Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Hays v. Sebelius

589 F.3d 1279 (2009)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 33,800+ case briefs...

Hays v. Sebelius

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

589 F.3d 1279 (2009)

Facts

In 2008 independent contractors working for Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius (the department) (defendant) announced a change in Medicare Part B coverage for the drug DuoNeb. The change was spurred by the discovery that DuoNeb was a combination of two component drugs that could be separately administered at a lower cost. In support of the decision, the department relied on 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(a), entitled “Items or services specifically excluded.” This section within the act authorizing the Medicare program (the Medicare Act), provided that Medicare payment could not be made “for any expenses incurred for items or services . . . not reasonable and necessary for a diagnosis or treatment of illness or injury.” The department also relied on the least-costly-alternative policy it had adopted, under which treatments that had less costly alternatives were only covered up to the cost of the alternative. In response to the change, Ilene Hays (plaintiff), a Medicare Part B enrollee who was prescribed DuoNeb, sued the department in federal district court. Hays argued that the Medicare Act required the department to use the statutory formula provided by Congress in covering a drug cost. Hays further argued that the department had improperly interpreted § 1395y because the phrase “reasonable and necessary” modified “items and services” and not “expenses” and, therefore, the department misapplied the statute in determining the expense of DuoNeb was not reasonable and necessary. The department argued that § 1395y was ambiguous and its interpretation was entitled to deference. The district court returned a verdict in favor of Hays. The department appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Tatel, J.)

Concurrence (Randolph, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 604,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 604,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,800 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 604,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 33,800 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership