Professional Documents
Culture Documents
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
3d 1495
Title XVIII of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq., commonly
known as the Medicare Act, established programs that provide medical benefits
to the elderly and disabled. These programs are administered by the United
States Secretary of Health and Human Services ("the Secretary"). The Medicare
Act is divided into three parts. Part A provides insurance primarily for the costs
of hospital and related post-hospital care and is funded by social security taxes.
42 U.S.C. 1395c-1395i-4. Part B is a voluntary program that provides
supplemental insurance to cover other health care costs, including physicians'
services. 42 U.S.C. 1395j-1395w-4. It is funded by monthly premiums paid
by beneficiaries and contributions made by the government to the Federal
Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund. 42 U.S.C. 1395t. Part C
contains miscellaneous provisions and definitions. 42 U.S.C. 1395x1395ccc. This case concerns the coverage of physicians' services under Part B.
program and accept assignment of their reimbursement claims from Medicarecovered patients. Additionally many of those members treat patients with AK.
Appellant The Seniors Coalition, Inc., is a national nonprofit public advocacy
group that seeks to promote and protect the economic well-being and quality of
life of senior citizens. A significant number of its Florida members are
Medicare beneficiaries who have AK.
5
Appellants filed suit seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary and
permanent injunctive relief to block the implementation and enforcement of the
LMRP. Appellants alleged, inter alia, that the LMRP had been unlawfully
promulgated, and that its standards conflict with the requirements of the
Medicare Act and the Medicare Carriers Manual by denying coverage for the
medically necessary removal or destruction of asymptomatic AK.
The district court denied appellants' motion for a temporary restraining order.
Following a hearing on appellants' motion for a preliminary injunction, the
district court dismissed the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court
held that appellants must present their claims to the Secretary and exhaust their
administrative remedies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 405(g) & 1395ff(b)(1) before
the court may exercise subject matter jurisdiction.2 It is this determination that
we review, specifically, whether physicians and patients are required to present
their claims to the Secretary and exhaust administrative remedies before the
court may exercise subject matter jurisdiction to review an LMRP under Part B
of the Medicare Act.
II. DISCUSSION
On its face, 405(g) provides for judicial review only after a "final decision"
by the Secretary. The Supreme Court has explained that this "final decision"
requirement consists of two elements--(1) "presentment": a nonwaivable,
jurisdictional prerequisite that a benefits claim must be presented to the
In Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. at 614-20, 627, 104 S.Ct. at 2020-24, 2027, the
Supreme Court held that presentment and exhaustion under 405(g) constituted
a jurisdictional prerequisite to judicial review of Medicare Act claims that were
"essentially" claims for benefits. The Court considered a challenge by potential
Medicare beneficiaries to a decision by the Secretary that certain Medicare Part
A claims regarding a procedure known as bilateral carotid body resection
("BCBR") would not be reimbursed under the Medicare Act. See id. at 607, 104
S.Ct. at 2017. Three claimants in the case had undergone BCBR surgery, but a
fourth plaintiff, Ringer, had not yet undergone the surgery. Id. at 609-10, 104
S.Ct. at 2018-19. The complaint sought (1) declaratory relief that the new
policy of the Secretary regarding BCBR surgery contravened the Medicare Act,
(2) an injunction ordering the Secretary to instruct the Medicare intermediaries
to pay BCBR claims, and (3) an injunction barring the Secretary from requiring
claimants to pursue individual administrative appeals in order to obtain
payment. Id. at 611, 104 S.Ct. at 2019.
10
The Court determined that the claims of the three plaintiffs who had already
undergone the surgery were "inextricably intertwined" with what was in
essence a claim for benefits under the Medicare Act, id. at 624, 104 S.Ct. at
2026, and thus may be brought only in accordance with the requirements of
405(g). Because those plaintiffs had failed to exhaust administrative remedies
as required by 405(g), the court held that their claims were premature. Id. at
618-19, 104 S.Ct. at 2023-24. As to Ringer's claim, the Court likewise
characterized it "as essentially one requesting the payment of benefits for
BCBR surgery, a claim cognizable only under 405(g)." Id. at 620, 104 S.Ct.
at 2024. Thus, Ringer was required to "pursue his claim under [ 405(g) ] in the
manner which Congress has provided."7 Id. at 622, 104 S.Ct. at 2025. The
Court held that because he had not given the Secretary "an opportunity to rule
on a concrete claim for reimbursement," he had not complied with the
nonwaivable presentment requirement of 405(g). Id. at 622, 104 S.Ct. at
2025. The court so held even though Ringer, like appellants in the present case,
had not yet undergone the surgery and hence did not yet have a reimbursable
Part A claim to present to the Secretary.
11
We find that Ringer is dispositive of the instant case. The declaratory and
injunctive relief sought in that case ordering the Secretary to instruct Medicare
intermediaries to refrain from implementing a policy against reimbursing
13
15
670, 106 S.Ct. at 2135, suggesting that this presumption weighs heavily against
requiring exhaustion in the instant case. However, after the 1986 amendments
it is clear from the plain language of 1395ff(b)(1)(C) and 405(g) that
appellants would be able to seek judicial review of any denial of Part B
benefits, if there is one, after a final decision by the Secretary. It is quite
possible that their claims might not be denied when they are eventually
presented to the Secretary. Moreover, if their claims are denied, judicial review
of the LMRP would then be available, notwithstanding appellants' fears to the
contrary, just as courts have reviewed nonbinding manual provisions and
transmittal letters. See, e.g., Shalala v. Guernsey Memorial Hospital, 514 U.S.
87, 115 S.Ct. 1232, 131 L.Ed.2d 106 (1995) (manual provision that was
nonbinding on PRRB, the Part A hearing equivalent of an ALJ regarding "cost"
matters, was upheld as valid interpretation of the regulation); Charter Peachford
Hospital, Inc. v. Bowen, 803 F.2d 1541, 1546-47 (11th Cir.1986) (nonbinding
manual provision overturned because it contravened Medicare statute and
regulations); see also Ringer, 466 U.S. at 618-19, 104 S.Ct. at 2023-24 (holding
that respondents must exhaust administrative remedies before challenging
informal administrative instructions in district court); National Kidney, 958
F.2d at 1128-29, 1134 (suggesting that review of informal policy contained in
transmittal letter would be available under the Medicare Act after
administrative remedies were exhausted). We agree with the D.C. Circuit,
which has explained that requiring exhaustion and presentment for Part B
claims under the 1986 amendments "does not leave methodology disputes in
the hands of carriers; it simply means that they are fed through the
administrative-judicial system as parts of disputes over actual amounts."
National Kidney, 958 F.2d at 1133-34.
16
17
For the foregoing reasons, the district court's order dismissing the instant action
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is AFFIRMED.
Honorable Alex T. Howard, Jr., Senior U.S. District Judge for the Southern
District of Alabama, sitting by designation
The suit also named as defendants the Health Care Financing Administration
and its Administrator, Bruce Vladeck, as well as Blue Cross & Blue Shield of
Florida, Inc
The district court's order dismissing appellants' claims for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction is subject to de novo review. See Woodruff v. United States
Department of Labor, 954 F.2d 634, 636 (11th Cir.1992)
Until the 1986 amendments to the Medicare Act, judicial review of amount
determinations was authorized only for Part A claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
1395ff(b)(1)(C). In 1986, however, the statute was amended to provide for
judicial review of challenges to the determination of "the amount of benefits
under part A or part B of this subchapter (including a determination where such
amount is determined to be zero)." See 42 U.S.C. 1395ff(b)(1)(C) (1986)
(emphasis added)
Section 405(h), which has been incorporated from the Social Security Act into
the Medicare Act by 42 U.S.C. 1395ii, states that:
[t]he findings and decision of [the Secretary] after a hearing shall be binding
upon all individuals who were parties to such hearing. No findings of fact or
decision of [the Secretary] shall be reviewed by any person, tribunal, or
governmental agency except as herein provided. No action against the United
States, [the Secretary], or any officer or employee thereof shall be brought
under section 1331 or 1346 of Title 28 to recover on any claim arising under
this subchapter.
In this case, it is undisputed that appellants have not presented their claims to
the Secretary or exhausted administrative remedies. Thus, the requirements of
405(g) have not been met
The Court also held that Ringer and the other claimants could not circumvent
the requirements of 405(g) by bringing suit directly in federal court under the
general federal-question jurisdiction provision, 28 U.S.C. 1331, which
authorizes jurisdiction over "all civil actions arising under the ... laws ... of the
United States." See Ringer, 466 U.S. at 614-15, 104 S.Ct. at 2020-21. The
Court noted that by its plain language, the jurisdictional limitation applicable to
the Medicare Act, 42 U.S.C. 405(h), forbids any action against the Secretary
under 1331 for any claim that "arises under" the Act, and provides that
judicial review of such claims must conform to the terms of 405(g). See id
8
10
The amendment provided for judicial review, after a final decision of the
Secretary, in the same manner authorized by 42 U.S.C. 405(g) of "the amount
of benefits under part A or part B of th[e] subchapter (including a determination
where such amount is determined to be zero)." See 42 U.S.C. 1395ff(b)(1)(C)
(1986) (emphasis added)
11
Appellants cite McCuin v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 817 F.2d
161, 164-66 (1st Cir.1987), as contrary authority. However, that case is
distinguishable because the court did not address or even mention the 1986
amendments to the Medicare Act which form the basis for the appellate
decisions to the effect that presentment and exhaustion are required as to Part B
claims
12
Even if Michigan Academy were still controlling as to Part B claims after the
1986 amendments, its rationale would not be applicable to this case. Under the
terms set forth in Michigan Academy, a claim may be designated as a challenge
to methodology if it falls within the category of "matters which Congress did
not delegate to private carriers, such as challenges to the validity of the
Secretary's instructions and regulations...." 476 U.S. at 680, 106 S.Ct. at 2140.
In this case, it is clear that determinations as to whether removal of a particular
type of AK is reimbursable were delegated to private carriers in the first
instance and do not involve a challenge to the validity of the Secretary's
regulations or instructions. Thus, we find that the claims in this case are not
"methodology" challenges within the definition set forth in Michigan Academy
13
A hearing before an ALJ is provided for Part B claims where the amount at
stake is at least $500; judicial review thereof is available where the dispute
involves $1,000 or more. 42 U.S.C. 1395ff(b)(2)(B)