A new federal proof-of-citizenship requirement for Medicaid patients that District nonprofit leaders feared would leave thousands of residents without medical care has been altered to exempt many of the city’s most vulnerable patients.
A lawsuitto stop the District from enforcing the new rule, filed in June by local nonprofit Bread for the City and 11 individual Medicare patients, was scheduled to be withdrawn Friday afternoon, said officials with Crowell & Moring, the law firm that filed the suit.
The new rule, which was part of the federal Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, sought to remove illegal immigrants from Medicare and Medicaid programs by requiring members to provide proof of citizenship. However, nonprofit leaders feared the requirements were too stringent for Medicare and Medicaid patients, many of whom may be too sick to produce documentation.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated that as many as 35,000 people would lose their benefits as a result of the citizenship requirement.
But last month, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services eased the requirements, essentially allowing patients to keep their benefits as long as they’re making a good-faith effort to provide proof of citizenship.
“I would not be surprised if they realized that it would not be proper to deny American citizens benefits to which American citizens are entitled merely because they don’t have certain documents,” said Clifton Elgarten, a partner with Crowell & Moring.
Lawyers for Crowell & Moring and Bread for the City leaders decided to withdraw the suit because the altered rules would allow most D.C. residents to keep their benefits, said George Jones, executive director of Bread for the City.
“The new regulations really did carve out a number of people we were concerned about,” he said. “So we are really claiming victory in many ways.”
However, Jones said the nonprofit organization will keep the door open for future legal action, should the eased regulations still prove too difficult for Medicare and Medicaid patients.
“Bread for the City hasn’t had any clients [lose their benefits], but that doesn’t mean we won’t have a flood of people next week,” he said.
“I think there’s still a concern that this law was ever passed. Even though we agreed that it’s less onerous than originally feared … at the end of the day it targeted American citizens.”
