Catherine McKee is a Senior Attorney in the National Health Law Program’s North Carolina office. She works to protect access to Medicaid coverage and services, including the full range of reproductive health services. Catherine has been involved in a number of cases challenging the approval of Section 1115 waiver projects that restrict coverage and access to care.
Before joining the National Health Law Program, Catherine worked in San Francisco as a staff attorney at Legal Services for Prisoners with Children. At LSPC, she coordinated a statewide project that assisted incarcerated domestic violence survivors. Catherine began her legal career as a Soros Justice Fellow at the National Housing Law Project, where she advocated for increased access to affordable housing for individuals returning home from prison or jail.
Catherine is a graduate of the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law. She received her B.A. in Public Policy Studies from Duke University. She is admitted to the bar in North Carolina and California (inactive).
Recent Cases:
McCutchen v. Becerra, D.D.C.: Thirteen Medicaid enrollees, a pediatrician, and the Tennessee Justice Center are challenging the approval of the TennCare III project as a violation of the APA. The approval caps the amount of federal funding available to the State, continues Tennessee’s decades-long waiver of retroactive coverage, and permits the State to restrict coverage of medically necessary prescription drugs.
D.H. v. Snyder, District of Arizona: Two transgender young people enrolled in Medicaid filed a class action lawsuit challenging an Arizona regulation that prohibits coverage of medically necessary gender-confirming surgery.
Rose v. Azar, D.D.C.: Indiana residents enrolled in Medicaid filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration challenging its extension of a Section 1115 project (HIP 2.0) allowing the State to impose work requirements, premiums, and other restrictions on coverage.
Philbrick v. Azar, D.D.C., D.C. Circuit, and Supreme Court: Four low-income individuals from New Hampshire enrolled in Medicaid filed a class action lawsuit against the Trump administration challenging its approval of New Hampshire’s Section 1115 project, which includes an illegal work requirement and a waiver of retroactive coverage.
Gresham v. Azar, D.D.C., D.C. Circuit, Supreme Court: Arkansas residents enrolled in Medicaid filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration challenging its approval of a Section 1115 waiver that would allow Arkansas to impose onerous conditions on eligibility, including work requirements, and eliminate retroactive coverage.
Stewart v. Azar, D.D.C. and D.C. Circuit: Sixteen Kentuckians enrolled in Medicaid filed a class action lawsuit against the Trump administration challenging its approval of a Section 1115 waiver permitting Kentucky to implement sweeping changes to its Medicaid program, including work requirements, premiums, and lockouts, that would terminate Medicaid coverage for tens of thousands of low-income individuals in the State.
Additional Work:
Amicus: Allegheny Reproductive Health Center v. Pennsylvania DHS, Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. In 1985, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld a state law restricting the use of public funding for abortions, finding that it did not violate the Pennsylvania Constitution. In January 2019, eight reproductive health centers filed suit seeking reconsideration of that decision and ultimately, a court order requiring the Commonwealth to cover abortions for Medicaid-eligible individuals. The National Health Law Program, along with local counsel at Berner Klaw & Watson LLP, filed an amicus brief in support of the abortion providers.
Amicus: Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America v. Williams, Eighth Circuit: PhRMA is challenging a 2020 Minnesota law designed to ensure that people with diabetes can access the insulin they need to survive. The National Health Law Program, T1International, Minnesota #insulin4all, Mid-Minnesota Legal Aid, and four Minnesota residents submitted an amicus brief in the district court and in the 8th Circuit highlighting the importance of the affordability programs created by the state law.
