Tag Archives: supreme court

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

The Supreme Court has announced that it will consider a case next term that has the potential to upend several decades of jurisprudence involving the Medicaid program.  It involves a complicated area of the law, and in writing about this topic in the past, we have described the developments in this area of the law as a “saga.”  In granting review in the case of Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County v.… More

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

The False Claims Act (“FCA”) is a Federal statute originally enacted in 1863 as a response to fraud from defense contractors during the American Civil War.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.

Recall how the High Court granted certiorari to Azar v. Gresham and Arkansas v. Gresham on December 4, 2020. … More

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