SFMS/CMA Responds to Ninth Circuit Ruling Vacating Preliminary Injunction for Reimbursement Rate Cuts December 14, 2012 Advocacy, CMA, Medi Cal 10% Medi-Cal cut, CMA et al. v. Douglas et al, Medi-Cal cut, Ninth Circuit Ruling 0 On Thursday, a three judge panel of the California Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in CMA et al. v. Douglas et al. The Ninth Circuit panel reversed the district court’s decision and ruled that California can reduce Medi-Cal payments for health care providers by 10%. As you will recall, the SFMS/CMA—along with the California Dental Association, California Pharmacists Association, National Association of Chain Drug Stores, California Association of Medical Product Suppliers, AIDS Healthcare Foundation, and American Medical Response—filed a lawsuit against the California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The lawsuit was filed in response to HHS's approval of the state's 2011 10% reimbursement rate cut for Medi-Cal providers. On February 1, 2012, U.S. District Court Judge Christina Snyder granted our request for a preliminary injunction to invalidate and stop the implementation of the approved 10% Medi-Cal rate reduction. Today’s decision vacates the preliminary injunction. The rate cuts will significantly impact access to care for Medi-Cal patients. CMA President Paul Phinney, MD said, “Our hope is that state officials and Governor Brown can look at the situation and decide not to move forward with these cuts. It was a tough budget decision that was made when the state was in a much more dire fiscal situation than it is now. Moving forward with these cuts will impact the 900,000 kids moving from the successful Healthy Families Program into Medi-Cal, the millions of patients that will be newly eligible for Medi-Cal under federal health reform and the existing patient base as well. We need to ensure that health insurance isn’t just an empty promise for these patients.” SFMS/CMA will be meeting with our partners and stakeholders to evaluate options moving forward, including requesting an En banc rehearing from the full Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Comments are closed.
