Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 113.0

529US1

Unit: $U32

[10-04-01 09:20:53] PAGES PGT: OPIN

38

SHALALA v. ILLINOIS COUNCIL ON LONG
TERM CARE, INC.
Thomas, J., dissenting

ity of the Secretary’s instructions and regulations” would
not.

476 U. S., at 680.

This dichotomy does not translate exactly to the instant
case, the majority tells us, because the Secretary’s determi-
nation to terminate a nursing home’s provider agreement,
see 42 U. S. C. § 1395cc(b) (1994 ed. and Supp. III), in no
sense resembles the determination of an “amount” of an
individual’s beneﬁts under Part A or B, see § 1395ff. There-
fore, the majority concludes, Michigan Academy’s interpre-
tation of § 1395ii simply does not bear on respondent’s chal-
lenge to the Secretary’s regulations here. See ante, at 20.
But § 1395ii applies to more than just § 1395ff, the pro-
it applies, rather, to
vision concerning beneﬁt amounts;
the entire Medicare Act, including § 1395cc, the provision
concerning provider agreements that is directly at issue
here. And we have “stron[g] cause to construe a single
formulation . . . the same way each time it is called into
play.” Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U. S. 135, 143 (1994).
Accordingly, the interpretation of § 1395ii that we announced
in Michigan Academy must have a more general import
than a distinction between Part B beneﬁts determinations,
on the one hand, and Part B methods guiding such determi-
nations, on the other. Michigan Academy must have es-
tablished a distinction between, on the one hand, a dispute
over any particularized determination and, on the other
hand, a “challeng[e] to the validity of the Secretary’s instruc-
tions and regulations,” 476 U. S., at 680.7 The former trig-
gers § 1395ii’s incorporation of § 405(h); the latter does not.
This case obviously falls into the latter category. Re-
spondent in no way disputes any particularized determina-

7 For this reason, it is beside the point that Congress amended § 1395ff
after Michigan Academy to make express provision for administrative
and judicial review of Part B beneﬁts claims. See Pub. L. 99–509,
§ 9341(a)(1)(B), 100 Stat. 2037. Congress has not substantively amended
§ 1395ii since Michigan Academy, and so Michigan Academy’s gloss on
§ 1395ii deserves as much stare decisis respect today as it ever has.