Monthly Archives: January 2015
Williams Mullen and Local Counsel, Bryan Davis, Win Declaratory Action Against HSD in New Mexico!!
For those of you who follow my blog, you know that the single state agency in New Mexico, Human Services Department (HSD), accused 15 behavioral health care providers, which made up 87% of the mental health care in NM, of credible allegations of fraud back in June 2013. HSD immediately ceased paying all companies’ Medicaid and non-Medicaid reimbursements causing most of the companies to go out of business.
See my blogs: “New Mexico Offers No Due Process Based on a PCG Audit!, and “Documentary on New Mexico Provider: Breaking Bonds: The Shutdown of NM’s Behavioral Health Care Providers.”
Easter Seals El Mirador is one of those companies accused of fraud.
Then, a year later, May 2014, the Attorney General’s office clears Easter Seals El Mirador (ESEM) of any fraud. ESEM is the second company cleared of fraud. In other words, HSD accused 15 companies of fraud, and the first two reviewed by the AG were determined to have committed no fraud. Oops. Sorry. We were mistaken.
But you can’t fix a broken egg. The best you can do is clean it up.
But, no, HSD does not accept the AG’s determination that ESEM committed no fraud, and on or about June 25, 2014, HSD re-referred ESEM to the AG for credible allegations of fraud again.
Instead of me going on a rampage as to the violations committed (and alleged in our complaint), let me just explain that through the first referral and re-referral of credible allegations of fraud, HSD is withholding all ESEM’s reimbursements.
After the re-referral, in June 2014, we, on behalf of ESEM, and with the help of local counsel, Bryan Davis, filed a Complaint requesting declaratory judgment followed by a Motion for Summary Judgment.
Last Friday, January 23, 2015, the New Mexico judge agreed with us holding that HSD’s “temporary” withhold of reimbursements violates due process and that ESEM has a right to a fair hearing.
Here is an article from the Santa Fe New Mexican written by Patrick Malone:
Judge: State Human Services Department violated due process law
In a harsh rebuke of the 2013 behavioral health shake-up that thrust mental health care for indigent New Mexicans into disarray, a Santa Fe judge on Friday ruled that the state Human Services Department had denied due process to one of the providers accused of fraud.
State District Judge Francis Mathew ordered the department to hold a hearing that would allow Santa Fe-based Easter Seals El Mirador to hear the specific allegations against it for the first time — and give the provider a chance to respond to those claims. The ruling could open the door for other providers affected by the shake-up to do the same, according to the nonprofit’s lawyer.
In the 19 months since audit findings spurred Gov. Susana Martinez’s administration to cut off Medicaid funds to Easter Seals El Mirador and other providers in the state who treat Medicaid patients, the nonprofit has not been shown the audit findings that outline exactly what it is accused of doing wrong. Nor has the agency been afforded the chance to refute any of the findings. Meanwhile, the Human Services Department has withheld more than $600,000 in Medicaid funds that were owed to Easter Seals El Mirador at the time of its termination, citing federal guidelines that allow temporary withholding of funds from agencies that are suspected of Medicaid fraud.
“I don’t believe that 19 months is temporary,” Mathew said, particularly since the Human Services Department has prolonged the investigation by referring Easter Seals El Mirador’s case back to the Attorney General’s Office after the nonprofit already had been cleared once.
The judge blasted the department’s process from the outset of the shake-up.
“I think it’s a due-process violation,” he said.
In June 2013, Human Services halted Medicaid funding to 15 organizations that provided mental health and substance abuse services to low-income patients. The state pointed to audit findings that indicated the agencies had overbilled Medicaid by an estimated $36 million as grounds for the decision. The Martinez administration brought in five Arizona providers as replacements and paid them $24 million to set up shop in New Mexico.
This month, one of the replacement providers informed the state that it is financially failing and plans to pull out of New Mexico at the end of March, bringing new disruptions to a fragile population still reeling from the earlier provider changes.
“We have an obligation to protect taxpayer dollars and to help ensure that New Mexicans most in need receive vital behavioral health services,” said Matt Kennicott, a spokesman for Human Services. “We will provide a hearing on the credible allegations of fraud.”
He said the department has not yet decided whether it will appeal the judge’s ruling. Easter Seals El Mirador’s lawyer, Bryan Davis, said he expects the department to do so.
When Judge Mathew issues a written ruling in the days ahead, the Human Services Department will have 90 days to set a hearing date. Within 30 days, the department will be required to share with Easter Seals El Mirador the evidence it plans to present at the hearing. That could yield the agency’s first glimpse at the state’s basis for accusing it of fraud. The behavioral health audit that led to the shake-up has been largely shielded from public view while the Attorney General’s Office conducts a criminal investigation.
On Friday, Attorney General Hector Balderas, who just took office this month, informally asked lawmakers for an additional $1 million in hopes of speeding up the probe to complete it within the next six to eight months. Balderas inherited the investigation from his predecessor, Gary King, whose office has faced criticisms from lawmakers and the ousted providers for its slow pace. To date, three investigations have been completed, four are actively being investigated and eight have not yet begun, Balderas’ spokesman said.
Easter Seals El Mirador and the Counseling Center of Alamogordo have been cleared of fraud by the Attorney General’s Office, but Human Services referred Easter Seals El Mirador back to the attorney general for a follow-up investigation.
Mark Johnson, chief executive officer of Easter Seals El Mirador, said he is confident that the organization would be cleared of any wrongdoing in a fair hearing.
With at least one of the replacement providers from Arizona already leaving the state and the New Mexico providers financially hobbled or already out of business because of the shake-up, Johnson said, he fears the most serious consequences of the Martinez administration’s abrupt actions lie ahead.
“There is no safety net. There is no New Mexico company that can fill the systemic void for services for the poor people who need them,” Johnson said. “It’s catastrophic.”
Argument analysis: Working out the broader implications of a Medicaid suit
This is a copy of an article written by William Baude on SCOTUSblog.
In the article, William analyzes the oral arguments for Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, a very important Supreme Court case heard by the Justices January 20, 2015. If you don’t recall the lawsuit, see my blog: “Low Medicaid Reimbursement Rates Violate the Supremacy Clause?!… The Supreme Court to Weigh In!”
Here is the analysis:
The Supreme Court has heard a lot of preemption suits, but Tuesday’s arguments in Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center suggest that the Court has not yet agreed on what exactly the formal underpinnings of those suits are.
The case features a debate about the intersection of two lines of precedent. One line restricts the availability of a federal statutory cause of action unless Congress has deliberately included one. The other line makes a cause of action broadly available when the plaintiff seeks an injunction to enforce a constitutional provision. At issue in this case is whether suits to enforce the preemptive effect of a federal statute are more like constitutional injunctions or statutory suits.
Both lines of precedent were on full display at yesterday’s argument. Shortly after his argument started the state’s counsel, Carl Withroe, was pressed with questions about the many prior preemption cases the Court had heard. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg adverted to a list of fifty-seven cases attached to the Medicaid recipients’ brief that are alleged to fail under the state’s theory. Withroe made several different attempts to distinguish those cases, although he did not seem to fully satisfy the Court. Towards the end of Withroe’s argument, Justice Anthony Kennedy asked “Did I miss something? … I thought you were going to give us a principled way to say why this case is different from our other preemption cases.”
Deputy Solicitor General Ed Kneedler took the podium next, attempting to supply that principled basis. He argued that Spending Clause legislation, and Medicaid specifically, was different from the usual preemption case for reasons rooted in the history of equity practice. Traditional equitable remedies, he said, could vindicate a person’s “liberty,” “property,” or “business,” but Medicaid was none of those things because it was a spending program created by a cooperative agreement with the state. Once again, Justice Kennedy chimed in at the end of Kneedler’s time to question whether his theory really distinguished one of the Court’s prior cases, American Trucking Associations v. City of Los Angeles.
Representing the Medicaid recipients, attorney James Piotrowski also faced skepticism about the implications of his position, and seemed to embrace them more than to distinguish them. He openly conceded that his clients would not have a right to sue under the Court’s statutory cause of action cases or under Section 1983. But the Supremacy Clause suit, he stressed, would seek only the narrow remedy of an injunction.
Justice Samuel Alito asked Piotrowksi whether his argument implied that someone could challenge a state’s decision to legalize marijuana as preempted by federal drug laws. Yes, Piotrowksi agreed, so long as Article III standing was satisfied, there would indeed be a cause of action. (Though Justice Alito did not specifically mention a suit by a state, the question might have been inspired by the recent marijuana preemption lawsuit filed in the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction by two states — Oklahoma and Nebraska.)
And when Chief Justice John Roberts suggested to Piotrowski that his position would open “the courthouse door to everybody who says that federal law was not followed,” Piotrowski agreed: “Yes, your honor, that’s right. We open the courthouse doors.”
At the same time, Piotrowski also conceded that Congress could expressly preclude a preemption suit if it spoke clearly. The key, he argued, is that Congress’s decision not to create a statutory cause of action was not the same as a congressional decision to prohibit a cause of action that came from other background legal principles. Justice Kennedy did not ask Piotrowski any questions.
Lest this abbreviated summary make it seem like argument followed a clear path, I should say that there were also plenty of side points raised throughout. There were questions about how the state’s reimbursement rates related to its formula, a question from Justice Elena Kagan about why nobody from the federal Department of Health and Human Services had signed the federal government’s amicus brief, a response from Chief Justice Roberts about whether DHS was just trying to help the health-care sector “get a bigger chunk of the federal budget,” and a series of questions from Justice Stephen Breyer about the doctrine of “primary jurisdiction,” including a nostalgic reminiscence about the Civil Aeronautics Board “of blessed memory.” But the Justices also constantly reminded one another that the question was whether the suit could be brought, not whether it should prevail.
Four Justices have already answered that question in their dissent three years ago in Douglas v. Independent Living Center. Over the next few months, we will see if they have persuaded any of their colleagues to join them.
Low Medicaid Reimbursement Rates Violate the Supremacy Clause?! …The Supreme Court to Weigh In!
Tomorrow is a big day. Not only will most of us return to work after a long weekend, but the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on a very important issue.
On January 20, 2015, (tomorrow) the Supreme Court of the United States will hear oral arguments on a very important issue that will affect every health care provider in America who accepts Medicaid, and, yet, there has been very little media coverage over this lawsuit.
Legal Issue: Does a Medicaid provider have a private right of action under the Medicaid Act to bring a lawsuit against states under the Supremacy clause.
The Issue Translated from Legalese to English: Can a Medicaid provider sue the state in which the provider does business if the provider believes that the Medicaid reimbursement rate for a particular service or product is too low? For example, can a dentist sue NC for a higher Medicaid reimbursement rate for tooth extractions? Can a long-term care facility and/or a home care agency sue due to low Medicaid personal care services (PCS) rates?
It is my opinion that Medicaid providers across the country have not brought enough lawsuits demanding higher Medicaid reimbursement rates. It is without question that Medicaid reimbursement rates across the country are too low. Low reimbursement rates cause health care providers to refuse to accept Medicaid recipients. See my blog NC Health Care Providers Who Accept Medicaid: Thank you!.
If you hold a Medicaid card, you do not automatically have access to good quality health care. You are segregated from the privately insured and the care you receive is not equal. You are limited in your choice of doctors. If you are an adult, you can forget any dental procedures. Even if you aren’t an adult, you require prior approval for almost all services (regardless of whether you are suffering from pain), which will often be denied (or reduced…or require a significant waiting period). You want mental health care? You better get the very least amount of help possible until you prove you need more help. See my blog NC Medicaid Expansion: Bad for the Poor.
And why won’t more health care providers accept Medicaid? The Medicaid reimbursement rates are too low!! The Medicaid reimbursement rates are too low for health care providers to yield a profit…or, in many instances, even cover the overhead. In fact, providers tell me that when they do accept Medicaid, they are forced to accept more privately insured patients to offset the losses from accepting the finite number of Medicaid patients. In many states, the states refuse to cover psychology costs for Medicaid recipients, and other states refuse to cover the costs for PCS.
So, I say, bring on the lawsuits!!! Force states to increase Medicaid reimbursement rates!!
For example, in obstetrics, if the national Medicaid reimbursement rate for ob/gyn visits is $1.00, here, in NC, we reimburse ob/gyns 88¢. Which is why only 34% of North Carolina ob/gyns accept Medicaid. See Kaiser.
So far, across the country, federal courts have held that Medicaid providers do have a private right of action to sue states for low reimbursement rates. In fact, in most cases, the providers have PREVAILED and the states have been forced to pay higher rates!!!
Providers of all types have filed lawsuits across the country disputing the states’ Medicaid reimbursement rates as being too low. For example, in California, between April 2008 and April 2009, five lawsuits were filed against the state of California to stop scheduled reductions in reimbursement rates (on behalf of rehabilitation providers, nonemergency medical transportation providers, pharmacies, physicians, and emergency physicians).
A Florida lawsuit that was settled in December 2014 revolved around a young boy on Medicaid who was suffering from a painful sinus infection. His mother contacted multiple physicians and was denied appointments because the mother and her son were on Medicaid. He was forced to wait almost a week for an appointment. The judge in the case wrote, “I conclude that Florida’s Medicaid program has not compensated primary physicians or specialists at a competitive rate as compared with either that of Medicare or private insurance payers….I further conclude that Florida’s structure for setting physician reimbursement fails to account for statutorily mandated factors in the Medicaid Act, including the level of compensation needed to assure an adequate supply of physicians.”
Over the years, the Supreme Court has vacillated over even determining whether a Medicaid provider has a private right of action under the Medicaid Act to bring a lawsuit against states under the Supremacy clause.
In 2002, the Supreme Court denied certiorari (refused to hear the argument) on this very issue. Coming out of the 9th Circuit (which includes California), a Circuit which has been especially busy with lawsuits arguing Medicaid reimbursement rates are too low, the case of Independent Living Center of California v. Shewry would have squarely addressed this issue. But the Supreme Court denied certiorari and did not hear arguments.
In 2012, the Supreme Court decided to hear arguments on this issue. In Douglas v. Independent Living Center, Medicaid beneficiaries and providers sued the California state Medicaid agency, seeking to enjoin a number of proposed provider payment rate cuts. After the Supreme Court heard oral argument, but before it had issued its decision, the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) approved California’s state plan amendment containing the rate cuts. Consequently, the Douglas majority held that the case should be sent back to the lower courts to consider the effect of CMS’s approval of the state plan amendment, without deciding whether the beneficiaries and providers had a right to sue.
Now the case Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center will be heard by the Supreme Court on January 20, 2015.
How did this case come about?
In 2005, the Idaho state legislature passed a law requiring the state Medicaid agency to implement a new methodology to determine provider reimbursement rates, and in 2009, the state Medicaid agency published new, higher rates based, in part, on a study of provider costs. CMS approved the state’s new methodology. However, the new rates never were implemented because the state legislature failed to appropriate sufficient funding, making the refusal to increase the reimbursment rate a budgetary issue. A group of Idaho residential habilitation providers that accept Medicaid sued the Idaho state Medicaid agency and alleged that the state’s failure to implement the new rates conflicted with federal law (the Supremacy Clause).
Section (30)(A) of the Medicaid Act requires state Medicaid agencies to take provider costs into account when setting reimbursement rates. Under case law precedent, the rate must “bear a reasonable relationship to efficient and economical . . . costs of providing quality services.” To deviate from this standard of reasonableness, a state must justify its decisions with more than budgetary reasons.
The argument is that the state’s low reimbursement rate for X service, is too low to provide good quality services and that the low rates were set for purely budgetary reasons.
Once you prove that the reimbursement rates are too low to expect good quality care (which would be fairly easy for almost all Medicaid services in NC), then you argue that the state’s reimbursement rates violate the Supremacy Clause because the federal law requires good quality care.
What is the Supremacy Clause?
The Supremacy Clause can be found in Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U. S. Constitution. Basically, it establishes that federal law trumps conflicting state laws , even state constitutional provisions, on matters within the Constitution’s grant of powers to the federal government – such as Medicaid..
In this case, we are talking about a state’s Medicaid reimbursement rate violating the federal law requiring that the rate must bear a reasonable relationship to quality of care.
This is not a small matter.
After all is said and done, the Armstrong case, which will be heard by the Supreme Court tomorrow, will be extraordinarily important for Medicaid health care providers. I believe it is obvious which way I hope the Supreme Court decides…in favor of providers!! In favor of a ruling that states are not allowed to underpay health care providers only because the patient holds a Medicaid card.
My wish is that Medicaid providers across the country bring lawsuits against their state to increase Medicaid reimbursement rates…that the providers prevail…that more health care providers accept Medicaid…and that more Medicaid recipients receive quality health care.
Is that too much to ask?
The Supreme Court will most likely publish its opinion this summer.
Its decision could have an extreme impact on both Medicaid providers and recipients. Higher Medicaid reimbursement rates would increase the number of physicians willing to accept Mediaid, which, in turn, would provide more access to care for Medicaid recipients.
Keep in mind, however, the issue before the Supreme Court in Armstrong is narrow. If, for whatever reason, the Supreme Court decides that Medicaid providers do not have a private right to sue under the Supremacy Clause…all is not lost!!! There is more than one way to skin a cat.
Medicare chief Tavenner stepping down; oversaw rocky health care rollout
News Alert: Medicare Chief Tavenner stepping down!!!!
Here is the article:
WASHINGTON — Medicare chief Marilyn Tavenner — who oversaw the rocky rollout of the president’s health care law — says she’s stepping down at the end of February.
In an email Friday to staff at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Tavenner, a former Virginia health secretary and hospital executive, said she’s leaving with “sadness and mixed emotions.”
Tavenner survived the 2013 technology meltdown of HealthCare.gov, but was embarrassed last fall when she testified to Congress that 7.3 million people were enrolled for coverage. That turned out to be an overcount that exaggerated the total by about 400,000.
Calling Tavenner “one of our most esteemed and accomplished colleagues,” Health and Human Services Secrerary Sylvia M. Burwell said the decision to leave was Tavenner’s.
Principal deputy administrator Andy Slavitt will take over as acting administrator.
Lordy, Lordy, Look Who’s Forty: A Review of Our 40-Year-Old Stalemate in Health Care Reform
Well, folks, it is official. I am “over the hill.” Yup. My birthday is today, January 7, 1975, and I was born 40 years ago.
Instead of moping around, I have decided to embrace my 40s. For starters, let’s take a look at where we were 40 years ago. Obviously, personally, I was in utero. But what about the country? What about health care?
Not surprisingly, even 40 years ago, politicians were discussing the same issues with health care as we are now. Some things never change…or do they???
In my “40 years in review” blog, I want to discuss why we, as a nation, are still arguing about the same health care issues that we were arguing about 40 years ago. And, perhaps, the reason why we have been in a 40-year-old stalemate in health care reform.
Today, we have a diverged nation when it comes to health care. Democrats want to expand public health insurance (i.e., Medicaid) and tend to favor a higher degree of government oversight of health care to ensure that health care is available to all people. Republicans, on the other hand, believe that the financial burden of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) on the federal and state level is unsustainable, and people will receive less than adequate health care. Republicans tend to favor privatization of Medicaid, while liberals oppose such ideas.
Health care reform has been a hot topic for over 40 years…with some interesting differences…
Going back to 1975…
Gerald Ford, a Republican, was our nation’s president, and we were in a nationwide recession.
Under Ford, the American Medical Society (AMA) proposed a new plan for health care, an employer mandate proposal.
According to a 1975 Chicago Tribune journalist, the AMA’s new proposal pushed for a broader government role in health care. See below.
“The new [ ] plan would cover both employees and the unemployed, along with poor people and those considered uninsurable because of medical or mental problems. It would require employers to subsidize health care for employees and their families and pay at least 65 % of each premium. It would also require the government to provide partially subsidized health insurance, financed from general revenues, for the poor and the unemployed. It calls for medical insurance benefits covering 365 days of hospital care during any one year, 100 days of nursing home care, and home health, mental, and dental service for children aged 2 and up. All but the poorest beneficiaries would share premium costs and would pay 20 per cent for the services provided, but no individual would pay more than $1,500 a year and no family more than $2,000 a year for health care.”
Chicago Tribune, “The A.M.A.’s subsidy plan” April 19, 1975 (emphasis added) (no author was cited).
Interestingly, in that same newspaper from April 19, 1975, advertisements show towels for $1.89, pants for teenagers for $4.99, a swivel rocker for $88, and a BBQ grill for $12.88. My how times have changed!
Those prices also indicate how much buying power was involved with the AMA’s proposal, and what it meant to suggest that an individual might have to pay up to $1,500 a year, and a family up to $2,000 a year, for health care – a lot of money back then!
In 1976, Pres. Ford proposed adding catastrophic coverage to Medicare, offset by increased cost sharing. These are examples of Pres. Ford (a Republican) creating more government involvement in health care and expanding health care to everyone.
After Pres. Ford, came Pres. Jimmy Carter from 1977-1981, a Democrat.
Pres. Carter campaigned on the notion of “universal health care for everyone;” however, once in office he decided instead to rein in costs, and not expand coverage. In the prior decade (1960), the consumer price index had increased by 79.7%, while hospital costs had risen 237%. President Carter proposed an across-the-board cap on hospital charges that would limit annual increases to 1.5 times any rise in the consumer price index.
Pres. Carter was also quoted from public speeches saying, “We must clean up the disgraceful Medicaid scandals.”
Pres. Carter’s stance on “universal” health care was: “that such a program would be financed through both the employer and the payroll taxes, as well as general revenue taxes. Patients would still be free to choose their own physician, but the federal government would set doctor’s fees and establish controls to monitor the cost and quality of health care.”
In May 1979, Senator Ted Kennedy, a Democrat, proposed a new universal national health insurance bill—offering a choice of competing federally-regulated private health insurance plans with no cost sharing financed by income-based premiums via an employer mandate and individual mandate, replacement of Medicaid by government payment of premiums to private insurers, and enhancement of Medicare by adding prescription drug coverage and eliminating premiums and cost sharing.
These are examples of Democrats, Pres. Carter, by not expanding health care coverage and reining in costs, and Sen. Kennedy, by proposing privatization of Medicaid, acting in a more conservative nature, or, as a conservative nature would be perceived today.
So when did the parties flip-flop? Why did the parties flip-flop? And the most important question…if we have been struggling with the exact same issues on health care for over 40 years, why has our health care system not been fixed? There has certainly been enough time, ideas, and proposed bills.
While I do not profess to know the answer, my personal opinion is the severe and debilitating polarizations of the two main political parties have rendered this country into a 40-year-old stalemate when it comes to health care reform and are the reason why the solution has not been adopted and put into practice.
Maybe back in 1979, when Senator Kennedy proposed replacing Medicaid with private insurance, Republicans refused to agree, simply because a Democrat proposed the legislation.
Today when Republican candidates campaign on privatizing Medicaid and the Democrats vehemently oppose such action, maybe the opposition is not to the idea, but to the party making the proposal.
Just a thought…
And here’s to the next 40!!!
AZ Supreme Court Holds AZ Legislators Have Standing to Challenge AZ Law, But Media Mischaracterizing the Lawsuit
You know the old adage, “Believe none of what you hear, and only half of what you see?” –Benjamin Franklin.
Well the old adage still holds true, especially when it comes to journalists and the media interpreting and reporting on lawsuits that deal with Medicaid laws, and which, perhaps, only an infinitesimal, ancillary aspect may touch the issue of Medicaid expansion.
Even if the lawsuit will not impact Medicaid expansion, journalists and the media hype the lawsuits as “conservatives challenging Obamacare yet again,” which mischaracterizes the actual lawsuit.
It seems that the media have become so accustomed to polarizing the topic of Medicaid expansion that reporters seem incapable of truly assessing the issues objectively and reporting accordingly. This has happened recently when the AZ Supreme Court rendered a decision December 31, 2014, regarding legal standing, not the constitutionality of Medicaid expansion as many journalists report. Biggs, et al. v. Hon. Cooper, et al.
The Arizona Supreme Court only decided that 36 legislators have the legal standing to challenge the passage of House Bill 2010, which was signed into law as A.R.S. § 36-2901.08.
What is A.R.S. § 36-2901.08?
For starters, A.R.S. stands for Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS). For those of you who missed “Schoolhouse Rock” as a child, a statute is a law that is enacted by the legislative body and which governs the state. Statutes are considered “black letter law” and should be interpreted on their face value and plain meaning.
The content of 36-2901.08 allows the State of Arizona to expand Medicaid. In addition to expanding Medicaid, 35-2901.08 assesses a levy on hospitals to aid in funding the expansion of Medicaid.
36 Arizona legislators voted against 36-2901.08. It passed by a simple majority and was signed into law. The 36 legislators, who voted against the bill, brought a lawsuit to enjoin the statute from being applied or enacted. The State of Arizona’s position is that the 36 legislators lack the legal standing to bring the lawsuit.
Here are the issues in the legislators’ case, BIGGS ET AL. v. HON. COOPER ET AL.:
1. Do the 36 legislators have the standing to bring an injunctive action enjoining Arizona from carrying out 36-2901.08?
2. If the answer to #1 is yes, then have the 36 legislators proven that 36-2901.08 was passed in violation of the AZ Constitution?
I’ve read a number of articles from journalists covering this matter who mischaracterize the Biggs lawsuit as a lawsuit brought by the Arizona legislators, predominantly Republicans, asking the Arizona Supreme Court to strike statute 36-2901.08 because the expansion of Medicaid is unconstitutional, or “challenging Governor Jan Brewer’s Medicaid expansion plan,” or “challenging the legality of the state’s Medicaid expansion…”
These journalists are mischaracterizing the Arizona Supreme Court’s opinion. And I am not talking about journalists for small, local papers are making these mistakes…the above quotations are from “The New York Times” and “The Associated Press.”
So, let’s discuss the true, correct ramifications of the Arizona Supreme Court opinion in Biggs…
First, the Biggs opinion does not hold that Medicaid expansion in Arizona or elsewhere is unconstitutional…nor does it decide whether Medicaid expansion in Arizona is invalid on its face.
The opinion, rendered December 31, 2014, only holds that the 36 legislators have the legal standing to bring the lawsuit…there is no holding as to constitutionality of Medicaid expansion, despite so many journalists across America stating it so.
What is standing?
Standing, or locus standi, is the capacity of a party to bring suit in court. This is not a question of whether a person is physically capable of bringing a lawsuit, but whether the person prove that he or she has sustained or will sustain a direct injury or harm and that the harm is redressable (or can be fixed or set right by the lawsuit).
The issue on the Supreme Court level in Arizona is only the narrow issue of whether the 36 legislators have standing. Period.
The Arizona Supreme Court held that the 36 legislators do possess the requisite legal standing in order to bring the lawsuit.
Now, the case will be remanded (sent to a lower court), in this instance, to the Superior Court, for a new fact-finding trial now that the issue of standing has been resolved. In other words, at the lower superior court level, the ref (judge) made a call that the football players on the team (36 legislators) were ineligible to play NCAA football (poor grades, were red-shirted last year), and the alleged ineligible players appealed the decision all the way up. Now the NCAA (AZ Supreme Court) has determined that the players are eligible and the game will resume.
Again, despite the rhetoric put forth by numerous widespread journalists, the 36 legislators are not merely challenging Arizona Medicaid expansion on its face.
Instead, the Arizona Constitution requires that certain Acts that increase state revenues must pass the legislature by a supermajority vote. See Ariz. Const. art. 9, § 22(A).
Remember from the beginning of this blog that 36-2901.08 was passed by a simple majority.
The 36 legislators argue that the assessment of a levy on Arizona hospitals constitute an Act that requires a supermajority vote, which, obviously would require more than a straight 50% approval.
So the 36 legislators’ lawsuit in AZ is about whether 36-2901.08 needs a supermajority or simple majority to vote it into law.
Not whether Medicaid expansion is constitutional.
Believe none of what you hear, and only half of what you see…especially when it comes to journalists and media reporting on lawsuits regarding Medicaid rules and regulations.
Medicaidlaw-nc: The 2014 Stats for My Blog
The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2014 annual report for this blog.
Here’s an excerpt:
The concert hall at the Sydney Opera House holds 2,700 people. This blog was viewed about 52,000 times in 2014. If it were a concert at Sydney Opera House, it would take about 19 sold-out performances for that many people to see it.
“Doctor still waiting for NC Tracks payment,” Reports Star News Online
Happy New Year, everyone!!! Hope your New Year’s celebrations were safe and surrounded by friends and family! According to a journalist, the new year did not ring in the Medicaid reimbursements owed by NCTracks. (Obviously I cannot comment on NCTracks’ current status due to the lawsuit we filed on behalf of all physicians in NC).
Here is the following article by Mike Voorheis…
A year after a Wilmington doctor filed a lawsuit, the state still owes his practice more than $100,000 in unpaid or underpaid Medicaid and Medicare services, he says.
Dr. S. Albert Abrons, a family physician, is the first of seven plaintiffs listed in Abrons vs. N.C. Department of Health and Human Services, a class-action suit, (filed by Williams Mullen), that seeks unspecified damages from the state and three other defendants responsible for the development and implementation of NC Tracks, the software that disburses Medicare and Medicaid payments to health care providers.
Problems with the software began immediately in January 2013 and continued for about 14 months, Abrons said. During that time, Abrons and his staff treated thousands of Medicaid patients. Instead of being reimbursed at the higher Medicare rate for primary care services – a provision of the Affordable Care Act – Abrons was reimbursed at the lower Medicaid rate.
That amounted to about $20 per visit, his office manager said, eventually leading to a six-figure deficit.
Abrons said that meant he had to take out loans and couldn’t give raises to his employees when he wanted to.
“The state still owes me and every provider, I presume, enhanced payments for 2013,” Abrons said.
Abrons fought the state to correct numerous errors beyond the reimbursement rates, he said. The harder he pushed, the less receptive DHHS became.
“There was a complete lack of courtesy,” Abrons said. “Those people have no humanity.”
N.C. Rep. Susi Hamilton, D-New Hanover, was also very critical of DHHS’ response.
“The problem clearly starts at the top,” Hamilton said, referring to DHHS Secretary Aldona Wos.
“There is an unwillingness to admit that there are problems. We’ve left several messages and were unable to get a response.”
The state filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit in July and did not wish to comment further, spokesman Kevin Howell said.
Some organizations have had success in receiving their backlogged reimbursements. Wilmington Health CEO Jeff James said the state does not have extraordinary unpaid bills with his organization.
Elderhaus PACE’s Rick Richards said the state owes the Wilmington organization about $350,000. A plan is in place, he said, to have the debt cleared in the next 90 days.
The lawsuit argues that more than 70,000 providers in North Carolina may have had a claim against the state.
“It’s systemic,” Hamilton said. “It’s not about one physician’s profit margin or bottom line. The more we delay payment for services, the more reluctant the private sector is to provide services to Medicaid or Medicare patients. That’s not acceptable.”
Hamilton said that after 14 months of frustration that she’s grown more optimistic over the past 10 days, since speaker-elect Tim Moore has added his voice to the cause.
But even if Abrons recoups the money that is owed him, Hamilton said, his practice has still been a victim of the state’s mismanagement. Every paper that is resubmitted and every phone call that is made to the state costs money. And that doesn’t include the time and money invested in the lawsuit.
“Time is money,” Hamilton said. “They have experienced a tremendous loss even if they are reimbursed at 100 percent.”