C.F.R. » Title 42 » CHAPTER IV—CENTERS FOR MEDICARE & MEDICAID SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES › SUBCHAPTER B—MEDICARE PROGRAM › PART 422—MEDICARE ADVANTAGE PROGRAM › Subpart E—Relationships With Providers

42 C.F.R. § 422.202

Participation procedures

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

(a) Notice and appeal rights. An MA organization that operates a coordinated care plan or network MSA plan must provide for the participation of individual physicians, and the management and members of groups of physicians, through reasonable procedures that include the following:

(1) Written notice of rules of participation including terms of payment, credentialing, and other rules directly related to participation decisions.

(2) Written notice of material changes in participation rules before the changes are put into effect.

(3) Written notice of participation decisions that are adverse to physicians.

(4) A process for appealing adverse participation procedures, including the right of physicians to present information and their views on the decision. In the case of termination or suspension of a provider contract by the MA organization, this process must conform to the rules in § 422.202(d).

(b) Consultation. The MA organization must establish a formal mechanism to consult with the physicians who have agreed to provide services under the MA plan offered by the organization, regarding the organization's medical policy, quality improvement programs and medical management procedures and ensure that the following standards are met:

(1) Practice guidelines and utilization management guidelines—

(i) Are based on current evidence in widely used treatment guidelines or clinical literature;

(ii) Consider the needs of the enrolled population;

(iii) Are developed in consultation with contracting physicians; and

(iv) Are reviewed and updated periodically.

(2) The guidelines are communicated to providers and, as appropriate, to enrollees.

(3) Decisions with respect to utilization management, enrollee education, coverage of services, and other areas in which the guidelines apply are consistent with the guidelines.

(c) Subcontracted groups. An MA organization that operates an MA plan through subcontracted physician groups must provide that the participation procedures in this section apply equally to physicians within those subcontracted groups.

(d) Suspension or termination of contract. An MA organization that operates a coordinated care plan or network MSA plan providing benefits through contracting providers must meet the following requirements:

(1) Notice to physician. An MA organization that suspends or terminates an agreement under which the physician provides services to MA plan enrollees must give the affected individual written notice of the following:

(i) The reasons for the action, including, if relevant, the standards and profiling data used to evaluate the physician and the numbers and mix of physicians needed by the MA organization.

(ii) The affected physician's right to appeal the action and the process and timing for requesting a hearing.

(2) Composition of hearing panel. The MA organization must ensure that the majority of the hearing panel members are peers of the affected physician.

(3) Notice to licensing or disciplinary bodies. An MA organization that suspends or terminates a contract with a physician because of deficiencies in the quality of care must give written notice of that action to licensing or disciplinary bodies or to other appropriate authorities.

(4) Timeframes. An MA organization and a contracting provider must provide at least 60 days written notice to each other before terminating the contract without cause.

[64 FR 7981, Feb. 17, 1999, as amended at 65 FR 40324, June 29, 2000; 68 FR 50857, Aug. 22, 2003; 70 FR 4724, Jan. 28, 2005; 88 FR 22334, Apr. 12, 2023]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 2013–2025 · leading case: Fairfield Cnty. Med. Ass'n v. United Healthcare, 985 F. Supp. 2d 262 (D. Conn. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Fairfield Cnty. Med. Ass'n v. United Healthcare, 985 F. Supp. 2d 262 (D. Conn. 2013). · cites it 5× “42 C.F.R. § 422.202 (d). II. Jurisdiction and Standing United makes numerous arguments that this court lacks the authority to hear this case and that plaintiffs lack standing to bring these claims.”
Medicaid & Medicare Advantage Prods. Ass'n of PR v. Emanuelli-Hernandez, 58 F.4th 5 (1st Cir. 2023). “At oral argument, however, counsel for appellants conceded that this provision is preempted by the Medicare Advantage Act's preemption clause and the regulations governing the termination of provider contracts by MAOs.”
Fairfield Cnty. Med. Ass'n v. United Healthcare of New England, Inc., 557 F. App'x 53 (2d Cir. 2014). “Here, plaintiffs assert two causes of action, one alleging violations of the federal regulations implementing the Medicare Act, see 42 C.F.R. § 422.202 , and one for breach of contract under Connecticut law.”
Saer v. New Orleans Reg'l Physician Hosp. Org., 169 So. 3d 617 (La. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “Saer alleged that Peoples Health did not comply with the notice and hearing provisions regarding termination of physicians by a Medicare Advantage organization as set forth in 42 C.F.R. § 422.202 (d). Further, Dr. Saer alleged that as a result of these actions, his reputation…”
Diana McLaughlin, M.D. P.A. v. Sunshine State Health Plan, Inc. & Dwanna G Hill (M.D. Fla. 2025). · cites it 2× “On October 12, 2025, Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit, bringing claims for violation of 42 C.F.R. § 422.202 (d) (Count I), “violation of common law right to a fair process” (Count II), unjust enrichment (Count III), civil fraud (Count IV), violation of § 641.”
Quishenberry v. UnitedHealthcare CA2/7 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021). “” ( 42 C.F.R. § 422.202 (b)(3)). CMS has also promulgated regulations requiring MA organizations to provide services “covered by Part A and Part B (if the enrollee is entitled to benefits under both parts)” and to comply with “CMS’s national coverage determinations,” “[g]eneral…”
Diana McLaughlin, MD PA v. Sunshine State Health Plan, Inc., et al. (M.D. Fla. 2025). “On October 12, 2025, Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit, bringing claims for violation of 42 C.F.R. § 422.202 (d) (Count I), “violation of common law right to a fair process” (Count II), unjust enrichment (Count III), civil fraud (Count IV), violation of § 641.”
Dr. Evelyn Matta Fontanet, et al. v. MSO of Puerto Rico, LLC; et al. (D.P.R. 2025). “at 22-24) Plaintiffs also filed a Motion Under Rule 57 for declaratory relief based on what they refer to as their “appellate claims,” requesting a hearing on claims originally brought before the Center for Medicare and Medicaid (“CMS”) for Defendants alleged violations of due…”
Diana McLaughlin, M.D. PA v. Sunshine State Health Plan, Inc. & Dwanna G Hill (M.D. Fla. 2025). “On October 12, 2025, Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit, bringing claims for violation of 42 C.F.R. § 422.202 (d) (Count I), “violation of common law right to a fair process” (Count II), unjust enrichment (Count III), civil fraud (Count IV), violation of § 641.”
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.