1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Court of Federal Claims Grants Summary Judgment on Affordable Care Act "CSR" Litigation

Court of Federal Claims Grants Summary Judgment on Affordable Care Act "CSR" Litigation

Client Alert | 1 min read | 09.05.18

In Montana Health Co-Op v. U.S. (September 4, 2018), an important decision likely to reverberate throughout the health insurance industry, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims granted summary judgment in favor of C&M client Montana Health in a lawsuit seeking to recover "cost-sharing reduction" (CSR) payments pursuant to §1402 of the Affordable Care Act, deciding on the merits that: (i) Section 1402 of the ACA is money-mandating, (ii) Montana Health is entitled to full payments owed to it under the statutory formula set forth in the ACA, and (iii) the federal government has a statutory obligation to provide Montana Health with the CSR payments notwithstanding the purported lack of appropriations to fund such payments. The Court agreed with Montana Health that the obligation to make payment under a money-mandating statute is distinct from the appropriation used to fund it, and that the lack of an appropriation merely restricts the Government’s agents (here, HHS), but does not negate the United States’ statutory payment obligation. The Montana Health decision is a significant decision in COFC money-mandating statute jurisprudence.

Insights

Client Alert | 4 min read | 10.30.26

Two Wrongs Don’t Make a Right: GAO Sustains Protest Where Agency Tried to Fix PIA Violation with a Second PIA Violation

Recent sustain decisions by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) in Fluor Federal Solutions, LLC and Reliance Test & Technology send a clear message: when an agency tries to fix a Procurement Integrity Act (PIA) violation by committing a second one, the cure can be just as fatal as the disease. The cases involved the U.S. Air Force’s $1.8 billion procurement for O&M services at Elgin Air Force Base. During discussions, the Air Force inadvertently released a pricing overview slide with all offerors’ bottom-line evaluated costs to Reliance Test & Technology, which immediately notified the agency of the error. In response, the Air Force decided to level the playing field by providing the same information to all the other offerors in the procurement, stating, “[o]fferors may consider this disclosure in their [final proposal revision].”...