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.

Dignity Health v. Local Initiative Health Care Authority of of Los Angeles County

California Court of Appeals, Second District, First Division

January 9, 2020

DIGNITY HEALTH et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v.
LOCAL INITIATIVE HEALTH CARE AUTHORITY OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Defendant and Respondent.

         [257 Cal.Rptr.3d 423] APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles, Michael Johnson, Judge. Affirmed.

Page 145

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 146

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 147

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 148

         COUNSEL

         Jones Day, James Poth, Irvine, and Erica L. Reilley, Los Angeles, for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

         Daponde Simpson Rowe, Michael J. Daponde, Eunice C. Majam-Simpson, Sacramento, and David P. McDonough. for Defendant and Respondent.

         King & Spalding, Glenn Solomon, Daron Tooch, and Vinay Kohli, Los Angeles, for Miller Children’s & Women’s Hospital of Long Beach, Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center, Valley Children’s Hospital, NorthBay Medical Center, Long Beach Medical Center, Lucille Salter Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford, Stanford Health Care, Orange Coast Medical Center, El Camino Hospital, and Saddleback Medical Center as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants.

         Hooper, Lundy & Bookman, Lloyd A. Bookman, Los Angeles, and Paul L. Garcia for California Hospital Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants.

         Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Jennifer M. Kim, Gregory D. Brown, and Sarah M. Barnes, Deputy Attorneys General for California Department of Health Care Services as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.

         Fred J. Hiestand, Sacramento, for California Association of Health Plans and Local Health Plans of California as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.

          OPINION

         BENDIX, J.

Page 149

         [257 Cal.Rptr.3d 424] Plaintiffs and appellants Dignity Health and Northridge Hospital Medical Center (Northridge Hospital; collectively, plaintiffs) appeal from a grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant and respondent Local Initiative Health Care Authority of Los Angeles County dba L.A. Care Health Plan (defendant). Defendant is a managed care health plan that provides health care coverage to low-income individuals under Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program. Northridge Hospital, which Dignity Health operates, is not within defendant’s network of contracted providers. The question presented in this case is what amount defendant must compensate plaintiffs for poststabilization services— medically necessary inpatient care following stabilization of an emergency— that defendant expressly or implicitly authorized Northridge Hospital to provide to patients enrolled with defendant.

         Defendant contends, and the trial court found, state and federal law mandate that out-of-network poststabilization services under Medi-Cal be paid at state-set rates known as "All Patient Refined Diagnosis Related Group" or "APR-DRG" rates. Plaintiffs disagree, arguing that Welfare and Institutions Code [1] section 14105.28, subdivision (b)(1)(B) specifically exempts "managed care inpatient days" from services subject to the APR-DRG rates, and that Northridge Hospital’s inpatient treatment of defendant’s managed care enrollees constituted "managed care inpatient days." Plaintiffs further contend that federal law is silent as to any payment rate for out-of-network poststabilization services under Medicaid. Plaintiffs thus claim they are entitled to their full billed rates.

         We conclude that the legislative history of section 14105.28, along with the statement of legislative intent within the statute itself, indicate that the

Page 150

Legislature intended the APR-DRG rates to apply to out-of-network inpatient poststabilization services under Medi-Cal. Consistent with the Legislature’s intent, we thus interpret the phrase "managed care inpatient days" to refer to services provided pursuant to a managed care contract, that is, in-network services. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. We do not decide whether federal law compels the same result.

          PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

          Defendant is a publicly funded Medi-Cal managed care health plan established by the County of Los Angeles. For the time period at issue in this case, defendant did not have a written contract with plaintiff Northridge Hospital for the provision of inpatient services; thus, Northridge Hospital was "out-of-network," i.e., not part of defendant’s network of healthcare providers. Plaintiff Dignity Health operates Northridge Hospital.

         Plaintiffs filed an action against defendant alleging that defendant had expressly or implicitly authorized Northridge Hospital to provide inpatient poststabilization services to Medi-Cal beneficiaries enrolled [257 Cal.Rptr.3d 425] with defendant.[2] Plaintiffs alleged defendant therefore was financially responsible for those services. Plaintiffs alleged defendant had not paid Northridge Hospital’s full billed charges, however, instead paying the lower APR-DRG rates set by the state.

         Based on defendant’s alleged failure to pay the full billed charges, plaintiffs asserted causes of action for breach of implied contract, violation of Health and Safety Code section 1262.8, and declaratory relief. Plaintiffs also asserted a cause of action under Health and Safety Code section 1371.4, alleging defendant had failed to pay state-mandated rates for outpatient and emergency services provided by Northridge Hospital to patients enrolled with defendant.

         Following discovery, plaintiffs moved for summary adjudication on their causes of action for breach of implied contract, violation of Health and Safety Code section 1262.8, and declaratory relief, seeking a ruling that defendant had a "duty" to pay plaintiffs’ full billed rates for poststabilization services rather than the APR-DRG rates. Plaintiffs argued that section 14105.28 expressly excluded "managed care inpatient days" from the APR-DRG rates, and that Northridge Hospital’s poststabilization care of defendant’s managed care enrollees fell within that exclusion. Plaintiffs concluded that absent application of the APR-DRG rates, defendant had to pay them their full billed charges for these poststabilization services.

Page 151

          Defendant countered with its own motion for summary judgment. Defendant argued that federal law mandates that out-of-network hospitals accept state-set rates for poststabilization services under Medicaid, which in California are the APR-DRG rates. Defendant further argued that the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS), the state agency overseeing Medi-Cal, has interpreted section 14105.28 to apply the APR-DRG rates to out-of-network poststabilization services provided to managed care patients, and that the legislative history of the APR-DRG methodology supports DHCS’s interpretation. Defendant also contended that Health and Safety Code sections 1262.8 and 1371.4 do not create private rights of action.

         The trial court granted defendant’s motion and denied plaintiffs’ motion. The trial court concluded that the interplay of three federal regulations— 42 C.F.R. part 422.113, 42 C.F.R. part 422.214, and 42 C.F.R. part 438.114— mandates that Medicaid managed care plans pay state-set rates, such as the APR-DRG rates, for out-of-network poststabilization services.

         The trial court rejected plaintiffs’ interpretation that the exclusion for "managed care inpatient days" in section 14105.28 applies to out-of-network services. The trial court found that DHCS’s contrary interpretation that "managed care inpatient days" excludes only in-network services from the APR-DRG rates was "entitled to considerable weight." The trial court also found DHCS’s interpretation "makes sense" because in-network services already were subject to contracted terms and thus there was no need to regulate them through the APR-DRG rates.

         The trial court further agreed with defendant that Health and Safety Code sections 1262.8 and 1371.4 do not create private rights of action.[3]

         [257 Cal.Rptr.3d 426] The trial court entered judgment in favor of defendant. Plaintiffs timely appealed.

          OVERVIEW OF MEDI-CAL

          1. Medi-Cal

         "Medi-Cal is California’s program under the joint federal-state program known as Medicaid." (Marquez v. State Dept. of Health Care Services (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th ...


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.