Daily Briefing

SCOTUS says states can cut Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood


The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled 6-3 in favor of South Carolina over its effort to defund Planned Parenthood, concluding that individual Medicaid patients can't sue to enforce their right to pick a healthcare provider.

Background

In 2018, South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster (R) issued an executive order that prohibited Planned Parenthood of South Atlantic from providing family planning services under Medicaid. State officials argued that "payment of taxpayer funds to abortion clinics, for any Justices Weigh Challenge to South Carolina's Bid to Defund Planned Parenthood purpose, results in the subsidy of abortion and the denial of the right to life."

McMaster's order was blocked in court following a lawsuit from a patient named Julie Edwards, who wanted to continue going to Planned Parenthood for birth control because her diabetes made pregnancy potentially dangerous. Edwards sued over a provision in Medicaid law that allows patients to choose their own healthcare provider.

Last year, a unanimous three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled the suit could proceed.

"It will strip those South Carolinians — and countless other Medicaid recipients around the country — of a deeply personal freedom: the 'ability to decide who treats us at our most vulnerable." 

"This case is, and always has been, about whether Congress conferred an individually enforceable right for Medicaid beneficiaries to freely choose their health care provider," wrote Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III. "Preserving access to Planned Parenthood and other providers means preserving an affordable choice and quality care for an untold number of mothers and infants in South Carolina."

Wilkinson added that "this decision is not about funding or providing abortions."

Supreme Court rules in favor of South Carolina

In April, the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case, focused specifically on whether Medicaid beneficiaries have a "right" to choose a preferred health provider and can sue when they do not.

 

During arguments, the court seemed to be split, with some conservative justices saying that there could be a flood of lawsuits if patients could sue to pick their preferred medical provider and liberal justices arguing that states could choose to defund providers for any number of reasons if patients were not allowed to sue.

Ultimately, the Court ruled in a 6-3 decision — with Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan dissenting — that individual Medicaid patients can't sue to enforce their right to pick a healthcare provider.

"Deciding whether to permit private enforcement poses delicate policy questions involving competing costs and benefits — decisions for elected representatives, not judges," Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion.

Gorsuch added that Medicaid "offers States a 'bargain': federal funds in exchange for compliance with congressionally imposed conditions."

"Congress knows how to give a grantee clear and unambiguous notice that, if it accepts federal funds, it may face private suits asserting an individual right to choose a medical provider," Gorsuch wrote, adding, "But that is not the law we have."

In the dissenting opinion, Justice Jackson said the ruling is "likely to result in tangible harm to real people."

"It will strip those South Carolinians — and countless other Medicaid recipients around the country — of a deeply personal freedom: the 'ability to decide who treats us at our most vulnerable,'" Jackson wrote.

(Hurley, NBC News, 6/26; Liptak, New York Times, 6/26; Whitehurst, Associated Press, 6/26)


SPONSORED BY

INTENDED AUDIENCE

AFTER YOU READ THIS

AUTHORS

TOPICS

INDUSTRY SECTORS

Don't miss out on the latest Advisory Board insights

Create your free account to access 1 resource, including the latest research and webinars.

Want access without creating an account?

   

You have 1 free members-only resource remaining this month.

1 free members-only resources remaining

1 free members-only resources remaining

You've reached your limit of free insights

Become a member to access all of Advisory Board's resources, events, and experts

Never miss out on the latest innovative health care content tailored to you.

Benefits include:

Unlimited access to research and resources
Member-only access to events and trainings
Expert-led consultation and facilitation
The latest content delivered to your inbox

You've reached your limit of free insights

Become a member to access all of Advisory Board's resources, events, and experts

Never miss out on the latest innovative health care content tailored to you.

Benefits include:

Unlimited access to research and resources
Member-only access to events and trainings
Expert-led consultation and facilitation
The latest content delivered to your inbox

This content is available through your Curated Research partnership with Advisory Board. Click on ‘view this resource’ to read the full piece

Email ask@advisory.com to learn more

Click on ‘Become a Member’ to learn about the benefits of a Full-Access partnership with Advisory Board

Never miss out on the latest innovative health care content tailored to you. 

Benefits Include:

Unlimited access to research and resources
Member-only access to events and trainings
Expert-led consultation and facilitation
The latest content delivered to your inbox

This is for members only. Learn more.

Click on ‘Become a Member’ to learn about the benefits of a Full-Access partnership with Advisory Board

Never miss out on the latest innovative health care content tailored to you. 

Benefits Include:

Unlimited access to research and resources
Member-only access to events and trainings
Expert-led consultation and facilitation
The latest content delivered to your inbox
AB
Thank you! Your updates have been made successfully.
Oh no! There was a problem with your request.
Error in form submission. Please try again.