Harris v. Olszewski
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
442 F.3d 456 (2006)
- Written by Samantha Arena, JD
Facts
The Medicaid Act (the act) requires state medical-assistance plans to include freedom-of-choice provisions permitting eligible individuals to obtain services from any institution qualified to perform such services. An exception to the provision exists in which the state contracts through a competitive-bidding process to purchase services or medical devices, provided the secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) has found that such a process makes adequate devices available to recipients. Under Michigan’s Medicaid program, the state supplied incontinence products, including diapers, catheters, and related accessories, to eligible recipients. Michigan contracted with one company to provide all incontinence products for the Medicaid program. Medicaid recipients (plaintiffs) sued the Michigan Department of Community Health (the department) (defendant), contending that by contracting with a sole provider, Michigan violated their statutory right to freedom of choice among providers. The district court granted an injunction preventing the department from enforcing the contract. The department appealed, arguing that the act did not confer an enforceable private right of action upon individual Medicaid recipients and that the single-source contract did not violate the freedom-of-choice provision because incontinence products are medical devices encompassed by the exception.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Sutton, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.