See the importance? Without the Chevron deference rule, ALJs would not be bound by CMS’ rules that are not laws. For example, CMS is of the mindsight that extrapolation is legal, allowed, and upheld. The ALJs are bound to agree. No Chevron deference rule? The ALJs can make up their own minds.
The rationale behind Chevron deference is to recognize the expertise of administrative agencies in their respective fields. These agencies possess specialized knowledge and experience that enable them to navigate complex regulatory landscapes. By allowing them deference in interpreting ambiguous statutes, the rule seeks to promote consistency, efficiency, and expertise in policymaking and implementation.
However, as with any legal doctrine, the Chevron deference rule is not without its critics. Some argue that it unduly concentrates power in the hands of unelected bureaucrats, diminishing the role of the judiciary in interpreting the law. Moreover, it raises concerns about accountability and democratic legitimacy, as it can shield agency actions from robust judicial review.
Furthermore, the Chevron deference rule has become a subject of political contention, particularly in recent years. Critics argue that it enables regulatory overreach by agencies, allowing them to enact policies that may exceed the scope of their statutory authority. This concern has led to calls for judicial restraint and a reevaluation of the deference granted to administrative agencies.
So, should the Chevron deference rule stay in place? This question elicits a spectrum of opinions and requires careful consideration. On one hand, the rule promotes efficiency and expertise in governance, recognizing the specialized knowledge of administrative agencies. On the other hand, it raises concerns about accountability, democratic legitimacy, and the balance of power between the branches of government.
In navigating this complex terrain, we must strike a balance that upholds the principles of good governance, accountability, and the rule of law. Perhaps the solution lies not in abolishing the Chevron deference rule altogether but in refining it to address its shortcomings. This could involve clarifying the conditions under which deference is appropriate, ensuring robust judicial oversight, and promoting transparency and accountability in administrative decision-making.
The Chevron deference rule stands as a pivotal element of administrative law, shaping the relationship between the branches of government and influencing the course of public policy. Its effects are profound and far-reaching, touching upon fundamental principles of governance and democracy. As we navigate the complexities of modern governance, let us engage in thoughtful dialogue and debate to ensure that our legal framework reflects the values of accountability, transparency, and the rule of law.
Federal Court Vacates Two, Medicare ALJ Decisions with Extrapolations
Today is April Fool’s Day, but the story I am going to tell you today is no prank. On 03/25/2024, the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Florida rendered its Decision on MedEnvios Healthcare, Inc. v. Xavier Becerra, in his official capacity as Secretary USDHHS. 2024 WL 1252264. The federal Court vacated two, ALJ Decisions upholding two, separate, extrapolated audits. This example highlights the importance of appealing ALJ Decisions to federal court, which will uphold the law versus CMS Rules.
MedEnvios is a durable medical equipment provider (DME). It was the target of two Medicare audits and both audits were extrapolated. MedEnvios’ argument is two-fold: (1) that its due process rights were violated because HHS failed to comply with the procedures set forth in statute, regulation, and “sub-regulatory guidance” that mandate “certain due process minimum protections be provided to health care suppliers in the statistical sampling and extrapolation process.” (Pl.’s Resp. at 9.) Specifically, MedEnvios objects to the Defendant’s exclusion of claims for which the Department never made a payment to MedEnvios from the sampling frame. Obviously if the zero-claims are not removed the number will be inflated or maybe even surpass what was actually paid to the provider during the specific timeframe. And (2) MedEnvios argues that the Defendant failed to provide sufficient documentation to support overpayments recalculated following partially favorable appellate decisions, allegedly depriving MedEnvios of notice. Following partially favorable decisions on appeal, the relevant contractor must “effectuate” the decision by recalculating the extrapolated overpayment amount to be recouped from the supplier based upon the revised decisions on individual sampled Medicare claims. The contractor then sends the supplier a revised demand letter reflecting the new overpayment amount. Without the underlying documentation showing how the contractor arrived at the new amount, MedEnvios claims that it lacked “the information necessary to mount a meaningful challenge to those recalculations.”
I bet that many readers today have felt the pain of having to defend themselves from an audit and knew the auditor was withholding data or documents, yet felt powerless. This Decision says it is not ok to not give all the information. The Court held that MedEnvios was and is prejudiced by the unavailability of the recalculation worksheets because MedEnvios did not receive three of the four relevant recalculation worksheets within enough time to satisfy its procedural due process rights by recreating the recalculations to verify the revised extrapolated amounts.
The Court held that the prejudice to MedEnvios in having to mount appeals without reviewing the contractors’ effectuation work easily outweighs any administrative difficulty of timely providing the worksheets. Provision of this information should be a negligible burden on the Department and its contractors. The MPIM already instructs that “[d]ocumentation shall be kept in sufficient detail so that the sampling frame can be re-created should the methodology be challenged. The contractor shall keep an electronic copy of the sampling frame.” MPIM § 8.4.4.4.1. Thus, contractors are already required to maintain this information, and the added burden of providing the information on request would be minimal. The Court therefore concludes that the Department has run afoul of MedEnvios’s procedural due process rights by failing to provide the documentation supporting the recalculated overpayment amounts.
So, what is the remedy for the Department’s failure to timely provide documents showing how the revised overpayment demands were calculated?
This Court vacated both ALJ Decisions upholding the two extrapolated amounts. This is a perfect example of why providers MUST appeal ALJ Decisions to federal court. The difference in the law and CMS’ Rules is vast. Not enough providers continue their appeal to federal court because of money. Litigation is expensive. However, in this case, attorneys’ fees were, most likely, much less than what CMS was alleging MedEnvios owed.
Have a great April Fool’s Day. Play a prank on a colleague. At the office, put tape under a coworker’s computer mouse, and watch them try to figure out why it’s not working!
