489 P.3d 1005
Okla.2021Background
- Petitioners (Oklahoma medical and dental associations) sued OHCA and its CEO seeking declaratory relief and extraordinary writs, claiming OHCA lacked legislative authority to implement a new capitated managed‑care program called SoonerSelect.
- OHCA was created by 1993 legislation (OHCA Act and OMHOA) to transition Oklahoma Medicaid from fee‑for‑service to managed care; it previously implemented SoonerCare Plus (1995) and SoonerCare Choice (1996).
- State Question 802 (approved June 30, 2020) expanded Medicaid to low‑income adults and required OHCA to seek federal approvals; OHCA thereafter issued RFPs (Oct. 15, 2020), selected MCOs (Jan. 26, 2021) and dental plans (Feb. 17, 2021), and signed contracts pending CMS approval.
- Petitioners argued OHCA acted ultra vires because statutes and SQ 802 do not authorize creation of a new fully capitated program; they also argued OHCA violated the Administrative Procedures Act by failing to promulgate required competitive‑bidding rules, and raised a mandatory‑enrollment constitutional claim.
- The Supreme Court assumed original jurisdiction, held OHCA lacked statutory authority to implement SoonerSelect, found the RFP/contract process violated the APA (rules not promulgated), declared the actions invalid, and denied writs as unnecessary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Did statute or SQ 802 authorize OHCA to create SoonerSelect? | OHCA lacks express or implicit legislative authorization to create a new fully capitated managed‑care program. | OHCA has broad statutory powers to purchase benefits, contract for delivery, and exercise incidental powers allowing SoonerSelect. | Held: No legislative authorization found; OHCA acted ultra vires; contracts invalid. |
| 2. Does the non‑delegation doctrine bar OHCA's actions? | If authority exists, statutes are too vague and unlawfully delegate fundamental policy making to OHCA. | The Legislature may delegate rulemaking/implementation authority consistent with standards in statutes. | Court declined to decide the non‑delegation claim because it found no statutory authority and no rules to review. |
| 3. Did OHCA violate the Administrative Procedures Act by not promulgating rules for competitive bidding? | OHCA was required to promulgate competitive‑bidding rules before implementing the RFP/contract process; RFPs cannot supplant rules. | OHCA relied on existing statutory powers and used RFPs and model contracts to set competitive terms. | Held: OHCA violated APA (75 O.S. §302 D–E); RFP process and resulting contracts are null, void, and unenforceable. |
| 4. Should the Court issue writs (prohibition or mandamus)? | Petitioners requested writs to bar implementation or to compel rulemaking. | Respondents opposed extraordinary relief. | Held: Declaratory relief granted; writs denied as unnecessary because OHCA lacked authority (no need to compel rulemaking or prohibit further action). |
Key Cases Cited
- Treat v. Stitt, 481 P.3d 240 (Okla. 2021) (executive exceeded statutory authority; compacts invalidated).
- Tulsa Cty. Deputy Sheriff's Fraternal Order of Police v. Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs, 995 P.2d 1124 (Okla. 2000) (non‑delegation and limits on administrative rulemaking authority).
- City of Sand Springs v. Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 608 P.2d 1139 (Okla. 1980) (legislature may delegate subordinate rulemaking to execute policy).
- Umholtz v. City of Tulsa, 565 P.2d 15 (Okla. 1977) (standards for writs of prohibition; defining quasi‑judicial power).
- State ex rel. Fent v. State ex rel. Okla. Water Res. Bd., 66 P.3d 432 (Okla. 2003) (procedural posture for declaratory relief and jurisdictional principles).
- Edmondson v. Pearce, 91 P.3d 605 (Okla. 2004) (standards for assuming original jurisdiction).