NHeLP Motion to File Amicus Brief in Support of ACA

Executive Summary

Amicus brief filed in support of ACA (re commandeering)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
PENSACOLA DIVISION 
Case No. 3:10-cv-91-RV/EMT 
State of Florida, by and through Bill McCollum, 
Attorney General of the State of Florida, et al.,  Plaintiffs, 
v. 
United States Department of Health and Human 
Services, et al., Defendants. 
 
 
Motion
 
The Amici move the Court to participate as amici curiae in connection with the pending Motions for Summary Judgment in this case. Amici seek to assist the Court with deciding Count Four of the Amended Complaint, which alleges coercion and commandeering as to the Medicaid program. As required by the Order on Amicus Curiae Filings (Jun. 14, 2010) (Docket Entry (DE) 50), the accompanying memorandum shows that (1) the Amici will not duplicate information already in the parties? memoranda; (2) Amicis? brief will assist the Court as it considers Count Four; and (3) the Amicis?interests will be affected by the Court?s decision. 
 
Memorandum in Support of Motion
Count Four of the Amended Complaint challenges provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) that expand Medicaid to childless, non-disabled adults whose incomes are below 133% of the federal poverty level. Am. Compl., Count Four (May 14, 2010) (DE 42). According to the Plaintiffs, the ACA converts Medicaid into a ?federally-imposed universal healthcare regime? that, given the size of Federal Medicaid grants, they have no choice but to accept. Id. at ¶ 2, 54. While noting the argument ?stands on extremely ?wobbly legs,?? the Court allowed Plaintiffs to proceed to summary judgment with this ?coercion and commandeering? claim. Florida ex rel. McCollum v. U.S. Dep?t of Health & Human Services, — F. Supp. 2d –, 2010 WL 4010119, at *30 (N.D. Fla. 2010). 
 
1. Amici will not duplicate information already before the Court.
 
In their Memoranda in Support of Summary Judgment, the parties address the Medicaid coercion and commandeering argument using legal arguments and exhibits that focus on the costs associated with the ACA?s Medicaid provisions. The Plaintiffs have submitted exhibits and affidavits from State officials to show that the ACA works such a transformation that the States will be required to spend money and provide services in ways that are ?radically changed? from what was required by the Medicaid Act before the ACA was enacted. See Plfs.? Mem. in Supp. of Summ. J. at 24-44 (Nov. 4, 2010) (DE 80-1.). The Defendants provide legal argument and exhibits to show that the ACA Medicaid provisions will reduce the number of uninsured people and that any increases in State spending will be more than offset by new savings under the ACA. Defs.? Mem. in Supp. of Summ. J. at 38-47 (Nov. 4, 2010) (DE 82-1.). 
 
While the memoranda include brief discussions of the Medicaid Act, neither party explained how the ACA?s Medicaid provisions fit within the frame and structure of the Medicaid program or how the provisions relate to the Medicaid Act and its amendment over time. As a result, Amici would like to submit a brief to the Court that describes the consistent features of the Medicaid program and provides a narrative history of the Medicaid Act, from the date of its enactment through the amendments made by the ACA. 
 

—————————————————————–
Text has been truncated. For full publication text, download document. 

Related Content

For almost 50 years, the National Health Law Program has fought to expand access to quality health care to low-income individuals and underserved communities. Today we are pleased to launch a newly designed website for our future work to make health care a reality for all people. Please take time to peruse our new site, and sign up for our email updates to learn about us, watch the work we do, and become engaged.

Continue to site