Video: Every Case Tells a Story| Webinar: ACR/CHEST ILD Guidelines in Practice

An official publication of the ACR and the ARP serving rheumatologists and rheumatology professionals

  • Conditions
    • Axial Spondyloarthritis
    • Gout and Crystalline Arthritis
    • Myositis
    • Osteoarthritis and Bone Disorders
    • Pain Syndromes
    • Pediatric Conditions
    • Psoriatic Arthritis
    • Rheumatoid Arthritis
    • Sjögren’s Disease
    • Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
    • Systemic Sclerosis
    • Vasculitis
    • Other Rheumatic Conditions
  • FocusRheum
    • ANCA-Associated Vasculitis
    • Axial Spondyloarthritis
    • Gout
    • Psoriatic Arthritis
    • Rheumatoid Arthritis
    • Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
  • Guidance
    • Clinical Criteria/Guidelines
    • Ethics
    • Legal Updates
    • Legislation & Advocacy
    • Meeting Reports
      • ACR Convergence
      • Other ACR meetings
      • EULAR/Other
    • Research Rheum
  • Drug Updates
    • Analgesics
    • Biologics/DMARDs
  • Practice Support
    • Billing/Coding
    • EMRs
    • Facility
    • Insurance
    • QA/QI
    • Technology
    • Workforce
  • Opinion
    • Patient Perspective
    • Profiles
    • Rheuminations
      • Video
    • Speak Out Rheum
  • Career
    • ACR ExamRheum
    • Awards
    • Career Development
  • ACR
    • ACR Home
    • ACR Convergence
    • ACR Guidelines
    • Journals
      • ACR Open Rheumatology
      • Arthritis & Rheumatology
      • Arthritis Care & Research
    • From the College
    • Events/CME
    • President’s Perspective
  • Search

U.S. Appeals Court: Hospitals Can Be ‘Urban’ & ‘Rural’ at Same Time

Jonathan Stempel  |  February 6, 2016

NEW YORK (Reuters)—The federal appeals court in New York struck down a U.S. regulation that made it harder for hospitals to provide better medical care at lower cost by claiming they were “rural” for some purposes and “urban” for others.

Thursday’s decision by the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is a victory for hospitals in urban areas, including the acute care Lawrence + Memorial Hospital of New London, Conn., which said the Department of Health and Human Services‘ (HHS) “reclassification rule” forced it to overpay for drugs that patients needed.

ad goes here:advert-1
ADVERTISEMENT
SCROLL TO CONTINUE

Writing for the appeals court, Judge Jed Rakoff said the 2000 regulation conflicted with the plain meaning of the federal Medicare statute, and that HHS lacked authority to implement it.

Medicare lets hospitals be reimbursed for the cost of providing services. It allows some hospitals to be classified simultaneously as “rural” to get lower drug pricing, and “urban” to ensure they can attract and pay qualified staff.

ad goes here:advert-2
ADVERTISEMENT
SCROLL TO CONTINUE

But under the HHS rule, according to Rakoff, urban hospitals classified as “rural” to reduce drug prices could not be deemed “urban” by the agency’s Medicare Geographic Classification Review Board, unless they first canceled their rural status for the years in which they sought reclassification.

In December 2014, a federal judge rejected the New London hospital’s challenge to the rule, which she said reflected a “deliberate, logical, and considered” effort at HHS to implement an ambiguous Medicare statute.

But Rakoff, who normally sits on the federal district court in Manhattan, said the statute was clear, and downplayed concern that hospitals might seek classifications they do not deserve.

The law “simply increases the number of situations in which hospitals can be treated as rural for some purposes and urban for others, but there is nothing ‘absurd’ about such a measured approach,” he wrote. “An agency may not rewrite clear statutory terms to suit its own sense of how the statute should operate.”

A spokesman for U.S. Attorney Deirdre Daly in Connecticut, who defended the HHS regulation, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The hospital’s lawyer Joseph Glazer in an email said his client is pleased with the decision, and that the dual classification saves hospitals millions of dollars annually through greater Medicare reimbursements or cost savings.

The case is Lawrence + Memorial Hospital v Burwell et al, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 15-164.

Share: 

Filed under:FacilityLegal UpdatesPractice SupportProfessional Topics Tagged with:Department of Health and Human ServiceshospitalLegalMedicareruralurban

Related Articles

    Backlog Slows Medicare Appeals Process for Hospitals, Physicians

    July 11, 2014

    Recovery Audit Program brings in record number of appeals, clogs system

    The Impact of U.S. Supreme Court Decisions on Medical Affairs, Healthcare Policy

    October 11, 2016

    As America’s capital, Washington, D.C., maintains an outsized influence in our daily lives. Despite having a meager sliver of the New York City population, the daily political transactions that transpire in the District of Columbia impact our lives. The comings and goings in the corridors of Congress are likely to have a greater impact on us…

    Bipolar Disorder, Nailfold Capillaroscopy Score, Urban Location Among Risk Factors for Developing Lupus

    October 17, 2017

    MADRID—Researchers have found that systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is independently linked with bipolar disorder and say the findings point to a need for greater awareness of psychiatric problems in patients with SLE. In work led by investigators at Tel Aviv University in Israel and presented at the 2017 Annual European Congress on Rheumatology (EULAR), researchers…

    Five Most Important Fraud, Abuse Laws Applicable to Physicians

    June 1, 2014

    Know what’s included in the federal False Claims Act, Anti-Kickback Statute and other regulations and guidelines to prevent Medicare abuse

  • About Us
  • Meet the Editors
  • Issue Archives
  • Contribute
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us
  • Copyright © 2025 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies. ISSN 1931-3268 (print). ISSN 1931-3209 (online).
  • DEI Statement
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Cookie Preferences