Some Provisions of Medicaid Law Create Enforceable Rights

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals holds that certain provisions of Medicaid law create an enforceable private right of action under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Westside Mothers v. Olszewski (U.S. Cir. Ct. App., 6th Cir., No. 05-1669, July 17, 2006).

A group of parents of children receiving Medicaid claimed that the state of Michigan was failing to provide medical services under the "early and periodic screening, diagnosis and treatment" benefits program, as required by federal Medicaid law. They filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that 42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(8) and 1396a(a)(10) mandate the actual provision of, or arrangement for, certain medical services, including care, medicine, and equipment; the state developed a Medicaid program that does not provide access to eligible children to the care and services available under the plan, in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(30); the state did not effectively inform plaintiffs of the existence of the screening and treatment services, as required by 42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(43)(A); the state violated 42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(43)(B) by failing to provide transportation and scheduling to help beneficiaries take advantage of the screening and treatment services.

The U.S. District Court granted the state summary judgment, holding that the state had sovereign immunity against the suit. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit unanimously reversed the decision, holding that the plaintiffs have a cause of action under 1983 for alleged non-compliance with the screening and treatment provisions of the Medicaid Act.

On remand the U.S. District Court reconsidered whether the specific provisions identified by the parents created rights under 1983. The court concluded that 1396a(a)(8) and 1396a(a)(10) created an enforceable right, but the parents failed to state a claim under those provisions. They also found that 1396a(a)(43) created an enforceable right, but that parents failed to state a claim for violations of 1396a(a)(43)(A) because it does not require a state to effectively inform all eligible children of services. The court held that the parents did state a claim under 1396a(a)(43)(B). Finally, the court held that 1396a(a)(30) did not create an enforceable right under 1983. The parents appealed.

The U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, affirms in part. The court holds that the parents did not state a claim under 1396a(a)(8) and 1396a(a)(10) because the provisions do not require the state to provide services directly to the parents. However, the court dismisses the claims without prejudice, so the parents can amend their complaint to allege the state did not provide sufficient payments for services, thereby frustrating the provisions. In addition, the court agrees with the district court that 1396a(a)(30) does not create an individually enforceable right under 1983 because it does not focus on individual entitlements. Finally, the court finds that the parents did state a claim under 1396a(a)(43)(A). According to the court, the implementing regulations for 1396a(a)(43)(A) require the state to "effectively" inform all eligible individuals of services.

To download the full text of this decision in PDF format, https://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0247p-06.pdf.
(If you do not have the free PDF reader installed on your computer, download it here.)