Arkansas Medical Society, Inc. v. Jack Reynolds

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding, in a case involving the equal access provision, that a state “may take ... budget factors into consideration when setting its reimbursement methodology,” but “may not ignore the Medicaid Act’s requirements in order to suit budgetary needs”
• noting that “[r]eview under the arbitrary and capricious standard” is appropriate
• refusing to rely on speculative evidence that could “only be confirmed by historical data accumulated after the cuts were made”
• \The equal access provision . . . actually gives a measuring rod for accessibility which . . . is sufficiently specific.\
• \The providers here are beneficiaries for the same reason that the providers in Wilder were beneficiaries.\
• \[T]he equal access provision [of Section 30(A)] may be enforced by Medicaid recipients and providers using 42 U.S.C. S 1983.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).