Alabama Nursing Home Ass'n v. Harris’s Empirical Analysis
617 F.2d 388 · 1980
Citation profile
35 federal appellate · 6 district · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 89 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2024 · most notably Wilder v. Virginia Hospital Assn. (1990), Bergen Pines County Hospital v. New Jersey Department of Human Services (1984)
35 federal appellate · 6 district · 17 state decisions — followed in 10 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Japan Line, Ltd. v. County of Los Angeles · Mazaleski v. Treusdell · Skinner v. United States · Florida v. Mathews
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 89 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(a) A state plan for medical assistance must (13) provide ... (E) for payment ... of the skilled nursing facility and intermediate care facility services provided under the plan through the use of rates (determined in accordance with methods and standards developed by the State) which the State finds, and makes assurances satisfactory to the Secretary, are reasonable and adequate to meet the costs which must be incurred by efficiently and economically operated facilities in order to provide care and services in conformity with applicable State and Federal laws, regulations, and quality and safety standards; and such State makes further assurances, satisfactory to the Secretary, for the filing of uniform cost reports by each skilled nursing or intermediate care facility and periodic audits by the State of such reports; ...” 42 U.S.C.A. 1396a(a)(13)(E) (as amended by The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1980, P.L. 96-499 § 962(b), effective Oct. 1, 1980 (enacted Dec. 5, 1980) (Emphasis added).”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]nadequate state appropriations do not excuse noncompliance”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Congress intended that state authorities in developing methodologies for reasonable cost related reimbursement have great flexibility in the areas of cost-finding and rate-setting. The legislative history indicates that states are to be free to experiment with methods and standards for payment that would be simpler and less expensive than the complex Medicare reasonable cost formula. See S.Rep. No. 92-1230, 92nd Cong., 2d Sess. 287 (1972).... Additionally, Congress intended that states have freedom both to define allowable cost items and to set a value on the reasonable cost of such items. Thus, between 1972 and 1981, states were encouraged to develop alternative reimbusement schemes under this ‘reasonable cost standard,’ which obligated the Secretary to approve and verify the cost-finding methods utilized in a state’s reimbursement plan as well as the State’s methodologies for rate-setting. Id. at 392 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.