CMS Says No Extra Funding for States That Do Not Make Full Medicaid Expansion and Offers Other ACA Guidance
Client Alert | 1 min read | 12.11.12
On December 10, 2012 the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight (CCIIO), a component of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), published a "Frequently Asked Questions on Exchanges, Market Reforms and Medicaid." Among the more notable guidance in the FAQ, CCIIO clarified that if states pursue a partial expansion of Medicaid coverage, rather than the full expansion to 133% of the federal poverty level, then the state will not receive federal matching funds for that partial expansion. That is, full expansion is a condition precedent to federal matching funds—there are no federal matching funds for partial expansions. The FAQ also noted that a state that participates in the Medicaid expansion may elect to drop the coverage at a later date. Additionally, the FAQ provides guidance on, inter alia, the interplay between federally-facilitated exchanges and states, multistate plans, consumer outreach and eligibility, the Medicaid expansion, and coordination between the exchanges and other programs. Click here for the full FAQ.
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
