NEW HAMPSHIRE HEALTH CARE ASS'N v. Governor
13 A.3d 145
| N.H. | 2011Background
- NHHCA and several nursing homes challenge Governor's Executive Order 2008-10 reducing DHHS expenditures for FY 2009 and eliminating certain Medicaid supplemental payments.
- DHHS administers New Hampshire's Medicaid program; nursing homes are reimbursed on a per diem basis with five components, including capital costs, funded partly by federal and state dollars.
- Budget neutrality calculations (BNF) reconcile gaps between appropriations and calculated reimbursements; the legislature enacts statutes to balance budgets and may lapse funds if not expended.
- Laws 2007, 129:1 created a non-lapsing nursing services appropriation and a one-time supplemental payment; Laws 2008, 296:18 permitted lapse of those funds if unspent.
- Federal approval in 2008 allowed a one-time supplemental payment for FY 2007 funds; three days earlier the Governor issued EO 2008-10 to reduce expenditures, eliminating the supplemental payments.
- Petitioners seek declaratory, injunctive relief and mandamus; trial court granted partial summary judgment for respondents; NH Supreme Court affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| RSA 9:16-b facial validity | Petitioners contend RSA 9:16-b creates unconstitutional line-item veto. | Lynch argues RSA 9:16-b is a valid executive tool to preserve a balanced budget. | RSA 9:16-b facially constitutional. |
| RSA 9:16-b as applied to mandates | As applied, RSA 9:16-b contravenes statutory mandates to pay supplemental rates. | Governor's use of RSA 9:16-b prioritizes budget balance consistent with legislative intent. | As applied, RSA 9:16-b does not violate separation of powers. |
| Executive Order 2008-10 takings | EO 2008-10 effects a taking by depriving vested rights to supplemental payments. | No vested property right existed; payments were mere anticipations conditioned on statutes. | No taking under NH Constitution. |
| Procedural due process | petitioners were entitled to procedural due process before EO 2008-10. | No constitutionally protected property interest existed; due process not triggered. | No procedural due process violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bel Air Assocs. v. N.H. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 154 N.H. 228 (2006) (Medicaid funding framework and budgeting authority in NH)
- Bel Air Assocs. v. N.H. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 158 N.H. 104 (2008) (Subsequent development of budget neutrality and appropriations)
- American Cancer Soc. v. Commissioner of Administration, 769 N.E.2d 1257 (Mass. 2002) (Executive spending power as executive expenditure, not de facto appropriation)
- O'Neil v. Thomson, 114 N.H. 155 (1974) (Separation of powers and Governor's limits on executive orders)
- Hunter v. State, 865 A.2d 381 (Vt. 2004) (Shared powers approach to deficit prevention and executive spending)