Reference no: EM133320085

One of the most hotly debated U.S. entitlement programs is healthcare. The Medicaid program has significant support and regulatory oversight from the state's Department of Health. It is a federalist program that shares healthcare costs for low-income individuals between the federal, state, and local governments. In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Supremacy Clause didn't apply to people on Medicaid and stated,

In Armstrong, the Court held that the only remedy Congress intended for violating the statutory equal access provision was withholding funds from the Secretary of H.H.S. The Court found that this remedy, combined with the broad and unspecific Medicaid Equal Access provision, meant that H.H.S. alone could enforce state payment levels because the standard for payment levels under 42 U.S.C. § 1936a(a)(30)(A) was too laden with judgments and need for administrative guidance for courts to be involved. However, the Court's decision did not acknowledge that the only enforcement mechanism left, i.e., 42 U.S.C. § 1396c, does not provide adequate relief for Medicaid beneficiaries. Medicaid beneficiaries are, by definition, low-income, very sick, or both, and requiring them to wait for federal intervention that could take away their states' Medicaid funding is counterproductive. The ultimate result of Armstrong will be to silence valid complaints about access to care (Barbee, 2016, p. 388, emphasis added).

Do you agree with Barbee's assessment of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision?