Judge halts TennCare overhaul review
U.S. District Court Judge William J. Haynes Jr.’s decision Friday surprised lawyers on both sides, who had been awaiting his ruling on the adequacy of the polices and procedures.
It was unclear whether the new development would lead to delays or another court ordered halt to TennCare cuts.
The state’s process for carrying out the cuts were debated in Haynes’ court early this month, with enrollee lawyers saying additional protections are needed and state lawyers saying they are fine.
However, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals later ruled that Haynes had overstepped his authority by reviewing the reasons behind the state’s planned TennCare cuts and vacated his ruling temporarily stopping the cuts.
Lawyers on both sides thought Haynes still had authority to, and would, review the fine print of how the state planned to carry out the cuts, things like the wording of letters sent to those being cut, the ways in which the state would inform special populations, such as those with mental illnesses, and the process for individuals to appeal.
But Haynes disagreed, saying the appeals court order did not state that and “the court’s governing document is the order.”
The judge said that for him to review those policies and procedures would require a new legal request from enrollee lawyers.
So, lawyers for the Tennessee Justice Center filed a motion Friday asking Haynes to issue a preliminary injunction — halting the state’s planned cuts — until he has reviewed and ruled on their adequacy.
It is not known when, or if, Haynes will issue that injunction. Haynes told lawyers he could provide no date to review the new request.
Meanwhile, the state’s lawyers said the state will take the first steps Thursday in the process of ending health-care coverage. It will begin checking addresses, translating materials into Spanish, getting letters to the printer and otherwise preparing to mail letters to those losing TennCare coverage. That mailing is set to go out beginning June 1.
In legal filings this week, state lawyers argued that “irreparable harm stands to ensue if the court has not ruled” by Thursday.