National Health Law Program Files Amicus Brief Defending Medicaid Beneficiaries’ Right to Choose Their Providers in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic

National Health Law Program Files Amicus Brief Defending Medicaid Beneficiaries’ Right to Choose Their Providers in <i>Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic</i>

Washington, D.C. – The National Health Law Program (NHeLP), along with 26 other advocacy organizations, has submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, a case that will decide whether Medicaid beneficiaries have the right to challenge a state’s decision to exclude their qualified provider from the program.

Read our Case Explainer

At issue is the Medicaid Act’s “free choice of provider” provision, which ensures that beneficiaries can receive care from the provider of their choice. In 2018, South Carolina barred Planned Parenthood South Atlantic from serving Medicaid patients despite the fact that there were no concerns with the quality of care that was being provided. Lower courts ruled in favor of Medicaid enrollees and Planned Parenthood, affirming that enrollees have the right to enforce this provision and challenge the exclusions.

NHeLP’s amicus brief urges the Court to uphold this well-established right. It highlights over 30 years of precedent confirming that Congress can create enforceable rights within federal spending programs like Medicaid. The brief argues that the petitioner—now joined by the U.S. government—is attempting to dismantle this long-standing legal framework, despite, as recently as 2023, the Supreme Court affirming in Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County v. Talevski that individuals can enforce rights under federal programs.

“For many years, the Supreme Court has applied a test it developed for deciding when a Medicaid Act provision can be enforced by program enrollees,” said Jane Perkins, Litigation Director at NHeLP. “Multiple circuit courts have concluded that the free choice of provider provision easily meets the test. We look forward to the Supreme Court affirming the Fourth Circuit’s well-reasoned decision.”

Oral arguments are scheduled for April 2, 2025, with a ruling expected by summer.

Read Amicus

To learn more about this case and connect with the experts at the National Health Law Program, please contact Andy DiAntonio, Director of Communications, at diantonio@healthlaw.org.


NATIONAL SIGNATORIES:

National Disability Rights Network

Community Catalyst

National Center on Law and Economic Justice

The Arc

Judge David L. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law

Justice in Aging

Center for Medicare Advocacy

Center for Public Representation

Compassion and Choices

National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association

Positive Women’s Network-USA

AIDS United

Autistic Women & Nonbinary Network

Sylvia Law, Professor Emerita, New York University School of Law

STATE-BASED SIGNATORIES:

William E. Morris Institute for Justice (AZ)

Maternal and Child Health Access (CA)

Florida Health Justice Project

Public Justice Center (MD)

Center for Civil Justice (MI)

Nebraska Appleseed Center for Law in the Public Interest

New York Legal Assistance Group

Charlotte Center for Legal Advocacy (NC)

Pisgah Legal Services (NC)

Pennsylvania Health Law Project

Tennessee Justice Center

Disability Rights Wisconsin

Related Content