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
Should the rate of required exclusions be reported with the Screening, Risk Assessment, and Plan of Care to Prevent Future Falls measure's Part 1 performance rate?
The measure excludes plan members who are not ambulatory from the measure rate, but it is not necessary to report the number of members excluded with the measure’s performance rate.
FAQ ID:89006
SHARE URLIs a specific screening tool required for the Screening, Risk Assessment, and Plan of Care to Prevent Future Falls measure?
No, a specific screening tool is not required for this measure. However, potential screening tools may include the Morse Fall Scale and timed Get-Up-And-Go test.
FAQ ID:89011
SHARE URLWhat is the difference between a screening (Part 1) and a risk assessment (Part 2) for the purposes of calculating the Screening, Risk Assessment, and Plan of Care to Prevent Future Falls measure?
A falls screening is an evaluation of whether a Managed Long Term Services and Supports plan member has experienced a history of falls and/or problems with balance or gait. A falls risk assessment includes a balance/gait assessment and one other assessment component and should only be performed for members with a documented history of falls (at least two falls or one fall with injury in the past year).
FAQ ID:89016
SHARE URLIf a state needs to reduce durable medical equipment (DME) rates as a result of this requirement, is the state required to complete an Access Monitoring Review Plan as described in 42 CFR 447.203 and 447.204, which is required for state plan amendments that propose to reduce payments to Medicaid providers?
State Medicaid Director Letter #17-004 addressed this area by stating: “Reductions necessary to implement CMS federal Medicaid payment requirements (e.g., federal upper payment limits and financial participation limits), but only in circumstances under which the state is not exercising discretion as to how the requirement is implemented in rates. For example, if the federal statute or regulation imposes an aggregate upper payment limit that requires the state to reduce provider payments, the state should consider the impact of the payment reduction on access.” In addition, the long-standing policy of the Medicaid program has been that Medicare rates are sufficient to ensure access.
FAQ ID:93521
SHARE URLConsidering the differences between the Medicaid and Medicare populations, will limiting federal financial participation (FFP) for durable medical equipment (DME) cause hardship for people with disabilities in the Medicaid program?
We acknowledge that there are differences between the Medicare and Medicaid populations, but nothing in the policy guidance or statute compels states to reduce the items that states provide to people with disabilities under the state plan. As noted above, the statute does not expressly compel states to reduce the payment rates for DME. The statute limits the amount of money that the federal government will pay (i.e., FFP) for the relevant DME in the aggregate as compared with the relevant DME provided in the Medicare program. States retain the flexibility to make payments at rates that best serve the needs of their Medicaid beneficiaries.
FAQ ID:93526
SHARE URLHow will states and providers know which primary care services will be paid at the higher rates under CMS 2370-F?
Regulation at 42 CFR 447.000(c)(1) and (2) specifies Evaluation and Management codes 99201 through 99499 and vaccine administration codes 90460, 90461, 90471, 90472, 90473, or their successor codes.
FAQ ID:92126
SHARE URLOur Inpatient Hospital Upper Payment Limit (UPL) demonstration is too large to send in one workbook, can we submit our demonstration to CMS in multiple workbooks? Alternatively, may states submit separate workbooks for each ownership category?
Yes, a state should submit multiple workbooks to CMS to provide a complete UPL demonstration for each service category subject to the UPL (Inpatient Hospital services (IPH), Outpatient Hospital services (OPH), Nursing Facility services (NF), Clinic, Institutions for Mental Disease (IMD), Intermediate Care Facilities for Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities (ICF/IID), Psychiatric Residential Treatment Facility (PRTF), and Qualified Practitioner supplemental payments). When submitting UPL demonstrations, the state should use the following naming convention: UPL_<UPL Demo Date Range>_<Service Type Abbreviation>_R<Region Number>_<State Abbreviation>_<Workbook Number>.xls. Here is an example of the naming convention: UPL_20170701-20180630_IP_R01_CT_01.xls.As well, states may submit one separate workbook for each ownership category (state government owned, non-state government owned, and private).
FAQ ID:92241
SHARE URLOur 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.
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:92106
SHARE URLThe requirements under 42 CFR 438.804 specify that the states submit two methodologies to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for review and approval to implement the CMS 2370-F rule. How does approval of these methodologies impact the approval process for managed care contracts and rate packages for 2013?
Implementing regulations at 42 CFR 438.804 require states to submit to CMS a methodology for calculating the July 1, 2009, baseline rate for eligible primary care services and a methodology for calculating the rate differential eligible for 100 percent of Federal Financial Participation (FFP) by March 31, 2013. Further, 42 CFR 438.6 (c)(5)(vi) establishes Managed Care Organization (MCO), Prepaid Inpatient Health Plan (PHIP) or Prepaid Ambulatory Health Plan (PAHP) contract requirements to comply with this provision. It is CMS's expectation that as soon as practicable after the State submits the required methodologies in 42 CFR 438.804 and receives CMS approval, the State will:
- Submit revised actuarial certification documents reflecting the Medicare rate for eligible primary care services in their MCO, PIHP or PAHP capitation rates; and
- Submit amendment(s) to this contract to ensure compliance with 42 CFR 438.6 (c)(5)(vi).
After CMS approval of the revised contract and rates, the MCO, PIHP or PAHP must direct the full amount of the enhanced payment to the eligible provider to reflect the enhanced payment effective January 1, 2013. Federal financial participation (FFP) is available at a rate of 100 percent for the portion of capitation rates attributable to these enhanced payments; however, receipt of the enhanced FFP is contingent upon the state's successful completion of this process.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:91266
SHARE URLMay states delegate the self-attestation process to their contracted managed care plans under CMS 2370-F rule?
Yes. A state may elect to delegate the self-attestation process to its contracting health plans under the following circumstances:
- Each managed care plan has signed documentation on file (provider contract or credentialing application) from the eligible provider attesting to the fact that he or she has a covered specialty or subspecialty designation. This addresses step one of the two-step self-attestation process specified in the rule.
- The managed care plan has verification of the provider’s appropriate board certification (as part of the credentialing and re-credentialing process). This addresses one option of the second step in the self-attestation process.
- Should board certification in the eligible specialty not be able to be verified by the managed care plan, the eligible provider must provide a specific attestation to the managed care plan that 60 percent of their Medicaid claims for the prior year were for the Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) codes specified in the regulation. This addresses a second option for the second step in the self-attestation process.
- Such delegation is included in the contract amendment that is otherwise being filed to implement this provision.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:91456
SHARE URL
Results per page