The amici brief
ACOG joined 40 other health-related organizations in filing an amici brief (multiple “friends”) in Students for Fair Admission. The AAMC led the brief, with the others signing as amici.4 The brief made 3 essential points: diversity in medical education “markedly improves health outcomes,” and a loss of diversity “threaten[s] patients’ health; medical schools engage in an intense “holistic” review of applicants for admission; and medical schools must consider applicants’ “full background” (including race) to achieve their educational and professional goals.4
A powerful part of the brief described the medical school admissions process, particularly the very “holistic” review that is not entirely dependent on admissions scores. The brief effectively weaves the consideration of race into this process, mentioning race (on page 22) only after discussing many other admissions factors.
Child custody decisions related to the Indian Child Welfare Act
The case: Haaland v Brackeen
The American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Academy of Pediatrics filed a brief in Haaland v Brackeen5 involving the constitutionality of the 1978 Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). The statute followed a terrible history of Indian children being removed from their families inappropriately, as detailed in a concurring opinion by Justice Gorsuch.5 The two purposes of the act were to promote raising Native American children in their culture and stem the downward trend in tribal membership.
The legal claim. The Court consolidated several cases. Essentially, a 10-month-old child (A.L.M.) was placed in foster care with the Brackeens in Texas. After more than 1 year, the Brackeens sought adoption; the biological father, mother, and grandparents all supported it. The Navajo and Cherokee Nations objected and informed the Texas court that they had found alternative placement with (nonrelative) tribal members in New Mexico. The “court-appointed guardian and a psychological expert … described the strong emotional bond between A.L.M. and his foster parents.” The court denied the adoption petition based on ICWA’s preference for tribe custody, and the Brackeens filed a lawsuit. The Court noted that the act “requires a state court to place an Indian child with an Indian caretaker, if one is available, even if the child is already living with a non-Indian family and the state court thinks it in the child’s best interest to stay there.” That is, the ICWA may require a placement that the court believes is not in the child’s best interest.5
Decision. The constitutional claim in the case was that Congress lacked the authority to impose these substantial rules on states in making child custody decisions. The Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, upheld the constitutionality of the ICWA. The Court found the authority primarily in Article 1, Section 8, giving Congress the power to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” In addition, the Court suggested that the treaty power and “principles inherent in the Constitution’s structure may empower Congress to act in the field of Indian affairs.”
The amici brief
The joint amici brief of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the AMA argued that tribes are “extended families” of Native American children.6 It noted the destructive history of removing Native American children from their families and suggested that kinship care improves children’s health. To its credit, the brief also honestly noted the serious mental health and suicide rates in some tribes, which suggest issues that might arise in child custody and adoption cases.
The Court did not, in this case, take up another constitutional issue that the parties raised—whether the strong preference for Native American over non ̶ Native American custody violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The Court said the parties to this case did not have standing to raise the issue. Justice Kavanaugh, concurring, said it was a “serious” issue and invited it to be raised in another case.5
False Claims Act cases
The case: Costs for SuperValu prescriptions
For physicians and health care organizations, False Claims Act (FCA) cases are an ongoing burden and, some would say, threat. (There are also state FCAs, but here we are discussing the federal act.) The federal government has recovered more than $70 billion since 1986, most from health care entities.7 The Justice Department identifies “health care fraud” as the largest area of FCA recovery and provides annual details on frauds resulting in liability.8
The legal claim. One FCA case this Term involved billings SuperValu made for outpatient prescriptions in Medicare-Medicaid programs. As its “usual and customary” costs, it essentially reported a list price that did not include the substantial discounts it commonly gave.9 The charge was that it “knowingly” made a false claim regarding the price of prescriptions. The question was what state of mind, or “scienter,” is required for “knowingly.” Should it be objective (what a reasonable person would know) or subjective (the defendant’s “knowledge and subjective beliefs”)?
Background. Subjective knowledge (what the defendant actually knows) may seem impossible to prove—the defendant could just say, “I did not know I was doing wrong.” Over time the law has developed several ways of demonstrating “knowing.” Justice Thomas, writing for a unanimous Court, held that whistleblowers or the government might prove “knowing” in 3 ways:
1. defendants “actually knew that their reported prices were not their ‘usual and customary’ prices when they reported them”
2. were aware of a substantial risk that their higher, retail prices were not their “usual and customary” prices and intentionally avoided learning whether their reports were accurate
3. were aware of such a substantial and unjustifiable risk but submitted the claims anyway.9
Of course, records of the company, information from the whistleblower, and circumstantial evidence may be used to prove any of these; it does not require the company’s admission.
The Court said that if the government or whistleblowers make a showing of any of these 3 things, it is enough.
Decision. The case was returned to the lower court to apply these rules.
The amici brief
The American Hospital Association and America’s Health Insurance Plans filed an amici brief.10 It reminded the Court that many reimbursement regulations are unclear. Therefore, it is inappropriate to impose FCA liability for guessing incorrectly what the regulations mean. Having to check on every possible ambiguity was unworkable. The Court declined, however, the suggestion that defendants should be able to use any one of many “objectively” reasonable interpretations of regulations.
Continue to: The case: Polansky v Executive Health Resources...