• 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 (2020 & 2021)
    • Self Help Materials – Toolkits & More
  • Topics
    • Basic Introduction to Medicare
    • COVID-19 and Medicare
    • Medicare Costs (2020 & 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
    • 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

Wilson-Coker v. Thompson

October 30, 2003

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

No. 3:00CV1312(CFD) (D.Conn.), filed July 14, 2000

Updated: October 30, 2003

Issue: Whether the CMS policy effected by the AWestmoreland letter@ of December 3, 1999, by which home health agencies no longer are required  to file claims for Medicare coverage in cases involving dually eligible beneficiaries and states are prohibited from recovering from providers which fail to submit claims, violates the Medicare and Medicaid statutes, the APA, and the due process clause.

Relief sought: Statewide class.  Declaratory and injunctive relief requiring CMS to require home health agencies to submit claims for dually eligible beneficiaries and allowing states to recover from providers who fail to submit.

Status: The parties fully briefed cross-motions for summary judgment, but, before that was argued, they reached a settlement. They are now awaiting tentative court approval of that settlement. Under the terms of the settlement, the "Westmoreland letter" of December 3, 1999 would be withdrawn and CMS would explicitly recognize the right of states to seek Medicare coverage for home health services provided to dual beneficiaries whose care was paid for by Medicaid. In addition, dual beneficiaries in Connecticut (the class) would have no estate recoveries applied against them for home health care paid for by Medicaid for services received in 1998 through 2000 and for five additional years. Connecticut will receive $33.3 million from CMS (click here for further information).

After a fairness hearing, the court approved the settlement on March 31, 2003 and dismissed the claims.  The offending Westmoreland Letter was rescinded and replaced a week later with a State Medicaid Directors' Letter that explicitly authorizes a state to recoup Medicaid payments from home health agencies that fail to file claims for Medicare coverage (click here for details).

Because the parties were unable to agree on an appropriate amount of attorneys fees and expenses to be paid by the Secretary, the matter was taken to binding arbitration. On October 23, 2003, the arbitrator (a former federal judge) agreed with plaintiffs that, because plaintiffs' attorneys had special expertise necessary for the case, a market rate (rather than the standard rate of $125 per hour set out in the Equal Access to Justice Act) should be paid, and awarded them fees at $300 per hour. He reduced the number of hours which they had claimed, however. Resolution of the amount of the fee payment is the final element of the settlement agreement.

Filed Under: Article Tagged With: Archived Cases, Litigation

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.

Latest Tweets

  • RT @medicarerights: A new issue brief from @RRFAging focuses on #economicsecurity in later life—the challenges & the solutions. Access… https://t.co/S9B27WnJP3, Jan 25
@CMAorg

Footer

Stay Connected:

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

© 2021 · Center for Medicare Advocacy