Case Information
*1 The Attorney General of Texas JIM MAl-TOX Qril 8, 1986
Attorney General Honorable Erwin W. Barton Opinion No. .IiG4'0 Supreme Court Building P. 0. Box 12548 cheirman Austin, TX. 78711. 2549 Re: CoGtitutional validity of a Humsn sarviccs Committee 5121475.2501 Texas Aouse of Re~lresentatives municipal ordinance which requires Telex 91O/S74-1387 P. 0. Box 2910 participants in a medical assis- Telecopier 512/475-0255 Austin, Texas 'Et769 tance program to apply for other available benefits 714 Jackson, Suite 700 Dallas, TX. 75202-4505 Dear Repre8entati.c: Barton: 214i742-8944
You ask whether the Similar Benefits Rule which is incorporated 4824 Alberta Ave., Suite 160 in the Medical P.ssistance Program of the city of Austin violates El Paso, TX. 793052793 individuals' constItutiona "freedom of choice." The city of Austin's 915/533-34a4 Similar Benefits Rule makes it a prerequisite to the expenditure of city funds for 'xalth care services for indigent or low income recipients that liuch persons must first utilize whatever "federal, 1001 Texas, Suite 700 state or private funds or similar benefits are available for the Houston, TX. 77002~3111 713/223-59@ payment for [such] services. . . ." We find that this rule does not
violate any constjxutional "freedom of choice." 808 Broadway, Suite 312 Austin is a Rome Rule City, created pursuant to article XI, Lubbock, TX. 79401.3479 section 5 of the Texas Constitution, with broad authority to provide KW747-5235
for the health anti welfare of its citizens. V.T.C.S. arr. 1175, 5528, 34. Its governir.g body is empowered to establish and regulate the 4309 N. Tenth, Suite S provision of medical and health services, including the operation of MAtlen, TX. 78501-1685 hospitals. V.T.C.S. art. 1015, §§l, 4. The Austin City Council 512l5824547
enacted the SimiLr' Benefits Rule in 1977, by resolution, as follows: 200 Main Plaza, Suite 400 Whenever federal, state or private funds or San Antonio, TX. 792052797 similar benefits are available for the payment for 512l225.4191 servicczi to indigent or low income health care recipient:s, no city funds shall be used to pay for An Equal Opportunityl such care. Persons who are eligible for partial Aftirmatlve Action Employer benefitzl from other third party sources may be
eligible for supplamental clinic card benefits provided that such supplemental benefits are extended only as a source of payment of last resort lrhen benefits from other sources have been exhausted or are inadequate to fully cover the cost of medically necessary services.
Honorable Erwin W. Barton - Page 2 You ask whether this rule violates any right to "freedom of choice," to choose between various Sovernment benefit programs. in certain matters is part of
The right to "freedom of choice” the right to privacy. See Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 152-53 (1973); see also Harris v. M&a,,'448 U.S. 297, 312 (1980) (part of liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourtemth Amandment). The most commonly recognized matters of personal privacy involve activities and dlzcisions regarding marriage, procreation, contraception, and a freedom of personal choice in certain other matters associated with family life. sci? 3 see also Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753 (1,982). Thereye.no cases which hold that a person has a constitut&xlal right to select the source of public assistance under the right of privacy.
In Harris v. &Rae, 44.8 U.S. 297, 316 (1980), the United States Supreme Court denied the ezristence of a constitutional entitlement to sufficient financial resources to participate in the full range of protected choices. See aljg; Maher v. Roe, 432 U.S. 464, 474 (1977). As the McRae court explainsd,
[allthough the l.iberty protected by the Due Process Clause affords protection against un- warranted government interference with freedom of ' choice in the context of certain personal decisions, it does not confer an entitlement to such funds as ma:r be necessary to realize all the advantages of that freedom.
448 U.S. at 317-18. The c.ourt reasoned that the manner of providing benafits which the government is not constitutionally required to provide Is a legislative matter rather than a matter of constitutional entitlement. 448 U.S. at 318; see also Burgess v. City of Houston, 718 F.2d 151. 154 (5th CII. 19S3);mney v. Meade, 466 S.W.2d 341, 342 (Tax. Civ. App. - Austdn 1971, writ ref'd n.r.e.1.
Consequently, the constitutional right of individuals to privacy and the freedom of choice j,n personal matters which that right antalls does not prevent the city c’f Austin from requiring that applicants for medical assistance which ::s funded bv the citv first exhaust other available sources of medical assistance. See alao Schweiker v. Hogan. 457 U.S. 569, 591 (1982) (allocating scarce benefits ou the basis of financial ability to meet needs not inconsistent with constitutional principles of equal treatmfnt).
SUMMARY The constitul:ional right of individuals to privacy and the freedom of choice in personal *3 Honorable Erwin W. Barton -' Page 3
matters which t3,o.t right entails do not prevent the city of AustLn from requiring that applicants for medical assistance which is funded by the city first exhaust other available sources of medical assistance. IA-t+-
Very I truly your! JIM MATTOX Attorney General of Texas JACE HIGHTOWER
First Assistant Attorney Goneral
MARY KELLER
Executive Assistant Attorney General
ROBERT GRAY
Special Assistant Attorney General
RICE GILPIN
Chairman, Opinion Committee
Prepared by Jennifer Riggs
Assistant Attorney General