Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1641_3314.pdf
Page Number: 2.0

2  MARIETTA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL EMPLOYEE HEALTH 

BENEFIT PLAN v. DAVITA INC. 
Syllabus 

covered individuals.  Pp. 4–7. 

(a) Section 1395y(b)(1)(C)(ii) prohibits a plan from differentiating in 
benefits  between  individuals  with  and  without  end-stage  renal  dis-
ease.  Because the Marietta Plan’s terms apply uniformly to individu-
als with and without end-stage renal disease, the Plan does not “dif-
ferentiate  in  the  benefits  it  provides  between  individuals”  with  and 
without end-stage renal disease.  DaVita argues that the statute au-
thorizes liability even when a plan limits benefits in a uniform way if 
the limitation on benefits has a disparate impact on individuals with 
end-stage renal disease.  But the text of the statute cannot be read to 
encompass a disparate-impact theory.  The statutory provision simply 
coordinates payments between group health plans and Medicare; the 
statute  does  not  dictate  any  particular  level  of  dialysis  coverage.    
Pp. 4–7. 

(b) DaVita’s  contention  that  a  plan  that  provides  limited  coverage 
for outpatient dialysis impermissibly “take[s] into account” the Medi-
care eligibility of plan participants with end-stage renal disease fails 
for  the  same  reason.    Because  the  Marietta  Plan  provides  the  same 
outpatient dialysis benefits to all Plan participants, whether or not a 
participant is entitled to or eligible for Medicare, the Plan cannot be 
said to “take into account” whether its participants are entitled to or 
eligible for Medicare.  Pp. 7. 

978 F. 3d 326, reversed and remanded. 

  KAVANAUGH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, 
C. J.,  and  THOMAS,  BREYER,  ALITO,  GORSUCH,  and  BARRETT  JJ.,  joined.  
KAGAN, J., filed an opinion dissenting in part, in which SOTOMAYOR, J., 
joined.