Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California , Douglas v. California Pharmacists Association and Douglas v. Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital are three cases ( “The Douglas case”) that raise the same issue, whether Medicaid beneficiaries and providers can challenge a state law in federal court on the basis that it violates the federal Medicaid Status that reduced payments to providers. Now In days there are a lot of low-income and other susceptible populations in the United States which there primary source of health insurance is Medicaid. Medicaid is governed by the federal Medicaid Act, which sets out the basic legal framework that states elect to participate ...view middle of the document...
The California State Assembly passed Assembly Bill 5 in February 2008 , which approved a series of cutbacks in the payments to California health care providers like physicians, hospitals and pharmacies participating in Medi-Cal by ten percent . In addition in September 2008, the California State Assembly passed Assembly Bill 1183, which specified reductions in reimbursement rates that depended on provider type and ranged from one to five percent . In response, “Independent Living” arguing that the bill violated 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(30)(A) and was therefore invalid under the Supremacy Clause. The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denied Independent Living’s request for an order, holding that Independent Living did not have standing to sue because it was not a Medi-Cal recipient . On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that Independent Living can sue under the Supremacy Clause to direct a state law that was preempted by federal law, and remanded the case to the district court. Ultimately the district court then granted the injunction so the Ninth Circuit confirmed the district court’s decision, holding that Independent Living had shown that it was likely to succeed on its Supremacy Clause claim, and that Assembly Bill 5 was likely to damage access to health care. Then, the California Dept of Health Care Services appealed on March 25, 2010 .
Moreover, the California Pharmacists Association on January 29, 2009 filed an action seeking an order prohibiting the implementation of Assembly Bill 1183, based on the bill's cutback of payments to adult day health care facilities . The district court decided the injunction, and the Ninth Circuit confirmed, holding that California did not think the effect of Assembly Bills 5 and 1183 on access to health care. The California Department of Health Care Services appealed this decision on August 25, 2010 .
The Supreme Court granted certiorari in both cases on January 18, 2011. “The cases were in this posture when we granted certiorari to decide whether respondents could mount Supremacy Clause challenges to the state statutes and obtain a court injunc¬tion preventing California from implementing its statutes” .
II. LEGAL BACKGROUND ( 3-5 Pages)
In this case, The Supreme Court will not consider if California's rate reduction law actually violated the federal act. The Supreme Court will decide a issue first whether the Supremacy Clause grants Medicaid beneficiaries and providers to bring this lawsuit seeking to enforce this provision of a state law that reduces Medicaid reimbursement rates, and second whether § (30)(A) preempts such a state law. The decision in this case will affect the consistency and predictability of federal law, private parties’ access to the courts to challenge state laws, and the availability of health care to Medicaid beneficiaries.
Some states dispute that the Supreme Court upholds the Ninth Circuit’s holding, it will...