Georgetown University Hospital v. Bowen’s Empirical Analysis
862 F.2d 323 · 1988
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 6 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently March 2008 · most notably County of Los Angeles v. Shalala (1999), Methodist Hospital v. Shalala (1994)
22 federal appellate · 6 district ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1395F (§ 1814 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1395H (§ 1816 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1395O (§ 1836 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1395W (§ 1844 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 5 U.S.C. § 706
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Gregory Lumber Co. v. United States · Mart Corporation v. Cartier Inc 47th Street Photo Inc · Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System v. Dimension Financial Corp. · Transcontinental & Western Air, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he real linchpin of the [PPS] system may not be that the exact reimbursement figure is known in advance, but rather may be that the hospital knows that nothing it does in providing services will lead to a higher reimbursement level_ The incentives faced by hospitals to keep costs down under PPS should therefore remain unaffected by the government’s willingness to make the [retroactive] adjustments at issue here: so long as payments are not tied to hospitals’ behavior while PPS is in effect, the government sends no message that profligacy will result in larger payments.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[W]e note that when the PPS statute instructs the Secretary to determine “allowable operating costs per discharge” under the new prospective payment methodology, see 42 U.S.C. § 1395ww(d)(2)(A), it invokes an entirely different sense of the term: costs that are allowable under the new system may not be subject to subsequent retrospective revision, but that certainly does not mean that the same must be true when the statute refers to costs that were “allowable” under an entirely different payment methodology.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“to minimize disruptions that might otherwise occur because of a sudden change in reimbursement policy.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.