The AG’s argued that the federal law requires HHS to consider alternatives to minimize harm to states due funding cuts. According to them, agency’s decision to terminate BHP funding “inflicts direct and potentially devastating injury on the states.”
Additionally, AGs Schneiderman and Swanson said HHS “failed to abide by the mandatory notice-and-comment process for amending an existing rule.” It did not provide a reasonable explanation for suddenly reducing BHP payments to the states by over $1 billion annually.
Furthermore, the agency made a mistake by not considering and adopting the alternative proposals submitted by New York & Minnesota.
Finally, the AGs emphasized that the agency’s reason that it lacks statutory authorization to pay the CHR component of its BHP payments is meritless.
The AGs are requesting the court to compel HHS restore the states’ BHP funding as required by the federal law.
