Frequently Asked Questions

Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) can reimburse states for expenditures incurred by Local Education Agencies (LEAs)/school districts for the costs of administrative activities that support the provision of medical services covered under Medicaid or CHIP. Examples of allowable Medicaid and CHIP administrative activities can be found on page 75 of the 2023 Comprehensive Guide to Medicaid Services and Administrative Claiming. In general, some categories where administrative activities can fall include:

• Medicaid and CHIP outreach.
• Facilitating Medicaid and CHIP eligibility determinations.
• Transportation-related activities in support of Medicaid and CHIP services.
  • Note, when the State claims federal financial participation (FFP) for necessary transportation as an optional medical service, the State must not also claim the same transportation expenditures as an administrative activity, which would result in duplicative reimbursement.
• Translation and interpretation services related to covered services.
• Program planning, policy development, and interagency coordination related to Medicaid and CHIP.
• Medicaid- and CHIP-related training.
• Referral, coordination, and monitoring of Medicaid and CHIP services (distinct from case management activities covered as a medical service).

FAQ ID:162306

Yes, States are expected to apply the 2023 Comprehensive Guide to Medicaid Services and Administrative Claiming guidance to all MAC programs for all entities. Both previous guidance documents issued by CMS, including the 1997 School-based Services Technical Review Guide and the 2003 School-based Administrative Claiming Guide, are superseded by the 2023 Comprehensive Guide to Medicaid Services and Administrative Claiming.

FAQ ID:162336

First, the activities must be allowable as State program administrative activities. Secondly, the State and/or claiming unit must implement a methodology to properly identify and allocate Medicaid’s portion of cost associated with the allowable State program administrative activity. Finally, the identification and allocation of this cost must be documented in the State’s Public Assistance Cost Allocation Plan (PACAP). According to 45 C.F.R. § 95.517, State Medicaid agencies (SMAs) that intend to claim for allowable administrative activities must have an approved PACAP. As the PACAP is primarily used by the Federal cognizant agency to allocate cost incurred by one direct federal awardee, yet funded by another federal awardee, there may be instances where costs applicable to allowable State program activities are incurred and funded by the SMA. In this instance, the State may identify and allocate the cost via a Medicaid Administrative Claiming (MAC) Plan and include a reference to the identification and allocation of the cost via the MAC Plan in its PACAP.

FAQ ID:162321

CMS encourages SMAs to reimburse school districts their allowable costs of conducting Medicaid and CHIP administrative activities. School districts should work with SMAs to develop a plan to document their costs so that the SMA can distribute Medicaid and CHIP FFP to school districts in proportion to each district’s relative expenditures for Medicaid and CHIP administrative activities.

FAQ ID:162326

The MLTSS assessment and care planning measures include:

• LTSS Comprehensive Assessment and Update
• LTSS Comprehensive Care Plan and Update
• LTSS Shared Care Plan with Primary Care Practitioner(PCP)
• LTSS Reassessment/Care Plan Update after Inpatient Discharge
• Screening, Risk Assessment, and Plan of Care to Prevent Future Falls: Falls Part 1 (Screening) and Falls Part 2 (Risk Assessment and Plan of Care)

FAQ ID:89066

It is recommended that MLTSS plans report both rates. However, if the state believes there are valid reasons for not reporting both rates, such as costly changes in assessment and care planning forms and information technology systems, it might consider phasing in the supplemental rates over time. For instance, in the first year of measure use (for example, measurement year 2018), the state could require MLTSS plans to report just the core rate, and then require that MLTSS plans report both core and supplemental rates for measurement year 2019 or 2020. Although they are called "supplemental rates," they are still very important, and should be viewed as "aspirational." MLTSS plans should strive to cover more assessment and care plan elements over time.

FAQ ID:89071

Value sets are the complete set of procedure and diagnostic codes used to identify a service or condition included in a measure. One of the assessment and care planning measures—LTSS Reassessment/Care Plan Update after Inpatient Discharge—uses value sets to identify potentially planned hospitalizations. Please see "Do I need to use value sets to calculate these measures? If so, where can I find the value sets?" for more information regarding using value sets for the three institutional rebalancing and utilization measures.

View the value sets (XLSX, 2.88 MB). Please see Table 2 in the "LTSS Value Sets to Codes" tab. Table 1 in the "LTSS Measures to Value Sets" tab shows each value set needed for each measure.

FAQ ID:89076

Yes, the same sample can be used for Part 1 of the Screening, Risk Assessment, and Plan of Care to Prevent Future Falls measure as the LTSS Comprehensive Assessment and Update, LTSS Comprehensive Care Plan and Update, and LTSS Shared Care Plan with Primary Care Practitioner measures.

FAQ ID:89081

Many Medicaid beneficiaries living with dementia and other conditions can have a heightened risk of wandering, or attempting to leave a setting (exit-seeking) unsafely. These behaviors are not necessarily constant or permanent.

Wandering occurs in ways that may appear aimless but often have purpose. People may wander simply because they want to move. Sometimes wandering responds to an unmet basic need like human contact, hunger, or thirst; a noisy or confusing environment; or because people are experiencing some type of distress, like pain or the need to use the toilet. Wandering can be helpful or dangerous, depending on the situation. Although people who wander may gain social contact, exercise, and stimulation, they can also become lost or exhausted.

Person-centered planning, staff training and care delivery are core components of provider operations to meet HCBS requirements while responding to unsafe wandering and exit-seeking behavior in an individualized manner.3 Person-centered services involve knowing individuals, and their conditions, needs, and history and using this knowledge to create strategies to assure that individuals are free to interact with others and the community in the most integrated way possible and still prevent injury for those who wander or exit-seek unsafely. Home and community-based settings must demonstrate that person-centered planning drives their operations and services for each person. The beneficiaries the settings serve must drive the person-centered planning process with assistance from a trained, competent, assessor, care manager or similar facilitator. The beneficiary should be able to get input from people who are important to him or her, while still reflecting the individual's input as much as possible. Person-centered plans and related decisions should be consistent with the person's needs and preferences, and informed by family members, caregivers, and other individuals that the beneficiary has identified as playing an important role in his or her life. The role of person-centered planning and the process for realizing this role is described in the final HCBS regulation and in guidance found on the Medicaid.gov website.

Person-centered service plans should be developed with the individual, and include their representatives as appropriate. The person-centered planning process should include a process that:

• is informed by discussions with family members or other individuals who are important to them about key aspects of daily routines and rituals;
• focuses on an individual's strengths and interests;
• outlines the individual's reaction to various communication styles;
• identifies the individual's favorite things to do and experience during the day, as well as experiences that contribute to a bad day;
• proposes experiences that the person may enjoy as community engagement, and describes those factors or characteristics that the individuals would find most isolating or stigmatizing

To promote effective communication, which is at the core of person-centered planning and service delivery, provider staff serving beneficiaries who wander or exit-seek should receive education and training about how to communicate with individuals living with conditions that may lead to unsafe wandering or exit-seeking. Training programs may include important information on issues such as:

• The most common types of conditions, diseases and disorders that lead to wandering behavior; the various stages of key conditions that result in increased risk of wandering and what to expect over time; and the potential impact of these conditions on the individual's ability to function.
• Differentiating between most common types of conditions, diseases and disorders that lead to wandering behavior from serious mental illness or adverse environmental conditions such as overmedication or neglect.
• Assessing individuals for co-occurring conditions (including barriers to sufficient adaptive skills and the ability to communicate with others) that increase risk for unsafe wandering or exit-seeking.
• Understanding situations that led to past instances of unsafe wandering or exit-seeking or the desire to engage in them;
• Principles of person-centered care planning and service delivery;
• Strategies for identifying and handling behavioral expressions of need or distress.

In addition to previous guidance provided by CMS on the implementation of person-centered planning requirements outlined in the federal HCBS regulations defining home and community-based settings, integration of the following promising practices around person-centered planning specifically for people who wander or exit-seek unsafely is recommended:

• Assessing the patterns, frequency, and triggers for unsafe wandering or exit-seeking through direct observation and by talking with the person exhibiting such behaviors, and, when appropriate, their families.
• Using this baseline information to develop a person-centered plan to address unsafe wandering or exit-seeking, implementing the plan, and measuring its impact.
• Using periodic assessments to update information about an individual's unsafe wandering or exit-seeking, and adjust the person-centered plan as necessary.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 144.19 KB)

FAQ ID:94926

Yes, but only if controlled-egress is addressed as a modification of the rules defining home and community-based settings, with the state ensuring that the provider complies with the requirements of 42 C.F.R. 441.301(c)(4)(F), 441.530(a)(vi)(F) and 441.710(a)(vi)(F). Any setting using controlled-egress should assess an individual that exhibits wandering (and the underlying conditions, diseases or disorders) and document the individual's choices about and need for safety measures in his or her person-centered care plan. The plan should document the individual's preferences and opportunities for engagement within the setting's community and within the broader community.

Settings with controlled-egress should be able to demonstrate how they can make individual determinations of unsafe exit-seeking risk and make individual accommodations for those who are not at risk. Should a person choose a setting with controlled-egress, the setting must develop person-centered care plans that honor autonomy as well as minimize safety risks for each person, consistent with his or her plan goals. For example, spouses or partners who are not at risk for exit-seeking and who reside in the same setting should have the ability to come and go by having the code to an electronically controlled exit. Technological solutions, such as unobtrusive electronic pendants that alert staff when an individual is exiting, may be used for those at risk, but may not be necessary for others who have not shown a risk of unsafe exit-seeking. Importantly, such restrictions may not be developed or used for non-personcentered purposes, such as punishment or staff convenience.

In situations where a setting uses controlled-egress on an individual basis to support individuals who wander or exit-seek unsafely, consistent with our regulations, the person-centered plan must document the individual's:

• Understanding of the setting's safety features, including any controlled-egress,
• Choices for prevention of unsafe wandering or exit-seeking
• Consent from the individual and caregivers/representatives to controlled-egress goals for care
• Services, supports, and environmental design that will enable the individual to participate in desired activities and support their mobility
• Options that were explored before any modifications occurred to the person-centered plan

Regulations require the person-centered plan to be reviewed at least annually with the Medicaid beneficiary and his or her representative, to determine whether it needs revision. If a secured memory unit is no longer necessary to meet the individual's needs, the individual must be afforded the appropriate services in that setting to integrate into the community and exercise greater autonomy as well as being offered the option of a setting that does not have controlled egress.

To assure fidelity in complying with the regulations defining home and community-based settings, Memory Care Units should attempt to implement as many options as possible that are outlined within this guidance regarding staffing, activities and environmental design to assure optimal community integration for HCBS beneficiaries.

Note that the regulations provide that Medicaid beneficiaries receiving services in home and community-based settings must be free from coercion and restraint. Consistent with this, home and community-based settings should not restrict a participant within a setting, unless such restriction is documented in the person-centered plan, all less restrictive interventions have been exhausted, and such restriction is reassessed over time.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 144.19 KB)

FAQ ID:94976