Frequently Asked Questions

Certification is required for any new implementation, whether it is a custom- developed module that is transferred from another state, or a commercial off-the-shelf module that is being configured and integrated. The certification process looks at the state’s implementation of the solution to ensure the state has met all federal requirements.

States may reuse system documentation and other supporting evidence from a previous state certification if it is available and applicable to their systems and has been reconfirmed by independent verification and validation.

FAQ ID:93656

APDs must demonstrate a reuse-friendly design that includes the sharing of systems, modules, code, and any other developed artifacts. States could include language describing their efforts to find and learn from or reuse components from similar systems, or efforts the state is making to ensure that other states more easily can reuse the proposed system once it is developed.

FAQ ID:93661

From an intellectual property standpoint, reuse is supported by the general grant conditions for Federal Financial Participation (FFP) under 45 CFR 95.617, which require states to "include a clause in all procurement instruments that provides that the State or local government will have all ownership rights in software or modifications thereof and associated documentation designed, developed, or installed with FFP under this subpart."

Further, according to 42 CFR 433.112(6), CMS has "a royalty free, non-exclusive, and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use and authorize others to use, for Federal Government purposes, software, modifications to software, and documentation that is designed, developed, installed or enhanced with 90 percent FFP."

In practice, this means that vendors retain ownership rights to software and other products they have developed under their own initiative and funding, while states and CMS have ownership rights to and may share any software, customizations, configurations, or add-ons funded with FFP.

FAQ ID:93666

Dental services are not covered under Medicare, which means the state may not compare Medicaid rates for comparable dental services for the Medicare Equivalent of the ACR. The state may calculate a dental ACR in order to make supplemental payments to dental services providers and continue to calculate the Medicare Equivalent of the ACR for other services covered by Medicare. The state should submit two separate ACR demonstrations, one for dental services and one for physician (non-dental) services. This will involve completing two versions of the Office of Management and Budget-approved template. If the same provider provides both physician and dental services the state would differentiate the provider information between the two demonstrations by appending 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 physician ACR as 123456-A and in the dental ACR as 12345-B. If a Medicare Certification Number is not available then the state should append the Medicaid Provider Number.

FAQ ID:92441

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

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

CMS acknowledges the customary practice of reimbursing out-of-state or out-of-network providers at a base rate minus a defined percentage. The applicable Medicare rate effectively becomes the ‘floor’ for payments to eligible providers for eligible services rendered in CYs 2013 and 2014. Health plans may pay above that rate but not below.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set.

FAQ ID:92131

No. The only expenditures that count against the CHIP allotment and must be reported on the CMS-21 are those related to the Medicaid rate in effect on July 1, 2009. The difference between those rates and the 2013 and 2014 Medicare rates eligible for 100 percent FMAP are Medicaid expenditures and are reported on the CMS 64.9.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set.

FAQ ID:92116

No, if a state's payment methodology describes payment at no more than 100 percent of the Medicare rate for the period covered by the UPL then it does not need to submit a demonstration using the template(s). To show the state has met the annual UPL demonstration reporting requirement it should make CMS aware that it is paying no more than the Medicare rate.

FAQ ID:92201