Frequently Asked Questions

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

Yes, the templates allow the use of multiple cost centers. For example, if the state uses a cost methodology for ancillary services and a per-diem methodology for routine services, the state will complete one cost template and one per-diem template in order to account for these two cost centers. Every hospital would be featured in each of the two templates; however, to differentiate their provider information, the state would append the Medicare Certification Number (Medicare ID) (variable 112) with a letter, such as an -A or a -B. For example, if the Medicare ID was 123456, it would be depicted in the cost template as 123456-A and in the per diem template as 123456-B. If a Medicare Certification Number is not available then the state should append the Medicaid Provider Number. If there are multiple cost centers under either the cost or per-diem methodology, the state would separate out the cost centers within their respective templates. Each cost center should be associated with only one appended letter and these should be described in the notes tab. When using multiple cost centers, the state should insert a new tab in the templates that summarizes the UPL gap calculations for each of the ownership categories (state government owned, non-state government owned, and private), unless a summary worksheet is already included in the workbook.

FAQ ID:92261

Yes, the template allows the use of multiple cost centers with multiple cost-to-charge ratios. The state would separately report the costs and payments associated with each of the cost centers in the cost template. To differentiate the cost centers, the state would append the Medicare Certification Number (Medicare ID) (variable 112) with a letter, for example an -A, -B, or -C, that would be used as a unique identifier for each cost center.

FAQ ID:92266

Yes, the templates allow the use of multiple methodologies. The state would complete the templates associated with the UPL methodologies used. For example, if the state uses a cost-based methodology for state owned hospitals and a payment-based methodology for private hospitals, then the state would complete the cost template for the state owned hospitals and the payment template for the private hospitals. When using multiple methodologies, the state should insert a new tab in the templates that summarizes the UPL gap calculations for each of the ownership categories (state government owned, non-state government owned, and private), unless a summary worksheet is already included in the workbook.

FAQ ID:92271

The cost of the tax should be reported in Variable 401 - MCD Provider Tax Cost. A state may separately report the Medicaid portion of the cost of a provider assessment/tax only when it is using a cost based methodology to calculate the UPL. A state may not include this cost when calculating a DRG or Payment based UPL demonstration.

FAQ ID:92366

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

No. As stated in the past, the Affordable Care Act does not provide for a phased-in or partial expansion. States that wish to take advantage of the enhanced federal matching funds for newly eligible individuals must extend eligibility to 133% of the federal poverty level (FPL) by adopting the new adult group. Arkansas has initiated discussions about "premium assistance" options for Medicaid beneficiaries; partial expansion is not part of these discussions.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 40.01 KB)

FAQ ID:93836

The Medicaid statute provides several options for states to pay premiums for adults and children to purchase coverage through private group health plans, and in some case individual plans; in most cases, the statute conditions such arrangements on a determination that they are "cost effective." Cost effective generally means that Medicaid's premium payment to private plans plus the cost of additional services and cost sharing assistance that would be required would be comparable to what it would otherwise pay for the same services. Similar provisions also apply in the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP).

Under all these arrangements, beneficiaries remain Medicaid beneficiaries and continue to be entitled to all benefits and cost-sharing protections. States must have mechanisms in place to "wrap-around" private coverage to the extent that benefits are less and cost sharing requirements are greater than those in Medicaid. In addition under the statutory options in the individual market beneficiaries must be able to choose an alternative to private insurance to receive Medicaid benefits.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 40.01 KB)

FAQ ID:93841

Some states have expressed interest in section 1115 demonstrations to provide premium assistance for the purchase of QHPs in the Exchange. Under section 1115 of the Social Security Act, the Secretary may approve demonstration projects that she determines promote the objectives of the Medicaid program. HHS will consider approving a limited number of premium assistance demonstrations since their results would inform policy for the State Innovation Waivers that start in 2017. As with all such demonstrations, HHS will evaluate each proposal that is submitted and consider it on a case by case basis relative to this standard.

With regard to premium assistance demonstrations, HHS will consider states' ideas on cost effectiveness that include new factors introduced by the creation of Health Insurance Marketplaces and the expansion of Medicaid. For example, states may quantify savings from reduced churning (people moving between Medicaid and Exchanges as a result of fluctuating incomes) and increased competition in Marketplaces given the additional enrollees due to premium assistance. As with all demonstration proposals, the actuarial, economic, and budget justification (including budget neutrality) would need to be reviewed and, if approved, the program and budgetary impact would need to be carefully monitored and evaluated.

To ensure that the demonstrations further the objectives of the program and provide information in a timely way, HHS will only consider proposals that:

• Provide beneficiaries with a choice of at least two qualified health plans (QHPs).
• Make arrangements with the QHPs to provide any necessary wrap around benefits and cost sharing along with appropriate data; this would be done within the context of premium assistance, for example through a supplemental premium. This ensures that coverage is seamless, that cost sharing reductions are effectively delivered and that there is accountability for the payments made.
• Are limited to individuals whose benefits are closely aligned with the benefits available on the Marketplace, that is, individuals in the new Medicaid adult group who must enroll in benchmark coverage and are not described in SSA 1937(a)(2)(B)(an example of a population that is described in SSA 1937(a)(2)(B) is the medically frail). Marketplace plans were not designed to offer broader benefits and could experience unexpected adverse selection due to enrollment of groups that are described in SSA 1937(a)(2)(B).
• End no later than December 31, 2016. Starting in 2017, State Innovation Waiver authority begins which could allow a range of State-designed initiatives.

In addition, a state may increase the opportunity for a successful demonstration by choosing to target within the new adult group individuals with income between 100 and 133 percent of FPL. Medicaid allows for additional cost-sharing flexibility for populations with incomes above 100 percent of FPL; this population is more likely to be subject to churning and would be eligible for advance premium tax credits and Marketplace coverage if a state did not expand Medicaid to 133 percent of FPL.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 40.01 KB)

FAQ ID:93846