Multicare Health System D/b/a Mary Bridge Children's Hospital, Appellant V Dshs, Respondent (Majority and Order)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FIL D ? OURT OF APPEALS DIVISION 11 Z 2013 JUL AN 9 05 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STAT§ qt F4 T aY . DIVISION II MULTICARE d/ a b / MARY BRIDGE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, SON No. 42567 0 II - - I Appellant, ORDER AMENDING OPINION AND V. DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES, The published opinion in this case was filed on January 29, 2013. This opinion is hereby amended as follows: Footnote 6 on page 8 that reads: We have found one case analyzing this issue, and it supports our conclusion, Michael Reese Hosp. V. State, 44 I11 ct. Cl. 61, 1.92 WL 12147804 (1992).That 9 court concluded that when a patient incurs expenses that exceed the spenddown, but the negotiated rate is less than the spenddown, the patient owes the hospital the negotiated_ rate_ and the State_ owes the hospital nothing Rees Hosp., at * 3. 2 - is deleted. The following language is inserted in its place: We have found one case analyzing this issue, and it supports our conclusion, Michael Reese Hosp. V. State, 44 Ill ct. Cl. 61, 1992 WL 12147804 (1992).That court concluded that when a patient incurs expenses that exceed the spenddown, but the negotiated rate is less than the spenddown, the patient owes the hospital the negotiated rate and the State owes the hospital nothing. Michael Rees Hosp., at * 3. 2 - Although Illinois, unlike Washington, is a § 209( ) b state, this case is still Section 209( )status affects income requirements for Medicaid b eligibility, it does not exempt participating states from the federal spenddown requirements at issue here. See Schweiker v. Gray Panthers, 453 U. . 34, 38 39 S instructive. the § 209( )option were required to adopt a b R. F spend down' provision. "); Michael Reese Hosp. at * 1 (citing 42 C. . § 435. 31). " 8 n. (1981) (States 5 " exercising 42567 0 II - - We further order that Appellant's Motion for Reconsideration filed on February 8, 2013 is denied. Q DATED this ,, day of , We concur: Quinn Brintnall, J. ohnson, A. . J. C 2 2013.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
