Update: Legal Challenges to the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid Maintenance of Effort Provisions

Posted on September 26, 2012 | No Comments

PDF Version
Details
Library
Implementation Briefs
Key Developments

By Katherine Jett Hayes

Background

Maintenance of Effort

The Affordable Care Act (ACA), in addition to expanding coverage to individuals with incomes below 133 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL), includes provisions designed to preserve existing Medicaid coverage — known as the maintenance of effort provision, or MOE[1] — until the ACA is fully implemented. The ACA’s MOE provision requires states to maintain their current Medicaid eligibility standards, methodologies, and procedures until the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) determines that a state Exchange is fully operational. For children, the ACA’s MOE extends through September 30, 2019. States may reduce eligibly for certain non-pregnant, non-adult populations with incomes over 133 percent of poverty, if the state certifies to the Secretary that the state will operate a budget deficit, or is projected to have a budget deficit. The HHS Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has provided guidance to states on the MOE. For more information see previous Implementation Briefs here and here.

Legal Challenges to the ACA and Subsequent Guidance

Twenty-six states challenged the constitutionality of the Medicaid expansion included in section 2001(a) of the ACA, contending that the expansion was coercive and was not a reasonable exercise of congressional authority granted under the federal Constitution’s Spending Clause or Tenth Amendment. In deciding the issue, the U.S. Supreme Court determined in NFIB v. Sebelius[2] that because the expansion was a significant change in the Medicaid program — in the words of the Court, a change in “kind” not merely “degree” — it constituted a “new program.” The Court also noted the size of the expansion in terms of state budgets and the lack of notice given states about Congress’s intention to make Medicaid a central element of a comprehensive system of national health reform. For these reasons, the Court held that withholding all Medicaid funding from states that fail to enact the expansion was unconstitutional,[3] though it left the expansion in place as a state option. HealthReformGPS published an Implementation Brief addressing the implications of the Supreme Court’s decision for Medicaid. This brief examines the most recent legal challenge to the ACA by the State of Maine, which concerns the MOE provision.

Recent Action

Since the Supreme Court’s ruling in June 2012, some opponents of the ACA have argued that the MOE provisions of the law were invalidated along with the Medicaid expansion remedy. In a July 10, 2012 letter to Governors, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius disagreed with that interpretation, concluding that the ruling applies only to the adult expansion and that the decision does “not affect other provisions of the law.”[4] Further supporting the Secretary’s interpretation, a recently released report from the Congressional Research Service (CRS), a non-partisan congressional agency that provides research for Members of Congress and their staff, concluded that the MOE is unaffected by the Court’s ruling and thus remain fully enforceable as a basic program requirement.[5]

At the same time, a number of states have sought to reduce Medicaid or CHIP eligibility since the ACA’s enactment. The State of Maine has taken action in recent weeks to set the stage for a legal challenge to the MOE requirement.[6] On August 1, 2012, Governor LePage sent a letter to HHS Secretary Sebelius seeking expedited approval of a state plan amendment (SPA) to reduce Medicaid eligibility for certain populations, including parents and caretakers, young adults aged 19 and 20, and dual-eligible individuals, asking CMS to respond within 30 days.[7] The State argues that the reductions for parents and caretakers fall within the scope of the MOE exception, which permits states to reduce coverage for non-pregnant, non-disabled adults with incomes over 133 percent of poverty, if the state certifies to the Secretary that the state will be operating under a budget deficit.

Maine also contends the MOE is “part and parcel of the Medicaid expansion that was struck down on June 28, 2012.”[8] The state argues that under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act,[9] Congress established a temporary voluntary program providing enhanced federal match rates for states that chose to comply with a MOE requirement. That program was extended through June 30, 2011, as part of the Education, Jobs and Medical Assistance Act.[10] The state further argues that the ACA froze eligibility without extending the enhanced match rate, turning a voluntary program into a mandate. Because the underlying Medicaid statutory enforcement mechanism is a loss of all Medicaid funding for states that fail to comply, the MOE is the same “gun to the head” included in the ACA Medicaid expansion. Finally, the letter requests that should the Secretary fail to either expedite or approve the request, CMS pay Maine for costs incurred by the state after October 1, 2012 for the population addressed in the SPA and for any litigation costs.[11] In response to the letter, Acting CMS Administrator Marilyn Tavenner responded that the agency needed additional time to consider the request, indicating that federal regulations permit the agency 90 days to review state plan amendments.[12] The response did not address Maine’s request for the cost of coverage and litigation.

Shortly after receiving the CMS response letter, the State filed a motion for injunctive relief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. In addition to the standard procedural arguments that must be demonstrated before a court will issue injunctive relief (i.e., that the case will succeed on it’s merits and that the plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm, among others) the State argued that the ACA MOE is unconstitutional based on the Supreme Court Decision in NFIB v. Sebelius, calling the MOE provision a “gun to the head” of Maine. In arguing the merits of the case, the State uses the same line of reasoning outlined in the letter to Secretary Sebelius. The State asks the court to direct CMS to approve the SPA or order the federal government to pay Maine’s share of Medicaid costs incurred after October 1, 2012, pending outcome of the litigation.[13]

In a single paragraph opinion filed by Chief Judge Lynch and Circuit Judges Howard and Thompson, the court denied the State’s request, concluding that the facts do not warrant relief. The State is expected continue litigation once the Secretary has issued a decision on the SPA, and is likely to challenge the MOE on the same basis that the ACA expansion requirement was challenged.[14]



[1] Affordable Care Act §2001(b).
[2] 132 S. Ct. 2566 (2012).
[3] NFIB v. Sebelius at 2604.
[4] Letter from Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to Governors. July 10, 2012.
[5] Congressional Research Service Memorandum on “Selected Issues Related to the Effect of NFIB v. Sebelius on the Medicaid Expansion Requirements in Section 2001 of the Affordable Care Act,” p. 5. July 16, 2012.
[6] States Cutting Medicaid, Kaiser Health Reports. July 23, 2012. Available online at: http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2012/July/25/medicaid-cuts.aspx.
[7] Letter from Governor LePage to Secretary Sebelius, August 1, 2012. Available online at http://maine.gov/dhhs/documents/Sebelius-Kathleen_Letter-8-1-2012.pdf.
[8] Id. at 2.
[9] Pub. L. 111-5, at §501(h)(3). (2009).
[10] Pub. L. 111-226. (2010).
[11] Letter from Maine Department of Health and Human Services Commissioner Mary Mayhew to CMS Associate Regional Administrator Richard. R. McGreal, August 1, 2012. Available online at http://www.maine.gov/dhhs/documents/SPA-12-010-Eligibility-Cover-Letter-8-12-2012.pdf.
[12] Letter from CMS Acting Secretary Marilyn Tavenner to Maine Governor Paul LePage. Available online at http://www.healthreformgps.org/wp-content/uploads/MEI2MXJycG1SU3JRV1VsZFhkMWhFZFZOWmNrVQ.pdf.
[13] Mayhew v. Maine, petitioner’s motion for injunctive relief, No. 12-2059, (1st Cir., filed Sept. 13, 2012). Available online at http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Maine-MOE-Motion-for-Preliminary-Injunction-2012.pdf.
[14] Mayhew v. Maine, judgment, No. 12-2059, (1st Cir., filed Sept. 13, 2012). Available online at http://www.healthreformgps.org/wp-content/uploads/CA1-order-denying-petition-and-motion-for-injunction-Mayhew-9.13.2012.pdf.
Affordable Care Act §2001(b).
132 S. Ct. 2566 (2012).
NFIB v. Sebelius at 2604.
Letter from Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to Governors. July 10, 2012.
Congressional Research Service Memorandum on “Selected Issues Related to the Effect of NFIB v. Sebelius on the Medicaid Expansion Requirements in Section 2001 of the Affordable Care Act,” p. 5. July 16, 2012.
States Cutting Medicaid, Kaiser Health Reports. July 23, 2012. Available online at: http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2012/July/25/medicaid-cuts.aspx.
Letter from Governor LePage to Secretary Sebelius, August 1, 2012. Available online at http://maine.gov/dhhs/documents/Sebelius-Kathleen_Letter-8-1-2012.pdf.
Id. at 2.
Pub. L. 111-5, at §501(h)(3). (2009).
Pub. L. 111-226. (2010).
Letter from Maine Department of Health and Human Services Commissioner Mary Mayhew to CMS Associate Regional Administrator Richard. R. McGreal, August 1, 2012. Available online at http://www.maine.gov/dhhs/documents/SPA-12-010-Eligibility-Cover-Letter-8-12-2012.pdf.
Letter from CMS Acting Secretary Marilyn Tavenner to Maine Governor Paul LePage. Available online at http://www.healthreformgps.org/wp-content/uploads/MEI2MXJycG1SU3JRV1VsZFhkMWhFZFZOWmNrVQ.pdf.
Mayhew v. Maine, petitioner’s motion for injunctive relief, No. 12-2059, (1st Cir., filed Sept. 13, 2012). Available online at http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Maine-MOE-Motion-for-Preliminary-Injunction-2012.pdf.
Mayhew v. Maine, judgment, No. 12-2059, (1st Cir., filed Sept. 13, 2012). Available online at http://www.healthreformgps.org/wp-content/uploads/CA1-order-denying-petition-and-motion-for-injunction-Mayhew-9.13.2012.pdf

No Comments

Public comments are closed.

The State Health Reform Assistance Network, in conjunction with the National Academy of State Health Policy and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, released a checklist detailing Medicaid requirements that each state must meet by 2014, irrespective of whether or not a state expands Medicaid eligibility as described in the Affordable Care Act (ACA). To accompany the outlined requirements and optional provisions detailed in the report, State Health Reform Assistance Network has also included a resource list with tools and analyses that can be incorporated to aid in Medicaid requirement implementation. The checklist is divided into five categories that should be altered in response to pending Medicaid changes, each of which containing various requirements to satisfy the specified category:
  • Eligibility and Enrollment
  • Medicaid Operations
  • Medicaid Financing
  • Medicaid Benefits
  • Consumer Assistance
The Congressional Research Services (CRS) published a memo saying that states cannot change Medicaid eligibility before 2014. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires states to maintain 2009 Medicaid eligibility standards through 2014 as part of the maintenance of effort provision. The purpose of this effort is to stop states from limiting eligibility until the federal government reimbursement increases take effect in 2014. The Supreme Court’s June 28th ruling on Medicaid expansion caused many leaders to call into question the ACA's maintenance of effort provision. The CRS report confirms that the ruling does not free governors to modify current Medicaid eligibility rules. The Obama administration has made similar arguments in letters to governors, saying that the Supreme Court ruling only affected Medicaid expansion and did not carry over into other provisions such as maintenance of effort. The CRS report was less clear regarding whether states can choose to expand Medicaid after 2014. The report said that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius could decide that states must join the expansion by 2014, noting, however that a state could argue that if it meets the health care law’s Medicaid requirements at a later date, the federal government must support them. The report also said that it is unclear if states can choose to cover some, but not all, of the newly eligible group of Medicaid beneficiaries.
UC Berkeley, funded by grants from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and The California Endowment, recently released the brief, "The Promise of the Affordable Care Act, the Practical Realities of Implementation: Maintaining Health Coverage During Life Transitions," which discusses seamless health coverage under the Affordable Care Act for individuals and families who lose health insurance because of a work or life transition. While outreach and education are essential for enrollment, such efforts are not sufficient to assure that those eligible will enroll in programs during these transition periods. This policy paper addresses the question, "How can implementation of the Affordable Care Act build on institutional connections and develop widespread cultural knowledge of the availability of coverage during life transitions that precipitate the loss of private coverage?"
Beginning January 1, 2014, millions of previously uninsured individuals will gain access to health insurance coverage under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). On November 20, 2012, the Obama Administration proposed a series of regulations that move the nation significantly toward full implementation. These proposed rules will be analyzed at greater length in coming GPS Implementation Brief updates. In the meantime, this overview summarizes the major federal implementation matters that the Administration has recently released or is expected to address in policy or program implementation in the coming weeks and months as the 2014 full implementation date approaches. Together, these matters address...
In NFIB v Sebelius the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA or the Act). At the same time, the decision adds a new dimension to the implementation of §2001(a) of the Act, which establishes expanded Medicaid eligibility for certain low-income people. This Implementation Brief begins with a discussion of exactly what the Court held in its Medicaid ruling. It then discusses the significance of the majority conclusion, as well as the key implementation questions that arise in the wake of this opinion.
House and Senate Republicans introduced legislation to permit states, effective on the date of enactment, to repeal both the ARRA MOE provisions and the Medicaid and CHIP MOE provisions included in the ACA. The State Flexibility Act (H.R. 1683) was introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA). The Senate companion legislation (S. 868) was introduced by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee. Supporters of the State Flexibility Act argue that the MOE limits the ability of states to lower Medicaid spending and balance state budgets.
In recessionary times, states seek to reduce Medicaid spending; paradoxically, this is when the need for public insurance may be the highest. During the recession that occurred in the early 2000s, two-thirds of all states reduced Medicaid eligibility, removing between 1.2 and 1.6 million children and adults from the program before Congress enacted legislation barring further cuts as a condition of additional federal assistance. The current recession is far more serious, and state budget shortfalls, far greater.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) told the Supreme Court yesterday that they would not attempt to block requests to reopen a lawsuit against the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Such a lawsuit could potentially place the ACA in front of the Supreme Court again as early as next year. In 2010, Liberty University sued over the minimum coverage provision and other aspects of the ACA, but the case was set aside when the 26 states and NFIB case went before the Supreme Court. Because the court upheld the constitutionality of the individual mandate in its June 28th decision, it essentially tossed out Liberty's lawsuit. Liberty now wants the Supreme Court to review its other challenges to the ACA. Specifically, Liberty claims that the law's employer coverage requirements are unconstitutional, as the mandate's contraception coverage requirement violates the right to freely exercise religion. Over 30 such claims have been filed against the Obama administration. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli's letter to the court states that although the DOJ believes that the Liberty claims "lack merit," the DOJ does not oppose the courts reviewing the suit.
Yesterday, Maine Attorney General William Schneider filed documents with the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston requesting review of a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' (CMS) determination that it would not be able to grant Maine's request for an expedited ruling on the state’s August 1 proposed state plan amendment (SPA), which makes significant cuts to their Medicaid program. Schneider also asked the court to order federal officials to pay Maine's share of related Medicaid expenses for the time they take in considering the request. By law, the federal government has 90 days to rule on the Medicaid consolidation request. The Maine department of Health and Human Services had planned to implement the Medicaid cuts by October 1. However, if the government employs the full 90-day time frame to rule on state's request, Maine could be waiting on a decision until the end of October.