ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES

Azar v. Allina Health Services

Issues

Under either Sections 1395hh(a)(2) or 1395hh(a)(4) of the Medicare Act, did the Department of Health and Human Services err in not providing notice and an opportunity for comment before interpreting Medicare Part C enrollees to be “entitled to benefits under Part A” of Medicare, which thereby altered one of the calculations used to determine hospitals’ Medicare reimbursement payments?

The Supreme Court will decide whether Sections 1395hh(a)(2) or 1395hh(a)(4) of the Medicare Act requires the Department of Health and Human Services to provide notice and an opportunity for comment when issuing an interpretation of the Medicare Act that affects calculations involving Medicare Part C patients and Medicare payments. Petitioner Alex M. Azar II, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, argues that the agency’s issuance of a legally nonbinding interpretation of the Medicare Act that affected Medicare payment could not substantively affect legal standards and therefore did not trigger the notice-and-comment requirements of Sections 1395hh(a)(2) or 1395hh(a)(4). Respondents Allina Health Services et al. contend that this issuance was legally significant because hospitals and contractors were required to follow it, therefore triggering the notice-and-comment requirements of both Subsections (a)(2) and (a)(4). The Court’s decision could affect the administration of the Medicare Program, including the Department of Health and Human Services’ ability to respond swiftly to frequent Medicare changes and its ability to accurately anticipate the financial impacts of its issuances.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether 42 U.S.C. § 1395hh(a)(2) or § 1395hh(a)(4) required the Department of Health and Human Services to conduct notice-and-comment rulemaking before providing the challenged instructions to a Medicare administrative contractor making initial determinations of payments due under Medicare.

The federal government, through the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), provides Americans who are at least 65 years old or disabled with health insurance through the multi-part Medicare program. Allina Health Servs. v.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

nondelegation doctrine

Sturgeon v. Frost

Issues

Does the National Park Service have the authority to enforce federal regulations banning the use of hovercrafts on navigable waters within, but not a part of, the national park system in Alaska?

This case asks the Supreme Court to resolve whether the National Park Service (“NPS”) has the authority to regulate activity on navigable waters on non-federal land located within, but not deemed part of, the national park system in Alaska. John Sturgeon contends that Section 103(c) of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (“ANILCA”), which defines “public lands” as those to which the United States has title, excludes non-federal lands and waters falling within the boundaries of Alaska’s national parks from NPS regulations. Sturgeon further argues that the NPS does not derive any regulatory authority from any reserved water rights the federal government may own. Bert Frost, in his official capacity as Alaska Regional Director of the NPS, contends that Section 103(c) merely restricts the NPS’s preexisting regulatory authority over navigable waters within national parks, as granted by Congress. According to Frost, the NPS may only enforce water-related rules regarding activities hazardous to the use and management of public lands. The outcome of this case will have implications concerning the balance of power between the state and federal government to regulate non-public lands and waters falling within the national park system in Alaska.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act prohibits the National Park Service from exercising regulatory control over state, native corporation and private land physically located within the boundaries of the national park system in Alaska.

In 2011, John Sturgeon was moose hunting in Alaska when the National Park Service (“NPS”) informed him that he could not use his hovercraft on the Nation River within the Yukon-Charley preservation. Sturgeon v. Masica, No. 3:11-cv-0183-HRH, 2013 WL 5888230, at *5 (D. Alaska Oct. 30, 2013).

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

 

Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES