Texas Tax-Exempt Hospitals & Charity Care: Surprisingly Progressive

In 1985 -- one year before Congress added EMTALA to Medicare's Conditions of Participation -- Texas became the first state in the country to enact a prohibition against patient-dumping, the practice of for-profit hospitals to transfer unfunded emergency patients to local public hospitals. See Tex. Health & Safety Code § 311.022. When a patient needs emergency medical treatment, the consequences of transfer-related delays could be dire, including death. See this 1985 N.Y. Times story:

(click image to enlarge)

This isn't the only progressive healthcare law in Texas. For decades now, we have also required nonprofit hospitals to provide a certain minimum amount of charity care, both to maintain its nonprofit status (Tex. Health & Safety Code, ch. 311(D)) and to qualify for tax-exempt status (Tex. Tax Code § 11.1801). If a nonprofit hospital meets any one of three measures of required charity care, it gets its exemption:

(A)  charity care and government-sponsored indigent health care (e.g., Medicaid] are provided at a level which is reasonable in relation to the community needs, as determined through the community needs assessment, the available resources of the hospital or hospital system, and the tax-exempt benefits received by the hospital or hospital system; 

(B)  charity care and government-sponsored indigent health care are provided in an amount equal to at least 100 percent of the hospital's or hospital system's tax-exempt benefits, excluding federal income tax;  or 

(C)  charity care and community benefits are provided in a combined amount equal to at least five percent of the hospital's or hospital system's net patient revenue, provided that charity care and government-sponsored indigent health care are provided in an amount equal to at least four percent of net patient revenue. 

The statutes aren't perfect. They are written so that, with enough uncompensated care provided to Medicaid patients, a hospital (in theory) could meet any of the three standards with no charity care whatsoever. In addition,  with careful planning most nonprofit community hospitals can meet one of these standards, and both statutes provide for fairly generous exceptions to the three measures. For example, a recent study concluded that nonprofit hospitals in Texas provide charity care at a level approximately equal to 60% of the value of their tax exemption. Part of the problem is the extremely limited enforcement procedures and budget. And the root of the entire problem is that very few health systems have the level of excess income to do more than put a dent in their community's need for charity care. Medicaid meets some of that need, but most state Medicaid programs are underfunded.

Reprise: Does EMTALA Pre-Empt Restrictive State Abortion Laws?

Back in June I discussed the applicability of the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act to pregnant persons who come to hospital emergency departments with pregnancy-related emergency conditions for whom an abortion is the accepted standard of emergency medical treatment. Common sense should tell us that a federal statute that requires that emergency conditions be stabilized supersede state laws that provide otherwise. A passing familiarity with the Constitution's Supremacy Clause confirms common sense. And -- as stated in an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association ("JAMA") -- "[a contrary] argument [is] particularly absurd in that it turns the rule of law on its head—ignoring more than 200 years of well-settled legal principles that date back to the nation’s founding—namely, that federal law preempts contrary state law.

As this foundational constitutional principle applies to emergency abortion cases, the article observes that "[s]ince the George W. Bush administration, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has interpreted EMTALA to require pregnancy termination if it represents the stabilizing care necessary to save the pregnant patient’s life or prevent grave harm to health."

The federal district court in Idaho followed this precedent, history, and the statutory text and held that EMTALA applies when state law prohibits abortions in response to pregnancy-related emergencies, Moyle v. United States (Idaho), and entered an injunction against enforcement of the restrictive Idaho abortion law. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, refused to stay the district court opinion, which left the district court's injunction in place. The Supreme Court granted review and then decided certiorari was improvidently granted and sent the case back the the 9th Circuit for further development, presumably for a full hearing and decision on the merits. For the time being, the district court's injunction remains effective, providing a small measure of sanity to apply in Idaho.

Not so much in the 5th Circuit, which includes Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana, where EMTALA and the Supremacy Clause were brushed aside in Texas v, Becerra (5th Cir. 2024). The case involved a challenge to guidance from the U.S, Department of Health & Human Services, which advised in 2022 (within a couple of weeks of the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs), that EMTALA supersedes state-level abortion bans and restrictions. The 5th Circuit's opinion is limited to its affirmance of the lower court's injunction prohibiting Texas officials from following the HHS guidance, but there is no doubt that a similar challenge to the HHS guidance by Mississippi or Louisiana would be equally successful.

The JAMA article makes a couple of key points that bear repeating here:

• "The idea of a pregnant person being turned away from an emergency department because they are not near enough to death betrays every core principle of medical ethics: beneficence, nonmaleficence, autonomy, and justice."
• "Maternal mortality and morbidity rates in states with abortion bans are so high that they surpass those of every high-income country. High rates of infant mortality and morbidity are now the norm in states with the strictest abortion bans. Indeed, research now confirms the troubling increase in infant deaths after the abortion ban in Texas. If abortion bans are supposed to protect pregnant persons and infants, as proponents of the laws suggest, they are failing miserably" [footnote omitted].

For the time being, the Supreme Court's docket for the Fall 2024 Term doesn't include a pregnancy/EMTALA case. As I noted yesterday, he Court has denied review in a Texas case that raised the issue whether the state's restrictive abortion law violates federal EMTALA law. Xavier Becerra, Secretary of Health and Human Services v. Texas, No. 23-10246. Similar challenges are likely to meet the same fate, so we will have to wait for the 9th Circuit to deliver a decision on the merits of the EMTALA issue. It's entirely likely that there will be four votes to grant certiorari to resolve a split among the circuits. I don't know whether to look forward to or to fear such a decision from the Court.

Does EMTALA Require Medically-Appropriate Abortion Even in the Absence of a State Exception for Emergency Medical Conditions? [Updated June 27]

One of the most eagerly awaited opinions yet to be released by SCOTUS is -- or was (see below) -- Moyle v. United States, Docket No. 23-726. The question presented is "Whether the Supreme Court should stay the order by the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho enjoining the enforcement of Idaho’s Defense of Life Act, which prohibits abortions unless necessary to save the life of the mother, on the ground that the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act preempts it."

The federal district court for Idaho ruled that EMTALA pre-empts state law and requires hospitals to provide stabilizing medical care for emergency conditions, which federal law defines more broadly than life-threatening conditions.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit declined to stay the lower-court injunction against enforcement of Idaho's law pending appeal from the district court's ruling. 

This set up the appeal to SCOTUS. Merits briefs were filed and the case was argued in April. With the Supreme Court's term winding down, Moyle was one of the most anticipated cases left on the Court's docket, especially after a Fifth Circuit decision that rejected the EMTALA pre-emption argument (Texas v, Becerra, No. 23-10246, 5th Cir., Jan. 2, 2024).

SCOTUSBlog (free access) reports that Bloomberg (possible paywall) reports that earlier today, inadvertently and only briefly, SCOTUS posted an opinion in Moyle that dismisses the case on the ground that review was improvidently granted. Assuming no change after the premature release, this will keep the 9th Circuit's refusal to stay the district court's injunction pending appeal. 

Update: On Thursday, June 27, SCOTUS released the official order and concurring and dissenting opinions:

A. The effect of this order is to allow the district court's injunction against enforcement of the restrictive Idaho law, which means doctors and hospitals may provide EMTALA-mandated stabilizing treatment -- including abortions, as needed -- when continuing the pregnancy represents a threat to the pregnant person's health. Eventually the 9th Circuit will decide this case on the merits (assuming there's no problem with standing), the losing party will ask SCOTUS to review, and SCOTUS will decide in its discretion whether to grant the request.

B. A majority of the Court is unlikely to say this, but it's obvious that they view the Court's January actions to be a mistake. Which actions? All of them:

• Entering a stay that had the effect of negating EMTALA and allowing the restrictive Idaho law to be enforced;
• Skipping over the usual order of things, which would typically allow the Court of Appeals to rule on the merits before deciding whether to grant review; and
• Treating the petitioner's request for a stay as the equivalent of a petition for certiorari and then granting the "petition."

C. Some of the Justices weren't shy about calling out other Justices, either for entering a stay in the first place or for now changing their minds about the stay. There were lots of opinions, and they don't conform to the usual 6-3 lineup along party lines:

1. Opinion per curiam. 
2. Kagan, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Sotomayor, J., joined, and in which Jackson, J., joined as to Part II. 
3. Barrett, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kavanaugh, J., joined. 
4. Jackson, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. 
5. Alito, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Thomas, J., joined, and Gorsuch, J., joined as to Parts I and II.

Spike in ER Refusals of Pregnancy-Related Emergency Care After Dobbs Decision

A story from the Associated Press (AP, 4/19/24) reports that "more than two dozen complaints about emergency pregnancy care were lodged in the months after the Dobbs decision was unveiled. It is not known how many complaints were filed last year as the [AP's FOIA] request only asked for 2022 complaints and the information is not publicly available otherwise."

Individual refusals are stunningly heartless:

One woman miscarried in the lobby restroom of a Texas emergency room as front desk staff refused to check her in. Another woman learned that her fetus had no heartbeat at a Florida hospital, the day after a security guard turned her away from the facility. And in North Carolina, a woman gave birth in a car after an emergency room couldn’t offer an ultrasound. The baby later died. . . .

Consider what happened to a woman who was nine months pregnant and having contractions when she arrived at the Falls Community Hospital in Marlin, Texas, in July 2022, a week after the Supreme Court’s ruling on abortion. The doctor on duty refused to see her.

“The physician came to the triage desk and told the patient that we did not have obstetric services or capabilities,” hospital staff told federal investigators during interviews, according to documents. “The nursing staff informed the physician that we could test her for the presence of amniotic fluid. However, the physician adamantly recommended the patient drive to a Waco hospital.”

Ethics. “It is shocking, it’s absolutely shocking,” said Amelia Huntsberger, an OB/GYN in Oregon. “It is appalling that someone would show up to an emergency room and not receive care -- this is inconceivable.” Why is this happening? 

Pregnant patients have “become radioactive to emergency departments” in states with extreme abortion restrictions, said Sara Rosenbaum, a George Washington University health law and policy professor.

“They are so scared of a pregnant patient, that the emergency medicine staff won’t even look. They just want these people gone,” Rosenbaum said. 

Law. Aren't the refusals of pregnancy-related emergency care illegal? Well, the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Pregnancy Act requires Medicare-contracted hospitals to stabilize the emergency medical condition when a woman comes to the emergency department in labor. It's a Condition of Participation in the Medicare program. It shouldn't be complicated, but it is.

On Wednesday, April 24, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case of Moyle v. United States, No. 23-726, in which the issue is "[w]hether the Supreme Court should stay the order by the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho enjoining the enforcement of Idaho’s Defense of Life Act, which prohibits abortions unless necessary to save the life of the mother, on the ground that the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act preempts it." There are 45 amicus briefs in this case, an indication of the broad and strong interest in this case on both sides of the issue. (The district court's order in unpublished but can be found at pages 620-59 of Vol. 2 of the Joint Appendix filed in the Supreme Court matter.)

How Much Does the Fifth Circuit Care About Public Health?

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has handed down a couple of decisions this week that surprised me a lot (except that this 5th Circuit is the most conservative federal appellate court in the country):

1. Abortion. The Texas Tribune has a good story on the history of this litigation and Tuesday's ruling (State of Texas et al. v. Becerra, No. 23-10246  (Jan. 2, 2024). The court upheld a permanent injunction against an HHS injunction against DHHS's post-Dobbs guidance that the Emergency Medicine & Active Labor Act (EMTALA) requires Medicare providers to perform an abortion when that is necessary to stabilize a pregnant woman's emergency (life- or limb-threatening) condition. The court concluded that Congress did not intend for the statute to require performance of a procedure that was forbidden by state law. The court went on, asserting that Texas law provides plenty of protection for procedures, including abortion, when continuing the pregnancy poses a threat to the pregnant woman's life or a major bodily function. This is the same line taken by the Texas Supreme Court in its opinion that denied Kate Cox's bid for an abortion under the same exception to the state's abortion ban. 

Meanwhile, according to Kate Riga at TalkingPointsMemo.com, the same issue is in front of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Depending on the outcome of that case, the issue may land at SCOTUS's doorstep soon.

2. E-cigarettes. The case is Wages and White Lion Investments, L.L.C. v. Food & Drug Administration, No. 21-60766 (Jan. 3, 2024). This was an en banc proceeding of the Court of Appeals, with a majority opinion by Judge Oldham (and joined by nine others) and a dissenting opinion by Judge Haynes (joined by four others). The result of the case is that the FDA is ordered to review over 1 million pre-market tobacco applications (PMTAs) against the backdrop of clear and convincing evidence that e-cigs represent a serious health threat, especially to minors, with no countervailing health benefits. 

This is Judge Haynes' take on the majority opinion (emphasis added):

It is against this backdrop that the FDA reviewed the PMTAs of Wages and White Lion Investments, LLC, d/b/a Triton Distribution (“Triton”) and Vapetasia LLC (“Vapetasia”) (collectively, “Petitioners”) and issued marketing denial orders (“MDOs”) to Petitioners.  The FDA denied Petitioners’ PMTAs because they did not contain any reliable evidence suggesting the benefits of Petitioners’ flavored products outweighed the significant risks to youth—an outcome that aligned with both the guidance the FDA had given to applicants and its statutory mandate under the TCA.  But the majority opinion erroneously concludes that the FDA changed the evidentiary standards applied to Petitioners’ PMTAs and wholly ignored Petitioners’ marketing plans, and thus acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner.  Unfortunately, based on a misreading of the law and a misconstruing of the relevant facts, the majority opinion supersedes the FDA’s work by remanding instead of denying the petition, which cuts the FDA’s legs out from under it in the middle of a dangerous and constantly evolving public health crisis.  

In so doing, the majority opinion also departs from all but one of our sister circuits that have addressed the same issue.  See, e.g., Magellan Tech., Inc. v. FDA, 70 F.4th 622 (2d Cir. 2023) (unanimous denial); Liquid Labs LLC v. FDA, 52 F.4th 533 (3rd Cir. 2022) (unanimous denial); Avail Vapor, LLC v. FDA, 55 F.4th 409 (4th Cir. 2022) (unanimous denial), cert. denied, No. 22-1112, 2023 WL 6558399 (U.S. Oct. 10, 2023); Gripum, LLC v. FDA, 47 F.4th 553 (7th Cir. 2022) (unanimous denial), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 2458 (2023); Lotus Vaping Techs., LLC v. FDA, 73 F.4th 657 (9th Cir. 2023) (unanimous denial); Prohibition Juice, 45 F.4th 8 (unanimous denial); see also Breeze Smoke, LLC v. FDA, 18 F.4th 499 (6th Cir. 2021) (denying motion for stay), app. for stay denied, 142 S. Ct. 638 (2021).  The only circuit that granted a petition for review in a comparable context did so on much narrower grounds than the majority opinion embraces today.  See Bidi Vapor, 47 F.4th at 1195 (remanding based on the FDA’s failure to consider marketing and sales-access-restriction plans); but see id. at 1208–18 (Rosenbaum, J., dissenting).  Despite the Eleventh Circuit’s opinion, however, it is telling that the Supreme Court recently denied certiorari for two cases in which other circuits considered similar facts to those before us and denied the petition for review.  See Gripum, LLC v. FDA, 143 S. Ct. 2458 (2023) (mem.); Avail Vapor, LLC v. FDA, No. 22-1112, 2023 WL 6558399 (U.S. Oct. 10, 2023) (mem.); see also Breeze Smoke, LLC v. FDA, 142 S. Ct. 638 (2021) (mem.) (denying application for stay of FDA’s denial, without any recorded dissent). 

Reevaluating this case en banc, I would reach the same determination that the merits panel did and deny the petitions for review before us.

I concur.