Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1114_09m1.pdf
Page Number: 2

2 

AMERICAN HOSPITAL ASSN. v. BECERRA 

Syllabus 

it could vary the reimbursement rates by hospital group under its op-
tion 2 authority to “adjust” the price-based reimbursement rates.  The 
District Court rejected HHS’s argument that the statute precluded ju-
dicial review, concluded that HHS had acted outside its statutory au-
thority,  and  remanded  the  case  to  HHS  to  consider  an  appropriate 
remedy.  The D. C. Circuit, however, reversed.  The court ruled that 
the statute did not preclude judicial review, and upheld HHS’s reduced 
reimbursement rates for 340B hospitals. 

Held: 

1. The statute does not preclude judicial review of HHS’s reimburse-
ment  rates.  Judicial  review  of  final  agency  action  is  traditionally
available unless “a statute’s language or structure” precludes it, Mach 
Mining,  LLC  v.  EEOC,  575  U. S.  480,  486,  and  this  Court  has  long
recognized  a  “strong  presumption”  in  its  favor,  Weyerhaeuser  Co.  v. 
United  States  Fish  and  Wildlife  Serv.,  586  U. S.  ___,  ___.    Here,  no 
provision in the Medicare statute precludes judicial review of the 2018
and 2019 reimbursement rates.  HHS cites two nearby provisions that
preclude  review  of  the  general  payment  methodology  that  HHS  em-
ploys  to  set  rates  for  other  Medicare  outpatient  services.    See 
§§1395l(t)(12)(A), (C).  But HHS sets rates for outpatient prescription 
drugs using a different payment methodology.  HHS also argues that
other statutory requirements would make allowing judicial review of 
the 2018 and 2019 reimbursement rates impractical.  Regardless, such
arguments cannot override the text of the statute and the traditional
presumption in favor of judicial review of administrative action.  Pp.
7–9. 

2. Absent a survey of hospitals’ acquisition costs, HHS may not vary
the  reimbursement  rates  only  for  340B  hospitals;  HHS’s  2018  and 
2019 reimbursement rates for 340B hospitals were therefore unlawful. 
The text and structure of the statute make this a straightforward case. 
Because HHS did not conduct a survey of hospitals’ acquisition costs,
HHS acted unlawfully by reducing the reimbursement rates for 340B 
hospitals.  HHS maintains that even when it does not conduct a sur-
vey, the agency still may “adjus[t]” the average price “as necessary.”
§1395l(t)(14)(A)(iii)(II).  But HHS’s power to increase or decrease the
price is distinct from its power to set different rates for different groups
of hospitals.  Moreover, HHS’s interpretation would make little sense
given the statute’s overall structure.  Under HHS’s interpretation, the 
agency would never need to conduct a survey of acquisition costs if it 
could proceed under option 2 and then do everything under option 2 
that it could do under option 1.  That not only would render irrelevant 
the survey prerequisite for varying reimbursement rates by hospital 
group,  but  also  would  render  largely  irrelevant  the  provision  of  the 
statute that precisely details the requirements for surveys of hospitals’