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 E—General Eligibility Requirements

42 C.F.R. § 435.401

General rules

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

(a) A Medicaid agency may not impose any eligibility requirement that is prohibited under Title XIX of the Act.

(b) The agency must base any optional group covered under subparts B and C of this part on reasonable classifications that do not result in arbitrary or inequitable treatment of individuals and groups and that are consistent with the objectives of Title XIX.

(c) The agency must not use requirements for determining eligibility for optional coverage groups that are—

(1) [Reserved]

(2) For aged, blind, and disabled individuals, more restrictive than those used under SSI, except for individuals receiving an optional State supplement as specified in § 435.230 or individuals in categories specified by the agency under § 435.121.

[43 FR 45204, Sept. 29, 1978, as amended at 81 FR 86454, Nov. 30, 2016]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: Rossye Dawson, Individually & on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Beverlee A. Myers, 622 F.2d 1304 (9th Cir. 1980).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Rossye Dawson, Individually & on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Beverlee A. Myers, 622 F.2d 1304 (9th Cir. 1980). · cites it 4× “Furthermore, the appellants claim that the transfer rule conflicts with two different sections of the federal statutes (42 U.”
Calkins v. Blum, 511 F. Supp. 1073 (N.D.N.Y. 1981). · cites it 3× “Cf: 42 C.F.R. §§ 435.401 , 435.-520, 435.812 (1980), 435.”
Est. of Krueger Ex Rel. Krueger v. Richland Cnty. Soc. Servs., 526 N.W.2d 456 (N.D. 1994). · cites it 4× “at 2459 ; 42 C.F.R. § 435.401 (c). Thus, eligibility standards can be no more restrictive than those used under the SSI program.”
Hecker v. Stark Cnty. Soc. Serv. Bd., 527 N.W.2d 226 (N.D. 1995). · cites it 2× “§ 1396a(a)(10)(C)(i)(III); 42 CFR § 435.401 (c)(2). "A financial methodology is considered to be no more restrictive if, by using the methodology, additional individuals may be eligible for Medicaid and no individuals who are otherwise eligible are by use of that methodology…”
George Hogan v. Margaret Heckler, Phillip Johnston, 769 F.2d 886 (1st Cir. 1985). · cites it 3× “See 42 C.F.R. § 435.401 (1985). *896 Notwithstanding, the Secretary insists that the comparability requirement is not violated by a six month spenddown period.”
Caldwell v. Blum, 621 F.2d 491 (2d Cir. 1980). · cites it 5× “Title 42 C.F.R. § 435.401 (c), provides that a state medicaid agency “(b) The Secretary shall prescribe the period or periods of time within which, and the manner in which, various kinds of property must be disposed of in order not to be included in determining an individual’s…”
Beltran v. Myers, 451 U.S. 625 (1981). · cites it 2× “See also 42 CFR § 435.401 (1980). [4] Petitioner herself was penalized by California for a gift of her home to relatives.”
Blum, Comm'r of New York State Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Caldwell Et Al., 446 U.S. 1311 (1980). · cites it 2× “” 42 CFR § 435.401 (c) (1979). Since under SSI an applicant may transfer assets voluntarily in order to become eligible, the District Court concluded that the more restrictive no-transfer rule of New York for the medically needy was in “apparent” conflict with federal law.”
Marcus v. Dep't of Income Maint., 509 A.2d 1 (Conn. 1986). “42 C.F.R. § 435.401 (c). Federal courts construing these provisions have uniformly held *535 that state laws purporting to restrict the transfer of assets for the purpose of becoming eligible for medicaid benefits are void under the supremacy clause.”
Beltran v. Myers, 701 F.2d 91 (9th Cir. 1983). · cites it 4× “§ 1396a(a)(10)(C)(i), (17)(1976), and 42 C.F.R. § 435.401 (c)(1980); and was thus invalid under existing law.”
Tarin v. Comm'r of Div. of Med. Assistance, 678 N.E.2d 146 (Mass. 1997). “851 and 42 C.F.R. § 435.401 ). The State regulations mirror the Federal income exemptions and, like the Federal regulations, do not exempt income received to make child support payments.”
Ahern v. Thomas, 733 A.2d 756 (Conn. 1999). “42 C.F.R. §§ 435.401 , 435.601, 435.831 and 435.”
Show all 26 citing cases →
— 42 C.F.R. § 435.401(c)(2) — 1 case
Est. of Charla Brown v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. (Mich. Ct. App. 2026).
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.