61 Pages Posted: 30 May 2012
Date Written: May 22, 2012
The Medicaid expansion in Section 2001(a)(1)(C) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is one part of Congress’s comprehensive effort to expand access to health care coverage. This expansion is not revolutionary, but builds on many prior statutory amendments to Medicaid. Nor does it alter the voluntary nature of the Medicaid program – as before, States remain free to decline federal funding. The Petitioners and their amici have mischaracterized the expansion to obscure these facts, hoping this Court will unravel this hard-fought legislative enactment.
The question presented is whether Congress may offer States generous additional funding for Medicaid, with spending conditions that entirely satisfy the four-part test in South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987).
Keywords: Medicaid, Section 2001(a)(1)(C) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, health care coverage, South Dakota v. Dole (483 U.S. 203 (1987))
JEL Classification: H51, K32
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Outterson, Kevin and Hermer, Laura D. and Huberfeld, Nicole and Leonard, Elizabeth Weeks and Rosenbaum, Sara and Watson, Sidney D., Brief of Amici Curiae Health Law & Policy Scholars and Prescriptions Policy Choices in Support of Respondents on the Constitutional Validity of the Medicaid Expansion in State of Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services (May 22, 2012). Boston Univ. School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 12-27; Boston Univ. School of Law, Law and Economics Research Paper No. 12-27. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2070631 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2070631
Brief of Amici Curiae Jewish Alliance for Law & Social Action (JALSA), Jewish Council on Urban Affairs (JCUA), Jewish Social Policy Action Network (JSPAN), New England Jewish Labor Commmittee (JLC), and Professor Abigail R. Moncrieff in Support of Petitioners on the Individual Liberal Implications of the Minimum Coverage Provision in Department of Health and Human Services v. State of Florida