John B. Cases:
·You are the parent of a special needs boy with emotional and behavioral health needs. Your son has been treated at a residential treatment facility and his condition has improved. He no longer needs residential treatment; however, he cannot move home because of the threat he poses to your other children. Although his doctor has orderedtreatment at a therapeutic foster home, TennCare denied this care saying that your son must go into foster care to receive this treatment. You must decide whether to surrender custody of your son to the state or bring your son home and put his siblings at risk of harm.
·Your daughter has cerebral palsy and quadriplegia and needs a special wheelchair. The wheelchair is ordered by her doctor; however, there are numerous delays. When the wheelchair finally arrives, you immediately realize that it was not built to the correct specifications. The wheelchair’s lack of proper safety mechanisms causes your daughter to fall out of the chair. The wheelchair must be sent back for modifications. It takes over two years before your daughter receives the proper wheelchair.
·Your teenage daughter has severe diabetes.Your daughter’s doctor recommends an insulin pump to keep her blood sugar regulated.Your HMO denies the pump.
The above case studies are from TJC clients who rely upon the John B. class action to ensure that the health needs of their children are met.
John B. v. Goetz is a class action against the state of Tennessee for its failure to abide by the federal law that requires the state to maintain the health of children enrolled in TennCare. This law is called Early Periodic Screening Diagnostic and Treatment, or EPSDT. Congress passed EPSDT to ensure that all children grow up healthy, strong, and able to reach their full potential. EPSDT covers all Medicaid children under the age of 21. Since 1968, every state in the nation has been obligated to meet federal EPSDT standards.
John B. was filed (see complaint) and settled on the same day in 1998. When the state signed the settlement agreement (see consent decree), it agreed to comply with EPSDT. The consent decree allowed the state several years to fulfill its promises to Tennessee’s children. Initially, the state worked toward compliance; however, as state officials and priorities changed, the state failed to implement the promises it made under the John B. consent decree. Rather than develop a plan for compliance or work to ensure that the health needs of the most vulnerable Tennesseans are met, the state has spent its energies fighting its obligations to Tennessee’s children. This tactic has prevented the state from meeting its obligations to Tennessee’s children. In fact, since 2001, every fact finder that has analyzed the state’s compliance with its EPSDT obligations has found that the state is not in compliance with the law and is failing its most vulnerable children.
In 2001, the federal Court found the state had violated every aspect of the federal law and the consent decree. In response, the Court appointed a special master to help the state develop and implement a plan for compliance with the law. (See Court’s Dec. 20, 2001 order and findings) In October 2004, the Court found that the state was still failing children and that the state did not even have a plan for developing a system that would meet children’s medical needs. (see Oct. 22, 2004 order). To date, the State refuses to produce a plan for compliance.
In February 2006, Judge Nixon recused himself from the case in a scathing opinion about the state's efforts. In early 2006, the state declared itself in compliance. The district court appointed five court monitors to evaluate whether the state met its obligations to Tennessee’s children. (see Feb. 2006 Memorandum Order) In January 2007, the monitors released their findings, which showed the state's ongoing problems and non-compliance with the Consent Decree or EPSDT. (see Jan. 26, 2007 executive summary and monitors' reports on Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment, Outreach, Department of Children's Services: Part 1 and Part 2, and Coordination)
The state’s failure to meet its obligations under John B. is particularly troubling given the current financial crisis. Each month, the state pays it HMO contractors in advance. Under their contracts with the state, the HMOs are obligated to meet the standards of the federal law. However, because the state has no plan for compliance, TennCare is unable to require its HMOs to deliver medical care to enrollees. The state spends tax revenues for comprehensive care for children which it does not receive. If the state were to develop a plan for compliance, TennCare would be able to demand the services purchased with taxpayer dollars.
In 2010, the state again attempted to shirk its obligations to children by moving to vacate the consent decree. The Court of Appeals found that the consent decree is valid and refused to vacate the decree. The Tennessee JusticeCenter is preparing to litigate at the district court level to compel the state to live up to its obligations under both the John B. consent decree and federal law.