42 U.S.C. § 1396h
State false claims act requirements for increased State share of recoveries
Notwithstanding section 1396d(b) of this title, if a State has in effect a law relating to false or fraudulent claims that meets the requirements of subsection (b), the Federal medical assistance percentage with respect to any amounts recovered under a State action brought under such law, shall be decreased by 10 percentage points.
A State that, as of
Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting a State that has in effect a law that establishes liability to the State for false or fraudulent claims described in section 3729 of title 31, with respect to programs in addition to the State program under this subchapter, or with respect to expenditures in addition to expenditures described in section 1396b(a) of this title, from being considered to be in compliance with the requirements of subsection (a) so long as the law meets such requirements.
A prior section 1396h, act Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title XIX, § 1909, as added and amended
Pub. L. 109–171, title VI, § 6031(b),
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 59
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · leading case: In re Xerox Corp. & Xerox State Healthcare, LLC F/K/A Acs State Healthcare, LLC, 555 S.W.3d 518 (Tex. 2018).
In re Xerox Corp. & Xerox State Healthcare, LLC F/K/A Acs State Healthcare, LLC, 555 S.W.3d 518 (Tex. 2018). “4 , 72 (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1396h ). 116 42 U.S.C. § 1396h(a).”
United States v. Stewart Clinical Lab'y, Inc., 652 F.2d 804 (9th Cir. 1981). “42 U.S.C. § 1396h(b) originally provided that: “Whoever furnishes items or services to an individual for which payment is or may be made in whole or in part out of Federal funds under a State plan approved under this subchapter and who solicits, offers or receives any— *806 (1)…”
United States v. Delmer Porter, 591 F.2d 1048 (5th Cir. 1979). “Although § 1395nn(b) has not been construed by any other Court of Appeals, the Second Circuit has construed another statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1396h(b), 3 which is almost identical in wording to that of the statute we consider today.”
United States v. Universal Trade & Indus., Inc., 695 F.2d 1151 (9th Cir. 1983). “STATUTORY FRAMEWORK The relevant statute is 42 U.S.C. § 1396h(b)(2) (Supp. IV 1980). It was amended in 1977 to provide that it is a felony to offer any remuneration to a person to induce such person: (A) to refer an individua] to a person for the furnishing, or arranging for the…”
United States v. Richard Tapert, 625 F.2d 111 (6th Cir. 1980). “The district court held that the payments violated the original version of 42 U.S.C. § 1396h(b), 1 which was in effect during the years involved in this case.”
Palumbo v. Myers, 149 Cal. App. 3d 1020 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983). “(See § 14123; 42 U.S.C. § 1396h (d).) *1036 I Under the factual and legal circumstances as I view them, plaintiff's recovery of the balance of his fee for medical treatment from the third party payer was not prohibited.”
United States v. Peter LARM, 824 F.2d 780 (9th Cir. 1987). “, and his wife Haruko Larm, appeal from their convictions for violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1396h(a)(l) (false statements in an application for payments in a federally-approved plan for medical assistance).”
United States v. Mabel HUCKABY, 698 F.2d 915 (8th Cir. 1983). “Huckaby argues the evidence was insufficient to establish that she violated 42 U.S.C. § 1396h(a)(3) because the government did not prove: (1) the actual level of care Cumberland provided to the named Medicaid patients, and (2) that she knowingly concealed or failed to disclose…”
United States v. Norman Ruttenberg, United States of Am. v. Royal Fontana Nursing Ctr., Inc., 625 F.2d 173 (7th Cir. 1980). “00 per day more than the maximum paid by Medicaid was tried and convicted under 42 U.S.C. § 1396h(b) (1972) of taking bribes.”
United States of Am. v. Paul G. Brown, United States of Am. v. Stone's Pharmacy, Inc., 763 F.2d 984 (8th Cir. 1985). “(the “Corporation”) appeal from convictions in a jury trial on forty-seven counts of filing false claims for payment under the Medicaid Program in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1396h(a)(l)(i) (1982). On appeal, appellants contend, inter alia: (1) that the district court erred in…”
United States v. Roger Wayne Lipkis, 770 F.2d 1447 (9th Cir. 1985). “There, the defendants were indicted for offering to pay a remuneration to a doctor to induce him to refer his patients to a laboratory, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1396h(b)(2)(A). The defendants successfully argued that the government failed to prove that they had attempted to…”
Palmer v. Brown, 752 P.2d 685 (Kan. 1988). “21-3904 (presenting a false claim); 42 U.S.C. § 1396h(a) (1982). Health care providers committing Medicaid fraud may be barred from participation in the program, 42 U.”
42 U.S.C. § 1396h(a): 7 cases
In re Xerox Corp. & Xerox State Healthcare, LLC F/K/A Acs State Healthcare, LLC, 555 S.W.3d 518 (Tex. 2018). “4 , 72 (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1396h ). 116 42 U.S.C. § 1396h(a).”
Palmer v. Brown, 752 P.2d 685 (Kan. 1988). “21-3904 (presenting a false claim); 42 U.S.C. § 1396h(a) (1982). Health care providers committing Medicaid fraud may be barred from participation in the program, 42 U.”
Tripp v. Coler, 640 F. Supp. 848 (N.D. Ill. 1986).
Fabula v. Buck, 598 F.2d 869 (4th Cir. 1979).
In re Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. the State of Texas, No. 15-25-00207-CV (Tex. App.—15th Dist. Nov. 14, 2025).
42 U.S.C. § 1396h(a)(3): 2 cases
United States v. Mabel HUCKABY, 698 F.2d 915 (8th Cir. 1983). “Huckaby argues the evidence was insufficient to establish that she violated 42 U.S.C. § 1396h(a)(3) because the government did not prove: (1) the actual level of care Cumberland provided to the named Medicaid patients, and (2) that she knowingly concealed or failed to disclose…”
United States v. James E. Barrington, 662 F.2d 1046 (4th Cir. 1981).
42 U.S.C. § 1396h(a)(3)(i): 1 case
United States v. Mabel HUCKABY, 698 F.2d 915 (8th Cir. 1983). “Huckaby argues the evidence was insufficient to establish that she violated 42 U.S.C. § 1396h(a)(3) because the government did not prove: (1) the actual level of care Cumberland provided to the named Medicaid patients, and (2) that she knowingly concealed or failed to disclose…”
42 U.S.C. § 1396h(a)(l): 4 cases
United States v. Peter LARM, 824 F.2d 780 (9th Cir. 1987). “, and his wife Haruko Larm, appeal from their convictions for violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1396h(a)(l) (false statements in an application for payments in a federally-approved plan for medical assistance).”
In re Cardiac Devices Qui Tam Litig., 221 F.R.D. 318 (D. Conn. 2004).
Rush v. Parham, 440 F. Supp. 383 (N.D. Ga. 1977).
United States v. Taylor, 693 F. Supp. 828 (N.D. Cal. 1988).
42 U.S.C. § 1396h(a)(l)(i): 1 case
United States of Am. v. Paul G. Brown, United States of Am. v. Stone's Pharmacy, Inc., 763 F.2d 984 (8th Cir. 1985). “(the “Corporation”) appeal from convictions in a jury trial on forty-seven counts of filing false claims for payment under the Medicaid Program in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1396h(a)(l)(i) (1982). On appeal, appellants contend, inter alia: (1) that the district court erred in…”
42 U.S.C. § 1396h(a)(l)(i)(1982): 1 case
United States of Am. v. Paul G. Brown, United States of Am. v. Stone's Pharmacy, Inc., 763 F.2d 984 (8th Cir. 1985). “(the “Corporation”) appeal from convictions in a jury trial on forty-seven counts of filing false claims for payment under the Medicaid Program in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1396h(a)(l)(i) (1982). On appeal, appellants contend, inter alia: (1) that the district court erred in…”
42 U.S.C. § 1396h(aX3): 1 case
United States v. James E. Barrington, 662 F.2d 1046 (4th Cir. 1981).
42 U.S.C. § 1396h(b): 7 cases
United States v. Delmer Porter, 591 F.2d 1048 (5th Cir. 1979). “Although § 1395nn(b) has not been construed by any other Court of Appeals, the Second Circuit has construed another statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1396h(b), 3 which is almost identical in wording to that of the statute we consider today.”
United States v. Stanton G. Polin, 194 F.3d 863 (7th Cir. 1999).
United States v. Richard Tapert, 625 F.2d 111 (6th Cir. 1980). “The district court held that the payments violated the original version of 42 U.S.C. § 1396h(b), 1 which was in effect during the years involved in this case.”
United States v. Stewart Clinical Lab'y, Inc., 652 F.2d 804 (9th Cir. 1981). “42 U.S.C. § 1396h(b) originally provided that: “Whoever furnishes items or services to an individual for which payment is or may be made in whole or in part out of Federal funds under a State plan approved under this subchapter and who solicits, offers or receives any— *806 (1)…”
United States v. William H. Zacher, 586 F.2d 912 (2d Cir. 1978).
42 U.S.C. § 1396h(b)(1): 1 case
United States v. A. Alvin GREBER, 760 F.2d 68 (3d Cir. 1985).
42 U.S.C. § 1396h(b)(2): 3 cases
United States v. Mitchell, 85 F.3d 800 (1st Cir. 1996).
United States v. Universal Trade & Indus., Inc., 695 F.2d 1151 (9th Cir. 1983). “STATUTORY FRAMEWORK The relevant statute is 42 U.S.C. § 1396h(b)(2) (Supp. IV 1980). It was amended in 1977 to provide that it is a felony to offer any remuneration to a person to induce such person: (A) to refer an individua] to a person for the furnishing, or arranging for the…”
In re Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. the State of Texas, No. 15-25-00207-CV (Apr. 30, 2026).
42 U.S.C. § 1396h(b)(2)(A): 5 cases
United States v. Stewart Clinical Lab'y, Inc., 652 F.2d 804 (9th Cir. 1981). “42 U.S.C. § 1396h(b) originally provided that: “Whoever furnishes items or services to an individual for which payment is or may be made in whole or in part out of Federal funds under a State plan approved under this subchapter and who solicits, offers or receives any— *806 (1)…”
United States v. Universal Trade & Indus., Inc., 695 F.2d 1151 (9th Cir. 1983). “STATUTORY FRAMEWORK The relevant statute is 42 U.S.C. § 1396h(b)(2) (Supp. IV 1980). It was amended in 1977 to provide that it is a felony to offer any remuneration to a person to induce such person: (A) to refer an individua] to a person for the furnishing, or arranging for the…”
United States v. Mohammed Hadi Fekri, 650 F.2d 1044 (9th Cir. 1981).
United States v. Roger Wayne Lipkis, 770 F.2d 1447 (9th Cir. 1985). “There, the defendants were indicted for offering to pay a remuneration to a doctor to induce him to refer his patients to a laboratory, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1396h(b)(2)(A). The defendants successfully argued that the government failed to prove that they had attempted to…”
United States v. Duz-Mor Diagnostic Lab'y, Inc., 650 F.2d 223 (9th Cir. 1981).
42 U.S.C. § 1396h(b)(2)(B): 5 cases
United States v. Universal Trade & Indus., Inc., 695 F.2d 1151 (9th Cir. 1983). “STATUTORY FRAMEWORK The relevant statute is 42 U.S.C. § 1396h(b)(2) (Supp. IV 1980). It was amended in 1977 to provide that it is a felony to offer any remuneration to a person to induce such person: (A) to refer an individua] to a person for the furnishing, or arranging for the…”
United States v. Roger Wayne Lipkis, 770 F.2d 1447 (9th Cir. 1985). “There, the defendants were indicted for offering to pay a remuneration to a doctor to induce him to refer his patients to a laboratory, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1396h(b)(2)(A). The defendants successfully argued that the government failed to prove that they had attempted to…”
United States v. Stewart Clinical Lab'y, Inc., 652 F.2d 804 (9th Cir. 1981). “42 U.S.C. § 1396h(b) originally provided that: “Whoever furnishes items or services to an individual for which payment is or may be made in whole or in part out of Federal funds under a State plan approved under this subchapter and who solicits, offers or receives any— *806 (1)…”
United States v. Duz-Mor Diagnostic Lab'y, Inc., 650 F.2d 223 (9th Cir. 1981).
United States v. Mohammed Hadi Fekri, 650 F.2d 1044 (9th Cir. 1981).
42 U.S.C. § 1396h(b)(3): 1 case
People v. Bynum, 557 N.E.2d 238 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 1990).
42 U.S.C. § 1396h(b)(l): 9 cases
United States v. Richard Tapert, 625 F.2d 111 (6th Cir. 1980). “The district court held that the payments violated the original version of 42 U.S.C. § 1396h(b), 1 which was in effect during the years involved in this case.”
United States v. Norman Ruttenberg, United States of Am. v. Royal Fontana Nursing Ctr., Inc., 625 F.2d 173 (7th Cir. 1980). “00 per day more than the maximum paid by Medicaid was tried and convicted under 42 U.S.C. § 1396h(b) (1972) of taking bribes.”
Hanlester Network v. Donna E. Shalala, 51 F.3d 1390 (9th Cir. 1995).
United States v. Anderson, 85 F. Supp. 2d 1084 (D. Kan. 1999).
United States v. Harold Perlstein, 632 F.2d 661 (6th Cir. 1980).
42 U.S.C. § 1396h(b)(l)(A): 1 case
United States v. Morris Pardee Adkins, 683 F.2d 1289 (9th Cir. 1982).
42 U.S.C. § 1396h(b)(l)(B): 1 case
In re Anonymous Nos. 61 D.B. 85 & 62 D.B. 81, 12 Pa. D. & C.4th 211 (Pa. 1989).
42 U.S.C. § 1396h(c): 1 case
Wilmac Corp. v. Bowen, 811 F.2d 809 (3d Cir. 1987).
42 U.S.C. § 1396h(d): 2 cases
LOCAL 913 v. Manitowoc Cnty., 410 N.W.2d 641 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987).
New York City Health & Hospitals Corp. v. Perales, 954 F.2d 854 (2d Cir. 1992).
42 U.S.C. § 1396h(d)(l): 2 cases
Smith v. Caggiano, 421 N.E.2d 473 (Mass. App. Ct. 1981).
New York City Health & Hospitals Corp. v. Perales, 954 F.2d 854 (2d Cir. 1992).
42 U.S.C. § 1396h(m)(2)(A)(iv): 1 case
John B. v. Goetz, 879 F. Supp. 2d 787 (M.D. Tenn. 2010).
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.