Dispute over payment for Medicaid-eligible mental health services under MCL 330.1308 & 330.1310, Const 1963, art 8, § 8 & art 9, § 29; “Net cost”; The DHHS’s funding of prepaid inpatient health plans (PIHPs) for mental health treatment; MCL 400.109f; PIHP contracts with community mental health services programs (CMHSPs); CMHSP expenditures; MCL 330.1240; MCL 330.1242; Principle that a constitutional provision is not self-executing when it merely indicates principles without laying down rules by means of which they may be given the force of law; Rusha v Department of Corrs; Whether a party is a third-party beneficiary of a contract; Shay v Aldrich; Mandamus; Lakeshore Regional Entity (LRE)

Holding that defendant-DHHS bore no responsibility to pay plaintiff-HealthWest for its provision of mental health services, and that HealthWest had to seek redress from its PIHP (LRE), the court affirmed the Court of Claims’ ruling. Plaintiffs sued defendants seeking reimbursement for more than $12 million in services funded by Medicaid. The DHHS disclaimed liability, contending it bore no responsibility to pay HealthWest for those services, and that HealthWest had to seek redress from LRE. On appeal, the court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that “DHHS approval is implicit because, according to deposition testimony, payment is always eventually made on Medicaid claims.” It noted “the very testimony cited by plaintiffs also reveals that payment for shortfalls is sometimes made with money from the PIHP in accordance with the risk-sharing agreement between the PIHP and the DHHS.” In addition, “[a]ll of the Medicaid services for which HealthWest seeks reimbursement from the DHHS are ‘paid for by federal funds and state funds’ that flow through LRE.” As such, it found plaintiffs’ statutory arguments for reimbursement unavailing. The court also rejected plaintiffs’ claim that the DHHS violated two provisions of the Michigan Constitution, Const 1963, art 8, § 8 and art 9, § 29, by refusing to provide reimbursement to HealthWest for Medicaid-funded services. “[P]laintiffs cannot present a freestanding claim under Const 1963, art 8, § 8. Instead, they must style their claim as a violation of the Mental Health Code, but they cannot do so because” MCL 330.1308 and MCL 330.1310 “afford them no succor.” As to Const 1963, art 9, § 29, “neither the State of Michigan nor the DHHS required plaintiffs to provide new or increased services when money stopped flowing through LRE.” Finally, the court rejected plaintiffs’ contention that HealthWest is a third-party beneficiary of the bilateral contract between the DHHS and LRE and, in that capacity, they were entitled to have a section of that contract declared void. “Because plaintiffs’ interpretation of MCL 330.1308 and MCL 330.1310 is incorrect,” their argument to void the section at issue was necessarily unavailing. Further, “the statutes cited by plaintiffs manifestly do not impose a duty upon the DHHS to provide the reimbursement demanded by plaintiffs for Medicaid-funded services, so mandamus is not available to force the DHHS to reimburse plaintiffs.” They have “no right to mandamus based upon Const 1963, art 8, § 8.”