42 CFR 411.406 - Criteria for determining that a provider, practitioner, or supplier knew that services were excluded from coverage as custodial care or as not reasonable and necessary

Cite as42 CFR 411.406
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
27 practice notes
  • Maximum Comfort, Inc. v. Thompson, No. CIV. S-03-1584 LKK/PA.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • June 28, 2004
    ...to hold a patient's medical information confidential unless the information falls under an enumerated exceptions). 22. According to 42 C.F.R. § 411.406(e)(1), a supplier will be presumed to know that an item was not reasonable and necessary where the supplier has received relevant CMS notic......
  • Yale-New Haven Hosp., Inc. v. Thompson, No. 3:99CV2546 (GLG).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Connecticut)
    • August 31, 2001
    ...none of the allegations on which it is based is legally relevant to a waiver of financial liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1395pp. See 42 C.F.R. § 411.406(e)(1). Section § 1395pp(a) provides in relevant part that where a determination is made that services furnished to an individual by a provide......
  • Willowood of Great Barrington, Inc. v. Sebelius, C.A. No. 08-CV-30076-MAP.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of Massachusetts
    • July 28, 2009
    ...financially liable for the costs of the tests. (A.R. at 41.) In support of this further conclusion, the ALJ noted that, pursuant to 42 C.F.R. § 411.406(e), a Medicare provider "may be deemed to have constructive notice of noncoverage based on the receipt of CMS notices, including manua......
  • Almy v. Sebelius, Civil Action No. RDB–08–1245.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of Massachusetts
    • September 3, 2010
    ...entity with knowledge or constructive knowledge of an imminent coverage denial, the supplier must shoulder liability for its costs. 42 C.F.R. § 411.406(e). Suppliers may provide beneficiaries with written “advance beneficiary notice” (“ABN”) that states that Medicare will probably not cover......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
26 cases
  • Yale-New Haven Hosp., Inc. v. Thompson, No. 3:99CV2546 (GLG).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Connecticut)
    • August 31, 2001
    ...none of the allegations on which it is based is legally relevant to a waiver of financial liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1395pp. See 42 C.F.R. § 411.406(e)(1). Section § 1395pp(a) provides in relevant part that where a determination is made that services furnished to an individual by a provide......
  • Willowood of Great Barrington, Inc. v. Sebelius, C.A. No. 08-CV-30076-MAP.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of Massachusetts
    • July 28, 2009
    ...financially liable for the costs of the tests. (A.R. at 41.) In support of this further conclusion, the ALJ noted that, pursuant to 42 C.F.R. § 411.406(e), a Medicare provider "may be deemed to have constructive notice of noncoverage based on the receipt of CMS notices, including manual iss......
  • Almy v. Sebelius, Civil Action No. RDB–08–1245.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of Massachusetts
    • September 3, 2010
    ...entity with knowledge or constructive knowledge of an imminent coverage denial, the supplier must shoulder liability for its costs. 42 C.F.R. § 411.406(e). Suppliers may provide beneficiaries with written “advance beneficiary notice” (“ABN”) that states that Medicare will probably not cover......
  • Anghel v. Sebelius, No. 10–CV–4574 (ADS)(AKT).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • December 13, 2012
    ...bulletins, or other written guides or directives from intermediaries, or Carriers, or [Quality Improvement Organizations].” See42 C.F.R. § 411.406(e). It is obvious to the Court that Dr. Anghel's addition of physical therapy services to her practice is what instigated the present dispute, a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT