In re N. Cypress Med. Ctr. Operating Co.

559 S.W.3d 128
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedApril 27, 2018
DocketNo. 16–0851
StatusPublished
Cited by80 cases

This text of 559 S.W.3d 128 (In re N. Cypress Med. Ctr. Operating Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re N. Cypress Med. Ctr. Operating Co., 559 S.W.3d 128 (Tex. 2018).

Opinion

1 Ante at 131 (quoting Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.3(a) ).

2 Ante at 135.

3 Ante at 135.

4 Ante at 135.

5 Ante at 135.

6 Ante at 135.

7 532 S.W.3d 794, 812-813 (Tex. 2017) (orig. proceeding).

8 Id. at 813.

9 356 S.W.3d 390, 391 (Tex. 2011).

10 Id. at 393 & n.13.

11 Id. at 393 ; Keith T. Peters, What Have We Here? The Need for Transparent Pricing and Quality Information in Health Care: Creation of an SEC for Health Care , 10 J. Health Care L. & Pol'y 363, 366 (2007).

12 Haygood , 356 S.W.3d at 393.

13 See George A. Nation III, Determining the Fair and Reasonable Value of Medical Services: The Affordable Care Act, Government Insurers, Private Insurers and Uninsured Patients , 65 Baylor L. Rev. 425, 459 (2013) ("There is a significant body of research suggesting that the reimbursement[ ] rates paid by government insurers such as Medicare and Medicaid are actually below fully allocated cost for most hospitals."); Peters, supra note 11 at 367 ("Medicare's reimbursement rates do not typically cover the actual cost of providing health care to a hospital's patients.").

14 Haygood , 356 S.W.3d at 393.

15 See George A. Nation, III, Obscene Contracts: The Doctrine of Unconscionability and Hospital Billing of the Uninsured , 94 KY. L.J. 101, 104 (2005-2006) (stating that a hospital's list prices "are generally at least double and may be up to eight times what the hospital would accept as payment in full for the same services" from a private or governmental insurer), cited in Haygood , 356 S.W.3d at 393 n.17.

16 Haygood , 356 S.W.3d at 394.

17 Id. n.20.

18 Id. at 393 n.14.

19 Of course, a healthcare provider is free to charge whatever it chooses for its services, whether reasonable or not, just as any service provider can, and the consumer is free to choose another healthcare provider that charges less. But patients are not usually in a position to investigate and compare different hospitals' charges, and obviously they cannot do so when they present to the emergency room. Amici curiae Christus Health and Texas Health Resources argue that not all charges secured by a lien under the Hospital Lien Act need be reasonable. They point out that a lien can include only reasonable and necessary charges for a physician's emergency hospital care, Tex. Prop. Code § 55.004(c), and does not cover charges for emergency medical services or other services that exceed a reasonable and regular rate, id. § 55.004(d)(1), (g)(1), but otherwise "[a] hospital lien ... is for the amount of the hospital's charges for services provided", id. § 55.004(b). But see Daughters of Charity Health Servs. v. Linnstaedter , 226 S.W.3d 409, 411 (Tex. 2007) (stating that "[t]he lien amount cannot be more than 'a reasonable and regular rate' " (quoting § 55.004(d)(1) ) ); Bashara v. Baptist Mem'l Hosp. Sys. , 685 S.W.2d 307, 309 (Tex. 1985) (stating that "the statute ... is replete with language that the hospital recover the full amount of its lien, subject only to the right to question the reasonableness of the charges comprising the lien"). North Cypress does not argue that it can charge Roberts unreasonable prices for the services it provided her. Rather, it argues that its charges to her were reasonable.

20 See 356 S.W.3d at 395 ("An adjustment in the amount of [a provider's full] charges to arrive at the amount owed is a benefit to the insurer, one it obtains from the provider for itself, not for the insured.").

21 532 S.W.3d 794, 799-800, 809 (Tex. 2017) (orig. proceeding).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Vega v. Ross Stores Inc.
E.D. Texas, 2025
In Re Eric Reyna v. the State of Texas
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2024
Vancleave v. Linquist
E.D. Texas, 2024
In Re Madison Miller v. the State of Texas
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2024
in Re Jenny Curb, Relator
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2023
in Stephen Patrick Black, Relator
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2022

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
559 S.W.3d 128, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-n-cypress-med-ctr-operating-co-tex-2018.