• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Donate Now
  • Sign Up

Center for Medicare Advocacy

Advancing Access to Medicare and Healthcare

  • Eligibility/Enrollment
  • Coverage/Appeals
    • Medicare Costs (2021)
    • Self Help Materials – Toolkits & More
  • Topics
    • Basic Introduction to Medicare
    • COVID-19 and Medicare
    • Medicare Costs (2021)
    • Home Health Care
    • Improvement Standard and Jimmo News
    • Nursing Home / Skilled Nursing Facility Care
    • Outpatient Observation Status
    • Part B
    • Part D / Prescription Drug Benefits
    • Medicare for People Under 65
    • Medicare “Reform”
    • All Other Topics
    • Resources
      • Infographics
  • Publications
    • CMA Alerts
    • Fact Sheets & Issue Briefs
    • Infographics
    • The Medicare Handbook
    • SNF Enforcement Newsletter
    • Elder Justice Newsletter
    • Medicare Facts & Fiction
    • Articles by Topic
  • Litigation
    • Litigation News
    • Cases
    • Litigation Archive
    • Amicus Curiae Activities
  • Newsroom
    • Press Releases
    • Editorials & Letters to the Editor
    • CMA Comments, Responses, and Letters
    • Medicare Facts & Fiction
    • CMA in the News
  • About Us
    • Mission Statement
    • CMA FAQs
    • Annual Report
    • Personnel & Boards
    • The Center for Medicare Advocacy Founder’s Circle
    • Connecticut Dually Eligible Appeals Project
    • Ossen Medicare Outreach, Education and Advocacy Project
    • National Medicare Advocates Alliance
    • National Voices of Medicare Summit
    • CMA Webinars
    • Products & Services
    • Testimonials
    • Career, Fellowship & Internship Opportunities
    • Contact Us
  • Support Our Work
    • Donate Now
    • Join the Center for Medicare Advocacy Founder’s Circle
    • Take Action
    • Share Your Health Care Story
    • Tell Congress to Protect Our Care
    • Listen to Medicare & Health Care Stories
    • Sign Up

Disappointing Decision from Court in Challenge to “Observation Status” Highlights Need to Pass Legislation

September 26, 2013

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

On September 23, a federal judge in Connecticut dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Center for Medicare Advocacy and the National Senior Citizens Law Center on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries who have been placed on "observation status."[1]  When hospital patients are placed on observation status they are labeled "outpatients," even though they are often on a regular hospital floor for many days, receiving the same care as inpatients.  Because patients must be hospitalized as inpatients for three consecutive days to receive Medicare coverage of post-hospital nursing home care, people on observation status do not have nursing home coverage.  They must either privately pay the high cost of nursing care or forgo that skilled care.  The number of people placed on observation status has greatly increased in recent years.  The lawsuit seeks to end the use of observation status and alternatively to provide a clear appeal system for beneficiaries to challenge the observation status classification.  In a 50-page decision, Judge Michael P. Shea granted the government's motion to dismiss the action.

Judge Shea agreed with the plaintiffs that the court had jurisdiction to hear the case, even though some of the plaintiffs had not completed Medicare's administrative appeal process. The court's jurisdiction was based in part on the "irreparable harm" the plaintiffs could experience if denied benefits.  He found that all of the beneficiaries in the case "faced grave and deteriorating health conditions, and possible death."[2]  However he then dismissed all of the plaintiffs' claims and denied the pending class certification motion as moot.

The plaintiffs' main substantive claim is that observation status violates the Medicare statute because it deprives them of coverage they are entitled to by law.  The judge dismissed this claim by relying on a federal appeals court case which held that it is permissible for Medicare to consider someone an inpatient only if she has been formally admitted by a hospital. [3]  In theory, this leaves the determination to the admitting doctor alone.  The reality, however, is that hospitals and doctors have been strongly pressured by Medicare to classify more and more people in the hospital as outpatients.[4]  Medicare also relies on outside corporations' proprietary guidelines to determine whether inpatient admissions are "appropriate."  It is these guidelines and Medicare's enforcement of them that determine admissions in reality.

Another part of the case dealt with beneficiaries' inadequate notice and appeal rights.  The judge held that the plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge the adequacy of the notice that they were considered "outpatients," even though most beneficiaries do not learn of their status until they are being discharged from the hospital and it is too late to take any action. The judge also ruled that the plaintiffs could not mount a constitutional due process challenge because they lacked a "property right" in the Medicare benefits they were requesting.[5] This conclusion is particularly troubling as it contravenes well-settled case law about the right to a fair hearing about denied benefits.

At the Center, we continue to hear daily from people around the country who are dealing with the terrible consequences of observation status.  One caller's mother sold her life insurance policy to pay for her post-hospital skilled nursing home care.  Our website has a self-help packet with advice for people who wish to appeal their observation status classification.  The appeals process is difficult and time-consuming.  Observation Status appeals are typically denied at lower levels, which makes the court's rejection of the plaintiffs' due process claim all the more disturbing.

We are analyzing the court's ruling and considering next steps in the case.  The decision underlines the need for passing Rep. Joe Courtney's bill, the Improving Access to Medicare Coverage Act of 2013 (H.R. 1179), which would make all time in the hospital count toward the three-day stay requirement.  The bill has bipartisan support and a growing list of cosponsors in the House and Senate.  We encourage people to contact their Representative and Senators to ask that they cosponsor the bill.

For more information, contact attorney Alice Bers (abers@medicareadvocacy.org) in the Center for Medicare Advocacy's Connecticut office at (860) 456-7790.

 

 

 

 


[1] Bagnall v. Sebelius, Civ. No. 3:11-CV-1703 (MPS) (D. Conn., Memorandum of Decision, 9/23/2013) doc. # 106.
[2]Id. at 15.
[3] Estate of Landers v. Leavitt, 545 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2008).
[4] The American Hospital Association filed an amicus brief in the case explaining how doctors' admissions decisions are often second-guessed, and how hospitals have faced government enforcement actions and penalties for "inappropriate" inpatient admissions.
[5] Bagnall, Memorandum of Decision at 46.

 

Filed Under: Article Tagged With: litigation update, Observation Status, Weekly Alert

Primary Sidebar

Easy Access to Understanding Medicare

The Center for Medicare Advocacy produces a range of informative materials on Medicare-related topics. Check them out:

  • Medicare Basics
  • CMA Alerts
  • CMA Webinars
  • Connecticut Info & Projects
  • Health Care Stories
  • Se habla Español

Sign Up for CMA Alerts

Jimmo v. Sebelius

Medicare covers skilled care to maintain or slow decline as well as to improve.

Improvement Isn’t Required. It’s the law!

Read more.

Medicare: Build Back Better

By prioritizing Medicare beneficiaries and the health systems that serve them, we can avoid drastic national consequences. The Center for Medicare Advocacy proposes a five-part plan that will make Medicare a bulwark against the worsening health and economic challenges facing the American people.

Learn more.

Latest Tweets

  • The @CDCgov's new initiative “Racism and Health” will study the impacts of social determinants on health outcomes,… https://t.co/yjpHCFftiW, 18 hours ago
@CMAorg

Footer

Stay Connected:

  • Contact Us
  • Sitemap
  • Products & Services
  • Copyright/Privacy

© 2021 · Center for Medicare Advocacy