Blog Archives

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.

An Ominous Cloud Looms Over NC’s Mental Health System! And Radix Malorum Est Cupiditas!

“There is an ominous cloud over North Carolina’s mental health care system that many fear is limiting access to care and treatment by those who need it the most,” wrote Jason deBruyn in Friday’s Triangle Business Journal article titled, “Mental Health Block.”

TBJ Pic

(Thanks, Jason, for the nice spread:) )

Two phrases that can never be good when linked together: “an ominous cloud” and “mental health care system.”  Upon reading “ominous cloud,” I get this dark (dare I say ominous?), dreary outlook on whatever the “ominous cloud” is  over.  Then to discover that the “ominous cloud” is over our mental health system here in NC, I get goosebumps and a pit in my stomach (and a bit of disgust at the sheer ineptness of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)).

What is causing that “ominous cloud” over our mental health system? Well, according to Jason, the managed care organizations (MCOs) that were implemented across the state only this past year.

What are these MCOs you talk of?

The MCOs were established to manage the Medicaid mental health, developmentally disabled, and substance abuse services in NC.  If you want mental health services or are attempting to get prior authorization on behalf of a Medicaid recipient, then the buck stops with the MCO.  See my blog: “NC MCOs: The Judge, Jury and Executioner.” Or “NC MCOs: Accountability Must Be Somewhere!”

Here is a list of the MCOs along with the “correct toll free number” in case you wanted it:

LME-MCO CORRECT TOLL FREE NUMBER
Alliance Behavioral Health 1-800-510-9132
Cardinal Innovations Healthcare Solutions 1-800-939-5911
CenterPoint Human Services 1-888-581-9988
CoastalCare 1-855-250-1539
East Carolina Behavioral Health (ECBH) 1-877-685-2415
EastPointe 1-800-513-4002
MeckLINK 1-877-700-3001
Partners Behavioral Health Management 1-888-235-4673
Sandhills Center 1-800-256-2452
Smoky Mountain Center 1-800-849-6127
Western Highlands Network 1-800-951-3792

Going back to the “ominous cloud…”

Jason writes further that “under the state’s new payment system, MCOs have the unbridled authority to terminate providers in an attempt to keep costs down – with little accountability for the process.”

The only word I would change is “little” to “no.” But, then, maybe Jason was referring to the little accountability as arising from advocates such as myself who are fighting for the providers.

Have I not been saying this all along?  The MCOs can terminate providers with little (or no) accountability!! To save money!!

And who suffers?? The providers, yes.  And the Medicaid recipients!!   “Patients aren’t going to know where to go to access services,” Goldston says. “Those patients are going to suffer.”

Why? Why are these MCOs terminating providers and denying services to our most-needy population??  Have they no heart? No conscience?

One word answers all these questions:

Money

Radix malorum est cupiditas, meaning, in Latin, greed is the root of all evil.  In the Bible, 1 Timothy 6:10, starts “For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil…”

“MCOs register as not-for-profit organizations and receive fixed amounts of money from the state, called their “capitation.” Unlike physical health care providers, when Medicaid patients receive mental health services, their providers bill these MCOs instead of the N.C. Department of Health and Human Services. If an MCO doesn’t spend up to its capitation level, it keeps the remainder. And therein lies the problem, say provider advocates,” writes Jason. (emphasis added).

And he is absolutely correct!

What was the MCOs’ response?

“The myth that we are trying to eliminate every provider in our network is not an accurate statement,” says Rob Robinson, chief operating officer for Alliance Behavioral Healthcare, the MCO that covers Wake, Durham, Johnston and Cumberland counties.

Mr. Robinson’s comment, however, is incorrect on, at least, two fronts: (1) the “myth” is not that the MCOs are trying to eliminate every provider; and (2) it is no myth.  The MCOs are, without question, terminating as many providers from the networks as possible without the appearance that services will not get rendered.  The MCOs need a certain number…just to appear that services are not getting cut.

So what is that magic number?

A client informed me a couple of months ago that Smokey Mountain Center (SMC) told him that SMC wants two providers per service per county.  If correct, hundreds and hundreds of providers will be put out of business.  And, hello…I thought the current Republican administration was pro small business!

Alliance has chopped its provider network recently.

Just recently, Alliance called for Requests for Proposals (RFPs) from all contracted providers within its catchment area.  Kinda like a tryout.  When I was in college at NCSU, I was on the cheerleading team.  I will never forget being a freshman and learning these routines that I would have to perform in front of a judge’s panel.  Literally hundreds of young men and women were all learning the same routine…all to perform for the tryouts.  In the middle of learning the routine with hundreds of people, I looked around and realized that only 8 girls and 8 guys would be chosen.  Which meant 90% of the people there would not be on the team.  I tried to remove the thought from my head.

When the D-Day arrived, there was simply a white piece of paper taped to the gymnasium’s window on the outside for anyone to see.  I had to walk up to the piece of paper, shuffle through the small crowd surrounding it, ignore others’ tears and congratulations, and look for my name.

Holding my breath, I searched for “Knicole Carson” (my maiden name). And I did not see it.  For a moment, I was crushed.  Then I saw “Nicole Carson.”  My name was on there, just misspelled.

What does college cheerleading tryouts have to do with NC Medicaid?

Alliance’s RFPs created a provider tryout.  Hundreds submitted.  Only a few were chosen.  Those few chosen were written on a piece of paper for all to see, and providers had to scan the list to see if they were chosen.

For Wake county, Alliance decided to award a 1 year contract for community support team (CST) to only 6 companies.  For the entire county of Wake, Alliance has determined that only 6 companies may provide CST to Medicaid recipients (with a 1 year contract).  Only 6 names were on the list.

For Durham county, Alliance decided to award a 1 year contract for CST to only 5 companies.  For the entire county of Durham, Alliance has determined that only 5 companies may provide CST (with a 1 year contract).  Only 5 names were on the list.

Now let’s go back to Mr. Robinson’s comment:

“The myth that we are trying to eliminate every provider in our network is not an accurate statement,” says Rob Robinson, chief operating officer for Alliance Behavioral Healthcare, the MCO that covers Wake, Durham, Johnston and Cumberland counties.

You are right, Mr. Robinson, you aren’t trying to eliminate “every provider.”  Just the ones that Alliance, in its subjective discretion, doesn’t want to deal with (I don’t care that I ended the sentence in a preposition).

Oh, and what about our State Plan?

Our State of North Carolina MH/DD/SA  Health Plan Renewal, states, in pertinent part, as an answer regarding concerns as to provider choice with MCOs, “network capacity studies and gap analyses were conducted by Cardinal Innovations Healthcare Solutions (CIHS) annually and prior to expansion the coverage area, and by the new PIHPs prior to start-up, as required. Access and provider choice appear to be as good as or better than it was prior to waiver implementation, although there is room for improvement in several areas.” (emphasis added).

Obviously, that was written a while ago and Cardinal, an MCO, was the entity conducting the study (cough, cough…bias…cough).  Regardless, we told the federal government that “provider choice appears to be as good or better than it was prior implementation.”  Are you kidding me???

How many providers didn’t make Alliance’s cut?

How many providers have MeckLINK terminated? Smokey Mountain?

Jason deBruyn was dead on when he said, “There is an ominous cloud over North Carolina’s mental health care system that many fear is limiting access to care and treatment by those who need it the most.”

Medical providers considering lawsuits over issues with NCTracks

Medical providers considering lawsuits over issues with NCTracks.