Tampa judge tosses DeSantis bid to block mandated children's health care law

TAMPA, Fla. (WFLA) -- A judge in Tampa rejected Florida officials' challenge to a federal law allowing children of low-income families to receive subsidized health insurance for a year, even if their parents miss payments.

U.S. District Judge William Jung, appointed to the Middle District of Florida by former President Donald Trump, tossed out the state's demand for a preliminary injunction on Friday, stating the court did not have jurisdiction over the case against the Centers For Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Florida is the only state to challenge the recent law, which shields all children under 19 from losing insurance for at least a year after enrolling in a Medicaid or CHIP program. It is also one of the 30 states that charges enrollment fees or premiums in its program, which is called Florida KidCare.

The state cut over 22,000 children from Florida KidCare shortly before declaring its legal challenge against the Biden administration earlier this year.

"Instead of wasting time and energy trying to evade the law, the State of Florida should turn its attention to keeping children healthy and well through consistent health coverage and do more to ensure that children do not experience harmful gaps in coverage due to procedural reasons, bureaucratic red tape, or deliberate actions by the State," Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Tampa) said in a statement.

Castor called for the state to re-enroll the affected children and expand access to Medicaid after Florida rejected federal funds to do so in 2023.

"It is time for Florida to stop delaying, follow the law and work with CMS to expand CHIP coverage ("KidCare") to more children. The State of Florida should immediately re-enroll the thousands of children that they pushed off KidCare since January in violation of the new continuous eligibility protection."

When reached for comment Friday, a spokesperson for the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration, the state's main health policy agency, said, "the Agency firmly disagrees with today's decision and intends to appeal. It's unfortunate the Court did not address the merits of our case."