Judicial review of Medicaid waiver programs
Overview
Medicaid waiver programs allow states to test new approaches to delivering and financing Medicaid services outside certain federal rules. Common waivers include Section 1115 Research & Demonstration Waivers and Section 1915(c) Home and Community-Based Services (HCBS) Waivers.
Judicial review often focuses on:
Whether the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) properly approved or denied waiver applications.
Whether waivers comply with the Social Security Act.
Whether states and CMS comply with procedural requirements.
Whether waiver changes violate beneficiary rights or exceed statutory authority.
Key Cases on Judicial Review of Medicaid Waivers
1. Olmstead v. L.C. (1999)
Facts: Plaintiffs with mental disabilities challenged institutionalization, arguing for community-based care under Medicaid.
Issue: Whether unjustified segregation of people with disabilities violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Holding: The Supreme Court held that states must provide community-based services when appropriate.
Relevance: Influenced Medicaid waiver programs by emphasizing that waivers expanding home and community-based services must comply with ADA standards, promoting deinstitutionalization.
2. Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America v. Walsh (2003)
Facts: Challenged a Massachusetts Medicaid waiver that allowed the state to negotiate drug prices and restrict reimbursement.
Issue: Whether the waiver exceeded federal authority.
Holding: The First Circuit upheld the waiver, recognizing CMS’s broad discretion in approving innovative Medicaid programs.
Significance: Affirmed judicial deference to CMS decisions approving Medicaid waivers under Section 1115.
3. Charles H. v. Price (1994)
Facts: Class action by disabled children challenging Georgia’s Medicaid waiver changes limiting services.
Issue: Whether the state’s waiver modifications violated procedural due process and Medicaid requirements.
Holding: The court ruled that states must provide adequate notice and hearings before reducing Medicaid services via waiver changes.
Significance: Established that waiver program changes affecting benefits require due process protections.
4. Gresham v. Azar (2019)
Facts: Plaintiffs challenged the federal government’s approval of Medicaid work requirements in Arkansas under a Section 1115 waiver.
Issue: Whether CMS exceeded its authority by approving work requirements.
Holding: The District Court ruled that CMS acted arbitrarily and capriciously, and violated Medicaid’s objective to provide medical assistance.
Significance: First major judicial check on CMS approving Medicaid work requirements, emphasizing statutory purpose limits waiver approvals.
5. Medicaid Matters Ohio v. Himes (2021)
Facts: Ohio sought to impose Medicaid work requirements through a waiver; plaintiffs challenged the waiver approval.
Issue: Whether the waiver violated Medicaid’s coverage requirements and was properly approved.
Holding: The court ruled against Ohio, highlighting that work requirements conflicted with Medicaid’s core purpose.
Significance: Reinforced judicial skepticism toward Medicaid waivers undermining access to care.
6. Jackson v. Becerra (2022)
Facts: Plaintiffs challenged California’s use of a Section 1115 waiver to impose cost-sharing on Medicaid beneficiaries.
Issue: Whether CMS approval of cost-sharing violated Medicaid statutes.
Holding: The court found CMS approval inconsistent with Medicaid law and ruled for plaintiffs.
Significance: Highlighted judicial role in ensuring CMS does not approve waiver terms inconsistent with Medicaid protections.
7. Community Catalyst v. Azar (2020)
Facts: Lawsuit challenging CMS’s approval of Medicaid waivers that permitted work and community engagement requirements.
Issue: Whether such waivers violate Medicaid law by limiting access to medical assistance.
Holding: Courts invalidated or enjoined some of these waivers on grounds that they conflict with Medicaid’s purpose.
Significance: Affirmed that CMS must ensure waivers align with statutory objectives.
Summary Table
| Case | Key Issue | Holding Summary | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Olmstead v. L.C. (1999) | Community-based care vs. institutionalization | States must provide community services when appropriate | ADA compliance shapes waiver programs |
| PhRMA v. Walsh (2003) | CMS discretion in waiver approval | CMS’s broad discretion upheld | Courts defer to CMS waiver decisions |
| Charles H. v. Price (1994) | Due process for Medicaid benefit changes | States must provide notice & hearing for reductions | Protects Medicaid beneficiaries’ rights |
| Gresham v. Azar (2019) | Medicaid work requirements | CMS approval arbitrary and capricious | Limits CMS from approving conflicting waivers |
| Medicaid Matters Ohio v. Himes (2021) | Medicaid work requirements | Waivers undermining coverage struck down | Reinforces Medicaid’s core purpose |
| Jackson v. Becerra (2022) | Cost-sharing in Medicaid waivers | CMS approval inconsistent with Medicaid law | Judicial review ensures statutory compliance |
| Community Catalyst v. Azar (2020) | Work/community engagement requirements | Some waivers invalidated as conflicting | CMS must align waivers with Medicaid goals |
Final Thoughts
Courts generally give deference to CMS in approving Medicaid waivers but will intervene if waivers violate statutory mandates or fundamental rights.
Waiver programs must advance Medicaid’s purpose of providing medical assistance to eligible individuals, not undermine it.
Judicial review protects due process rights of beneficiaries when waivers reduce or change benefits.
Recent cases demonstrate courts scrutinizing work requirements and cost-sharing provisions as potential overreach.
RELATED Blog
0 comments