In a Perspective in the New England Journal of Medicine, Sara Rosenbaum, the Harold and Jane Hirsh Professor of Health Law and Policy at the Milken Institute School of Public Health, explains why she and other legal scholars are following the Does v. Gillespie case involving Planned Parenthood of Arkansas & Eastern Oklahoma, doing business as Planned Parenthood Great Plains.
As she explains in the Perspective, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (which includes Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota) decided Does v. Gillespie in August 2017. The case involves Arkansas’ efforts to exclude Planned Parenthood from its Medicaid program, and the decision focuses on a fundamental, threshold question of law that must be answered before the courts can intervene when unlawful state conduct threatens the welfare of thousands of Medicaid beneficiaries: Can the courts halt the injury before it occurs?
The federal appeals court ruled that the answer to this question is “no,” a decision which departs from other appeals court rulings involving the exclusion of Planned Parenthood. As Rosenbaum explains, if the U.S. Supreme Court allows Does to stand, other states may try to follow suit at a time of heightened tension over Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood. She points out that Does may signal a new chapter in the long-running saga about whether, when threatened with injury by illegal state conduct, Medicaid beneficiaries can seek the help of the courts before they experience harm.
Read more (requires payment or subscription and also contains a link to the audio of an interview with Rosenbaum)