The Los Angeles Times is reporting that the U.S. Supreme Court has decided that it will determine whether California and other states can cut their Medicaid payments to doctors, hospitals, and other medical providers. At issue is whether allowing states to do this will make access to health care more difficult, which would contradict what federal law requires.
In 2008, California attempted to cut the state’s Medicaid program by $1 billion to help balance the state’s budget. The Medicaid providers asked the federal district court for an injunction, which was denied. The providers then appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled in their favor. California (with amici briefs from 22 other states) appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed in January to hear the case.
Those opposing the states’ appeal argue that by cutting the amount of reimbursement states pay Medicaid providers, who historically have received very low reimbursement rates, states risk having providers flee the program, leaving fewer providers to continue serving Medicaid clients. Federal Medicaid law contains an “equal access” provision that requires state Medicaid payments to be both consistent with principles of economy and efficiency and ensure access to enrollees that is equal to that available to the general public.
The author of the Times article suggests that Chief Justice Roberts may sympathize with the states, which have argued that private parties should not be able to sue over a federal program’s limits. At the same time, the high court had asked the U.S. Solicitor General’s office to render an opinion on the case. That office advised the court not to take the case, in part because it believed the issue was being settled by the federal Medicaid agency through rulemaking.
