On October 15, the California Hospital Association (CHA) filed a petition against the California Office of Health Care Affordability (OHCA) and related entities. The petition challenges the imposition of stringent cost targets on hospitals across California, arguing that these targets are arbitrary, capricious, and not based on comprehensive data analysis. CHA contends that the cost targets violate both state and federal laws, including the Takings and Due Process Clauses of the U.S. Constitution, by being confiscatory and lacking a clear methodology for compliance. Furthermore, the petition asserts that OHCA’s actions were prematurely implemented without adequate stakeholder engagement, potentially leading to significant operational disruptions and threatening the quality and accessibility of health care services.

Background

The CHA represents approximately 400 hospitals and health systems in California, advocating for their ability to provide high-quality, accessible, and equitable health care. The petition challenges OHCA’s actions, which include setting a statewide cost target and specific targets for hospitals deemed “high-cost.” These targets are designed to limit the annual increase in hospital revenues, a move that CHA argues could severely impact hospital operations and patient care.

Key Concerns Raised by CHA

  1. Arbitrary Cost Targets: CHA contends that the cost targets set by OHCA are arbitrary and not based on comprehensive data analysis. The targets — capping revenue increases at 3.5% for most hospitals and 1.8% for high-cost hospitals — are seen as unrealistic given the rising costs of labor, technology, and compliance with state and federal mandates. 
  2. Impact on Hospital Operations: The petition highlights the potential for significant operational disruptions, including layoffs and service reductions. CHA estimates that these cost targets could lead to the loss of approximately 40,000 jobs and the closure of essential services like emergency rooms and maternity care. 
  3. Legal and Constitutional Challenges: CHA argues that OHCA’s actions violate both state and federal laws, including the Takings and Due Process Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. The petition claims that the cost targets are confiscatory and lack a clear methodology for compliance, creating uncertainty and potential legal liabilities for hospitals. 
  4. Premature Implementation: According to CHA, OHCA has rushed the implementation of these cost targets without adequate stakeholder engagement or consideration of the broader implications on health care access and quality. 

Our Take

This lawsuit underscores a critical tension between regulatory efforts to control health care costs and the operational realities faced by hospitals. For example, the CHA pointed out that recent federal legislation is expected to reduce payments to hospitals under the Medicaid program. This reduction, coupled with increased uncompensated care costs, exacerbates the financial strain on hospitals, making the cost targets even more challenging to meet. The CHA contends that its input and that of its members were largely ignored during the decision-making process. We will continue to monitor this litigation and update on any significant developments.

Photo of Virginia Bell Flynn Virginia Bell Flynn

Virginia is a partner in the firm’s Consumer Financial Services practice and specifically within the Financial Services Litigation practice. She represents clients in federal and state court, both at the trial and appellate level in the areas of complex litigation and business disputes…

Virginia is a partner in the firm’s Consumer Financial Services practice and specifically within the Financial Services Litigation practice. She represents clients in federal and state court, both at the trial and appellate level in the areas of complex litigation and business disputes, health care litigation, including ERISA and out-of-network issues, and consumer litigation in over 21 states nationwide. As a result of new legal developments, she increasingly counsels clients to ensure they comply with the myriad of growing laws in the consumer law with a particular emphasis on the intersection of TCPA and HIPAA.

Photo of Chad R. Fuller Chad R. Fuller

Chad is a partner in the firm’s Consumer Financial Services practice with a primary focus in financial services litigation. He is an accomplished trial attorney who has served as lead counsel in state and federal courts across the country in which he represents…

Chad is a partner in the firm’s Consumer Financial Services practice with a primary focus in financial services litigation. He is an accomplished trial attorney who has served as lead counsel in state and federal courts across the country in which he represents clients in consumer class actions and general business litigation. Chad has particular speciality with the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and has also broadened his practice into more traditional areas of health care litigation.

Photo of Jessamyn Vedro Jessamyn Vedro

Jessamyn is a partner in the firm’s Consumer Financial Services practice, based in Los Angeles. She focuses her practice on the health insurance and managed health care sectors. Jessamyn represents major health plans and insurers in complex litigation in both state and federal…

Jessamyn is a partner in the firm’s Consumer Financial Services practice, based in Los Angeles. She focuses her practice on the health insurance and managed health care sectors. Jessamyn represents major health plans and insurers in complex litigation in both state and federal courts, including actions for breach of contract, bad faith denial of benefits, ERISA benefits, and unfair competition, among others, with particular emphasis on out-of-network provider reimbursement disputes.