(a) This subpart sets forth State plan requirements and exceptions that pertain to the following administrative requirements and provisions of the Act:
(1) Statewideness—section 1902(a)(1);
(2) Proper and efficient administration—section 1902(a)(4);
(3) Comparability of services—section 1902(a)(10) (B)-(E);
(4) Payment for services furnished outside the State—section 1902(a)(16);
(5) Free choice of providers—section 1902(a)(23);
(6) Special waiver provisions applicable to American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands—section 1902(j); and
(7) Exceptions to, and waiver of, State plan requirements—sections 1915 (a)-(c) and 1916 (a)(3) and (b)(3).
(b) Other applicable regulations include the following:
(1) Section 430.25 Waivers of State plan requirements.
(2) Section 440.250 Limits on comparability of services.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
3
cases, 1995–2002 · leading case:
Harris v. James, 883 F. Supp. 1511 (M.D. Ala. 1995).
Harris v. James, 883 F. Supp. 1511 (M.D. Ala. 1995).
“See, 42 C.F.R. § 431.40 (a)(2). The provision at issue in this case 8 is contained within Sub-part B and is denominated 42 C.”
P.I.A. Michigan City Inc. v. Thompson, 292 F.3d 820 (D.C. Cir. 2002).
“The Review Board did note, further, that the Secretary had added a provision relating to changing base years in paragraph (j), 42 C.F.R. § 431.40 (j) (now paragraph (i)), but that provision became effective too late to benefit Kingwood, a point Kingwood concedes.”
Harris v. James, 896 F. Supp. 1120 (M.D. Ala. 1995).
“See, 42 C.F.R. § 431.40 (a)(2). The first provision at issue in this case is contained within Subpart B and is denominated 42 C.”
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.