Courts ruled no "equal access" for Medicaid recipients

[Rose Siding]

snip>
The judges, following guidance from the Supreme Court, are ruling that Medicaid recipients cannot use the courts to enforce a provision of the law that says they should have the same access to health care services as "the general population."

While the federal courts are still full of Medicaid litigation, it is proving more difficult for beneficiaries to prevail.

.....

In a typical case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, said this month that Medicaid recipients could not enforce the provision of the Medicaid law that promises them "equal access" to care and services. In establishing this guarantee, the court said, "Congress did not unambiguously create an individually enforceable right."

It is not enough for Medicaid recipients to show "merely a violation of federal law or the denial of a benefit," the court said. In addition, it said, plaintiffs must show that Congress clearly intended to allow individuals to go to court to enforce the law.

http://nytimes.com/2005/08/15/politics/politicsspecial1/15medicaid.html

[William769]

1. Well that throughly confused me!

I must be missing something.

[rodeodance]

2. medicare patients do not have a right to medical care (only those that

have insurance or can pay out of pocket have that right)===its simple really.

[William769]

3. Well if they don't have a right to medical care what do they have a right

to? Thats what confusing me.

[Igel]

4. It looks like the issue is whether a simple Federal law can

produce a right that individuals can enforce by litigation against individual states.

I.e., can Congress make a law that produces a positive right that Minnesota then has to guarantee?

[William769]

8. Thank you, now it makes sense.

But doesn't the Federal Government give block grants for Medicad? I thought thats how medicad was basicly financed in Florida.

[Igel]

10. I'm only familiar with the mess that was created in NY state.

Congressional disbursements haven't covered the costs of medicare for many a year. States have covered the difference, and sometimes have cut benefits, or acted a bit strangely, depending how much authority the counties have. New York state had counties picking up a lot of the tab.

It makes for uneven distribution of health care between states, and sometimes within states, with explicit or implicit promises to care recipients being rescinded (cf. Tennessee recently), or health care options being oddly excluded.

[Jim Sagle]

5. Why the fuck would Congress PASS a law and NOT expect individuals to be

able to go to court to enforce it?

Damn activist judges!

[tibbir]

6. Check out the references to Medicaid, not Medicare.

Medicare is run by the feds, medicaid is run by the states. Different programs entirely.

[mantis49]

7. Medicare and Medicaid are not the same.

Your subject line needs to be changed, I think, to lessen the confusion.

[Rose Siding]

9. Oops- thank you

fixed :hi:

[wli]

11. fascism on the goose-step n/t

[Sgent]

12. I'm missing something

Is this just about this specific law, or about congressional law in general. If individuals were not able to sue individual states under federal law, this would essentially gut the Civil Rights Act and a myriad of other legislation.

BTW... the law in question states that people on Medicaid must have equal access to care as the rest of the population. This provision has been used repeatedly since the 60's to enforce it on states who refuse to provide adequate coverage.

[rodeodance]

13. if I read the article right--this has been challenged (sucessfully).