Illinois Supreme Court Orders State To Restart Payments to Medicaid Providers; New Hampshire Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Medicaid Lawsuit Brought by Counties
Summaries of recent legal issues related to the Medicaid programs in Illinois and New Hampshire appear below.
- Illinois: The Illinois Supreme Court on Wednesday placed a temporary hold on a judge's order to shut down an expansion of the state's FamilyCare program, which will require the administration of Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) to restart paying providers, the Chicago Tribune reports (Chicago Tribune, 11/13). Cook County Judge James Epstein last month renewed an ordered prohibiting the state from making payments under the expansion (Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, 10/17). However, court documents indicated that the state stopped paying providers treating all FamilyCare beneficiaries, not just those who received coverage under Blagojevich's expansion. The administration said it stopped all payments because it wanted the judge to clarify his ruling (Chicago Tribune, 11/13).
- New Hampshire: The New Hampshire Supreme Court on Wednesday heard arguments in a lawsuit by the New Hampshire Association of Counties against the state regarding the way Medicaid bills are shared, the Concord Monitor reports. In 2007, the state enacted a law that required county governments to cover the entire nonfederal cost of Medicaid expenses for nursing home and home-based-care patients. The costs not covered by the federal government previously were split evenly between the states and counties. In exchange for the counties shouldering the entire non-federal costs, the state agreed to pay the counties' share of other health programs. While "[p]roponents of the deal say it simplified what had been a burdensome and complicated administrative system, ... representatives for the counties say they're getting the worse end of the deal, since Medicaid and nursing home expenses are expected to increase far more in coming years than other health programs," according to the Monitor. Following the law's enactment, the state's 10 counties filed the lawsuit, claiming that the new arrangement is a violation of a state constitution provision against unfunded mandates, which forbids the state from assigning additional costs to municipalities without consent from the counties (Barrick, Concord Monitor, 11/13).
