Observation stay case debated in court

Share this article:

Government lawyers and opponents of Medicare's “observation stay loophole” recently squared off in federal court, when a judge convened the first hearing in the Bagnall vs. Sebelius case.

Richard Bagnall and other seniors denied Medicare coverage for skilled nursing care brought the case in 2011. 

The plaintiffs are asking the judge to eliminate hospital observation stays, or to at least require written notification when a patient is given observation rather inpatient status. Medicare will cover only post-acute care for people who are hospitalized for at least three days as an inpatient.

Government lawyers argued for dismissal, saying the plaintiffs did not go through the entire Medicare appeals process before filing the lawsuit. The Center for Medicare Advocacy, representing 14 of the plaintiffs, argued the appeals system is broken.

“The judge did not tip his hand,” Toby Edelman, senior policy attorney for the Center for Medicare Advocacy, told McKnight's. “He ... asked hard questions of both sides.”

The judge has moved the case quickly since taking it over in January, Edelman said, but she does not know when he will reach a decision.


Share this article:

More in News

$1.3 million settlement marks second recent deal over SNF supervision of therapy providers

$1.3 million settlement marks second recent deal over ...

A Maryland nursing home company has agreed to a $1.3 million settlement over charges that it did not prevent overbilling by its contracted therapy provider, federal authorities announced Monday. This ...

MedPAC chairman: Three-day stay requirement is 'archaic'

The government should pay for skilled nursing care without a preliminary three-day hospital stay, and the recovery auditor program should be reformed, Medicare Payment Advisory Commission members said at a meeting Friday.

Nursing homes can't carve out billing, collections in arbitration agreements, AR Supreme ...

A nursing home arbitration agreement largely reserved the provider's rights to sue residents while limiting residents' legal options, causing it to fail a "mutual obligation" requirement, the Arkansas Supreme Court recently ruled .