National Health Law Program: Three Judge Appeals Court Panel Takes Up the Legality of Medicaid Work Requirements, Other Waiver Projects
Earlier today a three judge panel of the
The cases, Stewart v. Azar and Gresham v. Azar, were brought by a diverse group of low-income individuals in
Plaintiffs in both states are represented by the National Health Law Program,
In oral arguments,
"These waivers are part of an avowed effort by the Secretary to transform Medicaid," said
At the center of the cases is the ability of the Secretary of
National Health Law Program Legal Director
The government's argument that implementing work requirements helps people live healthy lives also falls flat.
"The majority of people on Medicaid already work, and they rely on insurance to get the medicines and treatments needed to stay healthy enough to keep doing so. As we saw in
While arguments over administrative action can feel hypothetical, the real world impact of these waiver projects is real and traumatic for low-income communities. Before Judge
In
"
"The lower court correctly ruled - twice -- that imposing work requirements is arbitrary and capricious," said
Advisor News
Annuity News
Health/Employee Benefits News
Life Insurance News