42 C.F.R. § 440.240
Comparability of services for groups
Except as limited in § 440.250—
(a) The plan must provide that the services available to any categorically needy beneficiary under the plan are not less in amount, duration, and scope than those services available to a medically needy beneficiary; and
(b) The plan must provide that the services available to any individual in the following groups are equal in amount, duration, and scope for all beneficiaries within the group:
(1) The categorically needy.
(2) A covered medically needy group.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 45
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1987–2024 · leading case: Davis v. Shah, 821 F.3d 231 (2d Cir. 2016).
Davis v. Shah, 821 F.3d 231 (2d Cir. 2016). “§ 1396a(a)(10)(B); see also 42 C.F.R. § 440.240 ; Rodriguez, 197 F.3d at 615 .”
Henry Pashby v. Albert Delia, 709 F.3d 307 (4th Cir. 2013). “42 C.F.R. § 440.240 . The comparability mandate thus “prevents discrimination against or among the categorically needy.”
Sobky v. Smoley, 855 F. Supp. 1123 (E.D. Cal. 1994). “” 42 C.F.R. § 440.240 (emphasis added). 37 Thus, the language of § 1396a(a)(10)(B) and 42 C.”
Cruz v. Zucker, 116 F. Supp. 3d 334 (S.D.N.Y. 2015). “§ 1396a(a)(10)(B) and its implementing regulation, 42 C.F.R. § 440.240 (b) (the “Comparability Requirement” of the Medicaid Act); (III) violation of 42 U.”
Maxwell Kadel v. Dale Folwell, 100 F.4th 122 (4th Cir. 2024). “” 42 C.F.R. § 440.240 (b)(1). The same applies to individuals in a covered medically needy group.”
Markva v. Haveman, 168 F. Supp. 2d 695 (E.D. Mich. 2001). “§ 1396a(a)(10)(C)(i)(II) and 42 C.F.R. § 440.240 (b)(2). (Count 3). Finally, the plaintiffs argue that by failing to include a share of income for the dependent grandchild in the proration, the' defendants have not considered the financial needs of the grandchild, and are thus…”
Jenkins v. DSHS, 157 P.3d 388 (Wash. 2007). “¶ 21 The agency rule that interprets the federal Medicaid comparability statute provides: (b) The plan must provide that the services available to any individual in the following groups are equal in amount, duration, and scope for all recipients within the group: (1) The…”
Dunakin v. Quigley, 99 F. Supp. 3d 1297 (W.D. Wash. 2015). “; see also 42 C.F.R. § 440.240 . 12 The comparability requirement “mandates comparable services for individuals with comparable needs and is violated when some recipients are treated differently than others where each has the same level of need.”
King Ex Rel. King v. Sullivan, 776 F. Supp. 645 (D.R.I. 1991). “§ 1396a(a)(10)(B) and 42 C.F.R. § 440.240 (b). (IV) Defendants allegedly do not make Medical Assistance payments that are sufficient to enlist new providers so that covered services are as available to recipients as to the general population, 4 in violation of 42 U.”
Rodriguez v. City Of New York, 197 F.3d 611 (2d Cir. 1999). “] 2 Rodriguez also relies on 42 C.F.R. 440.240. This provision states that: Except as limited in 440.”
Rodriguez v. Debuono, 177 F.R.D. 143 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). “§§ 1396a(a)(10)(B)(i) and (ii); see also 42 C.F.R. § 440.240 (b)(available services must be “equal in amount, duration, and scope for all recipients within the group”).”
Jenkins v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 160 Wash. 2d 287 (Wash. 2007). “42 C.F.R. § 440.240 . ¶22 Courts have consistently recognized this requirement and found that states violated the comparability requirement when some recipients are treated differently from other recipients where each has the same level of need.”
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.