1396a(a)(10)(B) guarantees that if a state elects to provide Medicaid to the medically needy, it must also provide it to the categorically needy and that it may not provide more assistance to the former group than to the latter. See id. at 39. Moreover, states may not provide benefits to some categorically needy individuals but not to others. See 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(10)(B)(i); see also Schweiker v. Hogan, 457 U.S. 569, 573 n. 6, 102 S.Ct. 2597, 73 L.Ed.2d 227 (1982) (stating that Section 1396a(a)(10)(B) ensures “that the medical assistance afforded to an individual who qualified under any categorical assistance program could not be different from that afforded to an individual who qualified under any other program”); see also Sobky v. Smoley, 855 F.Supp. 1123, 1140 (E.D.Cal.1994) (<HOLDING>). Section 1396a(a)(10)(B) thus precludes states
holding that rule 23a4 requires absence of conflict between named representatives and class as well as vigorous prosecution holding that it is within the power of the legislature to determine that the community should be beautiful as well as healthy spacious as well as clean wellbalanced as well as carefully patrolled holding that prior uncharged sexual conduct between the defendant and the victim is admissible to show their state of intimacy as well as to explain the circumstances surrounding the offense holding that current text of  1396aa10b requires comparability between groups of the categorically needy as well as between individuals within the same group holding that because  1983 by its plain text broadly encompasses violations of federal statutory  as well as constitutional law plaintiffs could bring suit for violation of social security act