HCM 760 case study review 1
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University of Maryland, Baltimore *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
760
Subject
Law
Date
Nov 24, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
8
Uploaded by startidmdvmdng123
1
Eligibility for Permanent Residents for Medicaid Insurance Case Study
Roldye Weche
HCM 760
24/9/2023
2
I selected the case
“Eligibility for Permanent Residents for Medicaid Insurance” on page 71.
Research Information
Research Questions:
1.
How does the denial of Medicaid insurance to lawfully residing permanent residents impact their overall access to healthcare and, consequently, their health outcomes?
2.
What are the potential alternatives or policy recommendations that balance state fiscal concerns while ensuring equitable access to healthcare for noncitizen immigrants, particularly lawfully residing permanent residents?
Research Findings:
1.
Article Source:
o
Title:
"
Key facts on health coverage of immigrants "
o
Source:
Kaiser Family Foundation (kff.org)
o
Link:
https://www.kff.org/racial-equity-and-health-policy/fact-sheet/key-facts-on-
health-coverage-of-immigrants/
o
Summary:
This source provides a comprehensive analysis of health care access and coverage for noncitizen populations, shedding light on the challenges faced and potential policy solutions to ensure equitable healthcare access.
2.
Journal Article Source:
o
Title:
"
Health care access and utilization among US immigrants before and after the Affordable Care Act "
3
o
Source:
Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health
o
Authors:
Bustamante, A. V., Chen, J., McKenna, R. M., & Ortega, A. N.
o
Link:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6177328/
o
Summary:
This journal article analyzes health care access and utilization among immigrants in the USA, presenting valuable insights into the disparities faced by immigrant populations, including noncitizens, in accessing healthcare services.
Evaluation of Sources
A highly reliable source that is renowned for its thorough investigation and analysis of healthcare-related topics is The Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF). The well-organized content gives readers a thorough comprehension of the subject. The source is trustworthy, credible, and free of biases or logical flaws. The fact that the journal article is from a reputable, peer-reviewed source—the Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health—increases its legitimacy. Reputable researchers conducted the study, demonstrating its validity. The essay supports its credibility by including findings from empirical research. The data is credible and free of prejudice or illogical assumptions. Understanding the complexities and potential policy ramifications of the legal issue
of refusing Medicaid insurance to legally residing permanent residents is made easier with the help of both sources.
Interpretation and Analysis
If legally residing permanent residents should be eligible for Medicaid insurance was the main question in the case of Finch v. Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority. The Massachusetts equal protection clause was broken, according to the court, since the state legislative appropriations that denied Medicaid coverage to permanent residents did not pass
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
4
severe scrutiny. Differentiating between the opinions, facts, and legal arguments given in the case was crucial to the court's analysis.
Opinions: Both the state and the organization of legally existing permanent residents provided viewpoints in this matter. According to the state, because of financial restrictions, they suggested barring all noncitizens—including those who have been lawful permanent residents of the country for less than five years—from Medicaid insurance coverage. The group of permanent
residents, however, argued that this discrimination against them based on their immigration status was a violation of their constitutional rights to equal protection.
Facts: The historical context, state activities, and federal government compensation programs for noncitizen immigrants were all stated as facts. These included information on how Medicaid was initially offered to all legal immigrants, how some groups were later excluded due to financial restrictions, and how the federal government reimbursed eligible individuals.
Arguments: The court's judgment was heavily influenced by legal arguments. These issues included how state funding should be interpreted and whether Medicaid insurance denials were solely financial or related to immigration laws. The state's acts were scrutinized by the court to determine their intent, whether they were strictly scrutinized and if they were narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest.
It is clear from a careful examination of the Finch v. Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority case and knowledge of many legal interpretations that the case highlights the complex interaction between constitutional rights, immigration status, and healthcare. The court's decision underlined the crucial idea that a person's eligibility for important healthcare benefits, such as Medicaid insurance, shouldn't be determined purely by their immigration status.
5
The use of severe scrutiny in this situation emphasizes the significance of closely examining state policies that distribute financial rewards and making sure that they comply with constitutional norms, particularly those pertaining to discrimination. This decision establishes a crucial precedent by affirming the notion that financial considerations alone are insufficient to defend policies that disproportionately harm vulnerable groups, such as long-term residents. It establishes a precedent for future legal interpretations involving healthcare accessibility and equal protection under the law by calling for a delicate balance between financial reasons and safeguarding fundamental rights.
The subject is the eligibility of lawfully residing permanent residents for Medicaid insurance. The legal problems raised in Finch v. Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority will be examined using an analytical/inquiry process. Should those who live there permanently be able to receive Medicaid coverage? A study strategy entails comprehending the context, the federal reimbursement policy, and the state's actions in order to explore into this. Making a distinction between facts and views is essential in this process. While facts cover earlier actions and policies, opinions from the state and the impacted community show conflicting viewpoints. After analysis, the following meaning is obvious: Medicaid eligibility based on immigration status is a violation of equal protection laws. This analysis, which offers a thorough understanding of the legal complexities and repercussions in healthcare and immigration law, emphasizes the need to strike a balance between state fiscal concerns and preserving fundamental rights.
Law that Applies
In Finch v. Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority, it was established that
while protection against discrimination based on national origin does not include discrimination
6
based on immigration status, a state law that distributes economic benefits and discriminates against long-term residents is subject to close scrutiny. This legal precedent has important ramifications for how healthcare is delivered today, highlighting how crucial it is to guarantee equitable access to basic medical treatments regardless of immigration status. The delivery of care can be uneven and inequitable as a result of discrimination based on immigration status, which can affect vulnerable populations, including permanent residents. This decision today highlights the need for healthcare policies that prioritize fairness and inclusivity, urging healthcare professionals and policymakers to work toward healthcare systems that do not discriminate based on immigration status and guarantee all people have access to necessary healthcare services for their well-being.
Summary and Conclusion
In conclusion, the Finch v. Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority case demonstrated strengths in defending the right of legally residing permanent residents to equal protection under the law. The court's use of severe scrutiny confirmed that Medicaid insurance and other forms of healthcare access shouldn't be withheld based merely on immigrant status. This provides equitable access to healthcare while upholding core constitutional norms. The decision also highlighted the necessity of striking a balance between protecting rights and financial considerations, creating a major precedent for upcoming legal interpretations regarding healthcare and immigration. The financial burden on states, particularly when certain noncitizen immigrants are not eligible for federal subsidies, is a potential weakness, though. It's still difficult to strike a balance between providing equal care and keeping costs down. Personally, I concur with the court's ruling since it adheres to core fairness and equal protection principles, which are essential for a just healthcare system. It emphasizes the necessity of providing non-
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
7
discriminatory care for all members of a society and that healthcare access shouldn't be restricted
based on immigration status.
8
References
Bustamante, A. V., Chen, J., McKenna, R. M., & Ortega, A. N. (2019). Health care access and utilization among US immigrants before and after the Affordable Care Act.
Journal of immigrant and minority health
,
21
, 211-218. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6177328/
Hammaker, D. K., & Knadig, T. M. (2018).
Health care ethics and the law
. Jones & Bartlett Publishers.
Key facts on health coverage of immigrants
. (2023, September 17). KFF.
https://www.kff.org/racial-equity-and-health-policy/fact-sheet/key-facts-on-health-
coverage-of-immigrants/