PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated cases, eight New Jersey hospitals appeal from final determinations of the Commissioner of Health (Commissioner), who dismissed on jurisdictional grounds their constitutional challenges to the statutory mandate that they provide care to all persons regardless of their ability to pay and the source of payment, and the alleged inadequate State subsidies for providing such care. We affirm.
The New Jersey Health Care Cost Reduction Act (the Act),
Each year, the State appropriates an amount for the charity care subsidies and the Department of Health (DOH) determines the amount of charity care subsidies that eligible hospitals will receive, using the formula prescribed by law.
For fiscal year 2014, the Legislature appropriated $675,000,000 for the charity care subsidies, and in July 2013, the DOH informed hospitals of the subsidy allocations for that fiscal year. Thereafter, Englewood Medical Center (Englewood) filed an administrative appeal with the DOH.
On October 11, 2013, the Commissioner issued a decision on Englewood's appeal. The Commissioner noted that Englewood was not challenging the manner in which its charity care subsidy had been calculated. Instead, Englewood was asserting that the statutory requirement that it provide charity care and the alleged inadequate charity care subsidy constituted an unconstitutional taking of its property.
The Commissioner noted that Englewood claimed projected losses of $17,191,691 for providing charity care in the 2014 fiscal year. The Commissioner decided that the DOH lacked jurisdiction to address Englewood's constitutional claim, and stated that Englewood should raise that claim directly in this court. Englewood thereafter filed a notice of appeal from the Commissioner's decision.
For fiscal year 2015, the Legislature appropriated $650,000,000 for charity care subsidies, and in July 2014, the DOH informed the hospitals of the charity care subsidy allocations. Eight hospitals filed administrative appeals: Englewood; Hoboken University Medical Center (Hoboken); Palisades Medical Center (Palisades); JFK Medical Center (JFK); Capital Health System — Regional Medical Center (Regional); Capital Health Medical Center — Hopewell (Hopewell); Our Lady of Lourdes Medical Center — Camden (Lourdes); and Lourdes Medical
Center of Burlington County (Lourdes-Burlington). In their appeals, the hospitals noted that they could not yet determine the actual cost of providing charity care in fiscal year 2015. They estimated their charity care costs for the fiscal year based upon data from calendar years 2012 and 2013, and the cost methodology that the State uses for general Medicaid reimbursement.
The hospitals estimated that they would sustain the following losses in providing charity care:
On October 3, 2014, the Commissioner issued decisions on the eight appeals. The Commissioner noted that the hospitals had not challenged the manner in which their charity care subsidies had been calculated. Rather, the hospitals claimed that the statutory obligation to provide charity care and the alleged inadequate subsidies constituted unconstitutional takings of their property without just compensation. The Commissioner determined that the DOH lacked jurisdiction to address the hospital's constitutional claims, and again stated that the hospitals should raise these claims directly in this court. The hospitals' appeals followed.
In their appeals, the hospitals do not challenge the Commissioner's determination that the DOH lacked jurisdiction to consider their constitutional claims.
We note that "[a]dministrative agencies have [the] power to pass on constitutional issues only where relevant and necessary to the resolution of a question concededly within their jurisdiction."
The DOH has jurisdiction to consider challenges to the manner in which the hospitals' charity care subsidies are calculated, based on some computational error or other reason. The DOH does not, however, have authority to declare the statutory requirement that they provide charity care and the related subsidies unconstitutional.
Furthermore, the DOH does not have authority to grant relief to address the alleged constitutional violations. The DOH cannot relieve the hospitals of their statutory obligation to provide care to all persons regardless of their ability to pay, and it cannot provide the hospitals with charity care subsidies greater than those appropriated by the Legislature.
We therefore conclude that the Commissioner correctly determined that the DOH does not have jurisdiction to address the constitutional claims presented by the hospitals in their administrative appeals.
The hospitals argue that the statutory mandate to provide charity care and the related subsidies result in unconstitutional takings of their property without just compensation. We do not have jurisdiction to consider these claims.
Here, the Commissioner did not make any decision on the hospitals' constitutional claims. Furthermore, the hospitals did not assert these claims in the Superior Court, and there is no trial court judgment addressing them. Thus, the hospitals' constitutional claims do not fall within this court's jurisdiction under
Moreover, the hospitals' claims are not appropriate for the exercise of our original jurisdiction.
In addition, an appellate court should not exercise its original jurisdiction when fact-finding is required.
Both the United States Constitution and the New Jersey Constitution protect against government takings of private property "without just compensation."
The Supreme Court of the United States has identified two types of regulatory action that are generally deemed per se takings.
The hospitals claim they have suffered a per se taking of their real and personal property. They rely upon
The hospitals also rely upon
In further support of their claims, the hospitals rely upon
Here, the hospitals allege that the charity care mandate effectively appropriates their real and personal property for public use. The hospitals claim the appropriation of their property is "extremely broad" and "not limited in duration or quantity." The hospitals further claim that although their facilities and personal property may not be permanently occupied by any specific charity care patient, the requirement that charity care patients have continuing access to their real and personal property is sufficient to constitute a taking.
We are convinced, however, that the record is insufficient to resolve the hospitals' claims. We note that the hospitals have been provided with subsidies for providing care to charity care patients, although they insist that the subsidies are inadequate. Thus, the hospitals' reliance upon cases in which the government appropriated property without any compensation is misplaced.
Moreover, there is no specific evidence in this record concerning the manner and extent to which the facilities and property of each affected hospital have been devoted to the provision of care to charity care patients in the relevant fiscal years. The hospitals assert in conclusory fashion that the appropriation of their property is "extremely broad," but they have not presented the hospital-specific factual bases for that assertion. The hospitals also have not presented any evidence from which it could be determined that they have been deprived of
The hospitals further allege that, even if the charity care mandate and the alleged inadequate charity care subsidies do not result in a per se taking of their property, the mandate and subsidies result in unconstitutional regulatory takings under the analysis in
In
The
Furthermore, in
Instead, the focus must be upon "the character of the action and on the nature and extent of the interference with rights in the parcel as a whole."
The record does not include sufficient facts to allow us to address the
The hospitals also provided no evidence as to the economic impact the charity care mandate and subsidies have had upon their properties and operations as a whole. In addition, the hospitals presented no evidence whatsoever concerning the impact of the statutory mandate and subsidies on their "investment-backed expectations."
Furthermore, the hospitals presented no evidence upon which this court could weigh the character of the government's action and the extent to which the statute and subsidies effect a "physical invasion by government" rather than an adjustment to "the benefits and burdens of economic life [adopted] to promote the common good."
We therefore conclude that the present record is insufficient to warrant the exercise of our original jurisdiction to resolve the hospitals' constitutional claims. We are convinced the hospitals' claims should be raised, in the first instance, by way of complaints filed in the trial court.
Affirmed.