• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Donate Now
  • Sign Up

Center for Medicare Advocacy

Advancing Access to Medicare and Healthcare

  • Eligibility/Enrollment
  • Coverage/Appeals
    • Medicare Costs (2020 & 2021)
    • Self Help Materials – Toolkits & More
  • Topics
    • Basic Introduction to Medicare
    • COVID-19 and Medicare
    • Medicare Costs (2020 & 2021)
    • Home Health Care
    • Improvement Standard and Jimmo News
    • Nursing Home / Skilled Nursing Facility Care
    • Outpatient Observation Status
    • Part B
    • Part D / Prescription Drug Benefits
    • Medicare for People Under 65
    • Medicare “Reform”
    • All Other Topics
    • Resources
      • Infographics
  • Publications
    • CMA Alerts
    • Fact Sheets & Issue Briefs
    • Infographics
    • The Medicare Handbook
    • SNF Enforcement Newsletter
    • Elder Justice Newsletter
    • Medicare Facts & Fiction
    • Articles by Topic
  • Litigation
    • Litigation News
    • Cases
    • Litigation Archive
    • Amicus Curiae Activities
  • Newsroom
    • Press Releases
    • Editorials & Letters to the Editor
    • CMA Comments, Responses, and Letters
    • Medicare Facts & Fiction
    • CMA in the News
  • About Us
    • Mission Statement
    • CMA FAQs
    • Personnel & Boards
    • The Center for Medicare Advocacy Founder’s Circle
    • Connecticut Dually Eligible Appeals Project
    • Ossen Medicare Outreach, Education and Advocacy Project
    • National Medicare Advocates Alliance
    • National Voices of Medicare Summit
    • CMA Webinars
    • Products & Services
    • Testimonials
    • Career, Fellowship & Internship Opportunities
    • Contact Us
  • Support Our Work
    • Donate Now
    • Join the Center for Medicare Advocacy Founder’s Circle
    • Take Action
    • Share Your Health Care Story
    • Tell Congress to Protect Our Care
    • Listen to Medicare & Health Care Stories
    • Sign Up

Bourgoin v. Sebelius

February 21, 2014

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

 No. 13-cv-55-JAW (D.Me.), filed February 20, 2013

Issue: Whether the Secretary of Health and Human Services violated the Administrative Procedure Act when she approved a proposed state plan amendment to Maine's Medicaid program that will allow Maine to cut back the eligibility standards in the QMB, SLMB, and QI programs  for disabled Mainers, beginning March 1, 2013.  Specifically, a provision of the Affordable Care Act requires a "maintenance of effort" (MOE)  in a state's Medicaid program, which means that Medicaid eligibility standards cannot be reduced until the state's Exchange is operational.  42 U.S.C. § 1395a(gg)(1).  The MOE requirement does not apply, however, and therefore a reduction in eligibility standards is allowed if a state certifies that it has a budget deficit; this exception is only applicable to "nonpregnant, nondisabled adults" with incomes over 133% of the federal poverty level.  42 U.S.C. § 1395a(gg)(3). 

Relief sought: Declaratory and injunctive relief, including a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction, requiring the Secretary to rescind approval of the state plan amendment.

Updated: February 21, 2014

Status: On February 21, 2013, plaintiffs filed their Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and Preliminary Injunction, and their Motion for Class Certification.  Plaintiffs contend that, because they and the class they seek to represent are disabled and their incomes are under 133% of the federal poverty level, the exception to the MOE requirement does not apply to them and the Secretary improperly approved the state plan amendment.  On February 28, the judge denied the TRO.  He ruled in effect that, although plaintiffs’ interpretation of the statute was plausible, they had not carried their burden of showing a likelihood of success on the merits.

In May 2013, the parties briefed cross-motions to dismiss and for summary judgment.  On September 30, 2013, the court issued its decision. — F.R.D. —, 2013 WL 5448157. Although the parties had agreed that there was no need for the state to be in the case, and the state had shown no interest in participating, the court concluded, on standing grounds and under Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that the case could not proceed without the state’s participation. The court gave plaintiffs the opportunity to move to amend the complaint to bring state officials into the case, but plaintiffs chose not to.  The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice on October 17, 2013. Plaintiffs did not appeal.

Filed Under: Article Tagged With: Archived Cases, Litigation

Primary Sidebar

Easy Access to Understanding Medicare

The Center for Medicare Advocacy produces a range of informative materials on Medicare-related topics. Check them out:

  • Medicare Basics
  • CMA Alerts
  • CMA Webinars
  • Connecticut Info & Projects
  • Health Care Stories
  • Se habla Español

Sign Up for CMA Alerts

Jimmo v. Sebelius

Medicare covers skilled care to maintain or slow decline as well as to improve.

Improvement Isn’t Required. It’s the law!

Read more.

Latest Tweets

  • RT @medicarerights: A new issue brief from @RRFAging focuses on #economicsecurity in later life—the challenges & the solutions. Access… https://t.co/S9B27WnJP3, Jan 25
@CMAorg

Footer

Stay Connected:

  • Contact Us
  • Sitemap
  • Products & Services
  • Copyright/Privacy

© 2021 · Center for Medicare Advocacy