Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1641_3314.pdf
Page Number: 3

Cite as:  596 U. S. ____ (2022) 

1 

Opinion of the Court 

NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 
preliminary  print  of  the  United  States  Reports.  Readers  are  requested  to 
notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash-
ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that 
corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 20–1641 
_________________ 

MARIETTA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL EMPLOYEE 
HEALTH BENEFIT PLAN, ET AL., PETITIONERS 
v. DAVITA INC., ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 

[June 21, 2022]

 JUSTICE KAVANAUGH delivered the opinion of the Court. 
The question in this case is whether a group health plan
that provides limited benefits for outpatient dialysis—but 
does  so  uniformly  for  all  plan  participants—violates  the
Medicare  Secondary  Payer  statute.    We  agree  with  peti-
tioner Marietta and the United States as amicus curiae that 
the answer is no.  We therefore reverse the judgment of the
U. S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and remand the 
case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

I 
A 
Medicare  provides  health  insurance  coverage  for  those 
who are 65 or over, or are disabled.  In 1972, Congress ex-
tended Medicare coverage to individuals with end-stage re-
nal disease, regardless of age or disability.  See Social Se-
curity  Amendments  of  1972,  §299I,  86  Stat.  1463;  42
U. S. C. §426–1.  That benefit now covers hundreds of thou-
sands  of  Americans  with  end-stage  renal  disease.  In  the 
aggregate, the costs of healthcare for individuals with end-
stage  renal  disease  are  high,  and  Medicare  spends  about