This post has been archived and contains information that may be out of date.
On March 26, the court granted CHA’s motion to intervene in Independent Living Center of Southern California, et al, v. Shewry, a lawsuit currently pending in federal court challenging the 2008 10 percent Medi-Cal rate cuts.
As an intervenor, CHA will join other plaintiffs and intervenors in opposing the state’s petition for review by the U.S. Supreme Court and in submitting a motion for summary judgment. If summary judgment is granted, it would permanently halt the 10 percent cut to hospitals for noncontracted inpatient services, and, as a result of the procedural posture of this particular case, retrospective relief would be available. Since the 10 percent cut has been in effect for most hospitals since July 2008, retrospective relief would be substantial.
Also on March 26, the state appealed a Feb. 24 injunction issued by the district court in California Hospital Association v. Maxwell-Jolly. The injunction in this case stopped the 2009 Medi-Cal rate cuts, which froze reimbursement for distinct-part skilled-nursing (DP/SN) and subacute services to the rates in effect for the 2009 rate year going forward, and which re-applied the 10 percent cut for noncontracted inpatient services to small and rural hospitals. The state’s appeal is not unexpected, and, given the Ninth Circuit’s track record on Medi-Cal reimbursement issues, it seems unlikely that the Ninth Circuit will overturn the injunction. The Feb. 24 injunction will remain in effect as the appeal runs its course.
Finally, on March 23, the state filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court for review of the Ninth Circuit’s March 3 decisions in California Pharmacists Association v. Maxwell-Jolly, which effectively upheld the injunctions against the AB 1183 rate cuts (5 percent cut for DP/SN and subacute services, 1 percent cut for outpatient services, and California Medical Assistance Commission rate minus 5 percent cut for noncontracted inpatient services). CHA and the other plaintiffs oppose the petition. As with any petition for review, the odds of the Supreme Court granting the petition are low.
