A federal judge ruled the Trump regime’s narrow reading of which chronically ill and disabled Medicaid recipients are “medically frail” was unlawful
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong was part of the multistate coalition that sued over the federal guidance
The ruling protects coverage for sick and disabled recipients, though the law’s broader work requirements are still expected to cost millions their coverage
A federal judge sided with Connecticut and a coalition of states against the federal government, ruling that the federal interpretation of a key provision of the 2025 Republican-passed federal budget that would potentially disqualify chronically ill Medicaid recipients from their health coverage is unlawful.
Attorney General William Tong, one of 25 state attorneys general who joined the District of Columbia in filing the lawsuit, announced in late October that the federal government’s new interpretation of “medically frail” was not legal.
Under existing law, the definition of “medically frail” must include people who are blind or are disabled, have substance use disorder or are disabled by mental conditions, or have other serious medical conditions or disabilities impacting and impairing their daily activities. The federal budget included that definition, the Associated Press reported.
However, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued guidance this year claiming people with those conditions must prove the conditions “significantly impair” their ability to work at least 80 hours a month, the Associated Press found. The judge struck that standard down.
“This was another web of useless red tape concocted by Trump to deny millions of Americans access to healthcare. We sued and we stopped him, and we’re going to keep fighting to protect access to Medicaid free from arbitrary and cruel bureaucratic barriers,” said Attorney General Tong.
The federal budget’s 80-hour monthly work requirement is still expected to cut millions of people off from coverage, especially since recipients will have to prove their eligibility more often, according to the Associated Press. But the ruling means people who are disabled, chronically ill or blind will not lose coverage because “they’re sick but they’re not quite sick enough,” an economist told the AP.
Tong’s office said the standard, had it stood, would have added financial burdens and red tape and put eligible people at risk of losing coverage, including people who already work or qualify for exemptions.
