Frequently Asked Questions

OMB Circular A-87requires costs associated with building shared state-based Information Technology (IT) systems that support multiple health and human service programs be allocated across all benefitting programs in proportion to their use of the system. The OMB A-87 Exception revised this approach by allowing human service programs (e.g. SNAP, TANF, LIHEAP, etc.) and others to utilize a wide range of IT components, needed by Medicaid but also of use to these other programs, at no additional cost except for interfaces or other uniquely required services specific to those programs. The A-87 Exception applies only to design, development, and implementation. Maintenance and operations work should continue to be allocated in accordance with the A-87 Circular. OMB Circular A-87  – Cost Principles for State, Local, and Indian Tribal Governments, has been Relocated to 2 CFR, Part 225 .

FAQ ID:93611

On July 20, 2015, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced a three-year extension of the Exception to the OMB A-87 cost allocation requirements from December 31, 2015 to December 31, 2018. We are currently making plans for the OMB A-87 exception to end.

FAQ ID:93616

States will need to incur costs for goods and services furnished no later than December 31, 2018 to make use of this Exception. Therefore, if work is completed by December 31, 2018, it can be funded under the OMB A-87 Exception and states should follow typical invoicing and claiming processes. However, if an amount has been obligated by December 31, 2018, but the good or service is not furnished by that date, then such expenditure must be cost allocated by program in proportion to their use of the system in accordance with OMB A-87.

FAQ ID:93621

For FFY2019 annual APDs and budget tables, including the Medicaid Detailed Budget Table (MDBT), must be completed as follows:

• For Q1 FFY2019, states can allocate costs in accordance with the OMB A-87 Exception
• For Q2-Q$ FFY2019, and all APDs going forward, states should allocate costs as required under the OMB A-87 Circular

If a state has already submitted their annual APDs without providing separate budgets they will need to complete an APDU with a revised MDBT and cost allocation plan. The update should address how cost allocation will be done prior to, and after, December 31, 2018. Budget tables should be completed as described above.

The Data and Systems Group (DSG) that approves APDs does not approve cost allocation methodology. States working to develop their new methodologies should send operational cost allocation plans to Cost Allocation Services  and the regional office fiscal staff for all benefiting programs.

FAQ ID:93626

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

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

The Regional Office will continue to review state UPL demonstrations and states will continue to work with the CMS Regional Offices as a first point of contact concerning their UPL demonstrations.

FAQ ID:92256

The Notes tab should include any and all information to fully support the state's UPL demonstration. CMS expects states to provide clarifying information in the Notes tab. For example, this information would provide details for the adjustments to Medicare as input in variables 212.1 and 212.2, various supplemental payments in variables 313.1, 313.2, and 313.3, and adjustments to Medicaid in variables 314.1 and 314.2. In addition to reporting through the notes tab, the state also has the option of using the guidance document or narrative to fully support its UPL demonstration.

FAQ ID:92376

In an assessment model, the Federally-Facilitated Marketplace will not make a final Medicaid determination. Instead, the Federally-Facilitated Marketplace will transmit the account to the Medicaid or CHIP agency when they have evaluated the individual and identified him or her as Medicaid or CHIP eligible, and the Medicaid or CHIP agency will make the formal determination. In a determination model, the Medicaid or CHIP agency delegate the authority to make determinations to the Federally-Facilitated Marketplace. In both an assessment and determination model, as described in more detail in 42 CFR section 435.1200, the Federally-Facilitated Marketplace will utilize the same set of eligibility criteria, including selected state-specific options and standard verification procedures. If the state agency chooses the determination model, it must accept the Federally-Facilitated Marketplace determination as final. If the state chooses the assessment model, it must accept findings made by the Federally-Facilitated Marketplace relating to a criterion of eligibility, as long as the Federally-Facilitated Marketplace applies the same policies and verification procedures as those the state agency employs. In a state with a separate CHIP agency, the state Medicaid and CHIP agencies can make different choices allowing the Federally-Facilitated Marketplace to make an assessment or determination. States must choose either the assessment or determination model for all applications; they may not choose between models on a case-by-case basis. States will need to indicate their assessment or determination decision to CMS in a State Plan Amendment, as well as in the Memorandum of Agreement it signs with the Federally-Facilitated Marketplace.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 105.59 KB)

FAQ ID:93731

Yes. In an assessment model, where an applicant is assessed eligible by the Federally-Facilitated Marketplace and later found to be ineligible by the state Medicaid agency, the state must transfer the account to the Federally-Facilitated Marketplace. Once received, the state Medicaid determination will be accepted and the account will be assessed by the Federally-Facilitated Marketplace for enrollment in a qualified health plan (QHP) and eligibility for Advanced Premium Tax Credits/Cost Sharing Reductions.

For the determination model, as discussed in section 435.1200(c), as governed by the agreement signed between the Medicaid agency and the Federally-Facilitated Marketplace, the Federally-Facilitated Marketplace determines eligibility for individuals applying to the Federally-Facilitated Marketplace for Medicaid/CHIP based on MAGI, and the state Medicaid or CHIP agency agrees to accept eligibility findings made by the Federally-Facilitated Marketplace.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 105.59 KB)

FAQ ID:93736