Skip to content
National Association of Attorneys General
  • Issues
    • Issues
      • Anticorruption
      • Antitrust
      • Bankruptcy
      • Charities
      • Civil Law
    • Issues
      • Consumer Protection
      • Criminal Law
      • Cyber and Technology
      • Disaster Preparedness & Response
      • Elder Justice
    • Issues
      • Ethics
      • Human Trafficking
      • Medicaid Fraud
      • Opioids
      • Powers & Duties
    • Issues
      • Public Health
      • The U.S. Supreme Court
      • Tobacco
      • Veterans & Military
  • Our Work
    • Training & Research
    • Centers
      • Center for Supreme Court Advocacy
      • Center for Tobacco & Public Health
      • Center for Consumer Protection
    • Committees
    • Initiatives
      • Presidential Initiative
      • Strategic Partnerships
      • ConsumerResources.org
      • International Fellows
      • COVID-19
    • Bankruptcy
    • Policy & Advocacy
  • Events & Training
    • Event Calendar
    • Attorney General Symposium
    • Presidential Summit
    • Capital Forum
    • Region Meetings
    • CLE Credit
    • NAAG Trainings
    • Online Learning
    • NAMFCU Trainings
    • NAAG Faculty
  • News & Resources
    • Attorney General Journal
    • Reports & Publications
    • Newsroom
    • NAAG Policy Letters
    • Podcasts
    • Online Learning
    • Research & Data
    • Member Directory
  • Attorneys General
    • What Attorneys General Do
    • Who is my Attorney General?
    • Attorneys General Office 101
    • Research & Data
    • Awards & Recognition
    • Careers in Attorney General Offices
    • Careers in Medicaid Fraud Control Units
  • About NAAG
    • NAAG Staff
    • NAAG Leadership
    • NAAG Member Services
    • NAAG Regions
    • NAAG FAQs
    • SAGE
    • NAMFCU
    • Newsroom
    • Careers at NAAG
  • Find my AG
  • About NAMFCU
    • About the Medicaid Fraud Control Units
    • Reporting Fraud and Abuse
    • MFCU Member Hub
    • Careers with a MFCU
  • Contact Us
National Association of Attorneys General
  • Find My AG
  • Consumer Complaints
  • Member Benefits
  • Contact Us
Log In
  • Issues
    • Issues
      • Anticorruption
      • Antitrust
      • Bankruptcy
      • Charities
      • Civil Law
    • Issues
      • Consumer Protection
      • Criminal Law
      • Cyber and Technology
      • Disaster Preparedness & Response
      • Elder Justice
    • Issues
      • Ethics
      • Human Trafficking
      • Medicaid Fraud
      • Opioids
      • Powers & Duties
    • Issues
      • Public Health
      • The U.S. Supreme Court
      • Tobacco
      • Veterans & Military
  • Our Work
    • Training & Research
    • Centers
      • Center for Supreme Court Advocacy
      • Center for Tobacco & Public Health
      • Center for Consumer Protection
    • Committees
    • Initiatives
      • Presidential Initiative
      • Strategic Partnerships
      • ConsumerResources.org
      • International Fellows
      • COVID-19
    • Bankruptcy
    • Policy & Advocacy
  • Events & Training
    • Event Calendar
    • Attorney General Symposium
    • Presidential Summit
    • Capital Forum
    • Region Meetings
    • CLE Credit
    • NAAG Trainings
    • Online Learning
    • NAMFCU Trainings
    • NAAG Faculty
  • News & Resources
    • Attorney General Journal
    • Reports & Publications
    • Newsroom
    • NAAG Policy Letters
    • Podcasts
    • Online Learning
    • Research & Data
    • Member Directory
  • Attorneys General
    • What Attorneys General Do
    • Who is my Attorney General?
    • Attorneys General Office 101
    • Research & Data
    • Awards & Recognition
    • Careers in Attorney General Offices
    • Careers in Medicaid Fraud Control Units
  • About NAAG
    • NAAG Staff
    • NAAG Leadership
    • NAAG Member Services
    • NAAG Regions
    • NAAG FAQs
    • SAGE
    • NAMFCU
    • Newsroom
    • Careers at NAAG
  • Find my AG
  • About NAMFCU
    • About the Medicaid Fraud Control Units
    • Reporting Fraud and Abuse
    • MFCU Member Hub
    • Careers with a MFCU
  • Contact Us

Opinion: Becerra v. Empire Health Foundation, 20-1312

Home / Supreme Court / Opinion: Becerra v. Empire Health Foundation, 20-1312
July 6, 2022 Supreme Court
Share this

  • Dan Schweitzer
    Director, Center for Supreme Court Advocacy
    National Association of Attorneys General

Volume 29, Issue 19

This Report summarizes opinions issued on June 23 and 24, 2022 (Part I).

Opinion: Becerra v. Empire Health Foundation, 20-1312

Becerra v. Empire Health Foundation, 20-1312. In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that when calculating the “Medicare fraction” used to determine reimbursement rates to hospitals that serve disproportionately high numbers of low-income patients, a person is “entitled to” benefits under 42 U.S.C. §1395 if he qualifies for the Medicare program, even if Medicare does not pay for his hospital stay. When a person turns 65 or has received federal disability benefits for 24 months, he qualifies for benefits under Medicare Part A, which covers inpatient hospital treatment and other services. Medicare reimburses hospitals at higher rates when those hospitals serve higher percentages of low-income patients. Two fractions determine how large an adjustment the hospital will receive. The “Medicare fraction” is the proportion of a hospital’s patients who are eligible for Medicare and have low incomes: the number of patient days attributable to low-income Medicare patients divided by the number of patient days attributable to all patients “entitled to” Medicare benefits “(for such days).” The “Medicaid fraction” is the proportion of patients who have low incomes and are not entitled to Medicare: the number of patient days attributable to low-income non-Medicare patients divided by the total number of patient days. Since 2004, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has calculated the Medicare fraction by counting all persons who qualify for Medicare even if Medicare did not pay for the patient’s hospital treatment (for example, because treatment was paid for by private insurance). This method effectively reduces many hospitals’ reimbursement by increasing the denominator and reducing the proportion of Medicare patients who are low-income. Empire Health Foundation sued, and the Ninth Circuit found HHS’s method improper. Because the statute distinguishes between “entitlement to” Medicare benefits and “eligibility for” Medicaid assistance, the court held that a person is “entitled to” Medicare benefits only if he has an “absolute right” to payment from Medicare. The court reasoned that a patient has no right to payment from Medicare―and should not be included in the Medicare fraction―if the hospital is paid from another source. In an opinion by Justice Kagan, the Court reversed.

The Court stated that the ordinary meaning of the statutory fraction descriptions “does not exactly leap off the page,” but upon examination they become “surprisingly clear.” The distinction between eligibility and entitlement might be “plausible in the abstract,” but does not work given the text, context, and structure of the Medicare statute. The Court found that the phrase “entitled to benefits” is a term of art used throughout the statute to mean qualifying for benefits, i.e., being over 65 or disabled. The entitlement to benefits is the entitlement to have Medicare pay if “specified conditions” are met even if Medicare is not paying for some or all of the hospital stay. If the contrary reading were true, then a patient who was not “entitled to” Medicare Part A, even though qualifying for benefits, could be ineligible for different benefits under Parts B through D. That reading, found the Court, would also render other statutory provisions “unworkable or unthinkable” and reduce protections for beneficiaries. And excluding a patient from the Medicare fraction because of who paid for a day of care does not promote the goal of accounting for the entire low-income population.

The Court rejected Empire’s argument that the statute’s parenthetical phrase “(for such days)” limits entitlement to benefits for hospital days paid for by Medicare. The Court found that this “slight phrase” is insufficient to change the otherwise-consistent meaning of “entitled to benefits,” and Congress generally does not alter the fundamentals of a statutory scheme in parentheticals. Those words simply tell the Medicare program to ask about a patient on a given day and exclude hospital days before a patient qualifies for Medicare (for example, because a patient turns 65 or qualifies as disabled halfway through a hospital stay). Finally, the Court rejected Empire’s argument that its interpretation generally leads to higher payments to hospitals. (A greater proportion of low-income patients results in higher reimbursement for hospitals, so it pays to keep the denominator―the number of patients entitled to Medicare regardless of financial status―as low as possible.) The point of the reimbursement provision is not to pay hospitals as much money as possible, but to compensate hospitals for treating a disproportionate share of low-income patients.

Justice Kavanaugh dissented, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito and Gorsuch. They agreed with the majority that the statutory formula at issue is “mind-numbingly complex” and some of the subsidiary calculations are “relatively straightforward,” but they disagreed on the outcome. Common sense, they said, shows that a patient is not “entitled to” have payment made by Medicare on hospital days when the statute precludes payment by Medicare. From 1986 until 2003, HHS interpreted the statute in this manner and it did not prove “unworkable”; indeed, it appeared to the dissent that HHS changed its interpretation for financial reasons. In any event, the statute declares that the “benefits provided” under Medicare Part A consist of the patient’s “entitlement to have payment made on his behalf.” Thus, a patient is “entitled to” Medicare benefits “for such days” only if Medicare was obligated to pay for the patient’s care on a particular day. Although the statute generally uses “entitled” to refer to those who meet Medicare’s basic criteria (age or disability), the reimbursement provision at issue­―with its reference to “for such days”― “focuses laser-like on whether the patient was actually entitled to have payment made by Medicare for particular days in the hospital.” Justice Kavanaugh disagreed with the Court’s suggestion that a statutory phrase is unimportant simply because it appears in parentheses, noting that the Constitution itself includes parentheticals.

Related Posts

Related Posts

Supreme Court Report, Volume 31, Issue 20

Supreme Court Report, Volume 31, Issue 13

Supreme Court Report, Volume 32, Issue 6

Connect with NAAG and the Attorney General Community

Create a NAAG account to subscribe to our newsletters or mailing lists.

Create Account
Subscribe
Marble columns and the top of a federal building

scroll to filters

White Logo for the National Association of Attorneys General

1850 M Street NW
12th floor
Washington, DC 20036

TEL 202-326-6000
EMAIL 

Youtube
  • Issues
    • Issues
      • Anticorruption
      • Antitrust
      • Bankruptcy
      • Charities
      • Civil Law
    • Issues
      • Consumer Protection
      • Criminal Law
      • Cyber and Technology
      • Disaster Preparedness & Response
      • Elder Justice
    • Issues
      • Ethics
      • Human Trafficking
      • Medicaid Fraud
      • Opioids
      • Powers & Duties
    • Issues
      • Public Health
      • The U.S. Supreme Court
      • Tobacco
      • Veterans & Military
  • Our Work
    • Training & Research
    • Centers
      • Center for Supreme Court Advocacy
      • Center for Tobacco & Public Health
      • Center for Consumer Protection
    • Committees
    • Initiatives
      • Presidential Initiative
      • Strategic Partnerships
      • ConsumerResources.org
      • International Fellows
      • COVID-19
    • Bankruptcy
    • Policy & Advocacy
  • Events & Training
    • Event Calendar
    • Attorney General Symposium
    • Presidential Summit
    • Capital Forum
    • Region Meetings
    • CLE Credit
    • NAAG Trainings
    • Online Learning
    • NAMFCU Trainings
    • NAAG Faculty
  • News & Resources
    • Attorney General Journal
    • Reports & Publications
    • Newsroom
    • NAAG Policy Letters
    • Podcasts
    • Online Learning
    • Research & Data
    • Member Directory
  • Attorneys General
    • What Attorneys General Do
    • Who is my Attorney General?
    • Attorneys General Office 101
    • Research & Data
    • Awards & Recognition
    • Careers in Attorney General Offices
    • Careers in Medicaid Fraud Control Units
  • About NAAG
    • NAAG Staff
    • NAAG Leadership
    • NAAG Member Services
    • NAAG Regions
    • NAAG FAQs
    • SAGE
    • NAMFCU
    • Newsroom
    • Careers at NAAG
  • Find my AG
  • About NAMFCU
    • About the Medicaid Fraud Control Units
    • Reporting Fraud and Abuse
    • MFCU Member Hub
    • Careers with a MFCU
  • Contact Us
  • Find My AG
  • Consumer Complaints
  • Member Benefits
  • Contact Us
  • Accessibility Statement
  • Privacy & Cookies Notice
  • Sitemap
  • Member Login

About the National Association of Attorneys General

As the nonpartisan national forum for America's state and territory attorneys general and their staff, NAAG provides collaboration, insight, and expertise to empower and champion America's attorneys general.
Learn More

© 2025 Copyright National Association of Attorneys General

Website by Yoko Co

Internal Feedback / Report an Error

Request an Update / Report an Error

The change you are requesting will be linked to this page. The URL for the page will be included in a hidden field when the form is submitted.
Please enter your change or describe your request. Be sure to reference where the error appears on the page and what needs to be done specifically.
Upload any files that need to be linked to this page. PDF only. Submit another request if you have more than five files to upload.
Drop files here or
Accepted file types: pdf, docx, xls, Max. file size: 50 MB, Max. files: 5.

    Who is requesting this change?(Required)

    Scroll To Top
    To provide you more clarity about how we collect, store and use personal information, and your rights to control that information, we have updated our privacy policy, which also explains how we use cookies. You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.I Agree