* Multicare Health System D/b/a Mary Bridge Children's Hospital, Appellant V Dshs, Respondent

NOTICE: SLIP OPINION
(not the court’s final written decision)
The opinion that begins on the next page is a slip opinion. Slip opinions are the
written opinions that are originally filed by the court.
A slip opinion is not necessarily the court’s final written decision. Slip opinions
can be changed by subsequent court orders. For example, a court may issue an
order making substantive changes to a slip opinion or publishing for precedential
purposes a previously “unpublished” opinion. Additionally, nonsubstantive edits
(for style, grammar, citation, format, punctuation, etc.) are made before the
opinions that have precedential value are published in the official reports of court
decisions: the Washington Reports 2d and the Washington Appellate Reports. An
opinion in the official reports replaces the slip opinion as the official opinion of
the court.
The slip opinion that begins on the next page is for a published opinion, and it
has since been revised for publication in the printed official reports. The official
text of the court’s opinion is found in the advance sheets and the bound volumes
of the official reports. Also, an electronic version (intended to mirror the
language found in the official reports) of the revised opinion can be found, free of
charge, at this website: https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports.
For more information about precedential (published) opinions, nonprecedential
(unpublished) opinions, slip opinions, and the official reports, see
https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions and the information that is linked there.

FIL ?	D
OURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION 11
2013 JUL —	Z AN 9 05
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STAT§	Tqt F4 SON
DIVISION II aY .
MULTICARE d/b /a MARY BRIDGE
I No. 42567 -0 -	II
CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL,
Appellant,
V.
STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT
OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES,
ORDER AMENDING OPINION AND
DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
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, 1.992 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 Rees Hosp.,
at *2 -	3.
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 *2 -	3. Although Illinois, unlike Washington, is a § 209(b)state, this case is still
instructive. Section 209(b)status affects income requirements for Medicaid
eligibility, it does not exempt participating states from the federal spenddown
requirements at issue here. See Schweiker v. Gray Panthers, 453 U.S. 34, 38 -39
n.5 (1981) ( "	States exercising the § 209(b)option were required to adopt a
spend -down' provision. "); Michael Reese Hosp. at * 1 (citing 42 C.F.	R. §
435.831). "
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

42567 -0 -	II
We further order that Appellant's Motion for Reconsideration filed on February 8,
2013 is denied.
DATED this ,,
Q day of , 2013.
We concur:
Quinn -Brintnall, J.
ohnson, A.C.	J.
2