The proposed class action, filed on Wednesday in federal court in
Washington by 15 Kentucky Medicaid recipients, says the
administration's approval of the requirements has "effectively
rewritten" the federal Medicaid statute in violation of the law.
The statute allows states to implement pilot programs that further
the objectives of Medicaid, the government healthcare program for
the poor and disabled. But some experts said making recipients work
or get job training does not advance Medicaid's goal of providing
insurance to those who cannot afford it.
"There is, in contrast, good evidence that such requirements add
enrollment hurdles that cause people to lose eligibility," said
Allison Hoffman, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law
School who specializes in healthcare issues.
A spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services, which
oversees Medicaid, declined to comment on the lawsuit.
If the court strikes down Kentucky's work requirements, it could be
a major setback for the Trump administration's efforts to reshape
Medicaid.
Republicans last year had included a cut in funding for Medicaid as
part of the healthcare legislation that sought to repeal Obamacare,
but they failed to get enough votes. The administration is now
emphasizing rule changes to cut back on spending on people covered
by government healthcare programs as President Donald Trump keeps an
eye on conservative voters who put him in office.
Medicaid spending in 2016 was $565.5 billion, according to the most
recent figures available from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services (CMS).
At least nine other states, mostly Republican-led, have proposed
changes to Medicaid similar to Kentucky's: Arizona, Arkansas,
Indiana, Kansas, Maine, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Utah and
Wisconsin. None of these state have received federal approval.
The Medicaid statute allows the Department of Health and Human
Services to grant waivers to states so they can experiment with
pilot or "demonstration" programs that depart from the statute. HHS
must find such programs "likely to assist in promoting the
objectives" of Medicaid.
CMS, a division of HHS, on Jan. 11 issued guidance inviting states
to design and propose test programs that impose work or job training
requirements on Medicaid recipients. States must propose such
changes through waivers and obtain federal approval.
In issuing the guidance, CMS head Seema Verma said people who
participate in "activities that increase their education and
training" have a better quality of life and improved health
outcomes.
[to top of second column] |
Kentucky's waiver, which was granted on Jan. 12, requires
able-bodied adult Medicaid recipients, with some exceptions, to
participate in at least 80 hours per month of "employment
activities," including jobs training, education and community
service. It also imposes new premiums on recipients and locks them
out of the program for six months if they fail to pay.
The Kentucky Medicaid recipients who brought Wednesday's lawsuit
said the waiver, expected to take effect in July, was an "abuse of
discretion" by HHS.
Sara Rosenbaum, a professor of health law and policy at George
Washington University, said they had a strong case.
"The question is whether the demonstration is so unsupported by the
evidence and veers so far from the federal Medicaid law that as a
substantive matter it doesn’t fit under" the waiver program,
Rosenbaum said.
The plaintiffs' legal argument rests largely on the federal
Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which allows courts to review
agency decisions. Under the law, courts generally defer to agencies,
striking down a decision only if it is "arbitrary and capricious."
At least one federal appeals court has struck down a Medicaid waiver
under the APA. In 2011, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
invalidated a waiver that would have authorized co-pays for Medicaid
patients in Arizona.
Rosenbaum noted that courts have been willing to block other Trump
policies under the APA, including requirements that
employer-provided health insurance cover birth control.
But James Blumstein, a professor of constitutional law and health
law at Vanderbilt University Law School, said he was skeptical that
the plaintiffs in the Kentucky case would prevail. He said HHS has
broad authority to determine what was likely to advance Medicaid's
objectives.
Blumstein said the administration could argue that it sees the
Medicaid program as part of a "comprehensive welfare approach," with
the goal of achieving good outcomes that could include pushing
recipients to work and move to private insurance.
"The idea that this is somehow antithetical to the Medicaid
objectives is just contrary to history," he said.
(Reporting by Brendan Pierson in New York; Editing by Noeleen Walder
and Leslie Adler)
[© 2018 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2018 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Thompson Reuters is solely responsible for this content. |