Case Against The Idaho 's Department Of Health And Welfare

1817 Words8 Pages
Exceptional Child Center and 4 others companies filed a lawsuit against the Idaho’s Department of Health and Welfare. The federal district court granted the plaintiff summary of judgement. The ninth circuit confirmed that action. Richard Armstrong, the defendant petitioned for a hearing at the supreme court. The supreme court gave write of certiorari to the court of appeals for the 9th circuit. Exceptional Child Center filed a lawsuit against Richard Armstrong , head of the Idaho health’s departments and Leslie Clement. The case is about the provider challenge to the state of Idaho’s reimbursement rates for Medicaid Providers, meaning that whether Medicaid providers could sue a state because it violates the federal Medicaid Act. The…show more content…
Exceptional Child Center alleged that by failing to alter the reimbursement rates for the in home care, the Idaho’s department of health violated the state Equal access provision. The district court decided that in order to satisfy the requirement of the equal access provision, the state must take into account the costs of care when setting reimbursement rates. After the plaintiff filed a complaint, the Idaho district court granted summary judgement in favor of the plaintiff, stating that the department of Health and welfare didn’t satisfy the requirements of the section 30(A) because they didn’t consider the cost of in-home care when setting reimbursement rates. The plaintiff used the supreme clause to challenge the state reimbursement rates decision. The 9th circuit upheld the decision of the district court, stating that the state department of health must consider costs when making decisions. Also, ECC (Exceptional Child Care), thought had a private right of action under the supremacy clause to sue Idaho’s department of health. The parties disagreed over whether Medicaid providers could enforce the state plans for Medicaid assistance through a private cause of action for an injunction under the supremacy clause against the Department of health. The defendant assured that congress didn’t allow Medicaid providers to enforce the equal access provision clause against state officials, thus under the supremacy clause, has no right to bring this injunction against
Get Access