Minnesota Law Review

Ensuring Equal Access: Rethinking Enforcement of Medicaid’s Equal Access Provision

Challenged by explosive growth in Medicaid enrollment and devastating budget shortfalls, Medicaid provider payments have become a primary target of many state budget-cutting measures. This has left many of the sixty million Americans who rely on Medicaid without access to needed care. Traditionally, Medicaid beneficiaries and providers have relied on the courts to enforce Medicaid’s equal access provision and prevent harsh provider rate cuts. However, due to factors such as contradictory circuit interpretations of Medicaid’s equal access provision, the unresolved question of whether Medicaid beneficiaries or providers are able to bring an equal access suit, and a number of pragmatic and ethical considerations, current judicial enforcement mechanisms are not able to adequately address equal access violations. This Note concludes that only a transparent, adequately financed federal regulatory scheme can ensure equal access for Medicaid beneficiaries.


:: View PDF

De Novo

  • Case Comment: Bhogaita v. Altamonte

    EVERY DOG CAN HAVE HIS DAY IN COURT: THE USE OF ANIMALS AS DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS Kyle R. Kroll, Volume 100, Online Managing Editor In Bhogaita v. Altamonte, the Eleventh Circuit recently decided whether to allow a dog in the courtroom as a demonstrative exhibit.[1] Although the case presented many serious [...]

  • Revisiting Water Bankruptcy

    REVISITING WATER BANKRUPTCY IN CALIFORNIA’S FOURTH YEAR OF DROUGHT Olivia Moe, Volume 100, Managing Editor This spring, as “extreme” to “exceptional” drought stretched across most of California—indicating that a four-year streak of drought was not about to resolve itself[1]—Governor Jerry Brown issued an unprecedented order to reduce potable urban water [...]

  • Defying Auer Deference

    DEFYING AUER DEFERENCE: SKIDMORE AS A SOLUTION TO CONSERVATIVE CONCERNS IN PEREZ v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION Nicholas R. Bednar, Volume 100, Lead Articles Editor* On March 9, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association.[1] The Court overturned the D.C. [...]