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 G—General Financial Eligibility Requirements and Options

42 C.F.R. § 435.601

Application of financial eligibility methodologies

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

(a) Definitions. For purposes of this section, cash assistance financial methodologies refers to the income and resources methodologies of the AFDC, SSI, or State supplement programs, or, for aged, blind, and disabled individuals in States that use more restrictive criteria than SSI, the methodologies established in accordance with the requirements of §§ 435.121 and 435.230.

(b) Basic rule for use of non-MAGI financial methodologies. (1) This section only applies to individuals excepted from application of MAGI-based methods in accordance with § 435.603(j).

(2) Except as specified in paragraphs (c) through (e) of this section or in § 435.121 or as permitted under paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(B) of this section, in determining financial eligibility of individuals as categorically or medically needy, the agency must apply the financial methodologies and requirements of the cash assistance program that is most closely categorically related to the individual's status.

(c) Financial responsibility of relatives. The agency must use the requirements for financial responsibility of relatives specified in § 435.602.

(d) Use of less restrictive methodologies than those under cash assistance programs. (1) At State option, and subject to the conditions of paragraphs (d)(2) through (5) of this section, the agency may apply income and resource methodologies that are less restrictive than the cash assistance methodologies or methodologies permitted under paragraph (e) or (f)(1)(ii)(B) of this section in determining eligibility for the following groups:

(i) Qualified Medicare beneficiaries specified in sections 1902(a)(10)(E) and 1905(p) of the Act;

(ii) Optional categorically needy individuals under groups established under subpart C of this part and section 1902(a)(10)(A)(ii) of the Act;

(iii) Medically needy individuals under groups established under subpart D of this part and section 1902(a)(10)(C)(i)(III) of the Act; and

(iv) Aged, blind, and disabled individuals in States using more restrictive eligibility requirements than SSI under groups established under §§ 435.121 and 435.230.

(2) The income and resource methodologies that an agency elects to apply to groups of individuals described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section may be less restrictive, but no more restrictive (except in States using more restrictive requirements than SSI), than:

(i) For groups of aged, blind, and disabled individuals, the SSI methodologies; or

(ii) For all other groups, the methodologies under the State plan most closely categorically related to the individual's status.

(3) 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 made ineligible for Medicaid.

(4) The less restrictive methodology applied under this section must be comparable for all persons within each category of assistance (aged, or blind, or disabled, or AFDC related) within an eligibility group. For example, if the agency chooses to apply less restrictive income or resource methodology to an eligibility group of aged individuals, it must apply that methodology to all aged individuals within the selected group.

(5) The application of the less restrictive income and resource methodologies permitted under this section must be consistent with the limitations and conditions on FFP specified in subpart K of this part.

(e) Procedures for determining eligibility for the Medicare Savings Program groups. When a State determines eligibility for a Medicare Savings Program group, for income eligibility the agency must include at least the individuals described in § 423.772 of this chapter in determining family of the size involved.

(f) State plan requirements. (1)(i) The State plan must specify that, except to the extent precluded in § 435.602, in determining financial eligibility of individuals, the agency will apply the cash assistance financial methodologies and requirements, unless the agency chooses the option described in paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(B) of this section, or chooses to apply less restrictive income and resource methodologies in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section, or both.

(ii) In the case of individuals for whom the program most closely categorically-related to the individual's status is AFDC (individuals under age 21, pregnant individuals and parents and other caretaker relatives who are not disabled, blind or age 65 or older), the agency may apply—

(A) The financial methodologies and requirements of the AFDC program; or

(B) The MAGI-based methodologies defined in § 435.603, except that, the agency must comply with the terms of § 435.602.

(2) If the agency chooses to apply less restrictive income and resource methodologies, the State plan must specify:

(i) The less restrictive methodologies that will be used; and

(ii) The eligibility group or groups to which the less restrictive methodologies will be applied.

[58 FR 4929, Jan. 19, 1993, as amended at 59 FR 43052, Aug. 22, 1994; 81 FR 86456, Nov. 30, 2016; 88 FR 65270, Sept. 21, 2023; 89 FR 22866, Apr. 2, 2024]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1995–2026 · leading case: Markva v. Haveman, 168 F. Supp. 2d 695 (E.D. Mich. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Markva v. Haveman, 168 F. Supp. 2d 695 (E.D. Mich. 2001). · cites it 9× “§ 1396a(a)(10)(C)(i)(III) and 42 C.F.R. § 435.601 (d)(4) by failing to use a “comparable methodology” for all individual caretaker relatives whether parent or non-parent.”
Hecker v. Stark Cnty. Soc. Serv. Bd., 527 N.W.2d 226 (N.D. 1995). · cites it 4× “" 42 CFR § 435.601 (d)(3). The Department argues that North Dakota participates in the medicaid program as a "§ 209(b)" state which permits it to promulgate more restrictive eligibility methodology.”
Markva v. Haveman, 317 F.3d 547 (6th Cir. 2003). · cites it 12× “§ 1396a(a)(10)(C)(i)(III) and 42 C.F.R. § 435.601 (d)(4), which require states to use a “comparable” methodology to determine the benefits for “all persons within each category of assistance .”
Ross v. Giardi, 680 A.2d 113 (Conn. 1996). · cites it 2× “§ 1396a (r) (2); 42 C.F.R. § 435.601 ; but they are not required to do so if they have elected the § 209 (b) option.”
Bourgoin v. Sebelius, 296 F.R.D. 15 (D. Me. 2013). · cites it 3× “” 4 42 C.F.R. § 435.601 (b). In determining income and resource eligibility for QMBs, SLMBs, and QIs, however, states may employ a “less restrictive” methodology.”
Tinoco v. Belshe, 916 F. Supp. 974 (N.D. Cal. 1995). · cites it 5× “” 42 C.F.R. § 435.601 (b). The rule provides that states may use less restrictive methodologies in certain instances, id.”
Indiana Fam. & Soc. Servs. Admin. v. Lance Patterson, 119 N.E.3d 99 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “§ 1396a(r)(2) ; 42 C.F.R. § 435.601 (d)(1)(ii), (d)(2). A state's plan must specify whether it will use the relevant federal standard or a less-restrictive standard.”
Rodriguez ex rel. Corella v. Chen, 985 F. Supp. 1189 (D. Ariz. 1996). “on both notices: YOUR APPLICATION FOR MEDICARE PREMIUM, COINSURANCE AND DEDUCTIBLE EXPENSES UNDER THE QUALIFIED MEDICARE BENEFICIARY (QMB) PROGRAM HAS BEEN DENIED EFFECTIVE 11/01/94 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON(S): NET INCOME EXCEEDS MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE THE REGULATIONS/QMB POLICY AND…”
Markva v. Haveman, 317 F.3d 547 (6th Cir. 2003). “1396a(a)(10)(C)(i)(III) and 1396a(r)(2), as modified by 1396u-1(a), and 42 C.F.R. 435.601(d)(2), which provide that the methodology used to determine Medicaid eligibility and benefit levels for relative caretakers must not be more restrictive than the methodology in effect on…”
Milne v. Delaware Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Div. of Soc. Servs., 679 A.2d 1010 (Del. Super. Ct. 1995). · cites it 5× “Fourth, Appellant contends that 42 C.F.R. § 435.601 (1994) “clearly applies” the SSI regulations, setting out the appropriate methodologies to be employed in determining an applicant’s income and resources, to the Medicaid program.”
Abney v. State Dept. of Health Care Servs. (Cal. Ct. App. 2024). “§ 1396a(r)(2)(A); 42 C.F.R. § 435.601 (d).) California offers several different Medi–Cal programs, including, as relevant here, the Aged, Blind, and Disabled Federal Poverty Level Program (ABD FPL) and the Aged, Blind and Disabled Medically Needy Program (ABD MN).”
Est. of Charla Brown v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. (Mich. Ct. App. 2026). “Notably, under 42 CFR 435.601(b)(2), the United States Department of Health and Human Services requires state Medicaid agencies to use the “financial methodologies and requirements” of the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program to determine the eligibility of aged…”
— 42 C.F.R. § 435.601(b)(2) — 1 case
Est. of Charla Brown v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. (Mich. Ct. App. 2026). “Notably, under 42 CFR 435.601(b)(2), the United States Department of Health and Human Services requires state Medicaid agencies to use the “financial methodologies and requirements” of the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program to determine the eligibility of aged…”
— 42 C.F.R. § 435.601(d)(2) — 2 cases
Markva v. Haveman, 317 F.3d 547 (6th Cir. 2003). “§ 1396a(a)(10)(C)(i)(III) and 42 C.F.R. § 435.601 (d)(4), which require states to use a “comparable” methodology to determine the benefits for “all persons within each category of assistance .”
Markva v. Haveman, 317 F.3d 547 (6th Cir. 2003). “1396a(a)(10)(C)(i)(III) and 1396a(r)(2), as modified by 1396u-1(a), and 42 C.F.R. 435.601(d)(2), which provide that the methodology used to determine Medicaid eligibility and benefit levels for relative caretakers must not be more restrictive than the methodology in effect on…”
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.