Term: 2021
Docket: 20-1114
American Hospital Association v. Becerra
- Pro
20-1114 AMERICAN HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION V. BECERRA DECISION BELOW: 967 F.3d 818 IN ADDITION TO THE QUESTION PRESENTED BY THE PETITION, THE PARTIES ARE DIRECTED TO BRIEF AND ARGUE THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: WHETHER PETITIONERS’ SUIT CHALLENGING HHS’S ADJUSTMENTS IS PRECLUDED BY 42 U. S. C. §13951(t)(12). CERT. GRANTED 7/2/2021 QUESTION PRESENTED: Under federal law, the reimbursement rate paid by Medicare for specified covered outpatient drugs is set based on one of two alternative payment methodologies. If the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has collected adequate “hospital acquisition cost survey data," it sets the reimbursement rate equal to the "average acquisition cost for the drug," and "may vary" that rate "by hospital group." 42 U.S.C. 1395l(t)(14)(A)(iii)(I). If HHS has not collected adequate "hospital acquisition cost data," it must set a reimbursement rate equal to the "average price for the drug," which is "calculated and adjusted by [HHS] as necessary for purposes of” the statute. 42 U.S.C. 1395l(t)(14)(A)(iii)(II). The question presented is whether Chevron deference permits HHS to set reimbursement rates based on acquisition cost and vary such rates by hospital group if it has not collected adequate hospital acquisition cost survey data. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 19-5048, 19-5198
In American Hospital Association v. Becerra, the Supreme Court considered a challenge to California’s Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care and Transparency Act (FACT Act). The FACT Act requires licensed pregnancy-related facilities in California to provide notice of publicly funded family planning services available elsewhere. The American Hospital Association argued that this violated their First Amendment rights by forcing them to speak a message with which they disagreed. In an opinion delivered by Justice Thomas, the Supreme Court held that the FACT Act likely violates the First Amendment because it is not narrowly tailored enough for its stated purpose of providing information about abortion services and does not leave open ample alternative channels for communication of such information.
In the dissenting opinion of the Supreme Court case American Hospital Association v. Becerra, Justice Sotomayor argued that the majority opinion failed to consider the potential harms of the California Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency Act (FACT Act). The FACT Act requires licensed pregnancy centers to provide notice to their clients about the availability of publicly funded family planning services, including abortion. Justice Sotomayor argued that the majority opinion failed to consider the potential harms of the FACT Act, including the potential for the FACT Act to infringe on the free speech rights of the pregnancy centers. She argued that the FACT Act could lead to the “compelled speech” of the pregnancy centers, which could lead to a “chilling effect” on their speech. She also argued that the majority opinion failed to consider the potential harms of the FACT Act to the patients of the pregnancy centers, who may be misled by the FACT Act’s compelled speech. Finally, Justice Sotomayor argued that the majority opinion failed to consider the potential harms of the FACT Act to the public, who may be misled by the FACT Act’s compelled speech. She argued that the FACT Act could lead to a “misinformation campaign” that could lead to confusion and misinformation about the availability of publicly funded family planning services.
