Texas Supreme Court Temporarily Blocks Deep Cuts To Disabled Children’s Therapy Program
Texas lawmakers ordered $350 million in cuts for Medicaid programs that provide physical, speech and occupational therapy to disabled children arguing that the state overpaid for those services.
The Texas Tribune:
Texas Supreme Court Halts Children's Therapy Cuts
The Texas Supreme Court on Friday delivered a temporary, last-minute victory to families of children with disabilities who want to stop sweeping budget cuts to a state-funded children’s therapy program. State lawmakers last year approved $350 million in budget cuts for Medicaid programs that provide physical, speech and occupational therapy to disabled children. Blocked once before by a district court order, the cuts were scheduled to take effect July 15 after an appellate court ruled in April that Texas could move forward with them. (Walters, 7/8)
San Antonio Express-News:
Texas Supreme Court Temporarily Blocks Medicaid Therapy Cuts
The court's decision, which reinstated an injunction issued by a state district judge last September, was announced in a two-sentence order. The ruling is a victory for the therapists and parents of children with disabilities, who together have been fighting the cuts, which would take away $350 million in services to poor kids with disabilities. That total is made up of a $150 million cut in state funding and a $200 million federal match. (Rosenthal, 7/8)
Dallas Morning News:
Texas Supreme Court Halts Deep Cuts To Therapy Payments For Disabled Kids
The reductions [in therapists' pay] would be as great as nearly 26 percent. Companies, including those who supported families who brought the lawsuit, say care could be disrupted for tens of thousands of children with disabilities or speech delays caused by premature birth. The commission, and some GOP lawmakers who forced it to cut therapy reimbursements, argued Texas Medicaid was paying home health agencies more than other states' Medicaid programs and some private insurers. The underlying data for that decision, though, has been the object of intense debate for more than a year. (Garrett, 7/8)
