United States: CMS Proposes To Eliminate Its Medicaid Access Monitoring Standards

Last Updated: July 30 2019
Article by Thomas Barker

Last week, CMS issued a proposed rule as part of a broader Administration-wide initiative to reduce regulatory and administrative burdens. The proposed rule would absolve states from many of the requirements of a final regulation issued by CMS in 2015 that requires states, before reducing or restructuring payments in their Medicaid programs, to conduct a review (called an access monitoring review plan, or AMRP) of the effect of the proposed rate reductions or restructuring on access to services. The agency is collecting comments on the rule for 60 days; comments are due by September 13, 2019.

We thought we would provide a bit of context on this proposed rule. CMS casts the rule as one to alleviate administrative burden on states, and it certainly does that. But the statutory requirement that underlies the rule – and the 2015 regulation that the rule amends – has a longstanding history that is important to understand before responding to the CMS request for comments.

The proposed rule – and the 2015 regulation – have as their genesis section 1902(a)(30)(A) of the Social Security Act, which is sometimes referred to as the "equal access" provision of Medicaid. Section 1902(a)(30)(A) requires that state Medicaid plans "assure that payments are consistent with efficiency, economy, and quality of care and are sufficient to enlist enough providers so that care and services are available under the plan at least to the extent that such care and services are available to the general population in the geographic area." In other words, state Medicaid plans have to pay providers enough to ensure that Medicaid beneficiaries have access to health care services that at least approximates the same level of access to health care services that non-Medicaid beneficiaries have.

But what if a state violates that requirement? Can a provider sue the state in federal court? Can a beneficiary sue the state? Or is the appropriate course of action some sort of complaint process with CMS? That's what we're going to discuss in our blog today.

It turns out that this precise question has been kicking around in the federal courts for almost 30 years. We've written about this before, on two separate occasions, but the issuance of the proposed rule gives us a good chance to address it once again. So let's dive in.

To begin with, part of the problem is that nowhere in the Medicaid statute is there an enforcement mechanism. The statute imposes over 80 requirements on state Medicaid plans, but the statute does not specify what happens if a state fails to comply with them. Perhaps Congress felt, in 1965, when Medicaid was enacted, that a state that failed to comply could face a loss of funding – but not liability in a federal lawsuit. In part, the failure of Congress to enact a precise enforcement mechanism is likely because our nation's federalist form of government contemplates that the states function as co-equal sovereigns with the federal government. After all, from the very foundation of our government, these principles of federalism were evident; the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution – which was ratified in 1795, just eight years after the adoption of the Constitution – generally divested the federal courts of jurisdiction over lawsuits where states are a defendant.

So how to enforce the requirements of Medicaid? In 1990, in a case called Wilder v. Virginia Hospital Association, 496 U.S. 498 (1990), the United States Supreme Court ruled that if a state official violated a Medicaid requirement called the "Boren Amendment" – that at the time was very similar to the Medicaid equal access requirements – that state official could face liability under the federal Civil Rights statute. The Civil Rights statute says that if a state official deprives an individual physically present in a state any of the "rights, privileges or immunities" granted by the Constitution or a law enacted pursuant to the Constitution, that state official can be held liable in the federal courts. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. So, the theory went, if a state official (here, Governor Wilder, the then-Governor of Virginia) deprived an individual in the state (here, the hospitals in the state of Virginia) of a right they are guaranteed under federal law (here, the Boren Amendment in Medicaid), that state official (Governor Wilder) could face liability.

It took about a decade for the Supreme Court to begin to walk back the Wilder decision. The Wilder case was decided by the slimmest of margins – a 5-4 vote – and shortly after the decision, one of the justices in the majority – Justice Thurgood Marshall – retired and was replaced by Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice Thomas likely would not have been in the majority of the Wilder decision, and in a case called Gonzaga v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (2002), the Supreme Court (this time with Justice Thomas in the majority) denied a plaintiff the ability to use the Civil Rights statute to enforce a federal requirement against a state official – in that case, a teacher in the state of Washington.

Since the Gonzaga decision, the federal courts have continued to erode the enforcement of Medicaid in a judicial setting. In the case of Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California, 565 U.S. 606 (2012), the Supreme Court declined to decide whether the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution – which prohibits states from enacting laws that are inconsistent with or preempted by federal law – could be used to sue a state for violation of § 1902(a)(30)(A). But a few years later, in Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, 135 S. Ct. 1378 (2015), the Supreme Court definitively ruled out the Supremacy Clause as an option, ruling 5-4 that it could not be used to enforce Medicaid's equal access requirements.

Shortly after Armstrong was decided, the Obama Administration (which had supported the state in the litigation, opposing the enforcement of § 1902(a)(30)(A)) promulgated the regulation we mentioned above that contained a guidepost to enforcement of the equal access requirements. That enforcement mechanism called on states to adopt the access monitoring review plan (AMRP) that we mentioned earlier every time a state proposed to cut rates or reduce services under Medicaid. CMS would use the AMRP to assess compliance with § 1902(a)(30)(A) in lieu of the ability of the federal courts to enforce the requirement.

It is this requirement that CMS has now proposed to essentially repeal. CMS says in the proposed rule that "States would still be required to submit information and analysis to demonstrate compliance with" the equal access requirements and that the agency will issue subregulatory guidance to provide further details to states. 84 Fed. Reg. at 33724 (July 15, 2019). But the submission of the AMRP would no longer be required if the CMS rule is adopted in final form.

So what is left? Well, the Supremacy Clause clearly cannot be used to enforce the requirements of Medicaid. Can the Civil Rights statute still be used? That's a closer call; the Supreme Court has never expressly overruled its 1990 Wilder decision. And there is some conflicting case law in the Circuit Courts of Appeal on this question. What does seem clear across all of the Circuit Courts is that the Civil Rights statute cannot be used to enforce the equal access requirements. But other provisions of Medicaid – such as the free choice of provider requirement or the payment adequacy to health centers requirement – may be enforceable (although there is a split in the Circuit Courts on both of those questions).

And last: in the Douglas decision, Justice Breyer (who wrote the majority opinion) made an interesting observation: that although a state cannot be sued to enforce Medicaid requirements via the Supremacy Clause, there is nothing stopping a plaintiff from suing CMS for approving the state plan that led to the putative violation. And indeed, we saw that play out recently, as the United States District Court for the District of Columbia struck down CMS's approval of the Arkansas and Kentucky waivers that authorized community engagement requirements for Medicaid beneficiaries in those states.

Here at the Medicaid and the Law Blog, we will be watching closely to see whether CMS finalizes its proposed rule, and monitoring what it means for Medicaid's equal access requirements in the years ahead.

To view Foley Hoag's Medicaid and the Law blog please click here

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions