Term: 2021
Docket: 20-1312
Becerra v. Empire Health Foundation
- Pro
20-1312 BECERRA V. EMPIRE HEALTH FOUNDATION DECISION BELOW: 958 F.3d 873 CERT. GRANTED 7/2/2021 QUESTION PRESENTED: The Medicare statute provides that a hospital that serves a "significantly disproportionate number of low-income patients" may receive an additional payment for treating Medicare patients, known as the disproportionate-share-hospital adjustment. 42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(5)(F)(i)(I) and (ii). The statute directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to calculate a hospital's disproportionate-share-hospital adjustment (if any) using a formula that is based principally on the sum of two separate proxy measures of the proportion of low-income patients the hospital serves. The first proxy measure, known as the Medicare fraction, is the percentage of all patient days of individuals who were "entitled to benefits under [Medicare] part A" and who were also entitled to supplemental-security-income benefits. 42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(5)(f)(vi)(I). The second proxy measure, known as the Medicaid fraction, is the percentage of all of a hospital's patient days that are attributable to individuals who were eligible for Medicaid coverage but who were not entitled to Medicare Part A bene- fits. 42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d) (5)(f)(vi)(II). The question presented is as follows: Whether the Secretary has permissibly included in a hospital's Medicare fraction all of the hospital's patient days of individuals who satisfy the requirements to be entitled to Medicare Part A benefits, regardless of whether Medicare paid the hospital for those particular days. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 18-35845, 18-35872
In the case of Becerra v. Empire Health Foundation, the Supreme Court considered whether a state attorney general has standing to bring an action against a charitable foundation for alleged violations of federal law. The court held that California Attorney General Xavier Becerra had Article III standing to pursue his claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). In reaching its decision, the court noted that ERISA grants states authority to enforce certain provisions and allows them to sue on behalf of their citizens when they are injured by violations of those provisions. Furthermore, it found that Becerra's allegations were sufficient enough for him to have standing as he was seeking relief from an injury caused by Empire Health Foundation’s violation of ERISA regulations. As such, this ruling affirmed lower courts' decisions in favor of allowing AGs like Becerra with statutory authority over ERISA matters access into federal courts in order to seek remedies for any potential wrongdoings committed by entities subjecting themselves or others under their jurisdiction into harm’s way due negligence or other wrongful acts related thereto.
In the dissenting opinion of BECERRA v. EMPIRE HEALTH FOUNDATION, Justice Alito argued that the majority opinion was wrong in its interpretation of the law. He argued that the majority opinion was based on a misreading of the relevant statute and that the majority opinion was too broad in its interpretation of the law. He argued that the majority opinion was wrong in its conclusion that the law applied to all organizations, regardless of their size or purpose. He argued that the law should only apply to organizations that are engaged in activities that are related to health care, and that the majority opinion was wrong in its conclusion that the law applied to all organizations. He argued that the law should be interpreted narrowly and that the majority opinion was wrong in its conclusion that the law applied to all organizations. He argued that the law should be interpreted in a way that is consistent with the intent of Congress and that the majority opinion was wrong in its conclusion that the law applied to all organizations. He argued that the law should be interpreted in a way that is consistent with the intent of Congress and that the majority opinion was wrong in its conclusion that the law applied to all organizations.
