ILNews

State cannot enforce $1,000 cap on dental services for Medicaid recipients

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has left in place the preliminary injunction granted by Chief Judge Philip Simon last year that prevents the state from capping dental work for Medicaid recipients at $1,000 a year.

Indiana Medicaid covers certain dental procedures that are “medically reasonable and necessary.” The state implemented the cap beginning Jan. 1, 2011, as a cost-cutting measure. Sandra Bontrager, who is on Medicaid, needs extensive dental work that will exceed the $1,000 cap.

In Sandra M. Bontrager, on her own behalf and on behalf of a class of those similarly situated v. Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, Michael A. Gargano and Patricia Casanova, the Circuit judges affirmed that Bontrager has a private right of action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 to challenge the cap.

The state claimed the cap does not prevent coverage of any medically necessary dental procedures, but operates as an appropriate limitation authorized by 42 C.F.R. Section 440.230 and I.C. 12-15-21-3(3).

“We agree with the district court that the cap prevents the State from providing coverage for all medically necessary services, and partial payment for such services does not constitute ‘some coverage,’ as the State would have us believe,” Judge Michael Kanne wrote.

The cap denies coverage for medically necessary services outright by functionally excluding certain procedures, the court held, and the cap is not in any way based on degree or consideration of medical necessity. It doesn’t matter, as the state asserts, that more than 99 percent of dental procedures needed by Medicaid recipients would be covered under the $1,000 cap.

The 7th Circuit also rejected the state’s claim that the cap is a “utilization control procedure.”

“Although we are mindful of potential budgetary concerns, these interests do not outweigh Medicaid recipients’ interests in access to medically necessary health care,” Kanne wrote. “The State cautions that it may end coverage of all dental services under its Medicaid plan if the $1,000 cap is no longer in place. Thus, this lawsuit may result only in a pyrrhic victory for the plaintiff. But the State’s likely violation of state and federal law cannot be ignored in order to preserve the status quo. Moreover, there are other avenues by which the State can limit its exposure to significant Medicaid costs.”

 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT