1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |CMS Guidance Bars Providers from Seeking Payment Over Medicare Rates from Secondary Payors

CMS Guidance Bars Providers from Seeking Payment Over Medicare Rates from Secondary Payors

Client Alert | 2 min read | 11.21.05

By Felicia Schweitzer & Robert Roth

Unpublicized guidance from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) in a September 10, 2004 memorandum clarifies CMS' policy on health care providers' ability to seek amounts in excess of Medicare specified amounts from insurers under contract with the provider that are secondary to Medicare. In a reversal of previous guidance provided by CMS staff in February 2002, CMS stated that providers who participate in the Medicare program are prohibited from billing secondary insurers for the remainder of the provider's charges up to the secondary insurer's allowable amount for items and services for which the beneficiary is entitled to have Medicare make primary payment, regardless of the terms of the provider's contract with the secondary insurer.

In its previous February 2002 guidance, CMS staff drew a distinction between physicians and other Medicare “suppliers” – who may not charge secondary payors amounts in excess of those specified by Medicare – and hospitals and others defined as “providers” under the Medicare law, who, CMS staff previously opined, were permitted to seek such additional payments under certain circumstances. Specifically, CMS staff previously advised Crowell & Moring that while providers of services are prohibited from charging a beneficiary more than the applicable deductible and coinsurance amounts for a Medicare-covered service, “Medicare law and regulations do not prohibit providers from collecting more than the applicable deductible and coinsurance amounts for a Medicare-covered service from a beneficiary's private retiree GHP coverage (which is secondary to Medicare) provided that the provider does not attempt to collect from the beneficiary any amounts that exceed the applicable deductible and coinsurance amounts.” The September 2004 memo rejects this position.

The September 10, 2004 CMS memorandum states that under section 1866(a)(1)(A) of the Social Security Act, providers, such as hospitals, who participate in Medicare are prohibited from charging any individual or “any other person” for items or services for which such individual is entitled to have payment made by Medicare. CMS interprets the term “any other person” to include secondary insurers, stating that this reading is consistent with the purpose of the Medicare law to protect Medicare beneficiaries from “being burdened with charges, either directly or indirectly, beyond what Medicare has agreed to pay.” CMS states that if providers were permitted to bill their charges to a secondary insurer, beneficiaries could be burdened by increased secondary insurance premiums. Therefore, the CMS policy provides that providers are prohibited from billing a secondary insurer for covered services, except for Medicare deductible and coinsurance amounts.

CMS staff confirms that participating providers may charge beneficiaries' private health plans for deductible and coinsurance amounts and clarifies that providers generally may charge beneficiaries' health plans for services that are not covered by Medicare, such as the cost of private hospital room covered by a private health plan but not Medicare.

Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.21.25

A Sign of What’s to Come? Court Dismisses FCA Retaliation Complaint Based on Alleged Discriminatory Use of Federal Funding

On November 7, 2025, in Thornton v. National Academy of Sciences, No. 25-cv-2155, 2025 WL 3123732 (D.D.C. Nov. 7, 2025), the District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a False Claims Act (FCA) retaliation complaint on the basis that the plaintiff’s allegations that he was fired after blowing the whistle on purported illegally discriminatory use of federal funding was not sufficient to support his FCA claim. This case appears to be one of the first filed, and subsequently dismissed, following Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s announcement of the creation of the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative on May 19, 2025, which “strongly encourages” private individuals to file lawsuits under the FCA relating to purportedly discriminatory and illegal use of federal funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in violation of Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (Jan. 21, 2025). In this case, the court dismissed the FCA retaliation claim and rejected the argument that an organization could violate the FCA merely by “engaging in discriminatory conduct while conducting a federally funded study.” The analysis in Thornton could be a sign of how forthcoming arguments of retaliation based on reporting allegedly fraudulent DEI activity will be analyzed in the future....