42 C.F.R. § 124.507

Written determinations of eligibility

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Determinations of eligibility must be in writing, be made in accordance with this section, and a copy of the determination must be provided to the applicant promptly.

(b) Content of determinations—(1) Favorable determinations. A determination that an applicant is eligible must indicate:

(i) That the facility will provide uncompensated services at no charge or at a specified charge less than the allowable credit for the services;

(ii) The date on which services were requested;

(iii) The date on which the determination was made;

(iv) The applicant's individual or family income, as applicable, and family size; and

(v) The date on which services were or will be first provided to the applicant.

(2) Conditional determinations. (i) As a condition to providing uncompensated services, a facility may:

(A) Require the applicant to furnish any information that is reasonably necessary to substantiate eligibility; and

(B) Require the applicant to apply for any benefits under third party insurer or governmental programs to which he/she is or could be entitled upon proper application.

(ii) A conditional determination must:

(A) Comply with paragraph (b)(1) of this section; and

(B) State the condition(s) under which the applicant will be found eligible.

(iii) When a facility determines that the condition(s) upon which a conditional determination was made has been met, or will not be met, it shall make a favorable determination or denial on the request, as appropriate, in accordance with this section.

(3) Denials. A facility must provide to each applicant denied the uncompensated services requested, in whole or in part, a dated statement of the reasons for the denial.

(c) Timing of determinations—(1) Preservice determinations. (i) Facilities other than nursing homes shall make a determination of eligibility within two working days following a request for uncompensated services which is made before receipt of outpatient services or before discharge for inpatient services;

(ii) Nursing homes shall make a determination of eligibility within ten working days, but no later than two working days following the date of admission, following a request for uncompensated services made prior to admission.

(2) Postservice determinations. All facilities shall make a determination of eligibility not later than the end of the first full billing cycle following a request for uncompensated services which is made after receipt of outpatient services, discharge for inpatient services, or admission for nursing home services.

[52 FR 46031, Dec. 3, 1987; 52 FR 48362, Dec. 21, 1987]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1980–1992 · leading case: Flagstaff Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Sullivan, 773 F. Supp. 1325 (D. Ariz. 1991).
Flagstaff Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Sullivan, 773 F. Supp. 1325 (D. Ariz. 1991). · cites it 5× “42 C.F.R. § 124.507 (1990). The timing requirement for eligibility revision was part of a new standard, “substantial compliance,” adopted by HHS under which facilities would be denied credit only in a limited number of circumstances.”
Uneeda Davis v. Ball Mem'l Hosp. Ass'n Patricia Roberts Harris, in Her Capacity as Sec'y of Health, Educ. & Welfare, 640 F.2d 30 (7th Cir. 1980). “42 C.F.R. § 124.507 (a) and (b). The former option could give rise to a specific entitlement only once a plan is adopted; to say that plaintiffs have a due process interest in a plan for the orderly allocation of uncompensated services is to assume the existence of a clear…”
White v. Moses Taylor Hosp., 763 F. Supp. 776 (M.D. Penn. 1991). “The Hospital allegedly denied those funds to her and additionally failed to provide a written determination of her eligibility as required by 42 C.F.R. § 124.507 . 5 B. Procedural History In April of 1989, plaintiff filed a complaint with the Secretary against the Hospital for…”
White v. Moses Taylor Hosp., 841 F. Supp. 629 (M.D. Penn. 1992). “42 C.F.R. § 124.507 (a) and (c). For Mrs.”
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.