Hall v. Sebelius

Last updated
Hall v. Sebelius
Seal of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.png
Court United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Full case nameBrian Hall, et al., Appellants v. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary Of The United States Department Of Health And Human Services, and Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Appellees
ArguedOctober 13, 2011
DecidedFebruary 7, 2012
Citation(s)667 F.3d 1293 (D.C. Cir. 2012)
Holding
Because people are not required to use their Medicare benefits, they cannot be allowed to cancel Medicare coverage without also cancelling Social Security benefits.
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Douglas H. Ginsburg, Brett Kavanaugh, Karen L. Henderson
Case opinions
MajorityKavanaugh, joined by Ginsburg
DissentHenderson

Hall v. Sebelius, 667 F.3d 1293 (D.C. Cir. 2012), was a D.C. Circuit case decided in February 2012 involving the question of whether or not the Secretary of Health, then Kathleen Sebelius, is required to provide a means for those with Social Security benefits to terminate Medicare benefits. [1] [2] [3]

Contents

Brian Hall, along with the other petitioners, had made full payments into Social Security accounts. They were therefore automatically entitled into Medicare. However, they did not invoke its use and preferred their own private health insurance. However, statutes allowed this only if they also gave up Social Security, and they did not wish to also cancel their Social Security benefits. The court ruled that since they were not required to use their Medicare benefits, they could not be allowed to cancel Medicare coverage without also cancelling Social Security benefits. [1] [2] [3]

Background

In 1965 Congress amended the Social Security Act to establish the Medicare program. The criteria for receiving Medicare benefits were:

  1. At least 65 years of age
  2. Is entitled to Social Security payments [1] [2] [3]

Under this provision, if an individual were eligible for Social Security, they would automatically be entitled to Medicare. The Medicare act was later amended to allow those not automatically entitled via Social Security to apply and enroll through another process. The Programs Operations Manual System called for termination protocol. It explains that if someone is no longer entitled to, or wishes to end, Social Security benefits they must begin the process and pay back all accrued payments. Said person is therefore also no longer entitled to Medicare benefits. Accordingly, to disclaim Medicare, one must first disclaim Social Security and repay all payments. The Secretary of Health and Human Services, however, declared that one is not required to use Medicare benefits if they are using Social Security benefits. [1] [2] [3]

Brian Hall, John Kraus, and Richard Armey, all former public federal employees, were all entitled to both Social Security and Medicare. They desired to end all Medicare benefits since it interfered with their private medical insurance, and petitioned to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, that the protocol requiring them to keep those benefits despite not exercising them was in error and should be overruled, alleging that the Social Security act and the Medicare act were in conflict. [1] [2] [3]

Hall et al. appealed the case once more to the US Federal Circuit for a writ of certiorari. [1] [2] [3]

Case

The court considered whether or not the Secretary of Health was required by legal statute to offer a means of individuals to opt out of Medicare without opting out of Social Security. It was believed that since exercising Medicare was not required, it was not infringing or violating rights in any way. [1] [3]

The district court awarded summary judgement to the government and Sebelius. The court believed Hall and the other petitioners could only forego Medicare by foregoing all Social Security benefits. The court affirmed this decision, citing that persons were not required to use Medicare benefits. [1] [3]

Decision

The Court believed that since Medicare was not required to be used, but was freely offered to an individual with Social Security, there were not contradicting statutes in the respective acts.

The Court reasoned that, under the Medicare statute, the plaintiffs were legally entitled to benefits - regardless of whether they were accepted. First, they dismissed as unpersuasive the plaintiffs' argument that "entitlement" implied the ability to reject the benefits. The Court also disagreed with the plaintiffs on their second argument, concluding that the "voluntary" nature of benefits did not create a statutory right to disclaim them. Next, the Court reasoned that the current regulatory scheme did not make Medicare benefits a prerequisite for Social Security benefits (in fact, just the opposite). Finally, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs' argument about the nature of Medicare benefits as "optional."

The Court concluded that the plaintiffs' position was inconsistent with the statutory text, and that they had no right to disclaim benefits without also disclaiming (and paying back) Social Security benefits. [2]

The court therefore affirmed the lower court's decision and denied Hall the writ of certiorari. The Secretary of Health is in no way required to provide a way to opt out of Medicare without opting out of Social Security. [1] [3]

Significance

This case set a precedent for those with Medicare benefits seeking private insurance that does not allow other providers. Allowing Medicare must come from the private insurers end, rather than the government cancelling an automatic service. Medicare and Social Security are also considered to be verily inseparable, and cannot be separated from one another, since Medicare is an automatic service along with Social Security. [1] [3]

Related Research Articles

False Claims Act

The False Claims Act (FCA), also called the "Lincoln Law", is an American federal law that imposes liability on persons and companies who defraud governmental programs. It is the federal government's primary litigation tool in combating fraud against the government. The law includes a qui tam provision that allows people who are not affiliated with the government, called "relators" under the law, to file actions on behalf of the government. This is informally called "whistleblowing", especially when the relator is employed by the organization accused in the suit. Persons filing actions under the Act stand to receive a portion of any recovered damages.

Medicaid United States social health care program for families and individuals with limited resources

Medicaid in the United States is a federal and state program that helps with healthcare costs for some people with limited income and resources. Medicaid also offers benefits not normally covered by Medicare, including nursing home care and personal care services. The main difference between the two programs is that Medicaid covers healthcare costs for people with low incomes while Medicare provides health coverage for the elderly. There are also dual health plans for people who have both Medicaid and Medicare. The Health Insurance Association of America describes Medicaid as "a government insurance program for persons of all ages whose income and resources are insufficient to pay for health care."

Medicare (United States) United States single-payer national social insurance program

Medicare is a government national health insurance program in the United States, begun in 1965 under the Social Security Administration (SSA) and now administered by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). It primarily provides health insurance for Americans aged 65 and older, but also for some younger people with disability status as determined by the SSA, including people with end stage renal disease and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.

Doe v. Chao, 540 U.S. 614 (2004), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court that interpreted the statutory damages provision of the Privacy Act of 1974.

Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 U.S. Law

The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) is a law passed by the U.S. Congress on a reconciliation basis and signed by President Ronald Reagan that, among other things, mandates an insurance program which gives some employees the ability to continue health insurance coverage after leaving employment. COBRA includes amendments to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The law deals with a great variety of subjects, such as tobacco price supports, railroads, private pension plans, emergency department treatment, disability insurance, and the postal service, but it is perhaps best known for Title X, which amends the Internal Revenue Code and the Public Health Service Act to deny income tax deductions to employers for contributions to a group health plan unless such plan meets certain continuing coverage requirements. The violation for failing to meet those criteria was subsequently changed to an excise tax.

Federal Election Commission v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (1998), was a United States Supreme Court case deciding that an individual could sue for a violation of a federal law pursuant to a statute enacted by the U.S. Congress which created a general right to access certain information.

Medigap refers to various private health insurance plans sold to supplement Medicare in the United States. Medigap insurance provides coverage for many of the co-pays and some of the co-insurance related to Medicare-covered hospital, skilled nursing facility, home health care, ambulance, durable medical equipment, and doctor charges. Medigap's name is derived from the notion that it exists to cover the difference or "gap" between the expenses reimbursed to providers by Medicare Parts A and B for the preceding named services and the total amount allowed to be charged for those services by the United States Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).

Sáenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States discussed whether there is a constitutional right to travel from one state to another. The case was a reaffirmation of the principle that citizens select states and not the other way round.

Dennis G. Jacobs is a Senior United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. He previously served as Chief Judge of the Second Circuit from October 1, 2006 to August 31, 2013.

Mandatory spending Government spending on certain programs that are required by law

The United States federal budget is divided into three categories: mandatory spending, discretionary spending, and interest on debt. Also known as entitlement spending, in US fiscal policy, mandatory spending is government spending on certain programs that are required by law. Congress established mandatory programs under authorization laws. Congress legislates spending for mandatory programs outside of the annual appropriations bill process. Congress can only reduce the funding for programs by changing the authorization law itself. This requires a 60-vote majority in the Senate to pass. Discretionary spending on the other hand will not occur unless Congress acts each year to provide the funding through an appropriations bill.

BP America Production Co. v. Burton, 549 U.S. 84 (2006), was a United States Supreme Court case about whether a statute of limitations on government actions for contract claims applies to actions by a federal administrative agency to recover royalties on federal oil and gas leases. After two members recused themselves, the court ruled unanimously that it does not apply, in an opinion by Justice Samuel Alito.

Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel, 524 U.S. 498 (1998), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act constituted an unconstitutional regulatory taking of property which required the Act to be invalidated. The import of this decision is that it was made in the context of a purely economic regulation. The plurality examines the statute and its resultant harm as an ad hoc factual inquiry based on factors delineated in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, such as the economic impact of the regulation, its interference with reasonable investment backed expectations, and the character of the governmental action. The decision thereby moved beyond the traditional notions of equal protection which had been applied to economic regulation since the time of Lochner v. New York, requiring extreme deference to Congress, and applied a regulatory takings analysis to the problem resulting in a much less deferential result. While the plurality recognizes that this is not a traditional takings case where the government appropriates private property for public use, they also state this is the type of case where the "Armstrong Principle" of preventing the government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole. However, while the plurality seems to invalidate this particular law on takings grounds, the concurrences and the dissents warn of such an analysis as this should actually be examined under substantive due process or ex post facto theories.

The Empowering Patients First Act is legislation sponsored by Rep. Tom Price, first introduced as H.R. 3400 in the 111th Congress. The bill was initially intended to be a Republican alternative to the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, but has since been positioned as a potential replacement to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). The bill was introduced in the 112th Congress as H.R. 3000, and in the 113th Congress as H.R. 2300. As of October 2014, the bill has 58 cosponsors. An identical version of the bill has been introduced in the Senate by Senator John McCain as S. 1851.

<i>Gill v. Office of Personnel Management</i>

Gill et al. v. Office of Personnel Management, 682 F.3d 1 is a United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit decision that affirmed the judgment of the District Court for the District of Massachusetts in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the section that defines the term "marriage" as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife" and "spouse" as "a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."

King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. 473 (2015), was a 6–3 decision by the Supreme Court of the United States interpreting provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). The Court's decision upheld, as consistent with the statute, the outlay of premium tax credits to qualifying persons in all states, both those with exchanges established directly by a state, and those otherwise established by the Department of Health and Human Services.

Lockhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 142 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court decision concerning whether the United States government can offset Social Security benefits to collect on student loan debt over 10 years old. In a unanimous decision, the Court affirmed the lower court's decision that allowed the offset by the government.

Menominee Tribe of Wis. v. United States, 577 U.S. ___ (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States clarified when litigants are entitled to equitable tolling of a statute of limitations. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, the Court held that the plaintiff in this case was not entitled to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations because they did not demonstrate that "extraordinary circumstances" prevented the timely filing of the lawsuit.

Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, 586 U.S. ___ (2019), is a Supreme Court of the United States case in which the Court unanimously ruled that a copyright infringement suit must wait until the copyright is successfully registered by the United States Copyright Office.

Bowen v. Georgetown University Hospital, 488 U.S. 204 (1988), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that agencies should not be presumed to have the power to promulgate retroactive rules unless that power is expressly authorized by Congress. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for a unanimous court that the Secretary of Health and Human Services had exceeded his rulemaking authority under the Medicare Act in promulgating a wage index rule in 1984 under which he would recoup Medicare reimbursements paid to hospitals, including Georgetown University Hospital, that had been disbursed since 1981 according to the pre-1984 rule. Justice Antonin Scalia concurred in the judgment, writing separately that, in addition to the particular language of the Medicare Act, the Administrative Procedure Act more broadly prohibits retroactive rulemaking because it defines rules as having exclusively future effect, as opposed to adjudicative orders.

Azar v. Allina Health Services, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held the Department of Health and Human Services' new policy to retroactively reduce Medicare payments must be vacated due to the Department's failure to uphold its notice-and-comment obligations.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 "Brief for Respondents, Hall v. Sebelius" (PDF). Justice.gov.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Hall v. Sebelius, 667F.3d1293 ( D.C. Cir. 2012).
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 "Hall v. Sebelius". CATO Institute.