Frequently Asked Questions are used to provide additional information and/or statutory guidance not found in State Medicaid Director Letters, State Health Official Letters, or CMCS Informational Bulletins. The different sets of FAQs as originally released can be accessed below.
Frequently Asked Questions
How should states handle eligibility renewals between January 1, 2014 and March 31, 2014 in order to comply with the ACA provisions that prohibit states from terminating an individual's existing Medicaid eligibility prior to April 1, 2014.
According to section 1902(e)(14)(D)(v) of the Act, implemented at 42 CFR 435.603(a)(3), a person enrolled in Medicaid on or before December 31, 2013, shall not be found ineligible solely because of the application of MAGI and new household composition rules before March 31, 2014, or the individual's next regular renewal date, whichever is later.
States have two options regarding implementation. They can apply both pre-MAGI rules and MAGI rules to anyone whose renewal date falls between January 1 and March 31, 2014 as described below. Alternately, states may request the waiver authority to delay renewals outlined in our May 17, 2013 guidance titled, "Facilitating Medicaid and CHIP Enrollment and Renewal in 2014" (available at http://medicaid.gov/sites/default/files/Federal-Policy-Guidance/downloads/SHO-13-003.pdf).
The steps described below will ensure that Medicaid enrollees who come up for renewal between January and March 2014 are addressed appropriately. For example, for an individual who comes up for renewal on February 1, 2014, states need to:
- Conduct an eligibility redetermination by applying MAGI-based methods (at the converted income standard). If eligible, renew coverage for a 12-month period ending in February 2015.
- If the individual is found to be ineligible under step 1, determine whether s/he remains eligible based on 2013 (current) methods and income standard. If so, a finding of eligibility until April 1, 2014 is necessary under the 2013 methods. Go to step 4.
- If the individual is not eligible per either step 1 or 2, consider whether the individual might be eligible on other bases of eligibility, and pursue any possibilities. If no other pathways apply, provide the individual with notice of termination and appeal rights and transfer their account to the Exchange (or CHIP) for eligibility determination and enrollment in a QHP (or CHIP).
- On April 1, 2014, for those who remain eligible per step 2 (using 2013 methods and income standards), consider whether the individual qualifies on other bases of eligibility. If the individual does, renew eligibility until April 1, 2015. If not, provide notice and appeal rights for termination effective April 1, 2014.
Supplemental Links:
- This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 295.71 KB)
FAQ ID:92596
SHARE URLFor physicians in neighboring states, can we require them to self-attest under CMS 2370-F using our state's protocol, rather than relying on the determination made by the home state's Medicaid program?
Our understanding of the CMS 2370-F rule is that advanced practice clinicians are eligible for the increased payment as long as they are working under the personal supervision of an eligible physician; eligible meaning the supervising physician is also eligible for the increased payment.We are trying to determine if: 1) advanced practice clinicians also can attest that they are working under the personal supervision of an eligible physician at the time of attestation, or 2) if they have to indicate who the supervising physician is on each claim for an eligible service and then we would need to see if that physician is eligible for the increased payment at the time of claim processing.If advanced practice clinicians are billing under their own provider numbers, how can we know that they're under the personal supervision of an eligible physician?
The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has permitted states flexibility in establishing processes to identify services provided by advanced practiced clinicians (APCs), including advanced practice nurses, being personally supervised by eligible physicians who accept professional responsibility for the services they provide. The state may set up a separate system to document that an Ambulatory Payment Classification (APC) is working under the personal supervision of a particular eligible physician. For example, the eligible physician could identify the APCs to the Medicaid agency, which could flag the claims submitted by those APCs under their own provider numbers through the Medicaid Management Information System (MMIS). There is no requirement that the rendering providers indicate on each claim the name of the supervising eligible physicians, however it is important that there be documentation that the eligible physicians have acknowledged their relationship with the advanced practice clinicians. Providing this type of information on a per claim basis is an effective way to document the state's claim for 100 percent federal funding for the increased portion of the payment.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:94101
SHARE URLAre Indian Health Services (IHS) excluded from the increased provider payments under CMS 2370-F? Is there any change in FMAP under CMS 2370-F for primary care services delivered through IHS?
IHS and tribal facilities are often not separately paid for physician services, but instead receive an all-inclusive rate for inpatient or outpatient service encounters. To the extent that a particular claim is made for primary care services furnished by an eligible physician, there is no exclusion from the requirement for provider payment at least equal to the Medicare Part B fee schedule rate. States would continue to receive Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) at the 100 percent rate for services received through IHS and tribal facilities and reimbursed through the all-inclusive rate. For other physician services, including Medicaid payments for contract health services, states would receive the regular FMAP for the base payment, and 100 percent for the difference between the state plan rate in effect on July 1, 2009 and the applicable 2013 and 2014 Medicare rates.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:94106
SHARE URLThe preamble of the final rule under CMS 2370-F makes it clear that salaried eligible physicians employed by counties must receive the higher payment for eligible Evaluation & Management (E&M) and vaccine services. Does this same logic apply to physicians employed by hospitals and, if so, is it the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) expectation that the Medicaid agency will assure that the salaries of those physicians are increased?
Physicians employed by hospitals whose services are reimbursed by Medicaid on a physician fee schedule must receive the benefit of higher payment. It is the Medicaid agency's responsibility to ensure that hospitals receiving payments on behalf of those physicians comply with all requirements of the program. While hospitals could increase salaries they could also provide additional/bonus payments to eligible physicians to ensure that they receive the benefit of higher Medicaid payment.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:94111
SHARE URLThe final rule under CMS 2370-F clarifies that the 60 percent threshold for eligibility is based on services billed. Are billed services to be defined based on the number of units submitted or dollars?
The 60 percent threshold is based on the number of billed services as identified by individual billing codes for the primary specialty being asserted. That is, the numerator equals total billed codes for Evaluation & Management (E&M) services for the primary specialty, plus vaccine administration services, and the denominator equals the total number of billed codes. Please note that a state may choose to use paid billing codes/services in place of billed codes.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:94116
SHARE URLFor physicians in neighboring states, can we require them to self-attest under CMS 2370-F using our state's protocol, rather than relying on the determination made by the home state's Medicaid program?
Are Indian Health Services (IHS) excluded from the increased provider payments under CMS 2370-F? Is there any change in FMAP under CMS 2370-F for primary care services delivered through IHS?
IHS and tribal facilities are often not separately paid for physician services, but instead receive an all-inclusive rate for inpatient or outpatient service encounters. To the extent that a particular claim is made for primary care services furnished by an eligible physician, there is no exclusion from the requirement for provider payment at least equal to the Medicare Part B fee schedule rate. States would continue to receive Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) at the 100 percent rate for services received through IHS and tribal facilities and reimbursed through the all-inclusive rate. For other physician services, including Medicaid payments for contract health services, states would receive the regular FMAP for the base payment, and 100 percent for the difference between the state plan rate in effect on July 1, 2009 and the applicable 2013 and 2014 Medicare rates.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:93956
SHARE URLFor evaluating the claims history under CMS 2370-F, must we use all "billed" claims, including denied claims or claims that are subsequently voided? We would propose to use all paid claims net of voids and adjustments.
If a physician does not provide an attestation by a date established by the State, can the State apply the increased payment under CMS 2370-F prospectively only (that is, to dates of services on and after the date of attestation)? If not, are we correct that 42 CFR 447.45(d)(1) applies such that the claim for additional reimbursement is not payable if the attestation is not received within 12 months of the date of service?
States can establish reasonable timeframes regarding the submission of attestations by physicians. We are aware that many states are experiencing delays in implementing the provisions of the regulation and we have also been made aware that there is considerable confusion on the part of providers regarding enrollment. We expect that states will provide physicians with ample notice of the procedures for enrollment that physicians will be given several months to comply with the requirements. If the state sets a reasonable timeframe, such as three months, and physicians do not enroll within that time, we believe that the state could make payment prospectively from the date of the physician's application as long as this policy is made clear to providers.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:94126
SHARE URL
Results per page