42 C.F.R. § 414.4

Fee schedule areas

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

(a) General. CMS establishes physician fee schedule areas that generally conform to the geographic localities in existence before January 1, 1992.

(b) Changes. CMS announces proposed changes to fee schedule areas in the Federal Register and provides an opportunity for public comment. After considering public comments, CMS publishes the final changes in the Federal Register.

[59 FR 63463, Dec. 8, 1994]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1998–2014 · leading case: Texas Med. Ass'n v. Texas Workers Comp. Comm'n, 137 S.W.3d 342 (Tex. App. 2004).
Texas Med. Ass'n v. Texas Workers Comp. Comm'n, 137 S.W.3d 342 (Tex. App. 2004). “, 42 C.F.R. § 414.4 (2003) (CMS announces proposed changes in Federal Register and provides opportunity for public comments prior to publication of final changes); 67 Fed.”
Cnty. of Santa Cruz v. Kathleen Sebelius, 399 F. App'x 174 (9th Cir. 2010). · cites it 2× “§ 1395 w-4(1)(2) (the “Fee Schedule” statute) and the regulation implementing this statute, 42 C.F.R. § 414.4 , are unconstitutional as applied to the Counties because they deprived them of property and equal protection.”
Headache & Pain Ctr. v. Sec'y OF HEALTH, 24 F. Supp. 2d 1200 (D. Kan. 1998). “See 42 C.F.R. § 414.4 . This evidence does not help plaintiffs position.”
Cnty. of Santa Cruz v. Kathleen Sebelius, 584 F. App'x 425 (9th Cir. 2014). “§ 1395w-4(j)(2) (the “Fee Schedule” statute) and the regulation implementing this statute, 42 C.F.R. § 414.4 , are unconstitutional as applied to Plaintiffs because the Fee Schedule statute and the related regulation deprived Plaintiffs of equal protection.”
Texas Med. Ass'n Texas AFL-CLO Patient Advocates of Texas Allen J. Meril, M.D. & L. E. Richey v. Texas Workers Comp. Comm'n Richard F. Reynolds, Exec. Dir. & Texas Ass'n of Bus. (Tex. App. 2004). “, 42 C.F.R. § 414.4 (2003) (CMS announces proposed changes in Federal Register and provides opportunity for public comments prior to publication of final changes); 67 Fed.”
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.