i
TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS
.............................................................................................................. i
BACKGROUND
........................................................................................................................... 2
A.
DHS Secures A Waiver For The Healthy Pennsylvania Program
................... 2
B.
Overview Of Healthy Pennsylvania
.................................................................... 3
C.
The Transition From Traditional Medicaid To Healthy Pennsylvania
........... 6
D.
Plaintiffs’ Claims In This Case
............................................................................ 7
ARGUMENT
................................................................................................................................. 7
I.
THE COURT DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO ENTER A MASS INJUNCTION, IN THE ABSENCE OF A CERTIFIED CLASS.
............................... 8
II.
PLAINTIFFS HAVE NOT SATISFIED THEIR BURDEN OF DEMONSTRATING BY CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT THEY ARE ENTITLED TO THE EXTRAORDINARY REMEDY OF A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.
................ 10
A.
Plaintiffs Will Not Succeed On The Merits Of Their Claims.
........................ 11
1.
Plaintiffs cannot prove a due process violation.
................................... 12
a.
Plaintiffs have, at best, a marginal interest in the services that DPW’s changes will impact.
..................... 13
b.
Plaintiffs have not shown any risk of a deprivation of their due process rights or that there is any value from additional or substitute safeguards.
.............................. 14
c.
Plaintiffs’ proposed additional or substitute notice requirements would impose enormous additional fiscal and administrative burdens on DHS.
............................ 18
2.
The Court will have to defer to CMS’s approval of the notices that were sent and of DHS’s methodology for determining medical frailty.
................................................................................................................... 19
B.
Plaintiffs Cannot Show That They Would Suffer An Irreparable Harm.
.... 22
C.
Plaintiffs’ Proposed Injunction Would Harm The Commonwealth And Runs Counter To The Public Interest.
........................................................................ 26
1.
Plaintiffs’ proposed remedy would cost the Commonwealth tens of millions of dollars.
................................................................................... 26
Case 2:14-cv-07199-PD Document 7 Filed 12/23/14 Page 2 of 34