United States: What And How Obamacare Is Doing At The Court Of Federal Claims

Last Updated: February 16 2017
Article by Luke Levasseur

Millions of Americans who were able to obtain health insurance as a result of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("ACA" or "Obamacare") are waiting to learn the extent to which Congress and the new administration will repeal, replace, or do something else with the ACA. At the same time, Government contracts lawyers are watching a group of ACA-related lawsuits being litigated at the Court of Federal Claims and the Federal Circuit. The cases involve "risk corridors," which the ACA implemented to entice insurers to enter healthcare exchanges by reducing downside risk if, among other possibilities, enrollment did not meet projections. After the ACA was implemented (and control of the Legislative branch had shifted), Congress effectively defunded the ACA's risk corridors (i.e., reduced necessary appropriations), leaving the Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS") without sufficient funds to pay participating insurers. So far, approximately 20 of those companies have sued and are pursuing damages claims based on the Government's failure to make promised payments.

Last November, the Court of Federal Claims issued its first merits ruling in one of the ACA risk corridor cases, Land of Lincoln Mutual Health Insurance v. U.S. Judge Lettow's opinion in that case rejected the plaintiff's claims based on "statutory entitlement," breach of contract, and Fifth Amendment taking theories. A decision in a second case, Moda Health Plan v. U.S., was issued late last week by Judge Wheeler—who ruled in that plaintiff's favor. In Moda Health, the court held that the relevant ACA provision "requires full annual payments to insurers" and, alternatively, that the Government's non-payment constituted a breach of the implied-in-fact contract with the insurer.

How the current administration and Congress will change ACA—and the American healthcare system—is anybody's guess. The ACA-related cases before the Court of Federal Claims are not getting the same amount of press as potential changes to the healthcare reform law, but they address important legal and financial consequences of the long-running policy dispute over the ACA. The cases raise complex legal issues that should be of substantial interest to Government contracts lawyers and practitioners before the Court of Federal Claims and the Federal Circuit.

The ACA included a risk corridor program to protect the companies from potential losses associated with entering new markets because of concerns that insurers would hesitate to the devote resources necessary to enter the healthcare exchanges. However, Congress did not appropriate funds for the risk corridors program. Instead, section 1342 of the ACA specified that the risk corridors would function by limiting the maximum profits participating plans could earn from an exchange, and required HHS to effectively transfer profits above a certain threshold to companies with losses, pursuant to a specified formula.

Before the risk corridors went into effect, HHS issued a series of proposed rules (and other regulatory materials) explaining how the corridors would work. In a proposed rule from July 15, 2011, HHS included an "impact analysis" in which it recognized that the Congressional Budget Office ("CBO") had not formally scored the risk corridors but had made projections concerning their viability and "assumed collections [from profitable participants] would equal payments to plans in the aggregate." In short (and as they were described in later regulatory materials), the risk corridors were supposed to be "budget neutral[]," i.e., not require appropriated funds.

Needless to say, HHS' plan to operate the risk corridors by transferring sufficient funds in a budget-neutral manner did not work out as planned. The number of highly profitable participants was insufficient to cover the losses experienced by other participant-insurers. The insurers that experienced losses demanded payments promised by the risk corridor program. As HHS did not have funds from profitable participants or congressional appropriations, the Government has vigorously resisted the insurers' demands, both in its dealings with the companies and in court.

Both the Land of Lincoln and Moda Health opinions begin with extensive discussions of the court's jurisdiction to consider these claims and whether the claims are ripe. Both opinions conclude that the court has jurisdiction under the Tucker Act because the plaintiffs allege claims based on a money-mandating statutory provision—section 1342's provision that HHS "shall pay" qualifying plans that experience allowable costs—and make at least "non-frivolous assertion[s]" that they are entitled to relief under that law. The court also found that the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged breaches of an express or implied-in-fact contract. In addition, the claims are ripe because they allege that payments for two of the (three) years at issue are "presently due." (Notably, in a third case in which the court has not yet issued a merits ruling, Health Republic Ins. v. U.S., Judge Sweeney reached the same conclusions regarding jurisdiction and ripeness.)

Statutory Entitlement

The ACA delegated to the HHS Secretary the authority to "establish and administer a program of risk corridors for calendar years 2014, 2015, and 2016. Section 1342(b)(1) of the law provided that if a qualified health plan reports allowable costs for "any plan year" that sufficiently exceed the plan's target amount, "the Secretary shall pay to the plan" a specified percentage of those costs. One of the questions at the heart of the plaintiffs' statutory entitlement claim is whether the ACA's "shall pay" language creates an enforceable right for damages if HHS cannot or does not pay.

The Court of Federal Claims recent decision in Moda Health held that the ACA's section 1342 "requires annual risk corridor payments" to insurers such as the plaintiff. When discussing ripeness, the Court referenced Judge Sweeney's Health Republic decision with respect to the statute establishing the risk corridor program "'for calendar years 2014, 2015, and 2016,' rather than for 'calendar years 2014 through 2016,'" and mandating that HHS calculate "'payments in' and 'payments out' of the program on the basis of insurers' costs in 'any plan year,' not over the life of the program." The court recognized that these references were not dispositive but "tend to suggest that Congress wanted HHS to make annual payments." The court also addressed the risk corridor program that was included as part of the Medicare Part D prescription drug program, on which the ACA's program was based. Although the provisions of the ACA and the Medicare Part D program "are worded differently," the court concluded that those differences "do not mean [that the ACA's] Section 1342 rejected an annual payment structure" (which was implemented in Part D).

On the merits, the Moda Health decision explains that the ACA's section 1342 "is not budget-neutral on its face." To the contrary, the statute's "shall pay" language requires that the Secretary pay amounts "tied to each respective plan's ratio of costs to premiums collected." With respect to the differing Medicare Part D and ACA risk corridor language, Judge Wheeler concluded that the ACA's "shall pay" language constitutes "stronger payment language" than Medicare Part D's "shall establish a risk corridor" requirement, bolstering the conclusion that payment is mandatory. And the Moda Health decision parses HHS' regulatory pronouncements and appropriations riders, and explains why they "did not vitiate HHS' statutory duty to make risk corridors payments."

In Land of Lincoln, Judge Lettow analyzed the same legislative and regulatory materials addressed in Judge Wheeler's Moda Health opinion and came to opposite conclusions. The Land of Lincoln opinion explained that "[a]lthough [section] 1342(b)(1) contemplates that qualified health plans will be reporting costs on an annual basis via the phrase 'any plan year,' that arrangement reflects the year-by-year transitory aspect of the temporary risk-corridors program." The court continued: "[t]he '[p]ayments out' and '[p]ayments in' methodology in Subsection 1342(b) governs the amounts that HHS must pay to and receive from health plans, but it does not establish when these payments are to be made." In addition, the statute's requirement that the Secretary "'shall establish and administer' the program 'for calendar years 2014, 2015, and 2016,' . . . does not specify the timing of the various payments over those three years."

The Land of Lincoln opinion relies on a Government Accountability Office ("GAO") report, which recognized that the ACA, "by its terms, did not enact an appropriation to make the payments specified in Section 1342(b)." Although the CBO had provided revenue and spending estimates related to the risk corridors, "it omitted any budgetary estimate for the risk-corridors program," undercutting the notion that an appropriation had been made—or that "payments out" of the risk pools were otherwise mandatory absent sufficient "payments in." Unlike Moda Health, Judge Lettow also rejected the plaintiff's reliance on the risk corridor provision in the Medicare Part D prescription drug legislation. The Land of Lincoln opinion explained that although the "two programs share many similarities, they are not identical." Most important, "the Medicare Program explicitly provides for authorization of appropriations" to fund the risk corridors while the ACA omitted such language; similarly, "the Medicare Program specifically requires that '[f]or each plan year,' the Secretary shall establish a risk corridor,'" but Congress omitted the "for each plan year" mandate in the ACA.

Breach of Implied-in-Fact Contract

The Moda Health and Land of Lincoln decisions also differed on the question of whether an enforceable implied-in-fact contract had been formed by the insurers' participation in the risk corridor program. Judge Wheeler ruled in favor of the plaintiff on this issue (as he had with respect to the statutory entitlement question). The Moda Health decision recognized that that the "Government does not intend to bind itself in contract whenever it creates a statutory or regulatory incentive program." However, after reviewing relevant precedent, Judge Wheeler explained that "statutes and regulations show the Government's intent to contract if they have the following implicit structure: if you participate in this program and follow its rules, we promise you will receive a specific incentive." The court concluded that the ACA reflected the Government's intent to enter into contracts with insurers, constituted an offer on the part of the Government to enter into unilateral contracts with insurers, and reflected its promise to make risk corridor payments in exchange for insurers' performance. The court held that Moda Health accepted the Government's offer—and formed a contract—by participating in the risk corridor program.

The court's Land of Lincoln decision again analyzed most of the same statutory and regulatory materials addressed by Moda Health but found the plaintiff's contract-related arguments unconvincing. Land of Lincoln parsed the specific obligations in the contract materials with which the insurer agreed and determined that the "plain language of the agreements does not indicate any contractual commitment on behalf of HHS to make risk-corridor payments." For instance, in one of the agreements on which plaintiff relied, HHS agreed to "implement systems and processes" to incorporate the insurer-plaintiff in the program. But the court explained that this provision must be read in the context of the agreement in which it is found, a "Data Services Hub Web Services" contract. The court ruled that the Government's agreement to assist the insurer-participant with using the government internet platform cannot be transformed into an obligation to make risk corridor payments. Judge Lettow also rejected the assertion that the ACA's section 1342 or the implementing regulations "provided any express or explicitly intent on behalf of the government to enter into a contract with qualified health insurers" that would support a finding of an implied-in-fact contract. (The Land of Lincoln opinion also rejected the plaintiff's takings count.)

* * *

Land of Lincoln was decided last November and is now on appeal to the Federal Circuit. As explained above, the Court of Federal Claims has generated extensive opinions in Land of Lincoln and Moda Health that analyze much the same statutory and regulatory materials and reach starkly different conclusions regarding the legal ramifications of congressional efforts to defund initiatives undertaken by the Obama administration. It will be interesting to see how the appeals court addresses these issues.

Originally published February 15, 2017

Visit us at mayerbrown.com

Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the "Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe – Brussels LLP, both limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.

© Copyright 2017. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.

This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions