On the morning of November 8, while many Americans were still casting their votes and getting ready for Election Night parties, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for Health & Hospital Corporation of Marion County v. Talevski. At issue in Talevski is whether a Medicaid beneficiary can file a “Section 1983” civil rights suit in federal court to seek relief for violation of the 1987 Federal Nursing Home Reform Act (FNHRA).… More
Category Archives: Supreme Court Decisions
This week’s news that Justice Stephen Breyer would step down from the Supreme Court at the conclusion of the Court’s term definitely caught our attention here at the Medicaid and the Law Blog. Our view is that Justice Breyer – who, for whatever reason, did not get a significant amount of attention from the mainstream media – had a monumental influence on the American health care system,… More
Over the summer, my colleague Tom Barker discussed how the Supreme Court was planning to hear several health care cases during the October 2021 term. Last week, the Court heard oral arguments for two noted cases: during Monday’s (November 29) arguments for Becerra v. Empire Health Foundation, the Court was asked to decide if the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) gives HHS authority to interpret the Medicare statute and recalculate payments made to disproportionate share hospitals (DSH);… More
Recently, my colleague Regina DeSantis told you about the ongoing saga involving disputes between 340B contract pharmacies and pharmaceutical manufacturers. We often write about the 340B program on our blog because of the link between that program and the Medicaid prescription drug rebate program.
Well, we’re doing it again: this time, because the U.S. Supreme Court just announced that it’s going to hear a dispute between some hospitals (340B covered entities) and CMS in the Court’s next term that starts in October. … More
On March 11, the Supreme Court removed the dispute over Medicaid work requirements, which was previously scheduled for March 29, from its argument calendar. It is worth noting that the Court did not issue a ruling with its cancellation notification.
A few years ago, we told you about the “ongoing saga” surrounding the ability of a Medicaid beneficiary or a provider of health care services to a Medicaid beneficiary to challenge a state Medicaid agency’s putative violation of a requirement of the Medicaid program. For example, section 1902(a)(8) of the Social Security Act says that a state Medicaid agency must provide Medicaid benefits “with reasonable promptness to all eligible individuals.” Well,… More
On December 4, 2020, the Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments to decide the legality of the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS’s) authorization for states to incorporate work requirements into their Medicaid programs. The consolidated cases, Azar v. Gresham and Arkansas v. Gresham, challenge the legality of work requirements in two states’ Medicaid programs—Arkansas and New Hampshire. On January 19,… More
The United States Supreme Court will have the opportunity to hear an important case out of Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affecting how states pay community health centers for Medicaid beneficiaries enrolled in a managed care plan. Community health centers represent the largest primary health care safety net for the nation’s poorest urban and rural communities.
Our readers may remember our discussion of the ongoing saga surrounding enforcement of the entitlement to Medicaid. We have covered it several times before (here and here) on this blog. Aside from discussing the topic because it allows us to flex our legal muscle with italicized case names, we also believe it’s critical for our readers to understand how Medicaid entitlement has evolved over time. … More
My colleague Tom Barker and (my former boss) Professor Sara Rosenbaum just finished a series of back-to-back sessions on enforcing the Medicaid entitlement – the sessions were entertaining and engaging for all involved. We have written about this topic previously – notably here and here. Tom and Sara’s excellent slide deck can be viewed here:
On March 31, the United States Supreme Court concluded, in a long-awaited decision, that the alleged failure of a state Medicaid plan to comply with the provisions of the federal Medicaid Act is not enforceable in the federal courts by alleging that the state plan has been adopted in violation of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause. Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center. The decision, while relatively narrow, (more on that in a bit) does seem to largely foreclose federal judicial enforcement of the requirements of the Medicaid statute against the states.… More
Could the same “state’s rights” argument that struck down the Medicaid expansion, save the subsidies?
To completely ignore the Supreme Court’s oral arguments last week in King v. Burwell would be a disservice to you, our readers. Even though this is a Medicaid blog, in a post-ACA world is it increasingly difficult to separate out the individual pieces of our insurance system. The ACA (at least in how it was designed) was intended to create a continuum of coverage: Medicaid for the lowest income Americans,… More
The Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments this morning in Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, Inc., an appeal from a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that tees up a major question of federalism in the Medicaid program: can a Medicaid provider (or beneficiary) use the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution to enforce a provision of the Medicaid statute against a state where the Congress chose not to create enforceable rights under that statute.… More