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
Tag Archives: supreme court
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
The False Claims Act (“FCA”) is a Federal statute originally enacted in 1863 as a response to fraud from defense contractors during the American Civil War. Under the FCA (31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 – 3733), it is a crime for any person to knowingly submit false or fraudulent claims for payment to the United States government. Those who violate the FCA are liable for treble damages plus a per-claim monetary penalty (calculated to align with inflation). … 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
UPDATED 2.25.2020 to reflect decision in Wolf v. Cook County, Illinois
Last summer, we wrote about the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) public charge rule. As a reminder, that rule added some definition to the grounds of inadmissibility to the United States because of the likelihood that an applicant for an immigration benefit – such as a green card applicant or an individual seeking a visa to enter the United States – is likely to become a “public charge.” We’re interested in that here at the Medicaid and the Law Blog because one of the factors that the final regulation would consider is whether the applicant has ever used Medicaid in the past or was likely to do so.… 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.
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