42 U.S.C. § 1395z

Consultation with State agencies and other organizations to develop conditions of participation for providers of services

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 42 CasesGoogle Scholar

In carrying out his functions, relating to determination of conditions of participation by providers of services, under subsections (e)(9), (f)(4), (j)(15),11 See References in Text note below. (o)(6), (cc)(2)(I), and 22 So in original. The word “and” probably should not appear. (dd)(2), and (mm)(1) of section 1395x of this title, or by ambulatory surgical centers under section 1395k(a)(2)(F)(i) of this title, the Secretary shall consult with appropriate State agencies and recognized national listing or accrediting bodies, and may consult with appropriate local agencies. Such conditions prescribed under any of such subsections may be varied for different areas or different classes of institutions or agencies and may, at the request of a State, provide higher requirements for such State than for other States; except that, in the case of any State or political subdivision of a State which imposes higher requirements on institutions as a condition to the purchase of services (or of certain specified services) in such institutions under a State plan approved under subchapter I, XVI, or XIX, the Secretary shall impose like requirements as a condition to the payment for services (or for the services specified by the State or subdivision) in such institutions in such State or subdivision.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1985–2022 · leading case: State of Florida v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 19 F.4th 1271 (11th Cir. 2021).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State of Florida v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 19 F.4th 1271 (11th Cir. 2021). · cites it 2× “” 42 U.S.C. § 1395z. Florida has not shown that the district court erred when it concluded that the Secretary satisfied the consultation require- ment because States will have the opportunity to consult during the ongoing notice-and-comment period, reasoning that the statute…”

Biden v. Missouri, 595 U.S. 87 (2022). “Second, we agree with the Secretary that he was not required to “consult with appropriate State agen- cies,” 42 U. S. C. §1395z, in advance of issuing the interim rule.”

Evelyn v. v. Kings Cnty. Hosp. Ctr., 819 F. Supp. 183 (E.D.N.Y 1993). · cites it 4× “Ill 1991), and 42 U.S.C. § 1395z (1988 ed. & Supp. Ill 1991).”

Brogdon Ex Rel. Cline v. Nat'l Healthcare Corp., 103 F. Supp. 2d 1322 (N.D. Ga. 2000). “42 U.S.C.A. § 1395z. These heightened requirements must also apply to participants in the Medicare program in that State.”

Evelyn v. v. Kings Cnty. Hosp. Ctr., 956 F. Supp. 288 (E.D.N.Y 1997). · cites it 3× “§ 42 U.S.C. § 1395z. Moreover, “in the case of any State .”

Miller v. Heckler, 601 F. Supp. 1471 (E.D. Tex. 1985). “any commingling of such funds with facility funds or with the funds of any person other than another such patient; and (15) meets such other conditions relating to the health and safety of individuals who are furnished services in such institution or relating to the physical…”

Detroit Rec. Hosp., Univ. Health Ctr. v. Sebelius, 575 F.3d 609 (6th Cir. 2009). “The hospitals choose to provide Medicare services, 42 U.S.C. § 1395z, and lower rates can be considered a cost of doing business with Medicare.”

Detroit Receiving Hosp. & Univ. Health Ctr. v. Sebelius, 575 F.3d 609 (6th Cir. 2009). “The hospitals choose to provide Medicare services, 42 U.S.C. § 1395z, and lower rates can be considered a cost of doing business with Medicare.”

State of Texas v. Becerra (N.D. Tex. 2021). · cites it 3× “The “narrower” language of 42 U.S.C. § 1395z provides an even weaker justification for Defendants’ deference arguments.”

State of Florida v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. (11th Cir. 2021). · cites it 2× “” 42 U.S.C. § 1395z. Florida has not shown that the district court erred when it concluded that the Secretary satisfied the consultation require- ment because States will have the opportunity to consult during the ongoing notice-and-comment period, reasoning that the statute…”

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.