|
|
|||||||
| |||||||
| |||||||
| 1 | HOUSE RESOLUTION
| ||||||
| 2 | WHEREAS, In 1992, a class of children in Cook County | ||||||
| 3 | eligible for Medicaid coverage ("plaintiffs") sued the | ||||||
| 4 | Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services ("HFS") | ||||||
| 5 | for violations of the federal Medicaid Act; and
| ||||||
| 6 | WHEREAS, Plaintiffs alleged that HFS failed to provide | ||||||
| 7 | children in Cook County covered under Medicaid with access to | ||||||
| 8 | medical care and services equal to children who were not | ||||||
| 9 | covered under Medicaid; and
| ||||||
| 10 | WHEREAS, The case went to trial in 2004 with Judge Joan | ||||||
| 11 | Lefkow finding in favor of the plaintiffs; and
| ||||||
| 12 | WHEREAS, Parties to the suit held settlement negotiations | ||||||
| 13 | and came to an agreement in 2005; a consent decree was entered | ||||||
| 14 | on June 27, 2005 with Judge Lefkow; and
| ||||||
| 15 | WHEREAS, Among the agreements in the consent decree, HFS | ||||||
| 16 | agreed to conduct a study regarding access to specialist | ||||||
| 17 | services by the children in the plaintiff class as well as | ||||||
| 18 | children in similar situations; and
| ||||||
| 19 | WHEREAS, The consent decree required HFS to retain a | ||||||
| 20 | qualified expert who was subject to plaintiffs' "reasonable | ||||||
| |||||||
| |||||||
| 1 | approval"; and | ||||||
| 2 | WHEREAS, The consent decree required the parties to discuss | ||||||
| 3 | with the retained expert their views on the proper methodology | ||||||
| 4 | for the study; and | ||||||
| 5 | WHEREAS, In 2007, plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce the | ||||||
| 6 | consent decree with Judge Lefkow; plaintiffs argued that the | ||||||
| 7 | expert retained by HFS was not qualified because it had never | ||||||
| 8 | implemented a mail survey or an audit survey, which were the | ||||||
| 9 | two methodologies proposed by the parties; plaintiffs also | ||||||
| 10 | argued that the new expert had been retained without its | ||||||
| 11 | approval; lastly, the plaintiffs argued that defendants had | ||||||
| 12 | unduly delayed the completion of the study; and | ||||||
| 13 | WHEREAS, On November 29, 2007, Judge Lefkow found in favor | ||||||
| 14 | of the plaintiffs and ordered the parties to agree on a new | ||||||
| 15 | expert within 30 days; and | ||||||
| 16 | WHEREAS, As of March 2008, the parties have yet to agree on | ||||||
| 17 | an expert and the study remains incomplete; therefore, be it
| ||||||
| 18 | RESOLVED, BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE | ||||||
| 19 | NINETY-FIFTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, that | ||||||
| 20 | the members of the Illinois House of Representatives urge HFS | ||||||
| 21 | and the plaintiffs to come to an agreement on an expert by | ||||||
| |||||||
| |||||||
| 1 | April 30, 2008; and be it further
| ||||||
| 2 | RESOLVED, That the expert and HFS finish the study and | ||||||
| 3 | complete a full report of the results by July 31, 2008; and be | ||||||
| 4 | it further | ||||||
| 5 | RESOLVED, That a copy of the report be delivered to every | ||||||
| 6 | member of the House of Representatives.
| ||||||