holding Medicaid state plan requirement permitting all eligible recipients to receive medical assistance from the provider of their choice established “a personal right to which all Medicaid patients are entitled” but, implicitly, need not accept (emphasis added)
How later courts described this case
- holding Medicaid state plan requirement permitting all eligible recipients to receive medical assistance from the provider of their choice established “a personal right to which all Medicaid patients are entitled” but, implicitly, need not accept (emphasis added)
- noting that the Medicaid Act outlines “specific grounds upon which states may bar providers from participating in Medicaid,” but not addressing whether a Medicaid patient could sue under § 1983 to challenge a State’s particular qualification determination, nor what level of deference, if any, would be accorded to the State’s determination in such a suit
- observing that 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(p)(l) and its cross-referenced sections of the Medicaid Act represent a non-exhaustive list of specific mandatory or permissive grounds for states to exclude providers, including “fraud, drug crimes, and failure to disclose necessary information to regulators”
- asserting that O’Bannon is a “due-process case” and that by contrast “Planned Parenthood and its patients are not suing for violation of their procedural rights; they are making a substantive claim that Indiana’s defunding law violates § 1396a(a)(23).” (emphasis in original)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CUDAHY,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I join Part IIA of the majority opinion in full. I also join Part UBI and IIB2 but do not join Part IIB3 or the reversal of the judgment requiring modification of the preliminary injunction insofar as it prohibits state restrictions on § 247c(e) block-grant funding. I believe the issue of unconstitutional conditions should be remanded to the district court for development of the record with respect to any possible imposition of a burden on access *989 to abortions. In arguing the matter below, Planned Parenthood was required to defend both its Medicaid and block-grant funding. Unsurprisingly, Planned Parenthood focused on Medicaid and aimed its brief primarily at the appropriate interpretation of § 1396a(a)(23). The § 247c(c) block-grant funding received comparatively little attention from both parties as well as numerous amici in this case. I believe it is premature for this court to address this issue on the present record. Plaintiffs may not have fully addressed this issue below, but the fundamental constitutional nature of this issue should preclude its disposition on less than an adequate record.