42 C.F.R. § 1002.2
Other applicable regulations
(a) Part 455, subpart B, of this title sets forth requirements for disclosure of ownership and control information to the State Medicaid agency by providers and fiscal agents.
(b) Part 438, subpart J, of this title sets forth payment and exclusion requirements specific to Medicaid managed care organizations.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2008–2021 · leading case: Planned Parenthood of Gulf Coast, Inc. v. Gee, 862 F.3d 445 (5th Cir. 2017).
Planned Parenthood of Gulf Coast, Inc. v. Gee, 862 F.3d 445 (5th Cir. 2017). “” 65 The Seventh Circuit recognized that “[a]lthough Indiana has broad authority to exclude unqualified providers from its Medicaid program, the State does not have plenary authority to exclude a class of providers for any reason—more importantly, for a reason unrelated to…”
Eduardo Guzman v. Sandra Shewry, 552 F.3d 941 (9th Cir. 2009). “Next, it instructs that “nothing [in the regulations] should be construed to limit a State’s own authority to exclude an individual or entity from Medicaid for any reason or period authorized by State law.” Id. § 1002.2(b).”
Planned Parenthood of Gulf Coast, Inc. v. Gee, 837 F.3d 477 (5th Cir. 2016). “” 74 As to § 1396a(p)’s implementing regulation, 42 C.F.R. § 1002.2 , which provides that “[n]othing contained in this part should be construed to limit a State’s own authority to exclude an individual or entity from Medicaid for any reason or period authorized by State law,”…”
Stephen Doane v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 2021 ME 28 (Me. 2021). “101, and may exclude from participation providers who have committed other misconduct, including providers who have had their state professional licenses revoked or suspended, see id.”
Planned Parenthood Arizona Inc v. Tom Betlach, 727 F.3d 960 (9th Cir. 2013). “” 42 C.F.R. § 1002.2 (emphasis added). That provision is only a limitation on interpretation of the referenced "part” of the regulations — Title 42, Chapter V, Subchapter B, Part 1002 — which does not encompass the free-choice-of-provider requirement.”
Stephen Doane v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 2017 ME 193 (Me. 2017). “” 42 C.F.R. § 1002.2 (b) (2016) (redesignated as 42 C.”
Planned Parenthood Se., Inc. v. Bentley, 141 F. Supp. 3d 1207 (M.D. Ala. 2015). “42 C.F.R. § 1002.2 states: “Nothing contained in this part should be construed to limit a State’s own authority to exclude an individual or entity from Medicaid for any reason or period authorized by State law.”
Planned Parenthood of Indiana, Inc. v. Comm'r of the Indiana State Dep't of Health, 794 F. Supp. 2d 892 (S.D. Ind. 2011). “(emphasis in original); see also 42 C.F.R. § 1002.2 (b). According to the Commissioner, nothing supports the view that a state’s decision to disqualify a single Medicaid provider amounts to a violation of a Medicaid recipient’s “freedom of choice.”
Guzman v. Shewry, 544 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2008). “Next, it instructs that “nothing [in the regulations] should be construed to limit a State’s own authority to exclude an individual or entity from Medicaid for any reason or period authorized by State law.” Id. § 1002.2(b). Thus, not only does the applicable federal statute fail…”
Planned Parenthood v. Comm'r OF IND., 794 F. Supp. 2d 892 (S.D. Ind. 2011). “(emphasis in original); see also 42 C.F.R. § 1002.2 (b). According to the Commissioner, nothing supports the view that a state's decision to disqualify a single Medicaid provider amounts to a violation of a Medicaid recipient's "freedom of choice.”
Guzman v. Shewry (9th Cir. 2008). “” 42 C.F.R. § 1002.2 (a). Next, it instructs that “noth- ing [in the regulations] should be construed to limit a State’s own authority to exclude an individual or entity from Medic- aid for any reason or period authorized by State law.”
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.