State says board acted within law in Medicaid case

Associated Press

COLUMBUS

An Ohio legislative panel acted consistently with state law and standard practice when it approved a request to fund an expansion of the Medicaid program last month, state attorneys argued in a court filing Monday.

Two anti-abortion groups and six Republican state representatives are suing the state Controlling Board and Ohio’s Department of Medicaid over the decision that bypassed the General Assembly. They want the Ohio Supreme Court to order the board to declare its decision as void and stop Medicaid officials from using the board’s approval to move forward with covering thousands more people under the federal-state health program.

The groups and lawmakers have claimed such a ruling is necessary to prevent serious harm to the checks and balances of government. But attorneys for the state said not only was the decision legal, the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the case among other arguments.

At issue is whether the quietly powerful Controlling Board thwarted the intent of the Legislature by allowing $2.56 billion in federal money to be spent on the extension of Medicaid. Roughly 366,000 Ohioans would be newly eligible for the health coverage beginning in January.

Gov. John Kasich’s administration brought the funding request to the panel. The seven-member board, which handles certain adjustments to the state budget, approved the expansion money Oct. 21.

Under state law, the Controlling Board is to carry out the “legislative intent” of the General Assembly regarding program goals and levels of support for state agencies.

In the two-year state budget that lawmakers passed in June, majority Republicans inserted a provision that would have barred the Medicaid program from covering the additional low-income residents allowed under the new federal health care law. Kasich, who’s also a Republican, later vetoed the item.

State Solicitor Eric Murphy wrote that Ohio law directs the Controlling Board to determine the legislative intent through binding acts, taking into account the governor’s vetoes, rather than versions of bills that never became law.

Murphy contended the plaintiffs’ argue otherwise. And if their argument is accepted, he wrote, it “would undermine two foundational principles of our democracy: the rule of law and the separation of powers. It must be rejected.”

The Ohio Federation of Teachers and the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network along with legal aid and consumer groups have filed an amicus brief urging the high court to deny the plaintiffs’ request and dismiss their complaint.

Attorneys for the more than two dozen groups said that if the lawsuit were successful, the plaintiffs “would have ripped away the lifeline of Medicaid expansion for low-income Ohioans for an undetermined period of time, during which time an unknown number of low-income adults in Ohio would deteriorate emotionally and physically and some would die — due to the lack of health care.”

The Ohio National Guard Association, the Columbus Chamber of Commerce, AARP, Ohio Senate Democrats, and health care advocates have also filed briefs in support of the state’s position.