C.F.R.
»
Title 42
» CHAPTER IV—CENTERS FOR MEDICARE & MEDICAID SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES › SUBCHAPTER C—MEDICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS › PART 435—ELIGIBILITY IN THE STATES, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS, AND AMERICAN SAMOA › Subpart B—Mandatory Coverage
Except as allowed under § 435.121, the agency must provide Medicaid to aged, blind, and disabled individuals or couples who are receiving or are deemed to be receiving SSI. This includes individuals who are—
(a) Receiving SSI pending a final determination of blindness or disability;
(b) Receiving SSI under an agreement with the Social Security Administration to dispose of resources that exceed the SSI dollar limits on resources; or
(c) Receiving benefits under section 1619(a) of the Act or in section 1619(b) status (blind individuals or those with disabling impairments whose income equals or exceeds a specific Supplemental Security Income limit). (Regulations at 20 CFR 416.260 through 416.269 contain requirements governing determinations of eligibility under this provision.) For purposes of this paragraph (c), this mandatory categorically needy group of individuals includes those qualified severely impaired individuals defined in section 1905(q) of the Act.
[55 FR 33705, Aug. 17, 1990]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
20
cases, 1979–2019 · leading case:
Herweg v. Ray, 455 U.S. 265 (1983).
Herweg v. Ray, 455 U.S. 265 (1983).
· cites it 4× “§ 1396a(a)(10)(A); 42 CFR § 435.120 (1980). [2] SSI States, however, are not limited to providing Medicaid benefits to SSI recipients.”
Wisconsin Dep't of Health & Fam. Servs. v. Blumer, 534 U.S. 473 (2002).
· cites it 2× “§ 1396a(a)(10)(A); 42 CFR § 435.120 (2000). Thus, the theory concludes, under incomefirst the CSMIA would, as a logical matter, be considered *493 both "community spouse's income" and "available" for the institutionalized spouse's medical expenses in clear contravention of…”
Hawkins v. El Paso First Health Plans, Inc., 214 S.W.3d 709 (Tex. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “§ 1396a(a)(10)(A)(i); 42 C.F.R. §§ 435.120 , 435.909 (2005). Thus, if a child is SSI eligible, then the child is eligible for Medicaid.”
Ramey v. Reinertson, 268 F.3d 955 (10th Cir. 2001).
“Because SSI recipients fall into the “mandatory categorically needy” category, see 42 C.F.R. § 435.120 , the Colorado Department argues that it is obligated to review a SSI recipient’s MQT assets for Medicaid eligibility.”
Ross v. Giardi, 680 A.2d 113 (Conn. 1996).
“§ 1396a (a) (10) (A); 42 C.F.R. § 435.120 . Although we frequently refer to SSI eligibility as a touchstone for the state’s medicaid obligations, we do not intend to imply that the state’s burden to provide medicaid benefits is broader than that imposed by federal law.”
Caldwell v. Blum, 621 F.2d 491 (2d Cir. 1980).
· cites it 2× “§ 1382b(b), 4 42 C.F.R. § 435.120 (b), 5 Social Security Manual at § 12507.”
Scarpuzza v. Blum, 73 A.D.2d 237 (N.Y. App. Div. 1980).
“, it appears to be well settled that a person desiring SSI who has resources in excess of the eligibility limit is permitted to dispose of or transfer those assets prior to his application in order to qualify for assistance and may, under certain circumstances at least, obtain…”
Randall v. Lukhard, 536 F. Supp. 723 (W.D. Va. 1982).
“” 42 C.F.R. § 435.120 (1980). Unlike the new SSI transfer of assets rule, Virginia has applied its transfer rule to applications and claims filed before July 1, 1981.”
Ledet v. Fischer, 548 F. Supp. 775 (M.D. La. 1982).
“Under the provisions of 42 C.F.R. § 435.120 , plaintiff qualifies as a “categorically needy” person.”
Fabula v. Buck, 598 F.2d 869 (4th Cir. 1979).
“42 C.F.R. § 435.120 (b). A transfer of assets prior to application for SSI has no effect on eligibility for benefits, even if retention of the property would have made the individual’s assets exceed the eligibility limit.”
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.