admin
The short version: this week four Pennsylvanians, with help from the Public Interest Law Center, sued the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services to stop Gov. Josh Shapiro’s administration from enforcing two Medicaid waiver limits — the so‑called “40/60” caregiver-hours cap and a travel restriction — by hiding them inside participant contracts and consent forms instead of making them formal regulations. If you like rule‑by-signature and surprise deadlines, you’ll love this approach. If you believe in the rule of law and protecting families caring for disabled loved ones, you should be worried.
What the lawsuit actually challenges
The plaintiffs say DHS is trying to reimpose the same substance of rules that a Commonwealth Court already struck down for failing to go through proper rulemaking (the Dunkelberger and Errickson decisions). Instead of putting the limits through public notice and comment, the administration pushed updated agreements that beneficiaries had to sign — with sign‑by deadlines and re‑signing demands. DHS claims federal pressure and budget integrity justify the move and points to a reported 8,300 signed agreements, but families and the complaint call that number and the way signatures were gathered into question.
Why this matters to families and taxpayers
On paper, everyone agrees Medicaid should stop fraud. But the way Shapiro’s DHS is doing it looks like a paperwork shell game: use contracts to yank rules back into force without public input or judicial review, then tell exhausted caregivers to accept or lose badly needed support. Real people — parents, spouses, siblings — are the ones who pay when policy shortcuts create chaos: lost hours, blocked travel for medical care or life events, and the risk that home supports shrink so far that institutional care becomes the only option.
Law, politics, and what comes next
The complaint asks the court to block enforcement of the contract-based limits and to force DHS into formal rulemaking if it wants these policies to stand. That’s a basic separation-of-powers question: courts said you can’t make rules without the rulemaking process, so don’t pretend a signature on a form changes that. Expect motions for emergency relief, more filings, and a close look at DHS’s timetable for actual regulations. If the administration wanted to be on firm ground, it would have started public rulemaking long before trying to strong-arm beneficiaries into compliance.
A practical conservative test: clean up fraud, but don’t punish the vulnerable
Conservatives believe in protecting taxpayers and helping the truly needy. That means strong fraud controls, better data matching, and consequences for abusers — not backdoor rulemaking that strips due process from the people Medicaid is meant to protect. DHS can secure finances and answer federal oversight without treating beneficiaries like guilty until proven innocent. The court will have to sort the legal wrinkle, but the political lesson is plain: if you want to change policy, do it openly and lawfully — don’t hand families a stack of forms and call it governance.
