Edward Jorgensen, James Stewart and Stewart Clinical Laboratory appeal their convictions by a jury for offering free medical laboratory services in exchange for referring government-paid medical laboratory work, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1396h(b)(2)(A). We reverse the convictions.

Jorgensen and Stewart are the owners and operators of Stewart Clinical Laboratory, Inc. Dr. Donald Dorr, the administrator of a medical clinic, agreed to cooperate with a Federal Bureau of Investigation probe of Medi-Cal 1 fraud by arranging a meeting with Jorgensen, ostensibly to discuss the referral of Dorr’s laboratory work to the Stewart Clinical Laboratory.

On August 17, 1979, Dorr and Jorgensen met at Dorr’s clinic. Dorr informed Jor-gensen that he was looking for a new lab to do his clinic’s laboratory work. Dorr represented that approximately 80 percent of the referred work would be paid for by MediCal. The other 20 percent of his practice, he said, consisted of private patients. Jor-gensen expressed interest in Dorr’s laboratory account, but told Dorr that he could not offer him “a brown envelope” or a new car to induce him to refer his Medi-Cal work. Jorgensen articulated his belief that the law prohibited volume discounts for Medi-Cal accounts. Jorgensen then suggested that if Dorr would refer his MediCal business to the laboratory, the laboratory would provide him with free lab service for his private patients. Jorgensen explained that the laboratory would bill Dorr for the private patient work, but Dorr need not pay the bills. After a few months, the laboratory would then write off the private patient bills as a bad debt. Jorgensen proposed that they give their arrangement a one or two month trial run to see if the Medi-Cal percentages were, in fact, the 70 percent to 80 percent Dorr represented them to be.

Dorr subsequently arranged another meeting with both Jorgensen and Stewart. They again suggested that they would provide free private patient work if Dorr referred his Medi-Cal business to them. The appellants, however, refused to reduce this arrangement to writing. Dorr did not again contact the appellants, and they did not attempt to contact him.

On May 1, 1980, a federal grand jury returned a one count indictment against the appellants, charging them with offering to pay a remuneration “to a person to induce said person to refer his patients” to their lab in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1396h(b)(2)(A). Evidence against the appellants consisted primarily of tape recordings of the two meetings, made by the government without appellants’ knowledge. Appellants were convicted by a jury in July 1980.

Appellants contend that while they may have offered remuneration as an inducement for Dorr to refer Medi-Cal lab service business to the Stewart Clinical Laboratory, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1396h(b)(2)(B), the government presented no evidence that the appellants offered free private patient work for Dorr “to refer an individual” to appellants, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1396h(b)(2)(A).

42 U.S.C. § 1396h(b) originally provided that:

In 1977, Congress amended the statute to “clarify and restructure those provisions in existing law which define the types of financial arrangements and conduct to be classified as illegal under medicare and medicaid.” 3 U.S.Code Cong, and Adm. News 3039, 3055 (1977). Section 1396h(b)(2)(A) and (B), as amended, provide:

No reported decision has interpreted the relevant provisions of the statute as amended. The amendments effectively eliminated any problems presented by the distinction between a kickback or bribe and a rebate, see, e. g., United States v. Porter, 591 F.2d 1048 (5th Cir. 1979), by making illegal all forms of improper remuneration. Nevertheless, Congress continued to divide § 1396h(b) into two subsections. The amendments, therefore, shift the focus of the operative distinction between the subsections from the type of payoff involved to the nature of the referred Medicare or Medicaid business — individuals or services.

At trial, the district court instructed the jury by reading to it the text of § 1396h(b)(2)(A). The court, however, next paraphrased the statute by describing as one essential element of the offense:

The jury had a copy of the indictment in the jury room.

The government concedes that the proof at trial showed that Dr. Dorr would (if the agreement were to be consummated) refer blood and urine specimens and similar packages to Stewart Clinical Laboratory for testing. The plan called not for the patients themselves to go the lab, but for Dr. Dorr to send their bodily substances to the laboratory. The government now asserts that any difference is “merely technical.”

Both the indictment and § 1396h(b)(2)(A) speak of referring “an individual” to a person. Interpreting “an individual” to include “parts and substances removed from an individual” works a tortured construction of the statutory language. By dividing § 1396h(b)(2) into two subsections, Congress obviously intended to proscribe two entirely different types of *807 behavior. Subsection (A) prohibits payoffs for referring Medi-Cal patients. Subsection (B)-prohibits payoffs for referring MedirCal services, including laboratory work. Appellants were indicted, tried and convicted under the wrong statute.

In federal court a defendant may not be convicted of an offense different from that specifically charged by the grand jury. Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 215-19 , 80 S.Ct. 270, 272-274 , 4 L.Ed.2d 252 (1960); see also, Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, 770 , 82 S.Ct. 1038, 1050 , 8 L.Ed.2d 240 (1962); Ex Parte Bain, 121 U.S. 1, 10-13 , 7 S.Ct. 781, 786-787 , 30 L.Ed. 849 (1887). The court may not amend the indictment by changing the offense charged to conform with the proof adduced at trial. Id. See also: United States v. Camp, 541 F.2d 737 (8th Cir. 1976); Stewart v. United States, 395 F.2d 484, 488 (8th Cir. 1968). The court may not substantially amend the indictment through its instructions to the jury. See United States v. Edwards, 465 F.2d 943, 950 (9th Cir. 1972); Edgerton v. United States, 143 F.2d 697, 698 (9th Cir. 1944). See also Heisler v. United States, 394 F.2d 692 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 986 , 89 S.Ct. 463 , 21 L.Ed.2d 448 (1968). 2

The government contends that this case involves a mere variance between facts alleged in the indictment and evidence produced at trial, and that the variance is not fatal to the conviction unless prejudicial to the appellants’ rights to notice of charges against them and protection against double jeopardy. United States v. Dawson, 516 F.2d 796, 804 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 855 , 96 S.Ct. 104 , 46 L.Ed.2d 80 (1975). But the appellants were convicted of an offense that was not charged in the indictment. The court did not simply correct a clerical error or eliminate surplusage from the text of the indictment. United States v. Abascal, 564 F.2d 821, 832 (9th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 953 , 98 S.Ct. 1583 , 55 L.Ed.2d 804 (1978); United States v. Lyman, 592 F.2d 496, 500-501 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 931 , 99 S.Ct. 2864 , 61 L.Ed.2d 300 (1979). Correcting an obvious clerical mistake may be harmless error, Heisler v. United States, supra, 394 F.2d at 695-96 ; United States v. Somers, 496 F.2d 723, 744 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 832 , 95 S.Ct. 56 , 42 L.Ed.2d 58 (1974); but amending the indictment to charge a new crime constitutes per se reversible error. Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 219 , 80 S.Ct. 270, 274 , 4 L.Ed.2d 252 (1960); United States v. Beeler, 587 F.2d 340, 343 (6th Cir. 1978). Because the variance here was fatal, we need not reach the other issues raised on appeal. 3

The conviction is reversed.

. California participates in the federal Medicaid medical assistance system, 42 U.S.C. § 1396 et seq., through its Medi-Cal program. See: Cal. Welf. & Inst.Code § 14101.1 (West 1980). Under Medicaid and Medi-Cal, the federal Department of Health and Human Services funds approximately fifty percent of California’s eligible Medicaid costs. Id

. This case closely resembles United States v. Prejean, 494 F.2d 495 (5th Cir. 1974), in which the court reversed an Assimilative Crimes Act conviction involving Texas burglary law because:

. Appellants also argued on appeal that the government did not prove what they characterize as an essential element of a § 1396h(b)(2) violation by failing to present any evidence that appellants did not disclose their arrangement with Dr. Dorr to Medi-Cal officials; that they never made an “offer to remunerate,” 42 U.S.C. § 1396h(b)(2)(A), in exchange for Medi-Cal business; that they lacked the specific intent necessary to violate § 1396h(b)(2)(A); and that the district court erred by denying their request for an entrapment instruction.