Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Jacobus v. Department of Prevention, Assistance, Transition and Health Access
No. 2003-220 (Vt. Sup. Ct. July 29, 2004) ; Clearinghouse Number: 55824
Description
Minors’ Interceptive Orthodontic Treatment Is Covered by Medicaid’s EPSDT Program
Abstract
The Vermont Supreme Court held that Vermont must provide Early and
Periodic Screening, Diagnostic, and Treatment (EPSDT) Medicaid
coverage for interceptive orthodontic treatment whenever an
eligible beneficiary’s conditions met the State’s
listed diagnostic treatment criteria or when the evidence showed
that they had conditions of equal or greater severity.
Petitioners—9-year-old Medicaid-eligible girls—were
denied coverage of interceptive orthodontic treatment under
Medicaid’s EPSDT program. One minor had persistent pain in
her teeth. The other had chronic pain in her jaw and speech
difficulties. The Vermont Department of Prevention, Assistance,
Transition, and Health Access denied coverage on the grounds that
interceptive treatment was not “medically necessary”
for either child. The Human Services Board approved coverage, but
the secretary of human services reversed the board; the secretary
found that state regulations required coverage of orthodontic
treatment only where a child had a “handicapping
malocclusion.” In consolidated appeals, petitioners argued
that by limiting interceptive orthodontic coverage to the exact
conditions described in the listed criteria, without conducting an
individualized review of each child’s medical needs,
department violated its own regulations as well as federal statutes
and regulations governing the EPSDT program. Reversing the
secretary’s order, the court found that the order violated
the federal Medicaid Act and regulations, 42 C.F.R. §
440.230(c). Once a State offers interceptive orthodontic treatment,
the court explained, it must do so equitably and may not
discriminate by “diagnosis, type of illness, or
condition.”
