Patients’ Right to Freedom of Choice

by Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq.

Patient's Right to Freedom of Choice of Providers

U.S. Supreme Court Weighs In

Patient’s rights to freedom of choice of providers who will render care to them is currently based on four key sources:

  • Court decisions that establish the right of all patients, regardless of payor source and the setting in which services are rendered, to control treatment, including who provides it
  • Federal statutes for both the Medicare and Medicaid Programs that establish the right of patients whose care is paid for by these programs to choose providers to render care – Specifically, Section 1802 (42 U.S. C. 1395a) states as follows: “(a) Basic freedom of choice.- Any individual entitled to insurance benefits under this title may obtain health services from any institution, agency, or person qualified to participate under this title if such institution, agency or person undertakes to provide him such services.”
  • The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA), which currently requires hospitals to provide a list of home health agencies and hospices to patients. According to the BBA, the list must meet the following criteria: (a) Providers that render services in the geographic area in which patients reside, are Medicare-certified, and request to be included must appear on the list given to patients. (b) If hospitals have a financial interest in any provider that appears on the list, this interest must be disclosed on the list.
  • Conditions of Participation (COP’s) of the Medicare Program that are the same as the provisions of the BBA described above

Supreme Court Decision

The U.S Supreme Court has now issued a decision about the federal statute for the Medicaid Program described above in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, et al. [No, 23-1276 (June 26, 2025)]. This case involves the any-qualified-provider provision in the statute above that requires states to ensure that any individual eligible for medical assistance may obtain it from any provider qualified to perform the service who undertakes to provide it. The question is whether individual Medicaid beneficiaries may sue state officials under the above statute for failing to comply with the any-qualified-provider provision. 

Exclusions on "any-qualified-provider" provision

The State of South Carolina excluded Planned Parenthood from the Medicaid Program. An enrollee in the Medicaid Program sued the State based on the above statute because she said that she wanted to receive Medicaid services from Planned Parenthood.

Federal enforcement; not private

The Court said that spending power statutes, such as Medicaid Programs, are especially unlikely to create the right for individuals to sue the states. The typical remedy for state noncompliance is federal funding termination. Private enforcement, such as suits by individuals, requires states to voluntarily and knowingly consent to private suits based on clear and unambiguous alerts from Congress to the states that private enforcement is a funding condition.

The Court concluded that the above statute does not permit individuals to sue the States for violation of their right to freedom of choice of providers.

# # #

Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq.
Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq.

Elizabeth Hogue is an attorney in private practice with extensive experience in health care. She represents clients across the U.S., including professional associations, managed care providers, hospitals, long-term care facilities, home health agencies, durable medical equipment companies, and hospices.

©2025 Elizabeth E. Hogue, Esq. All rights reserved.

No portion of this material may be reproduced in any form without the advance written permission of the author.

©2025 by The Rowan Report, Peoria, AZ. All rights reserved. 

Injunctions Overturned

by Kristin Rowan, Editor

District Court Injunctions Overturned

Agencies to resume layoffs.

The now infamous “Memo” from the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management instructed agency leaders to cut their workforce as part of the President’s DOGE Workforce Optimization Initiative. The memo from late February started with divisions and employees whose work was not mandated by law and is not considered essential during government shutdowns.

District Court Block on Workforce Downsizing

In May, District Court Judge Susan Illston ruled that the administration lacked congressional approval to make sweeping cuts, and blocked the federal workforce reductions. The order came after lawsuits from labor unions and nonprofit groups argued that the cuts would have drastic negative effects on the American people. They also posed the argument that reorganizing government functions and laying off workers en masse without congressional approval is not allowed by the Constitution. A panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals voted against overturning Illston’s order. 

Supreme Court Overrules

On July 8th, the Supreme Court ruled to allow federal agencies to resume the layoff directive. The 8-1 decision lifts one block on reduction in workforce, but there are smaller injunctions across different courts that have not made it to the Supreme Court yet. The decision overturns the injunction for 17 of the 19 agencies included in the initial memo. The Department of Veterans Affairs is among those cleared to resume layoffs. The departments of Defense, Education, Homeland Security and Justice were not included in the directive.

Restructuring Not Included

The Court was careful to convey there has been no decision on whether the reorganization plan for any specific agency is legal. Each agency’s restructuring plan may eventually reach the Supreme Court.

The order also only clears the way for the reduction in workforce. It is also not a blanket green light. The administration has to provide details on how it selects the staff being laid off. In some cases, they must notify Congress and the labor unions. 

Dissent, and Agreement

The Supreme Court decision was 8-1 in favor of overturning the injunction. Only Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.

“In my view, this decision is not only truly unfortunate but also hubristic and senseless. [The] statutory shortfalls likely to result from implementation of this executive order will be immensely painful to the general public, and the plaintiffs, in the interim, causing harm that includes ‘proliferat[ing] foodborne disease,’ perpetuating ‘hazardous environmental conditions,’ ‘eviscerat[ing] disaster loan services for local businesses,’ and ‘drastically reduc[ing] the provision of healthcare and other services to our nation’s veterans.’”

Kentanji Brown Jackson

Justice, United States Supreme Court

Justice Sotomayor, who voted to overturn the injunction, wrote a one-paragraph solo opinion saying she agrees with Jackson that the administration cannot “restructure federal agencies in a manner inconsistent with congressional mandates.”

“The plans themselves are not before this Court, at this stage, and we thus have no occasion to consider whether they can and will be carried out consistent with the constraints of law,” Sotomayor warned.

Blocks Still Standing

The Supreme Court ruling overturned the injunction put in place on May 22nd by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. This is the only injunction impacted by the ruling. Other injunctions remain in place.

On July 1, U.S. District Judge Melissa DuBose granted an injunction to stop the downsizing and restructuring of HHS. This injunction was not explicitly mentioned in the latest ruling, but could still be impacted.

U.S. District Judge Matthew Maddox ordered the reinstatments of AmeriCorps employees who were laid off or put on leave and blocked any additional reductions that affect union employees. 

U.S. District Judge Myong Joun indefinitely blocked the reduction of workforce of school districts in Boston. An emergency bid with the Supreme Court to lift the block could be heard and decided at any time.

A federal appeals court blocked a 90 percent reduction of the staff at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; federal judges reversed similar reductions at DEI foundations, and all actions under Pete Marocco are voided.

Final Thoughts

Numerous cases remain undecided in lower courts and the Supreme Court. Whether any layoffs will be finalized and whether departmental restructing is legal remain to be seen. For now, expect a reduction in personnel at the VA, but not yet at HHS or CMS. We will continue to report on updates as they occur.

# # #

Kristin Rowan, Editor
Kristin Rowan, Editor

Kristin Rowan has been working at The Rowan Report since 2008. She is the owner and Editor-in-chief of The Rowan Report, the industry’s most trusted source for care at home news, and speaker on Artificial Intelligence and Lone Worker Safety and state and national conferences.

She also runs Girard Marketing Group, a multi-faceted boutique marketing firm specializing in content creation, social media management, and event marketing.  Connect with Kristin directly kristin@girardmarketinggroup.com or www.girardmarketinggroup.com

©2025 by The Rowan Report, Peoria, AZ. All rights reserved. This article originally appeared in The Rowan Report. One copy may be printed for personal use: further reproduction by permission only. editor@therowanreport.com