C.F.R. » Title 42 » CHAPTER IV—CENTERS FOR MEDICARE & MEDICAID SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES › SUBCHAPTER C—MEDICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS › PART 430—GRANTS TO STATES FOR MEDICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS › Subpart B—State Plans

42 C.F.R. § 430.10

The State plan

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

The State plan is a comprehensive written statement submitted by the agency describing the nature and scope of its Medicaid program and giving assurance that it will be administered in conformity with the specific requirements of title XIX, the regulations in this Chapter IV, and other applicable official issuances of the Department. The State plan contains all information necessary for CMS to determine whether the plan can be approved to serve as a basis for Federal financial participation (FFP) in the State program.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 176 cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1990–2026 · leading case: Wilder v. Virginia Hosp. Assn., 496 U.S. 498 (1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Wilder v. Virginia Hosp. Assn., 496 U.S. 498 (1990). · cites it 2× “42 CFR § 430.10 (1989). The state plan is required to establish, among other things, a scheme for reimbursing health care providers for the medical services provided to needy individuals.”
Douglas v. Indep. Living Ctr. of S. California, Inc., 565 U.S. 606 (2012). · cites it 2× “§§1316 (a)(1), (b), 1396a(a), (b); 42 CFR §430.10 et seq. (2010); Wilder v. Virginia Hospital Assn.”
S.D. ex rel. Dickson v. Hood, 391 F.3d 581 (5th Cir. 2004). · cites it 2× “42 CFR § 430.10 (1989). “The state plan is required to establish, among other things, a scheme for reimbursing health care providers for the medical assistance provided to eligible individuals.”
People v. Kanaan, 751 N.W.2d 57 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “42 CFR § 430.10 (1989). The state plan is required to establish, among other things, *610 a scheme for reimbursing health care providers for the medical services provided to needy individuals.”
Derek Waskul v. Washtenaw Cnty. Cmty. Mental Health, 979 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2020). “§ 1396a(a); 42 C.F.R. § 430.10 . Once their plan is approved by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”), states receive federal funds to supplement state spending on Medicaid-covered services.”
State of Tenn. v. United States Dep't of State, 931 F.3d 499 (6th Cir. 2019). “§ 1396a(10) ; 42 C.F.R. § 430.10 . Tennessee has participated in Medicaid since 1968.”
Child.'s Hosp. & Health Ctr. v. S. Kimberly Belshe, 188 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 1999). · cites it 2× “§ 1396a(a); 42 C.F.R. §§ 430.10 — 430.18; Wilder, 496 U.”
Westside Mothers v. Haveman, 133 F. Supp. 2d 549 (E.D. Mich. 2001). · cites it 2× “1998) (citing 42 C.F.R. § 430.10 and Harris, 448 U.S. at 301 , 100 S.”
California Ass'n for Health Serv. at Home v. State Dep't of Health Servs., 148 Cal. App. 4th 696 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “” ( 42 C.F.R. § 430.10 (2005).) Under the Medicaid Act, each state plan must, “provide such methods and procedures relating to the utilization of, and the payment for, care and services available under the plan .”
Hopkins v. Dep't of Human Servs., 2002 ME 129, 802 A.2d 999. · cites it 2× “42 C.F.R. § 430.10 . The plan must also “be administered in conformity with the specific requirements of title XIX, the regulations in [42 C.”
Moore ex rel. Moore v. Reese, 637 F.3d 1220 (11th Cir. 2011). “§ 1396a(b) and 42 C.F.R. §§ 430.10 , 430.15). To facilitate this objective, the federal CMS publishes the State Medicaid Manual to direct participating states in their implementation of Medicaid requirements, including the EPSDT mandate in the Medicaid Act.”
Arc of California v. Toby Douglas, 757 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2014). “§§ 1396-1 , 1396b(a), which “is a comprehensive written statement submitted by the [state] agency describing the nature and scope of its Medicaid program and giving assurance that it will be administered in conformity” with the Act and its accompanying regulations, 42 C.F.R. §…”
Show all 176 citing cases →
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.