ILNews

Judge rejects dental coverage cap

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

When Sandra Bontrager tried to get Medicaid coverage for a costly dental surgery procedure two years ago, she didn’t think that her request would eventually lead to a federal lawsuit and a ruling striking down the state’s policy about how Indiana covers those Medicaid services.

But that is what happened on Nov. 4 when Chief Judge Philip Simon in the Northern District of Indiana ruled the state must fully cover dental services that are medically necessary for Medicaid participants and that it can’t cap coverage at a certain amount. The reason: limiting coverage would deny some low-income individuals the ability to get needed care.

Now, the Office of the Indiana Attorney General will likely appeal the Goshen woman’s case to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and the fate of the state’s policy remains uncertain. If upheld, the result could lead Indiana down a road other states have taken – scrapping dental coverage for Medicaid participants all together. If the judge’s ruling is overturned, then some people won’t be able to obtain coverage for certain dental service and, in effect, those procedures could be off limits to low-income Hoosiers.

“I think it’s great that Judge Simon’s ruling stands for the idea of entire participation,” said Indianapolis attorney Jackie Bowie Suess, who represents Bontrager in the federal suit. “If the state’s going to participate in an important federal program like Medicaid, it has to follow the rules. Everyone is sympathetic to budget concerns, but that doesn’t mean you have the right to deny people services when you’ve already promised them coverage to the extent the law requires.”

suess Indianapolis attorney Jackie Bowie Suess represents a woman who successfully challenged the state’s policy to only cover “medically necessary” Medicaid dental services costing less than $1,000. (IBJ Photo/ Perry Reichanadter)

This Indiana case is part of a bigger national discussion that involves adult dental benefits for low-income residents being eyed for reduction or elimination as states struggle with the effects of the recession and skyrocketing Medicaid enrollment. To contain costs, many states have been cutting back on optional benefits, including adult dental services, according to an annual 50-state survey released by the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured.

Now, as Indiana’s coverage of these adult dental procedures remains in question, the state could be forced to address whether it can afford to maintain those services.

Simon’s recent ruling came in the class-action lawsuit of Sandra M. Bontrager v. Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, Michael A. Gargano and Patricia Cassanova, No. 3:11-CV-216, a case originally filed in Elkhart Superior Court but later removed to federal court.

The suit focuses on how Indiana participates in the federal Medicaid program and provides dental coverage. The state isn’t required to provide dental care reimbursements to low-income participants, but state officials have chosen to do that through a process outlined in 405 Indiana Administrative Code 5-14-1. If a state chooses to provide benefits, it must comply with federal Medicaid law requiring consistent, equal coverage for program participants.

Bontrager’s dentist determined in 2009 that she needed two implants and abutments for her lower jaw. Because she is a Medicaid program participant, the dentist submitted a request to the private company contracted to handle the state’s preauthorization process and determine whether a procedure is medically reasonable and necessary as defined by state administrative code.

Although the contractor initially determined the requested services weren’t “covered dental services,” more than a year of appeal procedures determined those were medically reasonable and necessary. Bontrager resubmitted the preauthorization request with an expectation she would be able to get the dental work done.

However, the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration responded in 2011 that even with the determination that the dental work was covered and medically necessary, a new state regulation that began Jan. 1, 2011, limited total dental service reimbursement to $1,000 per person during any 12-month period, regardless of the medical reasonableness or necessity. Prior to this year, the cap had been $600 per participant.

According to court filings, the state argues the cap is needed to potentially save millions of dollars annually and that it doesn’t impact most participants because 99 percent have annual dental costs less than $1,000. The state argues that invalidating that cap could lead to discontinuing the Medicaid dental program altogether. The plaintiffs argue the state can only really cover a procedure by fully paying, while the defendants argue that it can cover those medically necessary expenses by partially paying for them.

Saying that this dispute casts Indiana into the “byzantine world of state and federal Medicaid laws, regulations and cases,” Simon wrote that the case boils down to disagreement about what it really means to “cover” a procedure that’s been deemed medically necessary.

“I think this is a close question, but … I have decided that the State is required to fully cover medically necessary dental expenses,” he wrote, granting a motion for preliminary injunction against Indiana.

Simon addressed a question that remains unanswered by the 7th Circuit about whether a private cause of action is allowed under the federal Medicaid law. The state contends one doesn’t exist, but Simon disagreed and relied on a 1993 appellate decision – Miller ex. Rel. Miller v. Whitburn, 10 F.3d 1315, 1319-21 (7th Cir. 1993) – to find a private cause of action does exist. The appellate court hasn’t addressed the issue in the past decade, and this case could set the stage for that issue to be analyzed.

Simon also disagreed that the $1,000 cap is a “utilization control procedure,” something the state contends it is allowed to implement under federal law, although the law doesn’t define what that term means. The judge determined that utilization control procedures should be used to prevent fraud and paying for unnecessary services. Simon rejected Indiana’s argument that the $1,000 cap is a permissible limit on the “amount, duration, or scope” of a service as specified in both federal and state statute.

Even though state legislators could as a result of this ruling decide to stop providing dental care coverage to Medicaid participants, Simon said he’s not in a position to consider those public policy consequences and must follow precedent and the law.

“I fully understand the State’s attempt to limit the costs of its Medicaid program, particularly given the severe economic downturn and the attempt by governments around the country to implement austerity measures,” he wrote. “But a slew of cases hold that no matter how ‘pressing budgetary burdens may be … cost considerations alone do not grant participating states a license to shirk their statutory duties under the Medicaid Act.’”

The state is still reviewing the ruling and has indicated a decision would be made by the end of November on whether an appeal will be filed, according to the federal court docket.

Suess said that the judge’s decision to strike down the cap is a very big deal for Bontrager. For the Goshen woman, the legal issues and federal court holding that could apply to thousands of Indiana Medicaid participants isn’t at the heart of this case.

“She’s been fighting, through the administrative appeal process, for years to try and get the dental services she needs in order to eat properly,” her attorney said. “Throughout this entire ordeal, she’s been unable to chew food normally and, therefore, eat normally. She’s ecstatic about the decision and is very excited to finally get the implants and dentures she needs. … I’m hopeful she can get them before Christmas to enjoy a full, healthy meal with her family during the holidays.”•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Call it unauthorized law if you must, a regulatory wrong, but it was fraud and theft well beyond that, a seeming crime! "In three specific cases, the hearing officer found that Westerfield did little to no work for her clients but only issued a partial refund or no refund at all." That is theft by deception, folks. "In its decision to suspend Westerfield, the Supreme Court noted that she already had a long disciplinary history dating back to 1996 and had previously been suspended in 2004 and indefinitely suspended in 2005. She was reinstated in 2009 after finally giving the commission a response to the grievance for which she was suspended in 2004." WOW -- was the Indiana Supreme Court complicit in her fraud? Talk about being on notice of a real bad actor .... "Further, the justices noted that during her testimony, Westerfield was “disingenuous and evasive” about her relationship with Tope and attempted to distance herself from him. They also wrote that other aggravating factors existed in Westerfield’s case, such as her lack of remorse." WOW, and yet she only got 18 months on the bench, and if she shows up and cries for them in a year and a half, and pays money to JLAP for group therapy ... back in to ride roughshod over hapless clients (or are they "marks") once again! Aint Hoosier lawyering a great money making adventure!!! Just live for the bucks, even if filthy lucre, and come out a-ok. ME on the other hand??? Lifetime banishment for blowing the whistle on unconstitutional governance. Yes, had I ripped off clients or had ANY disciplinary history for doing that I would have fared better, most likely, as that it would have revealed me motivated by Mammon and not Faith. Check it out if you doubt my reading of this, compare and contrast the above 18 months with my lifetime banishment from court, see appendix for Bar Examiners report which the ISC adopted without substantive review: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS

  2. Wow, over a quarter million dollars? That is a a lot of commissary money! Over what time frame? Years I would guess. Anyone ever try to blow the whistle? Probably not, since most Hoosiers who take notice of such things realize that Hoosier whistleblowers are almost always pilloried. If someone did blow the whistle, they were likely fired. The persecution of whistleblowers is a sure sign of far too much government corruption. Details of my own personal experience at the top of Hoosier governance available upon request ... maybe a "fake news" media outlet will have the courage to tell the stories of Hoosier whistleblowers that the "real" Hoosier media (cough) will not deign to touch. (They are part of the problem.)

  3. So if I am reading it right, only if and when African American college students agree to receive checks labeling them as "Negroes" do they receive aid from the UNCF or the Quaker's Educational Fund? In other words, to borrow from the Indiana Appellate Court, "the [nonprofit] supposed to be [their] advocate, refers to [students] in a racially offensive manner. While there is no evidence that [the nonprofits] intended harm to [African American students], the harm was nonetheless inflicted. [Black students are] presented to [academia and future employers] in a racially offensive manner. For these reasons, [such] performance [is] deficient and also prejudice[ial]." Maybe even DEPLORABLE???

  4. I'm the poor soul who spent over 10 years in prison with many many other prisoners trying to kill me for being charged with a sex offense THAT I DID NOT COMMIT i was in jail for a battery charge for helping a friend leave a boyfriend who beat her I've been saying for over 28 years that i did not and would never hurt a child like that mine or anybody's child but NOBODY wants to believe that i might not be guilty of this horrible crime or think that when i say that ALL the paperwork concerning my conviction has strangely DISAPPEARED or even when the long beach judge re-sentenced me over 14 months on a already filed plea bargain out of another districts court then had it filed under a fake name so i could not find while trying to fight my conviction on appeal in a nut shell people are ALWAYS quick to believe the worst about some one well I DID NOT HURT ANY CHILD EVER IN MY LIFE AND HAVE SAID THIS FOR ALMOST 30 YEARS please if anybody can me get some kind of justice it would be greatly appreciated respectfully written wrongly accused Brian Valenti

  5. A high ranking Indiana supreme Court operative caught red handed leading a group using the uber offensive N word! She must denounce or be denounced! (Or not since she is an insider ... rules do not apply to them). Evidence here: http://m.indianacompanies.us/friends-educational-fund-for-negroes.364110.company.v2#top_info

ADVERTISEMENT