An Arizona lawmaker said proposed legislation affecting the state’s Medicaid system does not illegally target Planned Parenthood and other providers. That comes in response to a letter this week from the director of the Center for Medicaid and CHIP Services warning states not to do just that.
The letter reiterated that states cannot prevent those with Medicaid from using a provider just because it offers a range of family planning services, including abortions.
Marissa Padilla, a spokesperson for Medicaid, said the letter was prompted by a variety of efforts across the country to limit access to certain providers.
“In the last year, there are 10 states that have either taken specific actions to terminate a provider, or they are recently considering legislation or have passed legislation that would restrict how Medicaid beneficiaries would receive their services,” she said.
Arizona is among them, Padilla said; however, she can’t comment on specific legislation, namely House Bill 2599 advanced by Republican State Representative Justin Olson of Mesa. His bill lays out a host of reasons, many modeled after existing federal law, for excluding a provider from Medicaid. One is failing to segregate taxpayer dollars from those used for abortion services.
Medicaid does not provide reimbursement for abortions, except in the case of rape, incest or a pregnancy threatening the life of the mother.
Olson said the legislation simply provides an "enforcement mechanism."
“If they are not using taxpayer dollars to fund abortion, then this bill would not have any impact on them. If they are, then, in fact, they do have something to be worried about,” Olson said.
But Planned Parenthood argues this legislation is just one more attack and creates vague standards that could be impossible to comply with. The bill is currently making its way through the state legislature.
Arizona matches 10 cents out of every federal dollar for Medicaid. A 2012 state law sought to exclude a provider that also offers abortions from using that Medicaid money for family planning purposes, but that was eventually overturned by a federal court.
