Posted on

Georgia officials seek to postpone limited Medicaid expansion

MM Curator summary

 
 

Georgia HHS officials have asked for a minimum of a 1 month delay to implement their limited Medicaid expansion while they negotiate with a Biden administration hostile to its design.

 
 

The article below has been highlighted and summarized by our research team. It is provided here for member convenience as part of our Curator service.

 
 

 
 

ATLANTA — State health officials are asking the federal government’s permission to delay the implementation date of a limited, Georgia-specific expansion of Medicaid for at least a month.

In a letter dated June 24, state Community Health Commissioner Frank Berry cited a decision during the early weeks of the Biden administration to withhold approval of a Georgia Medicaid waver application then-President Trump’s administration signed off on last year.

Biden’s Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services objected to provisions in the proposed Georgia Pathways program requiring Medicaid recipients to work, attend school or volunteer at least 80 hours a month. CMS officials argued recipients would have a particularly hard time complying with a work requirement during the pandemic.

Berry disagreed with the federal agency position’s in a letter he sent to CMS in March.

“Georgia Pathways provides a wide range of qualifying activities in which individuals can engage,” the commissioner wrote. “Moreover, there is also a temporary ‘good cause’ exception if, after enrolling in Medicaid through Georgia Pathways, an individual or immediate family member experiences a hospitalization or serious illness or needs to quarantine due to COVID exposure.

“If anything, the COVID-19 crisis makes the qualifying hours and activities — which include work, job training, education, or volunteering — more important, not less. CMS must allow this program to begin as planned and authorized.”

With the program set to take effect July 1, Berry’s letter asks for more time while discussions between the state and CMS continue.

Gov. Brian Kemp rolled out the limited Medicaid expansion plan early in 2019 as an alternative to the Affordable Care Act then-President Obama steered through a Democratic Congress in 2010. The General Assembly passed legislation later in 2019 authorizing the governor to submit two waiver applications to the feds.

Besides the Medicaid waiver, a second waiver would substitute a private-sector alternative to the federal government’s healthcare.gov insurance exchange.

CMS is also revisiting that second waiver, which the Trump administration approved last fall. Earlier this month, the agency ordered the state to revisit the data used to justify the new approach, taking into account changes in federal law and policy that have occurred since Biden took office.

 
 

 
 

Clipped from: https://www.news-daily.com/news/state/georgia-officials-seek-to-postpone-limited-medicaid-expansion/article_7d3b2daa-d5dc-515d-85e1-9ef86466ee24.html

Posted on

Judge rules Missouri doesn’t have to implement Medicaid expansion

MM Curator summary

 
 

The judge said the state constitution requires specific funding for voter-approved initiatives.

 
 

The article below has been highlighted and summarized by our research team. It is provided here for member convenience as part of our Curator service.

 
 

A Missouri judge on Wednesday ruled against a lawsuit seeking to force the state to implement Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act, a setback for supporters of expansion.

 
 

© Istock Judge rules Missouri doesn’t have to implement Medicaid expansion

The ruling will be appealed, though, meaning it is not the final word.

 
 

Missouri voters passed a ballot measure last year to expand Medicaid, but GOP Gov. Mike Parson said in May he would drop plans to expand the program after the Republican-controlled legislature declined to provide funding for it.

Supporters of Medicaid expansion sued, seeking to force the state to expand the program starting July 1, which would provide health insurance to about 275,000 low-income people.

Judge Jon Beetem ruled against the lawsuit on Wednesday, writing that the voter-approved ballot measure was actually unconstitutional, since it sought to spend state funds without identifying a funding source, infringing on the legislature’s appropriations power.

“It is unfortunate that, yet again, hundreds of thousands of Missourians will have to wait even longer to access the health care they need,” Dwayne Proctor, CEO of the Missouri Foundation for Health, said in a statement.

Supporters of expansion said they would appeal.

The setback for expansion in Missouri comes as congressional Democrats are exploring ways to go around states and expand the program in the 12 states that have still not accepted expansion.

A federal program to provide coverage in those states could be included in an upcoming legislative package.

 
 

Clipped from: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/judge-rules-missouri-doesnt-have-to-implement-medicaid-expansion/ar-AALmCmp?ocid=BingNewsSearch

Posted on

Texas Democrats propose bill to let local governments expand Medicaid without state consent

MM Curator summary

 
 

A new plan from Dems would allow counties to operate Medicaid programs, get federal matching and force states to let them use state systems.

 
 

The article below has been highlighted and summarized by our research team. It is provided here for member convenience as part of our Curator service.

 
 

 
 

AUSTIN — Local governments would be able to bypass conservative state leaders and implement their own Medicaid expansion programs for working poor Texans with federal funds, under federal legislation announced Monday by U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Austin.

Dubbed the “Cover Outstanding Vulnerable Expansion-Eligible Residents Now Act,” the legislation is a “homegrown solution” to a decade of resistance by a handful of red states to allowing more people who are struggling financially to access the federal health care program, said Doggett, chairman of the House Ways and Means Health Subcommittee and lead sponsor of the bill, which has more than 40 cosponsors.

In Texas, that could be as many as 1 million newly eligible residents — most of them people of color — who currently fall into that gap because they can’t afford private health insurance and can’t qualify for subsidies, but make too much to qualify for Medicaid.

The bill sponsors include all of the Texas congressional Democrats and most Democrats from 12 other states that have refused to expand Medicaid through the Affordable Care Act. It is the first time local governments have been able to directly contract with the federal government for Medicaid funds.

“For many of our most disadvantaged citizens, this bill offers a pathway to access a family physician, necessary medicine, and other essential coverage that thirteen States continue to deny,” Doggett said in a statement. “The COVER Now Act empowers local leaders to assure that the obstructionists at the top can no longer harm the most at-risk living at the bottom.”

The bill allows counties, cities and other political subdivisions to apply directly to the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for funds that were declined by their states, including Texas. States would be required to cooperate and authorize access to state Medicaid systems for those entities, with incentives for cooperation and potential penalties otherwise.

That amounts to 100% federal funding for three years and tapering to 90% federal funding by year seven and beyond, Doggett said.

The bill will be filed later Monday, he said. Other proposals being floated in D.C. include doing the same thing through a federal program or expanding access to the marketplace to lower income people, Doggett said.

“All of these have pros and cons,” he said.

An effort by a bipartisan coalition of state lawmakers to expand Medicaid during the most recent session of the Texas Legislature became mired in conservative opposition and never got a hearing.

Opponents of expanding Medicaid to an estimated 1 million Texans who would qualify under the Affordable Care Act of 2010 argue that the program is poorly managed and financially unsustainable, and that expansion encourages government dependence, delivers poor health outcomes, and crowds out children and people with disabilities who need it the most.

The new federal legislation would further burden a program that is already “a poorly performing program which leaves millions of low-income and disabled Americans without real access to quality care,” said David Balat, director of the Right on Healthcare initiative at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a conservative think tank.

Balat pointed to several measures that were passed by the Texas Legislature this year, and championed by conservative leaders, that are “strong steps” toward helping the uninsured, would serve more people than would be covered by Medicaid expansion, and don’t threaten funding for other services like education and public safety, he said.

Some of those measures included programs that reduce the cost of some prescription drugs, ease continuity of Medicaid coverage for children, require transparency in medical billing, expand availability of telehealth and broadband services, expand Medicaid coverage for new mothers, and increase insurance plan options through small businesses, agricultural nonprofits and associations, among others.

“Putting millions more people into a struggling program will only further hurt current beneficiaries, mostly low-income women and children, the elderly and the disabled, and do nothing to address the existing issues of access to care,” he said. “The bottom line is that this is just an effort by some counties and cities to gain access to federal dollars without actually doing anything to help patients.”

A request for comment from Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, who has resisted calls to expand Medicaid, was not immediately answered on Monday morning.

The death of the state legislation left on the table billions of dollars in federal incentives that supporters said would not only have paid for the expansion but added money to state coffers and lowered costs for hospitals that care for large numbers of uninsured patients.

“The lack of access to health care during COVID killed people. It killed people. It decimated their finances, it drove people deeper into poverty. And we’re not talking about poverty that only impacts immediately family at that given time. I’m talking about generational poverty, and on the border, it is most chronic,” said U.S. Rep. Veronica Escobar, D-El Paso. “We’ve got to stop hoping they [state leaders] will open their hearts and get off the culture war train, and we’ve got to take care of our people.”

Under Doggett’s proposed COVER Now Act, that money would be directly available to local governments through pilot programs approved by CMS without the state’s involvement.

“Health care coverage is as vital to a community as education, roads, or reliable power,” said Tom Banning, CEO of Texas Academy of Family Physicians, which supports the proposed legislation. “Sadly Texas has stubbornly refused federal assistance to expand Medicaid, leaving millions of our fellow Texans to get their health care by waiting in a long line at a free clinic, ignoring a treatable problem, or using the ER when that treatable problem worsens. That isn’t just morally wrong, its economically dumb.”

With more than 5 million of its residents without coverage, Texas has the largest number of uninsured residents in the nation, many of them working adults who can’t afford private or subsidized insurance but don’t qualify for Medicaid because they earn too much.

Roughly 20% of the state’s population lacks health insurance — a number health officials say has grown since more than a million Texans lost jobs and, in many cases, health coverage because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Some 4.2 million people are on Medicaid in Texas — including more than 3 million children. The rest of the recipients are people with disabilities, pregnant women and parents living below 14% of the federal poverty level, or about $300 per month for a family of four.

Adults with no disabilities or dependent children don’t qualify for Medicaid, and the vast majority of children on Medicaid have parents who do not qualify.

The ACA allows states to expand that threshold to 138% of the poverty level, or $3,000 per month for a family of four.

In a University of Texas/Texas Tribune Poll conducted in April, 55% of Texas voters said they support Medicaid expansion, while 26% opposed it and another 20% said they didn’t know or had no opinion. Two recent polls by other groups show that 70% of Texans support Medicaid expansion.

Support local journalism.

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

Clipped from: https://www.itemonline.com/news/local_news/texas-democrats-propose-bill-to-let-local-governments-expand-medicaid-without-state-consent/article_5bf9fa85-45d7-55b7-ba14-e192ea075f55.html

 
 

 
 

Posted on

Democrats are working on a ‘Plan A’ for finally getting full Medicaid expansion

MM Curator summary

A new plan from Dems would bypass the state nature of Medicaid entirely.

The article below has been highlighted and summarized by our research team. It is provided here for member convenience as part of our Curator service.

with Alexandra Ellerbeck

Republicans’ long effort to ditch Obamacare seems finally in the rearview mirror, now that the Supreme Court has thrice upheld it.

The road ahead will look very different for the law, as it enters what many view as a new phase of life.

“The ‘Repeal and Replace’ Era Is Over; The ‘ACA Expansion’ Era Begins,” Chris Condeluci, a health policy consultant, wrote in an email to clients this week.

First up: Medicaid expansion.

Democrats have been devising several different strategies for getting health insurance to people in the “coverage gap” — a population that would have otherwise been eligible for expanded Medicaid except for the fact that their states refused to expand the program. This includes roughly 4.3 million Americans in a dozen states.

Their first approach — incentivizing states to expand by giving them extra federal money to do so — hasn’t seemed to work, at least so far. A second approach rolled out by Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Tex.) is creative but could be logistically difficult to implement and perhaps even impossible under persistent state resistance (we wrote about Doggett’s bill here).

© Sergio Flores/Getty Images Rep. Lloyd Doggett speaks at a rally in Austin. (Sergio Flores/Getty Images)

So Democrats are working on a third approach.

The legislation — which two health policy experts described to me as Democrats’ “Plan A” for Medicaid expansion — is being crafted by staff members on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. 

The main thrust of the pending legislation is to circumvent the GOP-led states still refusing to expand Medicaid, and find a way to get the free or low-cost coverage to people in the coverage gap, who typically earn at or below the federal poverty level. The bill could take two basic routes to get there — and it’s unclear which one staffers have settled on.

  • One approach would be to allow the coverage gap population to buy fully subsidized plans on HealthCare.gov or the state-run marketplaces. As Judy Solomon writes at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, this would require policymakers to make changes in benefits, cost-sharing and enrollment processes.
  • Another approach would be to set up a federalized Medicaid program. It probably would involve direct contracts between the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and managed-care companies to administer Medicaid benefits to people in the coverage gap.

The first method — using the marketplace — could raise some cost concerns, considering it’s far more expensive to insure people through private plans than through Medicaid, which pays providers lower rates. There’s also a worry that both approaches could incentivize states that already expanded Medicaid to drop the coverage, if the federal government starts fully funding the expansion population through a new route.

Democrats are keeping their plans close to the vest.

An Energy and Commerce Committee spokesman declined to offer any details about the legislation, offering only a generic statement about the committee’s work.

“The committee is continuing to work on a comprehensive solution to provide coverage to Americans who are trapped in the Medicaid coverage gap through no fault of their own,” the statement said. “Our priority is crafting a policy fix that provides coverage and access to care to everyone in the states that have not expanded and not limited to certain counties.”

Whatever the bill ends up looking like, Democrats are hoping to include it in any budget reconciliation package Congress tries to pass this year. But those plans are still up in the air, as a bipartisan group of senators tries to negotiate an infrastructure deal with the White House, which would allow Democrats to wait on passing a partisan reconciliation bill until later in the year.

The Post’s Jeff Stein, who has been covering the negotiations:

Ahh, oof and ouch

AHH: The White House said the United States will miss Biden’s July 4 vaccination goal.

Clipped from: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-health-202-democrats-are-working-on-a-plan-a-for-finally-getting-full-medicaid-expansion/ar-AALlLvr?ocid=BingNewsSearch

Posted on

VA- McAuliffe emphasizes health care with pitch for Medicaid buy-in plan

MM Curator summary

 
 

A candidate for Governor in VA is using a Medicaid Public Option as part of his election campaign.

 
 

The article below has been highlighted and summarized by our research team. It is provided here for member convenience as part of our Curator service.

 
 

RICHMOND — Former Gov. Terry McAuliffe wants to offer another health insurance option to Virginians who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but can’t afford the out-of-pocket costs of coverage they can buy now in the marketplace.

McAuliffe pitched his Medicaid “buy-in” plan at appearances in Charlottesville and Harrisonburg on Tuesday as part of an opening policy salvo in his race for another term as Virginia governor against Republican nominee Glenn Youngkin, who has criticized the state’s decision to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act.

McAuliffe proposes to offer a Medicaid insurance option for people to buy on the new state marketplace if they earn more than $17,775 a year individually or $30,305 for a family of three so they wouldn’t be eligible for Medicaid. He did not specify how much they could earn and still qualify to purchase the optional plan.

The former governor was unable to overcome Republican opposition to Medicaid expansion during his term, but the General Assembly took the step the year after he left office under a bipartisan deal that took effect Jan. 1, 2019, and now provides health insurance coverage for more than 555,000 Virginians.

“Terry was a brick wall against extreme Republican attacks on health care during his administration, and he will be ready on day one to fight for affordable health care as Virginia’s next governor,” his campaign stated in a news release that played off a vow by former House Speaker Bill Howell to wield his Republican majority in the House as “a firewall” against Medicaid expansion.

 
 

Clipped from: https://dailyprogress.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/mcauliffe-emphasizes-health-care-with-pitch-for-medicaid-buy-in-plan/article_58754d62-1ad5-58bb-940c-a215569c9d14.html

 
 

 
 

Posted on

Former Iowa Department of Human Services Director Jerry Foxhoven files wrongful termination lawsuit

MM Curator summary

 
 

New details in lawsuit reveal that the former Director was trying to blow the whistle on mis-use of federal funds to pay salary for a Governor’s aide.

 
 

The article below has been highlighted and summarized by our research team. It is provided here for member convenience as part of our Curator service.

 
 

He seeks damages for 2019 DHS firing

 
 

 
 

Former DHS director Jerry Foxhoven holds a news conference with Attorney Thomas Duff at Duff Law Firm in West Des Moines on Aug. 1, 2019. (KC McGinnis/Freelance)

DES MOINES — A former state agency director is seeking his day in court, alleging he was wrongly terminated by Gov. Kim Reynolds and her staff in June 2019 for questioning the legality of using federal Medicaid funds in a salary dispute he sought to disclose to the Attorney General’s Office.

Jerry Foxhoven, who served as Reynolds’ director of the Iowa Department of Human Services for two years, has filed a lawsuit in Polk County District Court seeking financial damages for his wrongful discharge in violation of public policy that he claims occurred “because he refused to engage in illegal activity” that amounted to “committing Medicaid fraud and misuse of federal monies.”

The lawsuit filed against Reynolds, her chief of staff Sara Craig Gongol and former legal counsel Sam Langholz contends a dispute arose over the continued DHS funding of a staff position within the governor’s office that Foxhoven felt no longer fit the purpose under which the arrangement was originally made.

Foxhoven said he questioned the legality of the ongoing agreement, and stated he wanted an opinion from the Iowa Attorney General’s Office. Reynolds’ staff requested his resignation before he could ask for that legal advice.

The wrongful termination lawsuit alleges that Reynolds, Gongol and Langholz “terminated Foxhoven in order to prevent him from disclosing information he reasonably and in good faith believed constituted a violation of the law, mismanagement, a gross abuse of funds or abuse of authority.”

According to the suit, Foxhoven was given no reason for his “sudden and immediate termination” other than being told by the administration that “we’re going in a different direction.”

During a news conference days after Foxhoven’s departure, Reynolds told reporters that many factors went into her decision and that she planned to take the department “in a new direction.”

In his legal petition, Foxhoven contends the wrongful termination – which was “willful and wanton” and done in “reckless disregard of his rights” — caused him to suffer and continue suffering substantial loss of earnings and benefits, as well as emotional distress and damage to his reputation. He did not request a specific financial amount but is seeking “exemplary and punitive damages” and other compensation.

In August 2019, Foxhoven filed a complaint against the state with the State Appeal Board seeking $2 million for wrongful dismissal. According to the board, the claim was withdrawn after the six-month tort requirement so no action was taken by the state panel.

 
 

Clipped from: https://www.thegazette.com/state-government/former-iowa-department-of-human-services-director-jerry-foxhoven-files-wrongful-termination-lawsuit/

 
 

Posted on

Congress Weighs a “Fallback” for Medicaid Coverage Gap

MM Curator summary

 
 

Senators are planning a new way for federal healthcare coverage outside of Medicaid.

 
 

The article below has been highlighted and summarized by our research team. It is provided here for member convenience as part of our Curator service.

 
 

 
 

[author: Tyrus Jackson]

One of President Biden’s major health care goals is to close the “Medicaid coverage gap” – which refers to those states that have not expanded Medicaid eligibility under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Until now, the principle strategy to accomplish this goal was to offer the 12 states that have failed to expand Medicaid a “carrot” to incentivize adoption. For example, the American Rescue Plan offered these states a sweetheart of a deal, offering a five percentage point increase in their regular federal matching rate for two years after expansion, in addition to the 90 percent federal match already authorized by the ACA. This means that if these 12 states expand Medicaid they would have an increase in the share of cost paid for by the federal government, which could lead them to focus their state budgets on other needs. Though this offer is still on the table, there is growing concern that these states will not budge, mostly due to political considerations. For example, Republican-led legislatures in both Texas and Wyoming voted against expansion and Georgia’s governor, Brian Kemp, has offered a limited plan that includes work or activity requirements just to qualify.

To combat this inertia, there are now talks of a federal fallback option. Senators Warnock and Ossoff from Georgia sent a letter to the Senate Majority and Minority Leaders proposing a federal Medicaid look-alike program that would be run through CMS. This proposal would allow the federal government to provide coverage to those in the coverage gap financed through cost savings that would be achieved by letting Medicare negotiate drug prices. Another proposal on the table is to allow people to get fully subsidized coverage through the ACA’s marketplaces. Whichever proposal stands faces an uphill battle, though, as there are a few issues that may arise.

One principal concern is those states that have already expanded Medicaid and are responsible for a percentage of the costs for these newly eligible beneficiaries (currently 10%). Any legislative option that offered full Federal financing for the expansion population could possibly lure more conservative states that have already expanded Medicaid, but are somewhat reluctant adopters. Therefore, the plan has to provide something to discourage states from undoing their Medicaid expansion.

The second battle is a legislative one. With a slim margin in the Senate, one Democratic dissent or a threat of a filibuster could kill all chances of a federal fix to address the coverage gap. Of course there is always a chance that it could be attached to the infrastructure plan or be pushed through budget reconciliation, but we will have to wait and see. We will update you on the blog as a Federal fallback option is further considered by Congress.

Clipped from: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/congress-weighs-a-fallback-for-medicaid-4863319/

Posted on

Supreme Court (SCOTUS) Upholds ACA (Obamacare) in 7-2 Decision – Bloomberg

MM Curator summary

 
 

SCOTUS ignores opposition to the severability argument, and dismisses case with a “no standing” ruling.

 
 

The article below has been highlighted and summarized by our research team. It is provided here for member convenience as part of our Curator service.

 
 

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the latest Republican attack on the Affordable Care Act, preserving a landmark law that provides health insurance to 20 million people.

The 7-2 ruling marks the third time the Supreme Court, despite its increasingly conservative makeup, has backed central parts of Obamacare, as the law is also known. The GOP has been trying to wipe out the measure since it was enacted in 2010 under Democratic President Barack Obama.

With health care accounting for a sixth of the U.S. economy, the stakes were massive. Advocates for patients, doctors, hospitals and insurance companies urged the court to uphold the law, warning of chaos should the measure be invalidated.

The ruling is “a big win for the American people,” President Joe Biden tweeted. “With millions of people relying on the Affordable Care Act for coverage, it remains, as ever, a BFD. And it’s here to stay.”

Opponents were trying to use a Republican-backed 2017 tax change to invalidate the law. The change eliminated the penalty for noncompliance with the so-called individual mandate to acquire insurance. That provision had been central in 2012 when the Supreme Court upheld the law as a legitimate use of Congress’ constitutional taxing power.

Writing for the court, Justice Stephen Breyer said the states and people who filed the latest suit — later backed by former President Donald Trump’s administration — lacked legal standing to go to court. Breyer said the people couldn’t show they were injured by the now-toothless mandate, as required under the Constitution.

“To find standing here to attack an unenforceable statutory provision would allow a federal court to issue what would amount to in advisory opinion without the possibility of any judicial relief,” Breyer wrote.

Breyer also rejected contentions by Texas and other suing states that they had standing. The states said the individual mandate is costing them money by causing more people to enroll in the Medicaid insurance program for the poor.

“A penalty might have led some inertia-bound individuals to enroll,” Breyer wrote. “But without a penalty, what incentive could the provision provide?”

Dissenting Conservatives

Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented, saying they would have let the suit go forward and dismantled much of the law.

“No one can fail to be impressed by the lengths to which this court has been willing to go to defend the ACA against all threats,” wrote Alito, who was in dissent in both previous Obamacare cases.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas said he agreed with Alito’s analysis of the previous cases, but agreed with the majority that the latest challengers lacked the right to sue. “Although this court has erred twice before in cases involving the Affordable Care Act, it does not err today,” Thomas wrote.

QuickTake: How Obamacare Survived Trump and What Biden Is Doing

Three other members of the court’s conservative wing — Chief Justice John Roberts and Trump-appointed Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — joined Breyer in the majority.

The ruling is “historic,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat from California. “We thank the court in its wisdom.”

The top three House Republicans, including Leader Kevin McCarthy of California, said in a joint statement that “the ruling does not change the fact that Obamacare failed to meet its promises and is hurting hard-working American families.”

The ACA expanded the Medicaid program for the poor, provided consumers with subsidies, created marketplaces to shop for insurance policies, required insurers to cover people with pre-existing conditions, and let children stay on their parents’ policies until age 26.

A federal appeals court had declared the individual mandate unconstitutional without the tax penalty and left doubt about the rest of the law. A group of Democratic-run states led by California and the U.S. House of Representatives defended the law.

Future Litigation

Josh Blackman, a law professor at the South Texas College of Law Houston, said the court left the door open for another constitutional challenge in the future. If the federal government tries to enforce another provision of Obamacare against someone, that person could try to argue Obamacare’s individual mandate is unconstitutional and the entire law must fall, he said.

“This doesn’t resolve the validity of the ACA,” Blackman said. “It just sort of kicks it down the road.”

But Jonathan Adler, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, said the only way the same argument could be raised is if the federal government tries to enforce the individual mandate.

“The government will not do that,” he said. “I don’t think that’s a risk.”

Texas could try to come back and shows reams of evidence of how many people are going to enroll in its plans because of this mandate, but it’s unlikely, said Katie Keith, a health law professor at Georgetown University.

“I don’t think they can do that and I think the court here would even be skeptical about that,” she said. “I think it’s a very low risk that that happens but you never say never.”

While there may not be another broad constitutional challenge ahead, litigation over Obamacare will continue.

“There will not be a big omnibus challenge to the entire statute, but there will continue to be ongoing litigation about the administration and enforcement of the law, and that will go on for some time,” Adler said.

The case is California v. Texas, 19-840.

— With assistance by Billy House, and Lydia Wheeler

(Updates with additional Breyer comment in ninth paragraph, reaction at end of story.)

 
 

 
 

 
 

Clipped from: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-17/u-s-supreme-court-upholds-affordable-care-act

 
 

Posted on

Missouri deems Medicaid expansion lawsuit an ‘attempt to circumvent’ constitutional requirements

MM Curator summary

 
 

MO AG offers arguments in the press ahead of the hearing.

 
 

The article below has been highlighted and summarized by our research team. It is provided here for member convenience as part of our Curator service.

 
 

 
 

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — In response to a lawsuit regarding Missouri’s backtracking on Medicaid expansion, the state’s attorney general alleged that the suit’s interpretation of state law is “an impermissible attempt to circumvent bedrock constitutional requirements.”

Filed June 4, Eric Schmitt argued that the lawsuit, filed by three women who qualify for Medicaid coverage, is “premised on an incorrect statutory interpretation of HB 11 and other appropriations statutes enacted in the 2021 session of the General Assembly.”

Missouri voters initially approved in August a constitutional amendment for the expansion, but Gov. Mike Parson announced in May that the state would not move forward, citing a lack of funding.

The court documents, filed in Cole County, stated that the House bill’s plain text confirms that the funds were not appropriated through HB 11, which covers the Department of Social Services, or any other bill for Medicaid expansion.

“Under Article III, Section 51 of the Constitution, the constitutional amendment purportedly authorizing Medicaid Expansion could not and did not mandate an appropriation,” court documents state. “Rather, the General Assembly retained authority to appropriate, or not appropriate, funds for Medicaid Expansion. Because the General Assembly did not do so, Defendants lack authority to implement Medicaid Expansion and they lack appropriations authority to disburse taxpayer funds for that purpose.”

The voter-approved expansion included language stating that the federal government would reimburse the state for a majority of the expansion costs.

But the state argued that using federal funds to offset some costs associated with Medicaid expansion “does not make up for the lack of appropriations authority under state law to expend any funds, whether state or federal, for the purpose of implementing Medicaid expansion.”

Additionally, the state said that granting the plaintiff’s relief request would “violate the separation of powers provision of the Missouri Constitution.”

Stephanie Doyle, Melinda Hille and Autumn Stultz filed the suit against the Missouri Department of Social Services and its acting director, Jennifer Tidball; MO HealthNet Division and its acting director, Kirk Mathews; and the state’s Family Support Division and its director, Kim Evans.

 
 

Clipped from: https://www.kshb.com/news/local-news/missouri-deems-medicaid-expansion-lawsuit-an-attempt-to-circumvent-constitutional-requirements

Posted on

DHS Working To Eliminate Medicaid Waiver Waitlist; Advocates Express Concerns

MM Curator summary

 
 

OK Medicaid has hired a vendor to conduct assessments of members on the 13 year waiting list for I/DD services.

 
 

The article below has been highlighted and summarized by our research team. It is provided here for member convenience as part of our Curator service.

 
 

Oklahoma health services officials are making an effort to eliminate the waiting list for services for people with certain types of developmental disabilities, according to Samantha Galloway, department of health services chief of staff. 

Right now, that waiting list is 13 years long. 

The waiting list is for the Home and Community Based Services Medicaid waiver that pays for services to keep someone with a disabling developmental issue living in their home or community. 

Galloway said that DHS is certain they have the support to make a bold move for funding that will support eliminating the waiting list.

“The governor’s office is super supportive, the House is super supportive, the Senate is super supportive, now is the exact right time,” she said. 

There are over 5,800 families on the waiting list. In the next six months, everyone will be contacted by an assessment group to talk about their family’s needs, Galloway said. 

In January, DHS will be presenting an analysis of needs and a cost estimate to lawmakers to come up with a plan to eliminate the waiting list. 

“This really is a game changer for the state of Oklahoma, and we really want to honor the commitment that we’ve said in the legislature for the five years that I’ve been here, that these people are important that we want to give them the dignity and the care that they deserve,” said Mark Lawson, appropriations and budget subcommittee chairman of the health services committee. 

But family advocates want to make sure the effort to eliminate the waiting list doesn’t shortchange families who need lifelong services that this waiver provides.  

“What we don’t want to see happen is short term solutions being offered to families in exchange for eliminating the waiting list,” said Lisa Turner, Arc of Oklahoma executive director and mother of a waiting list applicant. 

Even if immediate needs are met and families are taken off the waiting list, families could still be left in need if they aren’t in line for a life-long solution, she said. 

“Families that have children on the waiting list are living day by day, minute by minute. So, their need today is what they are focusing on, and maybe not focusing on when [the child] graduates from high school, or if [the parents’] health fails and they can no longer care for their child,” Turner said. 

The third-party contract to complete the assessment was awarded to Liberty of Oklahoma. Liberty is in talks now to determine a timeline for the assessment, according to Sue Nayda, Liberty of Oklahoma chief operating officer. 

 
 

Clipped from: https://www.news9.com/story/60be9a32848d510bad8c4179/dhs-working-to-eliminate-medicaid-waiver-waitlist-advocates-express-concerns-