The opinion of the court was delivered by: Christina A. Snyder United States District Judge
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
On November 21, 2011, plaintiffs California Medical Association, Inc. ("CMA"), et al. filed the instant action against Toby Douglas, Director of the California Department of Health Care Services (the "Director") and Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (the "Secretary"). Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint ("FAC") on December 30, 2011.
The California Department of Health Care Services ("DHCS") is a California agency charged with the administration of California's Medicaid program, Medi-Cal. The Secretary is responsible for administering the Medicaid program at the federal level. Through her designated agent, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS"), the Secretary is responsible for reviewing and approving policy changes that states make to their Medicaid programs.
Plaintiff CMA is a professional association representing the interests of physicians in California. Plaintiff California Dental Association ("CDA") is a professional association representing the interests of dentists in California. Plaintiff California Pharmacists Association ("CPhA") is a professional association representing the interests of California pharmacists.*fn1 Plaintiff National Association of Chain Drug Stores ("NACDS") is a national association whose members include 18 national pharmacy chains in California with over 3,100 individual pharmacies throughout the State. Plaintiff California Association of Medical Product Suppliers ("CAMPS") is a trade organization representing the interests of durable medical equipment ("DME") suppliers in California.*fn2 Plaintiff AIDS Healthcare Foundation ("AHF") is the largest provider of medical care for AIDS patients in California. Plaintiff American Medical Response West ("AMR") provides emergency medical transportation ("EMT") services in California. Plaintiff Jennifer Arnold is an individual whose infant son is a Med-Cal beneficiary. Plaintiffs Does 1 through 25 are individuals residing in California that receive outpatient services through the Medi-Cal program.
On March 25, 2011, California Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. signed into law Assembly Bill 97 ("AB 97"), the health budget trailer bill for California fiscal year 2011--2012. AB 97 enacted significant payment reductions for many classes of services provided under the Medi-Cal program. Most significantly for the purposes of the instant action, AB 97 enacted California Welfare and Institutions Code § 14105.192, which authorizes the Director to reduce the Medi-Cal payment rates for various services, including physician, clinic, dental, pharmaceutical, EMT and DME and medical supply services, effective June 1, 2011. Pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code § 14105.192(n), the Director is required to seek any federal approvals necessary prior to implementing the rate reduction.
DHCS submitted proposed State Plan Amendment ("SPA") 11-009 to CMS on June 30, 2011, seeking federal approval of the rate reduction and incorporation of that reduction into California's Medi-Cal State Plan. On September 27, 2011, CMS issued a letter to DHCS requesting additional information concerning the proposed rate reduction. This Request for Additional Information ("RAI") focused on the impact of the rate reduction on access to services. DHCS responded with analyses of the rate reduction's impact on access and a plan for monitoring access. On October 27, 2011, in a letter from the Associate Regional Administrator of the Division of Medicaid & Children's Health Operations, CMS provided notice to the Director and DHCS that it had approved the SPA. Contemporaneously with the approval letter, the Associate Regional Administrator also sent a "companion letter" by which CMS gave notice to the Director and DHCS that it had "identified additional issues" that were "not in compliance with current regulations, statute, and CMS guidance."
Plaintiffs allege that CMS' approval of the SPA was in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(30)(A) ("Section 30(A)"),*fn3 the Supremacy Clause,*fn4 FAC ¶¶ 70--72, and the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.*fn5 Id. ¶¶ 73--79. Plaintiffs further allege that the Secretary's approval of the SPA violated the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. because the Secretary failed to appropriately consider certain factors including the impact of the rate reduction on access to and quality of medical services. Id. ¶¶ 66--69.
On December 30, 2011, plaintiffs filed the instant motion seeking a preliminary injunction restraining the Director from implementing the rate reduction. On January 17, 2011, the Director and the Secretary filed separate oppositions to plaintiffs' motion. Plaintiffs replied on January 23, 2011. A hearing was held January 30, 2011. After carefully considering the parties' arguments, the Court find and concludes as follows.
A preliminary injunction is an "extraordinary remedy." Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 9 (2008). The Ninth Circuit summarized the Supreme Court's recent clarification of the standard for granting preliminary injunctions in Winter as follows: "[a] plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest." Am. Trucking Ass'n, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Cal. Pharms. Ass'n v. Maxwell-Jolly, 563 F.3d 847, 849 (9th Cir. 2009) ("Cal. Pharms. I"). Alternatively, "'serious questions going to the merits' and a hardship balance that tips sharply towards the plaintiff can support issuance of an injunction, so long as the plaintiff also shows a likelihood of irreparable injury and that the injunction is in the public interest." Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1132 (9th Cir. 2011); see also Indep. Living Ctr. of So. Cal. v. Maxwell-Jolly, 572 F. 3d 644, 657--58 (9th Cir. 2009) ("ILC II"). A "serious question" is one on which the movant "has a fair chance of success on the merits." Sierra On-Line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1421 (9th Cir. 1984).
Before turning to the merits of plaintiffs' motion, the Court first addresses the Director's arguments that plaintiffs lack standing to bring this case.
The Director argues that plaintiffs have not alleged an "actual and imminent injury" because plaintiffs' alleged injury relies on a "tenuous thread of assumptions contingent upon possibilities." Director's Opp'n at 13.
The Court rejects this argument because plaintiffs' alleged injuries are concrete rather than speculative or conjectural. In order to establish standing to assert a claim, a plaintiff must: (1) demonstrate an injury in fact, which is concrete, distinct and palpable, and actual or imminent; (2) establish a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of; and (3) show a substantial likelihood that the requested relief will remedy the alleged injury in fact. See McConnell v. Fed'l Election Comm'n, 540 U.S. 93, 225-26 (2003). In this case, plaintiffs allege that if implemented, the challenged rate reduction would inflict concrete financial injury on Medi-Cal participating service providers. See Indep. Living Ctr. of So. Cal. v. Shewry, 543 F. 3d 1050, 1065 (9th Cir. 2008) ("ILC I"). ILC I also establishes that Medi-Cal beneficiaries have standing to challenge a Medi-Cal rate reduction when they allege they will by "'put at risk of injury by implementation of the . . . payment cuts' because those cuts will reduce . . . access to quality services." Id. Accordingly, plaintiffs have Article III standing.
The Director argues that plaintiffs' lack prudential standing to enforce Section 30(A) because plaintiffs seek to enforce rights belonging to a third party, CMS. According to the Director, this Section does not confer individual entitlements on any private parties, but instead serves as a "yardstick" by which the federal government may assess a state's performance under the Medicaid Act. Director's Opp'n at 14. Moreover, to the extent that plaintiffs' claims rely on the Supremacy Clause, the Director argues that they run afoul of the bar against considering generalized grievances in that plaintiffs are not attempting to vindicate any right personal to them, but instead invoke the Supremacy Clause as an "all-purpose cause of action to compel a state's compliance with federal law." Id. at 15 (citing Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Amer. United for Sep. of Church and State, 454 U.S. 464, 483 (1982)).
The Court finds the Director's prudential standing arguments unavailing. In assessing prudential standing, a court need not "inquire whether there has been a congressional intent to benefit the would-be plaintiff," but instead must determine only whether the plaintiff's interests are among those "arguably . . . to be protected" by the statutory provision. Nat'l Credit Union v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 552 U.S. 478, 489 (1998). This "zone of interest" test "is not meant to be demanding." Clarke v. Secs. Indus. Ass'n, 479 U.S. 388, 399--400 (1987). To this end, Section 30(A) establishes standards by which payments to providers are set. Accordingly, Medi-Cal beneficiaries and providers are undoubtedly within the zone of interests protected by Section 30(A). Further, the Court finds that contrary to the Director's assertion, plaintiffs are not alleging a "generalized grievance." This is so because plaintiffs have alleged that the associational plaintiffs' members and Medi-Cal beneficiaries will be directly harmed by the implementation of the rate reduction.
3. Associational Standing
The Director maintains that the associational plaintiffs cannot establish associational standing on behalf of providers because any injury suffered by a provider will be particular to that provider. Director's Opp'n at 16. The Director further contends that the associational plaintiffs and AHF do not have standing on behalf of Medi-Cal beneficiaries because the associational plaintiffs and AHF do not represent beneficiaries' interest, because the associational plaintiffs and AHF fail to allege how representing Medi-Cal recipients' interests is germane to their purposes, and because whether an individual beneficiary has a legitimate claim will require an individualized determination. Id. at 16--17.
The Director's associational standing arguments also fail. An association has standing to sue on behalf of its members if (1) they would have standing to sue in their own right; (2) the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization's purpose; and (3) participation by the individual members is not necessary to resolve the claim. Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Advertising Comm'n, 432 U.S. 333, 343 (1997). The Ninth Circuit has recognized that when an association is pursuing an action for only declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of its members, participation in the action by individual members is not required. See Associated Gen'l Contractors of Am. v. Metropolitan Water Dist. of So. Cal., 159 F. 3d 1178, 1181 (9th Cir. 1998). Here, plaintiffs are not seeking monetary relief, so participation of individual Medi-Cal providers is not required. Next, other courts have held that because individual medical providers would have third-party standing to represent the interests of their patients, associations representing those providers can also represent the interests of patients. See, e.g., Penn. Psychiatric Soc'y v. Green Spring Health Srvs., Inc., 280 F. 3d 278, 288--94 (3d Cir. 2002); New Jersey Protection & Advocacy v. New Jersey Dep't of Educ., 563 F. Supp. 2d 474, 481--84 (D.N.J 2008). Accordingly, in this case, the associational plaintiffs' members would have standing to represent the interests of their Medi-Cal patients and therefore the associational plaintiffs have standing to do the same. More fundamentally, even if the associational plaintiffs did not have standing to represent Medi-Cal beneficiaries, it would not alter the Court's ability to reach the merits of the controversy because an individual Medi-Cal beneficiary whose standing is not challenged is a plaintiff in this case.
Having rejected each of the Director's standing arguments, the Court now turns to the merits of plaintiffs' motion.
B. Likelihood of Success on the Merits
1. Plaintiffs' Section 30(A) Claim Against the Secretary
Plaintiffs argue that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their Section 30(A) claim against the Secretary because CMS failed to apply controlling law in evaluating SPA 11-009 and therefore acted arbitrarily and capriciously.
Under the APA, a reviewing court must affirm an agency's determination unless it is "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law." 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). "A decision is arbitrary and capricious if the agency 'has relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise.'" O'Keefe's, Inc. v. U.S. ...