Skip to main content


U.S. flag
      An official website of the United States government
              Here’s how you know
        Here’s how you knowDot gov**Official websites use .gov**
                 A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
                  HTTPS**Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                 A **lock** (A locked padlock) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. 
  Menu Close
          HHS Search block
    Search
        








  
  
    

  
      

                                      About HHS
    
                        
                              
      
      
      Programs & Services
    
                        
                              
      
      
      Grants & Contracts
    
                        
                              
      
      
      Laws & Regulations Breadcrumb
    Home
                              About
                              Agencies
                              DAB
                              Decisions
                              ALJ Decisions
                              2019
                              Iowa Methodist Medical Center, ALJ Ruling 2019-7 (HHS CRD June 17, 2019)
 Navigate to:
  Departmental Appeals Board (DAB)
    
                                                  
                                                    
            
      
      
      
      About DAB
                                            
            
            Organizational Overview
    
                                                  
                              
            
      
      
      
      Who are the Judges?
    
                                                  
                              
            
      
      
      
      DAB Divisions
    
                                                  
                              
            
      
      
      
      Contact DAB
    
                                                  
                                                    
            
      
      
      
      Filing an Appeal Online
                                            
            
            DAB E-File
    
                                                  
                              
            
      
      
      
      Medicare Operations Division (MOD) E-File
    
                                                  
                                                    
            
      
      
      
      Different Appeals at DAB
                                            
            
            Appeals to DAB Administrative Law Judges (ALJs)
                          
            
            Forms
    
                                                  
                              
            
      
      
      
      Procedures
    
                                                                
                                                    
            
      
      
      
      Appeals to Board
                          
            
            Practice Manual
    
                                                  
                              
            
      
      
      
      Guidelines
    
                                                  
                              
            
      
      
      
      Regulations
    
                                                  
                              
            
      
      
      
      National Coverage Determination Complaints
    
                                                                
                                                    
            
      
      
      
      Appeals to the Medicare Appeals Council (Council)
                          
            
            Forms
    
                                                  
                              
            
      
      
      
      Fully Integrated Duals Advantage (FIDA) Demonstration Project
    
                                                  
                                                    
            
      
      
      
      Alternative Dispute Resolution Services
                                            
            
            Sharing Neutrals
    
                                                  
                              
            
      
      
      
      ADR Training
    
                                                  
                              
            
      
      
      
      Other ADR Services
    
                                                  
                                                    
            
      
      
      
      DAB Decisions
                                            
            
            Board Decisions
    
                                                  
                              
            
      
      
      
      DAB Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decisions
    
                                                  
                              
            
      
      
      
      Medicare Appeals Council (Council) Decisions
    
                                    
                              
            
      
      
      
      Stakeholder Feedback
    
                                                  
                                                    
            
      
      
      
      Careers
                                            
            
            Open Career Opportunities
    
                                                  
                              
            
      
      
      
      Internships & ExternshipsText resize icon

                    




Iowa Methodist Medical Center, ALJ Ruling 2019-7 (HHS CRD June 17, 2019)








  
  
    

  
      
Department of Health and Human Services 
    DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD
          Civil Remedies Division





Iowa Methodist Medical Center,
	(CCN: 16-0082),
	Petitioner,
v.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
Docket No. C-18-993Ruling No. 2019-7June 17, 2019

        
              
    

      RULING DISMISSING CASE
For the reasons set forth below, I conclude that Petitioner, Iowa Methodist Medical Center, is not entitled to administrative law judge review of determinations made by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) following a March 28, 2018 survey. I therefore dismiss its hearing request pursuant to 42 C.F.R. § 498.70(b).
Discussion
***Petitioner has no right to a hearing because CMS did not terminate Petitioner's Medicare provider agreement.***1
Petitioner is a hospital located in Des Moines, Iowa, that participates in the Medicare program as a provider of services. On March 28, 2018, the Iowa Department of Inspections and Appeals (state agency) completed a complaint survey of the facility and found that Petitioner was not in substantial compliance with a Medicare condition of participation. The state agency found Petitioner's noncompliance constituted immediate
**Page 2**
jeopardy. *See* Departmental Appeals Board (DAB) Electronic Filing system (E-File) Docket Entry #1a; CMS Exhibit (CMS Ex.) 4. By letter dated May 1, 2018, CMS notified Petitioner, inter alia, that it was out of compliance with a condition of participation and that CMS was "removing the hospital's deemed status and placing [it] under the survey jurisdiction of the [state agency]." CMS Ex. 4 at 1. CMS advised Petitioner that its Medicare provider agreement would terminate effective July 30, 2018, unless Petitioner submitted a credible plan of correction within ten days and compliance was verified through an unannounced survey. *Id.* at 2-3.
By letter dated May 16, 2018, CMS informed Petitioner that the CMS regional office and the state agency had accepted Petitioner's plan of correction. CMS stated that the state agency would conduct an unannounced revisit of the facility. CMS Ex. 5.
On June 7, 2018, Petitioner electronically filed a hearing request challenging the March 28, 2018 survey findings, to which it attached the statement of deficiencies from the survey. DAB E-File Docket Entry #1, 1a. In its hearing request, Petitioner contested the deficiency allegations.
On June 19, 2018, the state agency completed a revisit survey of Petitioner. *See* CMS Ex. 11. By letter dated July 9, 2018, CMS notified Petitioner that the revisit survey had found that Petitioner had returned to compliance with all conditions of participation. CMS Ex. 11. CMS advised Petitioner that it had rescinded the termination action, and that Petitioner "may again be deemed to meet Federal hospital regulations through its accreditation by [the accreditation organization]." *Id*.
On October 5, 2018, CMS moved to dismiss Petitioner's hearing request (CMS Motion). With its motion, CMS filed exhibit and witness lists, and CMS Exs. 1 through 11. In its motion, CMS argues that Petitioner has no right to a hearing because CMS rescinded the proposed termination of Petitioner's provider agreement. CMS asserts that the rescission of the termination action has rendered Petitioner's appeal moot, thereby warranting dismissal of the case. CMS Motion at 1. On November 6, 2018, Petitioner opposed the motion (P. Response). With its motion, Petitioner filed exhibit and witness lists, and P. Exs. 1 through 12. I have considered Petitioner's arguments, but they do not convince me that Petitioner has a right to a hearing.
Medicare providers, such as Petitioner, may seek review of administrative actions related to the survey and certification process in accordance with federal regulations codified at 42 C.F.R. Part 498. Under those regulations, a provider dissatisfied with an "initial determination" by CMS or its agent can seek further review. 42 C.F.R. § 498.3(a). By contrast, administrative actions that are not initial determinations are not subject to appeal. *Id.* The regulations specify the matters on which CMS makes initial determinations. 42 C.F.R. § 498.3(b). The regulations also include examples of actions that are not considered initial determinations. 42 C.F.R. § 498.3(d).
**Page 3**
As relevant here, CMS's determination to terminate a Medicare provider agreement is an appealable initial determination. 42 C.F.R. § 498.3(b)(8); *see also* 42 C.F.R. § 498.5(b) ("any provider dissatisfied with an initial determination to terminate its provider agreement is entitled to a hearing"). In contrast, the following determinations by CMS (among others) are *not* initial determinations conferring appeal rights:
The finding that a provider or supplier determined to be in compliance with the conditions or requirements for participation or for coverage has deficiencies [; and]
****
The finding that a hospital accredited by [certain accrediting organizations] is not in compliance with a condition of participation, and a finding that that hospital is no longer deemed to meet the conditions of participation.
42 C.F.R. § 498.3(d)(1), (9).
In applying these regulations, an appellate panel of the Departmental Appeals Board (DAB) has held that "a JCAHO-accredited hospital . . . has no right to an ALJ hearing solely to contest findings of noncompliance with the Medicare conditions of participation . . . when a proposed termination has been rescinded." *Fla. Health Sciences Ctr., Inc.*, DAB No. 2263 at 5 (2009). The panel in *Florida Health Sciences* also noted that prior DAB decisions endorsed dismissing similar appeals by long-term care facilities where CMS did not impose enforcement remedies. *Id.* at 5 n.2 (citing *Fountain Lake Health & Rehab.*, *Inc.*, DAB No. 1985 (2005); *Lakewood Plaza Nursing Ctr.*, DAB No. 1767 (2001); *Schowalter Villa*, DAB No. 1688 (1999); and *Arcadia Acres, Inc.*, DAB No. 1607 (1997)). The panel observed, however, that these decisions are based primarily on the language of 42 C.F.R. § 498.3(b)(13), a subsection not directly applicable to hospitals. *Id*.
In its opposition brief, Petitioner contends:
CMS argues, in its Motion to Dismiss, that under 42 C.F.R. § 498.3(d) [Petitioner] has no basis for appeal because "[t]he finding that a provider or supplier determined to be in compliance with the conditions or requirements for participation or for coverage has deficiencies" is not an appealable action. CMS argues that because [Petitioner] submitted a corrective action plan and was removed by CMS
**Page 4**
from the termination track for its Condition-Level deficiencies, that there is "no harm, no foul." We disagree.
P. Response at 4. I find Petitioner's argument puzzling because nowhere in CMS's motion does CMS reference 42 C.F.R. § 498.3(d) or make the statements attributed to it by Petitioner.2
 Nevertheless, I consider Petitioner's argument based on 42 C.F.R. § 498.3(d) and find it is without merit.
Petitioner concedes, as it must, that CMS found Petitioner back in compliance with all Medicare conditions of participation following a revisit survey by the state agency and, on that basis, rescinded the proposed termination action. Petitioner nevertheless maintains that it is being harmed as a result of CMS's actions. Petitioner asserts that CMS's decision to rescind the termination based on its submission of a corrective action plan "provides no 'checks and balances' to potentially arbitrary decisions by CMS and the state surveyors." P. Response at 7. Petitioner argues further that it will suffer "adverse consequences for CMS deficiencies" even though the termination did not go into effect. *Id.* at 8. Petitioner notes that CMS provides comparison information on hospitals on-line, including survey deficiency reports and termination notices, and such information could deter patient admissions, even if a termination was rescinded. Petitioner also notes that the Iowa state agency publishes a publically‐available "report card" on its website, and Petitioner's "report card" includes its March 2018 survey findings. *Id.* at 8-9. Lastly, Petitioner claims that the fact that it was cited for immediate jeopardy means that it will be "excluded from participating in CMS's value-based purchasing program," which will result in economic hardship. P. Response at 9, *citing* 42 U.S.C. § 1395ww(o).3
The possible adverse consequences Petitioner envisions are speculative. *See Fla. Health Sciences*, DAB No. 2263 at 6. Moreover, even if the consequences were concrete, none of the negative impacts to which Petitioner objects represent initial determinations under the regulations. As an appellate panel of the Board has explained, "no right to a hearing survives merely to correct [a] compliance record." *San Fernando Post Acute Hosp.*, DAB No. 2492 at 8 (2012) (quoting *Fountain Lake*, DAB No. 1985 at 6 (internal quotation marks omitted)). Given that CMS did not terminate Petitioner's Medicare participation agreement, Petitioner does not have a right to a hearing to repair any
**Page 5**
perceived damage caused by a deficiency citation. Once the termination was rescinded, no initial determination remained. 42 C.F.R. § 498.3(b)(8); *see also Fla. Health Sciences*, DAB No. 2263 at 5.
Finally, I note that Petitioner makes arguments addressing the merits of the alleged regulatory violations cited at the March 2018 survey. P. Response at 11-13. I do not consider these arguments because Petitioner has no right to review of the deficiencies.
In summary, the proposed termination of Petitioner's provider agreement never went into effect. The deficiency findings cited as a result of the March 28, 2018 survey, standing alone, are not initial determinations. 42 C.F.R. § 498.3(d)(1). Similarly, CMS's finding (later resolved) that Petitioner was no longer deemed to meet Medicare participation requirements also is not an initial determination. 42 C.F.R. § 498.3(d)(9). Absent termination of Petitioner's provider agreement, there is no appealable initial determination. 42 C.F.R. §§ 498.3(b)(8), 498.5(b).
Conclusion
For the reasons stated, Petitioner has no right to a hearing, and this matter must be dismissed. 42 C.F.R. § 498.70(b). I therefore grant CMS's motion and dismiss Petitioner's hearing request. The parties may request that an order dismissing a case be vacated pursuant to 42 C.F.R. § 498.72.


          /s/
        Leslie A. Weyn

                      Administrative Law Judge
      1. I reach this one conclusion of law. back to note 1
                      2. I note that Petitioner did not cite to any specific pages in CMS's motion to dismiss. back to note 2
                      3. Petitioner appears to be referring to a program known as the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program. Under this program, CMS makes incentive payments to hospitals which meet certain performance standards. 42 U.S.C. § 1395ww(o). A hospital is excluded from participating in this program if it has been cited for deficiencies that pose immediate jeopardy to the health or safety of patients. 42 U.S.C. § 1395ww(o)(1)(C)(ii)(II). back to note 3 Back to top
    Contact HHS
    
                        
                                            
      
      
      Careers
    
                        
                                            
      
      
      HHS FAQs
    
                        
                                            
      
      
      Nondiscrimination NoticeHHS Archive
    
                        
                                            
      
      
      Accessibility Statement
    
                        
                                            
      
      
      Privacy Policy
    
                        
                                            
      
      
      Viewers & PlayersBudget/Performance
    
                        
                                            
      
      
      Inspector General
    
                        
                                            
      
      
      Web Site Disclaimers
    
                        
                                            
      
      
      EEO/No Fear ActFOIA
    
                        
                                            
      
      
      The White House
    
                        
                                            
      
      
      USA.gov
    
                        
                                            
      
      
      Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
        Sign Up for Email Updates

Receive the latest updates from the Secretary, Blogs, and News Releases.

Sign Up
  HHS Headquarters
          200 Independence Avenue, S.W.
                  Washington, D.C. 20201
                  Toll Free Call Center: 1-877-696-6775​ Disclaimer Policy: Links with this icon () mean that you are leaving the HHS website. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) cannot guarantee the accuracy of a non-federal website.
                  Linking to a non-federal website does not mean that HHS or its employees endorse the sponsors, information, or products presented on the website. HHS links outside of itself to provide you with further information.
                  You will be bound by the destination website's privacy policy and/or terms of service when you follow the link.
                  HHS is not responsible for Section 508 compliance (accessibility) on private websites. For more information on HHS's web notification policies, see Website Disclaimers.
 Continue
                  Go back