FIL D ?

OURT OF APPEALS DIVISION 11 2013 JUL — AN 9 05 Z IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE SON STAT§ qt F4 T DIVISION II aY .

MULTICARE d/ a b / MARY BRIDGE No. 42567 0 II - - CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, I Appellant, V. ORDER AMENDING OPINION AND DENYING MOTION FOR STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT RECONSIDERATION OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES,

The published opinion in this case was filed on January 29, 2013. This opinion is hereby amended as follows:

Footnote 6 on page 8 that reads: We have found one case analyzing this issue, and it supports our conclusion, Michael Reese Hosp. V. State, 44 I11 ct. Cl. 61, 1.92 WL 12147804 (1992).That court concluded that when a patient incurs expenses that exceed the spenddown, but the negotiated rate is less than the spenddown, the patient owes the hospital the negotiated_ and the State_ rate_ owes the hospital nothing Rees Hosp., at * 3.

2 -

is deleted. The following language is inserted in its place: We have found one case analyzing this issue, and it supports our conclusion, Michael Reese Hosp. V. State, 44 Ill ct. Cl. 61, 1992 WL 12147804 (1992).That court concluded that when a patient incurs expenses that exceed the spenddown, but the negotiated rate is less than the spenddown, the patient owes the hospital the negotiated rate and the State owes the hospital nothing. Michael Rees Hosp., - at * 3. Although Illinois, unlike Washington, is a § 209( ) b state, this case is still instructive. Section 209( )status affects income requirements for Medicaid b eligibility, it does not exempt participating states from the federal spenddown requirements at issue here. See Schweiker v. Gray Panthers, 453 U. . 34, 38 39 S - n. (1981) (States 5 " exercising the § 209( )option were required to adopt a b spend down' provision. "); Michael Reese Hosp. at * 1 (citing 42 C. . § - R. F 435. 31). " 42567 0 II - -

We further order that Appellant's Motion for Reconsideration filed on February 8, 2013 is denied.

2013.

Q DATED this ,, day of ,

We concur:

Quinn - Brintnall, J.

ohnson, A. .

J.

C