Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
3d 1074
The sole issue before us is whether the Alabama plan can, consistent with the
6 State plan for medical assistance must ... (10) provide ... (E)(i) for making
A
medical assistance available for medicare cost-sharing (as defined in section
1396d(p)(3) of this title) for qualified medicare beneficiaries described in section
1396d(p)(1) of this title;
7
The Medicare cost-sharing which the quoted portion of the statute requires a
state to pay is defined in Sec. 1396d(p)(3). Expressly included in the amount
required to be paid by the state is the 20% Part B coinsurance amount. See Sec.
1396d(p)(3)(D) (including as part of the required amount: "The difference
between the amount that is paid under section 1395l (a) of this title and the
amount that would be paid under such section if any reference to '80 percent'
therein were deemed a reference to '100 percent' "). See also Snider, id. at 893
(Sec. 1396d(p)(3)(D) "obviously refers to the 20% coinsurance payment").
Section 1395l (a) commands that the federal government shall pay 80% of the
reasonable charges for Part B services; these reasonable charges are established
by the Secretary pursuant to Medicare Sec. 1395w-4(b). Thus, Sec. 1396d(p)(3)
(D) expressly requires the state to pay the 20% coinsurance amount, i.e. the
"difference" between 80% and 100% of the Medicare rate for a given service.
Like the Third Circuit, we conclude that the statute unambiguously requires the
state to pay the full amounts specified in the statute, not a partial amount
limited by the Medicaid rate.
One argument relied upon by appellees and the district court was not addressed
specifically by the Snider court. The district court found support for state limits
on Medicare cost sharing payments in the language of clause (VIII), i.e. Sec.
The district court went on to discuss Sec. 1396a(n), stressing the permissive
language of the provision, and concluded that Sec. 1396a(a)(10)(F)(VIII), when
read in conjunction with Sec. 1396a(n), "demonstrates that Congress did not
intend that the states unconditionally be required to reimburse the QMB
provider at a rate greater than the Medicaid rate." Id. at 595.
11
We believe that this reasoning is misplaced. When the missing language from
the second ellipsis in the quote above from the statute is reinserted, the
meaning of that provision becomes clear. The text states that medical assistance
made available to a QMB "who is only entitled to medical assistance because
the individual is such a beneficiary shall be limited to medical assistance for
medicare cost sharing." What this provision does is distinguish QMBs who are
not also eligible for Medicaid from those, known as dual eligibles, who are
eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid. It makes clear that Medicaid plans are
responsible only for paying Medicare cost sharing on behalf of QMBs that are
ineligible for Medicaid; they are not required to provide any other medical
assistance under Medicaid. Thus, unlike dual eligibles, who are by definition
entitled to the full range of Medicaid medical services (such as prescription
drugs and dental services), the Medicare-only QMB is entitled only to Medicare
cost sharing. Indeed the Secretary acknowledges that this was the congressional
purpose behind clause (VIII). Thus, we find no support for the appellees in this
additional argument.1
12
Honorable Jesse E. Eschbach, Senior U.S. Circuit Judge for the Seventh
Circuit, sitting by designation
In addition we find no merit to the argument relied upon by the district court
(relying in turn upon the Perales dissent, 954 F.2d at 863-69) based upon the
purported distinction between Medicare Part A and Part B. See Haynes, 820
F.Supp. at 594-95. It is clear that the cost sharing provisions of Sec. 1396d(p)
(3) include not only Part B costs but also Part A costs, and Sec. 1396a(n)
clearly applies with equal force to both Parts A and B