2011 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

10-17-2011

Jeanes Hosp v. Secretary HHS

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 10-4088

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2011 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Jeanes Hosp v. Secretary HHS" (2011). 2011 Decisions. Paper 350.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011/350
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____________

No. 10-4088

____________

JEANES HOSPITAL,

 Appellant

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

____________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. No. 2-04-cv-00395)

District Judge: Honorable Cynthia M. Rufe

____________

Argued September 21, 2011

Before: FISHER, HARDIMAN and GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judges.

(Filed: October 17, 2011)

Terry Coleman

Douglas Hallward-Driemeier (Argued)

Ropes & Gray

700 12th Street, N.W.

One Metro Center, Suite 900

Washington, DC 20005

Deborah K. Gardner

Jeffrey L. Heidt

Ropes & Gray

800 Boylston Street

Prudential Tower

Boston, MA 02199

Gregory L. Liacouras
2

Liacouras & Smith

1515 Market Street, Suite 808

Philadelphia, PA 19102

Counsel for Appellant

Joel McElvain (Argued)

United States Department of Justice

Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch

20 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Room 7130

Washington, DC 20530

Michael S. Raab

United States Department of Justice

Civil Division

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Room 7237

Washington, DC 20530

Counsel for Appellee

____________

OPINION OF THE COURT

____________

FISHER, Circuit Judge.

Jeanes Hospital (“Jeanes”) appeals from the order of the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granting summary judgment in favor of 

appellee Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of the United States Department of Health and 

Human Services (“Secretary”). The District Court affirmed the decision of the 

Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“Administrator” or 

“CMS”) denying Jeanes‟s claim for reimbursement based on depreciation losses realized 

as the result of a statutory merger. For the reasons stated below, we will affirm.
3

I.

This action arises out of a Medicare regulatory scheme that reimburses 

participating providers for the “reasonable cost” of furnishing covered services to 

Medicare beneficiaries. 42 U.S.C. § 1395f(b)(1). “Reasonable cost” is defined as “the 

cost actually incurred, excluding . . . cost[s] found to be unnecessary in the efficient 

delivery of needed health services, and . . . determined in accordance with regulations” 

promulgated by the Secretary. 42 U.S.C. § 1395x(v)(1)(A). Regulations in effect during 

the merger provided for “[a]n appropriate allowance for depreciation on buildings and 

equipment” based on the allocation of an asset‟s historical cost across its useful life; 

following a deduction, the value of an asset would be adjusted downwards accordingly, 

yielding the asset‟s “net book value.” 42 C.F.R. § 413.134(a)-(b). Providers could also 

claim depreciation reimbursements for a “loss” upon transfer of asset ownership, 

including statutory mergers, if the disparity between the sales price of an asset and its net 

book value indicated that prior deductions did not reflect the asset‟s actual decline in 

value. See 42 C.F.R. § 413.134(f)(2), (k)(2).1 To qualify for reimbursement after a 

merger, the Secretary required the transaction to meet the definition of a “bona fide 

sale,”242 C.F.R. § 413.134(f)(2), (k)(2), which “in this context is a transaction that has 

 

1 At the time of the merger, this subsection was designated as (l)(2) instead of 

(k)(2); the redesignation in 2000 did not alter the subsection‟s content. See Albert 

Einstein Med. Ctr. v. Sebelius, 566 F.3d 368, 374 n.5 (3d Cir. 2009).
4

been (1) negotiated at arm‟s length and (2) results in an exchange of reasonable 

consideration.” UPMC-Braddock Hosp. v. Sebelius, 592 F.3d 427, 432 (3d Cir. 2010).

II.

We write exclusively for the parties, who are familiar with the factual context and 

legal history of this case. Therefore, we will set forth only those facts necessary to our 

analysis.

In 1994, adverse economic conditions forced Jeanes Hospital, a non-profit Quaker 

institution, to explore partnership possibilities with several regional service providers to 

ensure its survival. In 1995, after evaluating its options, Jeanes entered into a 

memorandum of understanding with the University of Pennsylvania Health System 

(“Penn”). After three months of due diligence, however, Jeanes rejected the proposed 

merger with Penn, opting instead to pursue an affiliation with Temple University Health 

System, Inc. (“Temple”). Over the next several months, Jeanes and Temple conducted 

due diligence and negotiations that culminated in an Affiliation Agreement 

(“Agreement”) providing for a statutory merger between the two entities, effective July 1, 

1996.

Pursuant to the Agreement, Temple assumed all assets, obligations and liabilities 

of the old Jeanes Hospital (“Old Jeanes”), absorbed the old hospital into a new Temple 

 

2

The Secretary also required the merger to be between unrelated parties, an issue 

which was resolved in favor of Jeanes by a previous decision of the District Court, Jeanes 

Hosp. v. Leavitt, 453 F. Supp. 2d 888 (E.D. Pa. 2006), and therefore is not contested in 

the present appeal.
5

entity, and renamed it Jeanes Hospital (“New Jeanes”). The Agreement also provided 

for, inter alia, a $1 million payment to Jeanes System Management Company, which 

controlled Old Jeanes, to be renamed the Anna T. Jeanes Foundation (“Foundation”) after 

the merger; empowered the Foundation to nominate members to the board of New 

Jeanes; promised Temple‟s adherence to Old Jeanes‟s mission for at least five years; and 

committed a $4 million dollar line of credit to New Jeanes and $7 million for the 

development of a primary care physician network.

At the time of the merger, Jeanes‟s financial statements reported total assets of 

approximately $113 million and liabilities of approximately $68 million. A post-merger 

appraisal requested by New Jeanes estimated the value of the old hospital‟s depreciable 

assets in three ways: under the reproduction-cost approach, assets were valued at $48.8 

million; under the income approach, assets were valued at $30.1 million; and under the 

sales approach, assets were valued at around $30 million. Based on the disparity between 

the value of its depreciable assets as estimated under the income approach and their net 

book value, Jeanes recognized a “loss” from the merger and submitted a claim for 

depreciation reimbursement to Medicare‟s fiscal intermediary, Mutual of Omaha 

Insurance Company (“Intermediary”). The Intermediary denied the claim on the grounds 

that the merger was between related parties and failed to qualify as a bona fide sale.

Jeanes appealed to the Provider Reimbursement Review Board (“PRRB”), which 

reversed the Intermediary‟s decision and allowed the claim. The Intermediary solicited 

review by CMS, which denied the claim as between “related parties.” Jeanes sought 
6

review in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where the District Court overturned the 

Administrator, but remanded to determine whether a bona fide sale had occurred.

On remand, the PRRB upheld Jeanes‟s claim for reimbursement, finding that the 

merger qualified as a bona fide sale. The Administrator again reversed, concluding that 

the merger was not an arm‟s-length transaction and – based on the large disparity 

between the assets as valued under the cost approach ($103.4 million) and the sales price 

($69 million) – did not involve an exchange for reasonable consideration, and therefore 

did not qualify as a bona fide sale.

Jeanes sought review in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for a second time, 

where the District Court sustained the Administrator‟s finding that the merger did not 

constitute a bona fide sale. Although the District Court disagreed with the 

Administrator‟s determination that the sale was not conducted at arm‟s length, it 

nonetheless found that the exchange lacked reasonable consideration. Accordingly, the 

District Court denied Jeanes‟s motion for summary judgment. Jeanes timely appeals.

III.

The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1395oo(f)(1). We 

have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because we apply the same standard of 

review as the District Court, our review is de novo. Albert Einstein Med. Ctr. v. Sebelius, 

566 F.3d 368, 373 (3d Cir. 2009).

Under the Administrative Procedure Act, we may set aside the Administrator‟s 

decision only upon a finding that it was “unsupported by substantial evidence” or 
7

“arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 

U.S.C. § 706(2); UPMC-Braddock, 592 F.3d at 430. “Substantial evidence is more than 

a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as 

adequate to support a conclusion.” Einstein, 566 F.3d at 372 (internal quotation omitted). 

The Administrator‟s findings “must be upheld unless the evidence not only supports a 

contrary conclusion, but compels it.” Abdille v. Ashcroft, 242 F.3d 477, 484 (3d Cir. 

2001).

We must defer to an agency‟s interpretation of its own regulations “unless an 

alternative reading is compelled by the regulation‟s plain language or by other indications 

of the Secretary‟s intent at the time of the regulation‟s promulgation.” Thomas Jefferson 

Univ. Hosp. v. Shalala, 512 U.S. 504, 512 (1994) (internal quotation omitted). “This 

broad deference is all the more warranted when, as here, the regulation concerns a 

complex and highly technical regulatory program, in which the identification and 

classification of relevant criteria necessarily require significant expertise and entail the 

exercise of judgment grounded in policy concerns.” Id. (internal quotation omitted);

Einstein, 566 F.3d at 373. Critically, we “do[] not have the „task . . . to decide which 

among several competing interpretations best serves the regulatory purpose.‟” Mercy 

Home Health v. Leavitt, 436 F.3d 370, 377 (3d Cir. 2006) (quoting Thomas Jefferson, 

512 U.S. at 512).

IV.
8

In order to “eliminate the potential for self-dealing and ensure that Medicare only 

reimburses providers for their actual costs,” Medicare regulations permit loss payments 

for statutory mergers only when they occur between “unrelated parties” and qualify as a 

“bona fide sale.” Einstein, 566 F.3d at 374-75. According to CMS guidance, a bona fide 

sale is “a transaction that has been (1) negotiated at arm‟s length and (2) results in 

exchange of reasonable consideration.” UPMC-Braddock, 592 F.3d at 432; Program 

Memorandum A-00-76 (Oct. 19, 2000) (“PM”); Provider Reimbursement Manual, Ch. 1, 

§ 104.24 (May 1, 2000) (“PRM”). The burden of proof for obtaining reimbursement 

rests on the provider. 42 U.S.C. § 1395g(a); 42 C.F.R. § 413.24(a); Mercy Home Health,

436 F.3d at 380. Here, although the Administrator‟s determination that the JeanesTemple merger was not an arm‟s-length transaction is not supported by substantial 

evidence, we will defer to his conclusion that reasonable consideration was not 

exchanged and, therefore, that the merger was not a bona fide sale.

The CMS Program Memorandum states that an arm‟s-length transaction “is a 

transaction negotiated by unrelated parties, each acting in its own self-interest.” PM A00-76. A seller‟s pursuit of alternative transaction partners and selfish negotiations for 

financial concessions epitomize arm‟s length bargaining, see UPMC-Braddock, 592 F.3d 

at 434 n.10; PM A-00-76 (describing typical arm‟s-length transaction), but where a seller 

negotiates solely for the benefit of the surviving entity or in total disregard of the price, 

the transaction cannot be considered at arm‟s length. See Einstein, 566 F.3d at 378-80; 

Via Christi Reg’l Med. Ctr. v. Leavitt, 509 F.3d 1259, 1276 (10th Cir. 2007).
9

Jeanes argues, and we agree, that the decision of the Administrator on this issue is 

unsupported by substantial evidence. While acknowledging that Old Jeanes “explored 

the market” for merger partners before settling on Temple, the Administrator found that 

the negotiations “did not involve seeking out the best purchase price for the [hospital‟s] 

assets” and centered on obtaining benefits that would inure only to New Jeanes. Jeanes 

Hosp., Dec. No. 2009-D23, 18-23 (Ctrs. for Medicare & Medicaid Servs. July 24, 2009). 

In reaching this conclusion, the Administrator gave short shrift to evidence in the record 

which compels a finding that Jeanes negotiated rigorously, selfishly and with an adequate 

concern for price. Old Jeanes conducted lengthy due diligence with both Penn and 

Temple, extracted concessions from Temple for both itself and New Jeanes, and, after 

being rebuffed on its initial $5 million demand, obtained a $1 million commitment to the 

Foundation3over and above the statutory merger price (which, notably, was a benefit that 

the proposed Penn merger did not include). The merger bore the hallmark characteristics 

of arm‟s-length bargaining, and particularly in light of the adverse economic conditions 

facing Old Jeanes, this evidence compels a finding of an arm‟s-length transaction.

4

 

3 Although the Secretary contends that this benefitted the surviving entity, we 

agree with Jeanes that the record clearly shows that the Foundation remained independent 

of New Jeanes, even if its mission complemented that of the hospital.

4 As Jeanes argues, “[t]he Secretary is not free to disregard this self-interested 

bargaining simply because she believes Jeanes should have obtained a better price.” 

Reply Br. at 6. Rather, to the extent that the Administrator discounted this concession 

because of the amount, that concern properly belongs in the second prong of the bona

fide sale test: whether reasonable consideration was exchanged.
10

Instead, the Administrator concluded that Old Jeanes‟s interest in non-price 

factors, such as continuation of the hospital‟s mission and commitments to benefit the 

surviving entity, precluded the finding of an arm‟s-length transaction. Id. However, the 

fiduciary duties of non-profit boards require precisely such behavior, see, e.g., Nonprofit 

Corporation Law of 1988, 15 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5547(a), so this rationale, seized upon by 

the Secretary on appeal, would effectively disqualify all non-profit providers from 

obtaining depreciation adjustments. As we said in UPMC-Braddock, the Secretary may 

not interpret her regulations in such a way as to categorically “render the loss adjustment 

unavailable in most if not all merger situations.” 592 F.3d at 438. Therefore, the 

Administrator‟s focus on these factors was improper; the merger qualifies as an arm‟slength transaction.

However, we will defer to CMS expertise in evaluating the reasonableness of 

consideration exchanged in the merger. “In assessing whether reasonable consideration 

was exchanged, a determination must be made as to whether the exchange of value for 

value was close enough to qualify as reasonable consideration.” UPMC-Braddock, 592 

F.3d at 432. A sale results in an exchange of reasonable consideration when the price 

reflects the fair market value of the assets conveyed, and a “large disparity” between the 

two “indicates the lack of a bona fide sale.” PM A-00-76. The Program Memorandum 

further provides that, if an appraisal is used, “the cost approach is the most appropriate 

methodology to be used in establishing the fair market value of the assets.” Id.
11

As evidence that reasonable consideration was exchanged, Jeanes offered a postmerger appraisal of the hospital‟s depreciable assets. However, because of the gross 

disparity between the assets as valued under the cost approach, $103.4 million, and the 

price paid by Temple, $69.2 million (approximately 66% of the value of the assets), the 

Administrator rejected Jeanes‟s claim. Jeanes, 2009-D23 at 26-27. Jeanes raises three 

principal arguments5against this estimate, essentially asking us to second guess the 

Administrator‟s established method of calculating fair market value. In light of the 

complex and technical nature of the Medicare regulations at issue, see Thomas Jefferson, 

512 U.S. at 512, and because it is not our “task . . . to decide which among several 

competing interpretations best serves the regulatory purpose,” Mercy Home Health, 436 

F.3d at 377 (internal citation omitted), we decline to do so.

First, Jeanes contends that the Administrator arbitrarily ignored the regulatory 

definition of “fair market value” set forth in 42 C.F.R. § 413.134(b)(2): “the price that the 

asset would bring by bona fide bargaining between well-informed buyers and sellers at 

the date of acquisition.” However, we have said that “[i]n assessing whether reasonable 

consideration was exchanged, a determination must be made as to whether the exchange 

of value for value was close enough to qualify as reasonable consideration.” UPMCBraddock, 592 F.3d at 432. In doing so, the Administrator relied on objective asset 

values reflected in the record, as counseled by CMS guidance. Jeanes, 2009-D23 at 

 

5

To the extent that Jeanes offers additional arguments, they derive from these 

three principal contentions.
12

26-27. Since we have previously upheld the Secretary‟s regulations and guidance as 

reasonable, Einstein, 566 F.3d at 376-78, we owe the Administrator‟s decision the utmost 

deference, Thomas Jefferson, 512 U.S. at 512, and do not find it arbitrary.6

Second, Jeanes contends that the Administrator‟s estimate was unsupported by 

substantial evidence because he used the reproduction-cost approach in lieu of the income 

approach. Jeanes argues that this is inconsistent with the regulations because the income 

approach reflects the “economic reality” of a transaction, while the cost approach only 

helps to allocate a lump sum price among discrete assets. But, as the Administrator 

stated, the cost approach is preferred because price allocation among discrete assets is a 

“necessary” part of the process, and it is the most reliable method where, as here, there is 

a lack of market activity. Jeanes, 2009-D23 at 24. Conversely, the income approach is 

unreliable in the non-profit context. Id. at 24-25. Because the Administrator‟s 

interpretation is not plainly inconsistent with or contrary to the regulatory language, 

Thomas Jefferson, 512 U.S. at 512, and because we “do not have the task . . . to decide 

which among several competing interpretations best serves the regulatory purpose,” 

Mercy Home Health, 436 F.3d at 377 (internal citation omitted), we will defer. For 

 

6 Notably, the proposed definition would invert the regulatory scheme by using 

evidence of a bona fide sale to show reasonable consideration, which is precisely the 

opposite of the proper inquiry. Further, this approach would simply reiterate the arm‟slength transaction requirement, making the two-prong test redundant, and would render 

the value for value comparison meaningless where, as here, non-monetary consideration 

(which by definition lacks objective value and is specifically excluded by the PM) plays a 

significant role in the exchange. The Administrator was hardly arbitrary for rejecting 

such a definition.
13

substantially the same reasons, we reject Jeanes‟s third argument that even under the cost 

approach, the calculation of fair market value was erroneous because it did not account 

for economic or functional obsolescence. Medicare only allows reimbursement for 

“actual costs,” 42 U.S.C. § 1395x(v)(1)(A), and the Administrator could reasonably 

exclude extreme market fluctuations from that calculus. Jeanes, 2009-D23 at 26 n.50.

V.

For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the order of the District Court.