Supreme Court Bars Judges From Setting Medicaid Rates

Supreme Court Bars Judges From Setting Medicaid Rates

By David G. Savage, Tribune Washington Bureau (TNS)

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court barred doctors, dentists, and druggists Tuesday from going to court to fight cutbacks in Medicaid payments.

The justices’ 5-4 decision in a case from Idaho held that the Medicaid Act, which offers health care to low-income people, does not authorize medical providers to go to court if they believe a state’s reimbursements are too low.

Tuesday’s ruling reverses a decision from the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, which has repeatedly blocked California from making cutbacks in its Medicaid payments.

It is not clear what effect the ruling will have on the Medicaid program because significant cutbacks are not pending.

But the California Legislature in the past has adopted provisions to reduce government spending by lowering the payments for Medicaid, a program that is operated jointly by the federal government and the states.

Before these cutbacks could go into effect, lawyers for the doctors, dentists and pharmacists sued, contending that the reduced rates violated the Medicaid Act. The legislation says the payments to providers should be “consistent with efficiency, economy, and quality of care” and should be “sufficient to enlist enough providers” to serve the local population.

Judges cited this provision and ruled that California’s proposed cutbacks would break the promise that health care would be available.

However, the high court in the Idaho case said the Medicaid Act did not give patients the right to sue in court and that it did not authorize judges to intervene on behalf of doctors and other providers.

“We hold that Medicaid providers have no right to seek injunctive relief” in court, said Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority.

He said that Medicaid authorizes the secretary of Health and Human Services to ensure that the states are complying with the law. If doctors or dentists are unhappy with the payment rates in California or elsewhere, they should take their complaints to the agency in Washington, he said.

“We think that Congress wanted to make the agency remedy that it provided exclusive,” he said in the case of Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center. Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito agreed entirely.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer agreed on the outcome and provided the fifth vote. “Congress decided to vest broad discretion in the (federal health) agency to interpret and enforce” the Medicaid Act, he said.

In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor faulted the majority for ruling that federal judges may not enforce this part of federal law.

“The court’s error today has very real consequences,” she wrote. It will allow states to “set reimbursement rates so low that providers (are) unwilling to furnish a covered service for those who need it.” Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Elena Kagan joined in her dissent.

Though the case decided Tuesday arose in Idaho, it was based on the same Ninth Circuit ruling that figured prominently in the series of California cases.

California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris had urged the court to block lawsuits over Medicaid rates.

Since 2008, injunctions issued by judges “have cost California more than $1.5 billion by precluding the Department of Health Care Services from implementing cost reductions that the federal government determined are perfectly consistent with federal law,” she said in a friend-of-the-court brief.

But the American Medical Association, the American Dental Association, and the American Hospital Association all had urged the court to protect Medicaid from state cutbacks.

Photo: Pete Jordan via Flickr


Start your day with National Memo Newsletter

Know first.

The opinions that matter. Delivered to your inbox every morning

Guess Who Will Get Paid During The Coming Government Shutdown?

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Speaker Kevin McCarthy

As the looming shutdown goes, it’s a minor thing, especially when you factor in how many members of today’s Congress are millionaires, but of course their paychecks are protected. The Constitution does it for both the Congress and the President. Article I, Section 6 states, “The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States.” Article II, Section 1, similarly guarantees that the President will be paid: “The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected.”

Keep reading...Show less
Kyrsten Sinema

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema

Kyrsten Sinema

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ), who left the Democratic Party last December, has yet to announce if she’ll run for re-election next year. But, according to a document obtained by NBC News, if she does run, she sees her “path to victory” through “a third of the state’s Republican voters” and “anywhere from 15 to 20 percent of the state’s Democrats.”

NBC News published the “two-page prospectus” on Monday, which purports to explain how “Kyrsten Will Win Arizona” in 2024.

“She receives significant crossover support from Republicans and current polling shows her favorability as high as 34 percent with Republican voters,” the document declares, noting Sinema — if she runs — will focus on courting “a significant number of the state’s independent voters and soft Republicans turned off by their party’s rightward swing.”

Keep reading...Show less
{{ }}