Court denies Blagojevich health care expansion

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. An Illinois appellate court on Friday blocked Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s attempt to expand a state-funded health care program, noting that administration officials don’t know who they’ve signed up or even where the money is that they’ve coll

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. An Illinois appellate court on Friday blocked Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s attempt to expand a state-funded health care program, noting that administration officials don’t know who they’ve signed up or even where the money is that they’ve collected in insurance premiums. The First District Appellate Court in Chicago upheld a lower court’s injunction on the administration’s plan to offer FamilyCare to higher-income participants. A lawyer and business groups sued the Democratic governor after he initiated the expansion without permission from the General Assembly and a legislative panel that writes program rules. The action sends the matter back to circuit court for a debate on whether the expansion is legal. But Judge Fitzgerald Smith, writing the opinion for the court, said Blagojevich was picking favorable parts of federal welfare law to enroll participants who don’t even qualify for welfare. "The FamilyCare program, then, is in direct contradiction to the unambiguous language of the code defendants rely upon to operate it," Smith wrote. Blagojevich’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The governor sought to expand FamilyCare, a program that insures the parents of children who are eligible for state-federal Medicaid health insurance through a separate program. He wanted to offer coverage to parents who make up to $83,000 a year for a family of four, with higher-income families paying higher premiums in the taxpayer-subsidized program. But the General Assembly refused to go along, and Smith ruled it’s the Legislature’s job to decide eligibility requirements for such programs. Blagojevich embarked on the expansion anyway and enrolled 30,000 people, continuing even after the lower court’s injunction in April. He bowed to a judge’s order in May to stop but said those signed up would continue to be covered. But his lawyers admitted in court that they "could not" notify participants or service providers about the injunction, couldn’t refund premium payments, could not say how much had been collected in premiums or even where that money is. Smith said that and the two-time rejection by lawmakers raised "severe concerns" that are sufficient to show "that plaintiffs have raised a fair question concerning their rights as state taxpayers." AP ______ Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

About Post Author

Comments

From the Web

Skip to content