Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Moda Health Plan, Inc. v. United States

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit

June 14, 2018

MODA HEALTH PLAN, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellant

          Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:16-cv-00649-TCW, Thomas C. Wheeler, Judge

          Steven Rosenbaum, Covington & Burling LLP, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellee. Also represented by Shruti Chaganti Barker, Caroline Brown, Philip Peisch.

          Alisa Beth Klein, Appellate Staff, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellant. Also represented by Chad A. Readler, Mark B. Stern.

          Thomas G. Hungar, Office of General Counsel, United States House of Representatives, Washington, DC, for amicus curiae United States House of Representatives. Also represented by Kimberly Hamm, Todd B. Tatelman.

          William Lewis Roberts, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Minneapolis, MN, for amicus curiae Association for Community Affiliated Plans. Also represented by Jonathan William Dettmann, Kelly J. Fermoyle, Nicholas James Nelson.

          Steven Allen Neeley, Jr., Husch Blackwell LLP, Washington, DC, for amicus curiae National Association of Insurance Commissioners.

          Stephen A. Swedlow, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Chicago, IL, for amicus curiae Health Republic Insurance Company.

          Ursula Taylor, Butler Rubin Saltarelli & Boyd LLP, Chicago, IL, for amicus curiae Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. Also represented by Sandra J. Durkin.

          Benjamin N. Gutman, Oregon Department of Justice, Salem, OR, for amici curiae State of Oregon, State of Alaska, State of Connecticut, State of Hawaii, State of Illinois, State of Iowa, State of Maryland, State of Massachusetts, State of Minnesota, State of New Mexico, State of North Carolina, State of Pennsylvania, State of Rhode Island, State of Vermont, State of Virginia, State of Washington, State of Wyoming, District of Columbia.

          Before Prost, Chief Judge, Newman and Moore, Circuit Judges.

          OPINION

          PROST, CHIEF JUDGE

         A health insurer contends that the government failed to satisfy the full amount of its payment obligation under a program designed to alleviate the risk of offering coverage to an expanded pool of individuals. The Court of Federal Claims entered judgment for the insurer on both statutory and contract grounds. The government appeals. We reverse.

         BACKGROUND

         This case concerns a three-year "risk corridors" program described in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (2010) (codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 18001 et seq.) ("ACA"), and implemented by regulations promulgated by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS"). The case also concerns the bills that appropriated funds to HHS and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services ("CMS") within HHS for the fiscal years during which the program in question operated. We begin with the ACA.

         I. The ACA

         Among other reforms, the ACA established "health benefit exchanges"-virtual marketplaces in each state wherein individuals and small groups could purchase health coverage. 42 U.S.C. § 18031(b)(1). The new exchanges offered centralized opportunities for insurers to compete for new customers. The ACA required that all plans offered in the exchanges satisfy certain criteria, including providing certain "essential" benefits. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 18021, 18031(c).

         Because insurers lacked reliable data to estimate the cost of providing care for the expanded pool of individuals seeking coverage via the new exchanges, insurers faced significant risk if they elected to offer plans in these exchanges. The ACA established three programs designed to mitigate that risk and discourage insurers from setting higher premiums to offset that risk: reinsurance, risk adjustment, and risk corridors. 42 U.S.C. §§ 18061- 63. This case concerns the risk corridors program.

         Section 1342 of the ACA directed the Secretary of HHS to establish a risk corridors program for calendar years 2014-2016. The full text of Section 1342 is reproduced below:

(a) In general

The Secretary shall establish and administer a program of risk corridors for calendar years 2014, 2015, and 2016 under which a qualified health plan offered in the individual or small group market shall participate in a payment adjustment system based on the ratio of the allowable costs of the plan to the plan's aggregate premiums. Such program shall be based on the program for regional participating provider organizations under part D of title XVIII of the Social Security Act [42 U.S.C. §§ 1395w-101 et seq.].

(b) Payment methodology

(1) Payments out

The Secretary shall provide under the program established under subsection (a) that if-
(A) a participating plan's allowable costs for any plan year are more than 103 percent but not more than 108 percent of the target amount, the Secretary shall pay to the plan an amount equal to 50 percent of the target amount in excess of 103 percent of the target amount; and

(B) a participating plan's allowable costs for any plan year are more than 108 percent of the target amount, the Secretary shall pay to the plan an amount equal to the sum of 2.5 percent of the target amount plus 80 percent of allowable costs in excess of 108 percent of the target amount.

(2) Payments in

         The Secretary shall provide under the program established under subsection (a) that if-

(A) a participating plan's allowable costs for any plan year are less than 97 percent but not less than 92 percent of the target amount, the plan shall pay to the Secretary an amount equal to 50 percent of the excess of 97 percent of the target amount over the allowable costs; and
(B) a participating plan's allowable costs for any plan year are less than 92 percent of the target amount, the plan shall pay to the Secretary an amount equal to the sum of 2.5 percent of the target amount plus 80 percent of the excess of 92 percent of the target amount over the allowable costs.

(c) Definitions

         In this section:

(1) Allowable costs

(A) In general
The amount of allowable costs of a plan for any year is an amount equal to the total costs (other than administrative costs) of the plan in providing benefits covered by the plan.
(B) Reduction for risk adjustment and reinsurance payments
Allowable costs shall [be] reduced by any risk adjustment and reinsurance payments received under section[s] 18061 and 18063 of this title.

(2) Target amount

The target amount of a plan for any year is an amount equal to the total premiums (including any premium subsidies under any governmental program), reduced by the administrative costs of the plan.

42 U.S.C. § 18062.

         Briefly, section 1342 directed the Secretary of HHS to establish a program whereby participating plans whose costs of providing coverage exceeded the premiums received (as determined by a statutory formula) would be paid a share of their excess costs by the Secretary- "payments out." Conversely, participating plans whose premiums exceeded their costs (according to the same formula) would pay a share of their profits to the Secretary-"payments in." The risk corridors program "permit[ted] issuers to lower [premiums] by not adding a risk premium to account for perceived uncertainties in the 2014 through 2016 markets." HHS Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2014, 78 Fed. Reg. 15, 410, 15, 413 (Mar. 11, 2013).

         On March 20, 2010, just three days before Congress passed the ACA, the Congressional Budget Office ("CBO") published an estimate of the ACA's cost. See Letter from Douglas Elmendorf, Director, CBO, to Nancy Pelosi, Speaker, House of Representatives tbl. 2 (Mar. 20, 2010) ("CBO Cost Estimate"), https://www.cbo.gov/ sites/default/files/111th-congress-2009-2010/costestimate/ amendreconprop.pdf. The CBO Cost Estimate made no mention of the risk corridors program, though it scored the reinsurance and risk adjustment programs. Id. Overall, CBO predicted the ACA would reduce the federal deficit by $143 billion over the 2010-2019 period it evaluated. Id. at p.2.

         Preambulatory language in the ACA referred to CBO's overall scoring, noting that the "Act will reduce the Federal deficit between 2010 and 2019." ACA § 1563(a).

         II. Implementing Regulations

         In March 2012, HHS promulgated regulations establishing the risk corridors program as directed by section 1342. Standards Related to Reinsurance, Risk Corridors and Risk Adjustment, 77 Fed. Reg. 17, 220, 17, 251-52 (Mar. 23, 2012) (codified at 45 C.F.R. Pt. 153, Subpart F). Those regulations defined terms such as "allowable costs, " "administrative costs, " "premiums earned, " and "target amount, " all of which would ultimately factor into the calculations of payments in and payments out required by the statutory formula. E.g., id. at 17, 236-39.

         The regulations also provided that insurers offering qualified health plans in the exchanges "will receive payment from HHS in the following amounts, under the following circumstances" and it recited the same formula set forth in the statute for payments out. 45 C.F.R. § 153.510(b). The regulations similarly provided that insurers "must remit charges to HHS" according to the statutory formula for payments in. Id. § 153.510(c).

         In March 2013, after an informal rulemaking proceeding, HHS published parameters for payments under various ACA programs for the first year of the exchanges, 2014, including the risk corridors program. The parameters revised certain definitions and added others, notably incorporating a certain level of profits as part of the allowable administrative costs. 78 Fed. Reg. at 15, 530-31 (codified at 45 C.F.R. § 153.530). The parameters also provided that an issuer of a plan in an exchange must submit all information required for calculating risk corridors payments by July 31 of the year following the benefit year. Id. HHS also indicated that "the risk corridors program is not required to be budget neutral, " so HHS would make full payments "as required under Section 1342 of the Affordable Care Act." 78 Fed. Reg. at 15, 473. This constituted the final word from HHS on the risk corridors program before the exchanges opened and the program began.

         III. Transitional Policy

         The ACA established several reforms for insurance plans-such as requiring a minimum level of coverage- scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2014. ACA § 1255. Non-compliant plans in effect prior to the passage of the ACA in 2010, however, received a statutory exemption from certain requirements. 42 U.S.C. § 18011. This meant that insurers expected the pool of participants in the exchanges to include both previously uninsured individuals as well as individuals whose previous coverage terminated because their respective plans did not comply with the ACA and did not qualify for the grandfathering exemption.

         Individuals and small businesses enrolled in non-compliant plans not qualifying for the exemption received notice that their plans would be terminated. Many expressed concern that new coverage would be "more expensive than their current coverage, and thus they may be dissuaded from immediately transitioning to such coverage." J.A. 429. In November 2013, after appellee Moda Health Plan, Inc. and other insurers had already set premiums for the exchanges for 2014, HHS announced a one-year transitional policy that allowed insurers to continue to offer plans that did not comply with certain of the ACA's reforms even for non-grandfathered plans. J.A. 429-31. HHS directed state agencies to adopt the same policies. J.A. 431.

         This dampened ACA enrollment in states implementing the policy, especially by healthier individuals who elected to maintain their lower level of coverage, leaving insurers participating in the exchanges to bear greater risk than they accounted for in setting premiums. See Milliman, A Financial Post-Mortem: Transitional Policies and the Financial Implications for the 2014 Individual Market 1 (July 2016) ("Our analysis indicates that issuers in states that implemented the transitional policy generally have higher medical loss ratios in the individual market."), http://www.milliman.com/uploadedFiles/ insight/2016/2263HDP_20160712(1).pdf.

         HHS acknowledged that "this transitional policy was not anticipated by health insurance issuers when setting rates for 2014" but noted "the risk corridor program should help ameliorate unanticipated changes in premium revenue." Id. HHS later extended the transitional period to last the duration of the risk corridor program. J.A. 448-62.

         After further informal rulemaking (begun soon after announcing the transitional policy), HHS informed insurers that it would adjust the operation of the risk corridors program for the 2014 benefit year to "offset losses that might occur under the transitional policy as a result of increased claims costs not accounted for when setting 2014 premiums." HHS Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2015, 79 Fed. Reg. 13, 744, 13, 786-87 (Mar. 11, 2014). This included adjustments to HHS's formula for calculating the "allowable costs" and "target amount" involved in the statutory formula. Id.

         HHS projected that these new changes (together with changes to the reinsurance program) would "result in net payments that are budget neutral in 2014" and that it "intend[ed] to implement this program in a budget neutral manner" with adjustments over time with that goal in mind. Id. at 13, 787.

         In April 2014, CMS, the division of HHS responsible for administering the risk corridors program, released guidance regarding "Risk Corridors and Budget Neutrality." J.A. 229-30. It explained a new budget neutrality policy as follows:

We anticipate that risk corridors collections will be sufficient to pay for all risk corridors payments. However, if risk corridors collections are insufficient to make risk corridors payments for a year, all risk corridors payments for that year will be reduced pro rata to the extent of any shortfall. Risk corridors collections received for the next year will first be used to pay off the payment reductions issuers experienced in the previous year in a proportional manner, up to the point where issuers are reimbursed in full for the previous year, and will then be used to fund current year payments. If, after the obligations for the previous year have been met, the total amount of collections available in the current year is insufficient to make payments in that year, the current year payments will be reduced pro rata to the extent of any shortfall. If any risk corridors funds remain after prior and current year payment obligations have been met, they will be held to offset potential insufficiencies in risk corridors collections in the next year.

J.A. 229.

         As to any shortfall in the final year of payment, CMS stated it anticipated payments in would be sufficient, but that future guidance or rulemaking would address any persistent shortfalls. J.A. 230.

         IV. Appropriations

         In February 2014, after HHS had proposed its adjustments to account for the transitional policy (but before HHS had finalized the adjustments), Congress asked the Government Accountability Office ("GAO") to determine what sources of funds could be used to make any payments in execution of the risk corridors program. See Dep't of Health & Human Servs.-Risk Corridors Program ("GAO Report"), B-325630, 2014 WL 4825237, at *1 (Comp. Gen. Sept. 30, 2014) (noting request). GAO responded that it had identified two potential sources of funding in the appropriations for "Program Management" for CMS in FY 2014. That appropriation included a lump sum in excess of three billion dollars for carrying out certain responsibilities, including "other responsibilities" of CMS as well as "such sums as may be collected from authorized user fees." Id. at *3 (citing Pub. L. No. 113-76, div. H, title II, 128 Stat. 5, 374 (Jan. 17, 2014)).

         GAO concluded that the "other responsibilities" language in the CMS Program Management appropriation for FY 2014 could encompass payments to health plans under the risk corridors program, and so the lump-sum appropriation "would have been available for making payments pursuant to section 1342(b)(1)." Id. Further, GAO concluded that the payments in from the risk corridors program constituted "user fees, " and so "any amounts collected in FY 2014 pursuant to section 1342(b)(2) would have been available . . . for making the payments pursuant to section 1342(b)(2), " though HHS had not planned to make any such collections or payments until FY 2015. Id. at *5 & n.7.

         GAO clarified that appropriations acts "are considered nonpermanent legislation, " so the language it analyzed regarding the lump-sum appropriation and user fees "would need to be included in the CMS PM appropriation for FY 2015" in order to be available to make any risk corridors payments in FY 2015. Id.

         In December 2014, Congress passed its appropriations to HHS for FY 2015 (during which the first benefit year covered by the risk corridors program would conclude). That legislation reenacted the user fee language that GAO had analyzed and provided a lump sum for CMS's Program Management account; however, the lump-sum appropriation included a rider providing:

None of the funds made available by this Act from the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund or the Federal Supplemental Medical Insurance Trust Fund, or transferred from other accounts funded by this Act to the 'Centers for Medicare and Medi-caid Services-Program Management' account, may be used for payments under Section 1342(b)(1) of Public Law 111-148 (relating to risk corridors).

Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, Pub. L. No. 113-235, div. G, title II, § 227, 128 Stat. 2130, 2491.

         Representative Harold Rogers, then-Chairman of the House Committee on Appropriations, explained his view of the appropriations rider upon its inclusion in the appropriations bill for FY 2015:

In 2014, HHS issued a regulation stating that the risk corridor program will be budget neutral, meaning that the federal government will never pay out more than it collects from issuers over the three year period risk corridors are in effect. The agreement includes new bill language to prevent CMS Program Management appropriation account from being used to support risk corridors payments.

160 Cong. Rec. H9838 (daily ed. Dec. 11, 2014).

         Congress enacted identical riders in FY 2016 and FY 2017. Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, Pub. L. No. 114-113, div. H, § 225, 129 Stat. 2242, 2624; Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017, Pub. L. No. 115-31, div. H, title II, § 223, 131 Stat. 135, 543.[1]

         V. Subsequent Agency Action

         In September 2015, CMS announced that the total amount of payments in fell short of the total amount requested in payments out. Specifically, it expected payments in of approximately $362 million but noted requests for payments out totaling $2.87 billion. J.A. 244. Accordingly, CMS planned to issue prorated payments at a rate of 12.6 percent, with any shortfall to be made up by the payments in received following the 2015 benefit year. Id.

         A follow-up letter noted that HHS would "explore other sources of funding for risk corridors payments, subject to the availability of appropriations" in the event of a shortfall following the final year of the program. J.A. 245.

         A report from CMS shows that the total amount of payments in collected for the 2014-2016 benefit years fell short of the total amount of payments out calculated according to the agency's formula by more than $12 billion. CMS, Risk Corridors Payment and Charge Amounts for the 2016 Benefit Year (November 2017), https://www.cms.gov/CCIIO/Programs-and-Initiatives/ Premium-Stabilization-Programs/Downloads/Risk-Corridors-Amounts-2016.pdf.

         VI. Procedural History

         Moda commenced this action in the Court of Federal Claims under the Tucker Act in July 2016. It seeks the balance between the prorated payments it received and the full amount of payments out according to section 1342. The Court of Federal Claims denied the government's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim and granted Moda's cross-motion for partial summary judgment as to liability.

         Both sides stipulated that the government owed Moda $209, 830, 445.79 in accordance with the ruling on liability. J.A. 41. The trial court entered judgment for Moda accordingly. J.A. 45.

         Dozens of other insurers filed actions alleging similar claims, with mixed results from the Court of Federal Claims. See, e.g., Molina Healthcare of Cal., Inc. v. United States, 133 Fed.Cl. 14 (2017) (ruling for the insurer); Me. Cmty. Health Options v. United States, 133 Fed.Cl. 1 (2017) (ruling for the government).

         The Court of Federal Claims had jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1).[2] We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).

Discussion

         Moda advances claims based on two theories. First, Moda contends that section 1342 itself obligates the government to pay insurers the full amount indicated by the statutory formula for payments out, notwithstanding the amount of payments in collected. Second, Moda contends that HHS made a contractual agreement to pay the full amount required by the statute in exchange for Moda's performance (by offering a compliant plan in an exchange), and the government breached that agreement by failing to pay the full amount according to the statutory formula for payments out.

         We review the Court of Federal Claims' legal conclusion that the government was liable on both theories de novo. See Starr Int'l Co. v. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.