Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 71-5-102 (2026)

Purpose

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaTenn. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) The purpose of this part is to make possible medical assistance to those recipients determined to be eligible under this chapter to receive medical assistance that conforms to the requirements of Title XIX of the Social Security Act ( 42 U.S.C. § 1396 et seq.), and the regulations promulgated pursuant to Title XIX. Medical assistance pursuant to this part may also be provided pursuant to any federal waiver received by the state that waives any or all of the provisions of Title XIX or pursuant to any other applicable federal law to the extent adopted by means of an amendment to the required Title XIX state plan.

(b)
- (1) Except as may be required by federal law or regulation, it is hereby declared to be the public policy of the state of Tennessee that participation in the TennCare program, or its successor programs, is not an entitlement and is conditional upon, among other things, specific appropriations for the program.
- (2) Not less than annually, the governor shall recommend and the general assembly may, through provisions of the general appropriations act, prioritize the funding for the TennCare program in a manner that specifies that funds are available to:
  - (A) Continue coverage for enrollees currently in the program;
  - (B) Extend coverage to potential new enrollees, or categories of new enrollees, at current, higher or lower income levels;
  - (C) Withdraw coverage from all enrollees not eligible for medicaid; or
  - (D) Reimburse medical care providers for costs unreimbursed by managed care organizations out of state funds appropriated for that purpose or such federal funds as would be permitted to be used for that purpose under the terms of the TennCare waiver.

(c) Continuation, extension and withdrawal of coverage for enrollees in the TennCare program shall be determined in accordance with such priorities, if any, established by the general assembly in the general appropriations act.

(d) The bureau of TennCare shall have the authority to develop and implement initiatives or program modifications to control the costs of the TennCare program to the extent permitted under federal law and the TennCare waiver. Such cost-saving measures may include, but are not limited to, the elimination of covered benefits or limitations on the scope, intensity, or duration of such benefits; implementation of cost sharing requirements for enrollees, including the medicaid population; increases in cost sharing requirements for the expansion population; enforcement of cost sharing requirements through denial of service for failure to meet co-payment requirements with alternative access to medically necessary care through established safety net providers; enforcement of collection of required co-payments by providers; reassignment of enrollees into different eligibility categories; restrictions on eligibility for non-mandatory medicaid or waiver expansion categories; and the elimination from TennCare eligibility of some or all of the non-mandatory medicaid or waiver expansion categories. The bureau of TennCare may implement a premium-assistance initiative for persons disenrolled from TennCare. The bureau of TennCare shall also be authorized, in establishing or modifying benefits or cost sharing requirements, to define, through rules and regulations, categories of eligible enrollees who may be exempted from some or all benefit limits or cost sharing requirements, along with any requirements that must be met by such enrollees to prove or maintain exempted status. The bureau of TennCare shall have all such authority to control costs notwithstanding any other state law to the contrary.

Acts 1968, ch. 551, § 2; 1973, ch. 276, § 1; T.C.A., § 14-1902; Acts 1982, ch. 730, § 1; T.C.A., § 14-23-102; Acts 1993, ch. 358, § 1; 2002, ch. 880, § 3; 2004, ch. 673, § 1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1990–2025 · leading case: Linton Ex Rel. Arnold v. Carney Ex Rel. Kimble, 779 F. Supp. 925 (M.D. Tenn. 1990).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Linton Ex Rel. Arnold v. Carney Ex Rel. Kimble, 779 F. Supp. 925 (M.D. Tenn. 1990). · cites it 2× “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 71-5-102. TDHE and its Commissioner are designated by statute as the administering agency to implement the State Medicaid plan.”

Cassandra HUGHLETT, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SHELBY Cnty. HEALTH CARE CORP., Defendant-Appellant, 940 S.W.2d 571 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “” T.C.A. § 71-5-102 (1995). T.CA. § 71-5-117 provides in part, pertinent to the issue before us: 71-5-117.”

In Re Est. of Daughrity, 166 S.W.3d 185 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “(b) (1) Except as may be required by federal law or regulation, it is hereby declared to be the public policy of the state of Tennessee that participation in the TennCare program, or its successor programs, is not an entitlement and is conditional upon, among other things,…”

The Chattanooga-Hamilton Cnty. Hosp. Auth. v. Div. of TennCare (Tenn. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 12× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 71-5-102 (d). The trial court found that the State DRA did not conflict with the cost-control authority granted by section 71-5-102(d), that the two statutes were not mutually exclusive, and that TennCare was not prevented “from complying with the mandates of…”

The Chattanooga-Hamilton Cnty. Hosp. Auth. d/b/a Erlanger Health Sys. v. Div. of TennCare, Dep't of Fin. & Admin. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 12× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 71-5-102 (d). The trial court found that the State DRA did not conflict with the cost-control authority granted by section 71-5-102(d), that the two statutes were not mutually exclusive, and that TennCare was not prevented “from complying with the mandates of…”

Emergency Med. Care Facilities, P.C. v. Div. Of Tenncare (Tenn. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2× “TennCare filed a cross-motion for summary judgment arguing that the $50 Cap was not a rule and, if it was a rule, Tenn. Code Ann. § 71-5-102 (d) exempted TennCare from following the UAPA’s rule-making procedures in this case because the cap was a cost-cutting measure.”

Benny Blankenship v. Est. of Joshua Bain (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “” T.C.A. § 71-5-102 (1995). T.C.A. § 71-5-117 provides in part, pertinent to the issue before us: 71-5-117.”

Cassandra Hughlett v. Shelby Cnty. Health Care Corp., Reg'l Med. Ctr. at Memphis A/K/A The Med (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “” T.C.A. § 71-5-102 (1995). T.C.A. § 71-5-117 provides in part, pertinent to the issue before us: 71-5-117.”

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 71-5-102(d) — 2 cases

The Chattanooga-Hamilton Cnty. Hosp. Auth. v. Div. of TennCare (Tenn. Ct. App. 2025). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 71-5-102 (d). The trial court found that the State DRA did not conflict with the cost-control authority granted by section 71-5-102(d), that the two statutes were not mutually exclusive, and that TennCare was not prevented “from complying with the mandates of…”

The Chattanooga-Hamilton Cnty. Hosp. Auth. d/b/a Erlanger Health Sys. v. Div. of TennCare, Dep't of Fin. & Admin. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2025). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 71-5-102 (d). The trial court found that the State DRA did not conflict with the cost-control authority granted by section 71-5-102(d), that the two statutes were not mutually exclusive, and that TennCare was not prevented “from complying with the mandates of…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.