U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Frequently Asked Questions

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.

Showing 1 to 10 of 41 results

When a state pays a provider at reconciled cost using Certified Public Expenditures during the period covered by the Upper Payment Limit (UPL) demonstration, how should the provider's data be treated?

The UPL limits payment to the Medicare rate or cost. Providers paid at reconciled cost may receive no more than their reconciled amount. As a result, states cannot attribute the “UPL room” from other providers to pay additional amounts to any provider paid at reconciled cost. Due to this payment limitation, states should not include any provider paid at reconciled cost in their UPL demonstrations; however, they must account for these providers. Specifically, states must include with their UPL submissions documentation of those providers paid at reconciled cost and confirm by provider use of either a Medicare cost report or Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services-approved cost report template to identify allowed cost. Further, states must document the ownership status (state owned, non-state government owned, or private) of each provider.

FAQ ID:92436

SHARE URL

If 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 URL

Considering 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 URL

Are states only required to conduct Upper Payment Limit (UPL) demonstrations for services with approved state plan supplemental payment methodologies?

No, an upper payment limit demonstration considers all Medicaid payments (base and supplemental). States must conduct UPL demonstrations for the applicable services described in State Medicaid Director Letter (SMDL) 13-003 regardless of whether a state makes supplemental payments under the Medicaid state plan for the services.

FAQ ID:92191

SHARE URL

Can states that pay for inpatient hospital services using Diagnosis Related Grous (DRGs), but historically used a cost-based UPL, continue to use the cost-based Upper Payment Limit (UPL) method?

Yes, states may use UPL methodologies that are different from their payment methodologies. For example, a state may pay for inpatient hospital services using a Medicaid APR-DRG methodology, but use a cost methodology to compute the Medicare upper payment limit for its UPL demonstration.

FAQ ID:92386

SHARE URL

When a state pays a provider at cost during the period covered by the Upper Payment Limit (UPL) demonstration, how should the provider's data be treated?

The UPL limits payment to the Medicare rate or cost. Providers paid at cost may receive no more than their reconciled amount. As a result, states cannot attribute the "UPL room" from other providers to pay additional amounts to any provider paid at cost. Due to this payment limitation, states should not include any provider paid at cost in their UPL demonstrations; however, they must account for these providers. Specifically, states must include with their UPL submissions documentation of those providers paid at cost and, therefore, excluded from the calculation of the UPL.

FAQ ID:92396

SHARE URL

How does section 1902(a) (25) of the Social Security Act (the Act) define "health insurers"?

Section 1902(a) (25) (I) of the Act defines ""health insurers"" to include self-insured plans, group health plans (as defined in section Medicaid Management Information Systems (MMIS)(l) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA)), service benefit plans, managed care organizations (MCOs), pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), and ""other parties that are, by statute, contract, or agreement, legally responsible for payment of a claim for a health care item or service."" Workers' compensation, automobile insurance, and liability insurance plans all are included within the definition of ""health insurer"" for purposes of this section and the requisite state laws which must be enacted pursuant to it.

The CMS interprets ""other parties that are, by statute, contract, or agreement, legally responsible for payment of a claim"" to include:

  1. Prepaid Inpatient Health Plans (PIHPs) and Prepaid Ambulatory Health Plans (PAHPs). For purposes of Medicaid managed care, PIHPs and PAHPs are entities that contract with the state to deliver Medicaid-covered services; in that context, they would also be considered ""other parties that are, by contract, legally responsible for payment of a claim for a health care item or service;"" and,
  2. Such entities as third party administrators (TPAs), fiscal intermediaries, and managed care contractors, which administer benefits on behalf of the riskbearing plan sponsor (e.g., an employer with a self-insured health plan). CMS recognizes that entities such as PBMs and TPAs do not necessarily have ultimate financial liability, but, to the extent that they are required, by contract or otherwise, to review claims and authorize payment by the plan sponsor, they are included within the definition of ""third party"" and ""health insurer"" for purposes of section 1902(a) (25) of the Act.

Nothing in revisions to the Social Security Act made by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA) imposes new liability to pay claims on entities that do not otherwise bear such liability. Nor does section 1902(a) (25) of the Act negate any right of indemnification against a plan sponsor or other entity with ultimate liability for health care claims by a contracting party that pays the claims.

Supplemental Links:

FAQ ID:94021

SHARE URL

Are indemnity insurance policies considered to be third party resources for purposes of Medicaid?

Indemnity policies may be considered third party resources if the policies meet certain criteria. Federal Medicaid regulations at 42 CFR 433.136 define a third party as ""any individual, entity, or program that is or may be liable to pay all or part of the expenditures for medical assistance furnished under a state plan."" This includes private insurance. Section 433.136 also defines private insurer to include ""any commercial insurance company offering health or casualty insurance to individuals or groups (including both experience-related insurance contracts and indemnity contracts)."" Private insurers are required to comply with the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA) and related state enactments.

Indemnity plans may include a variety of insurance policies such as accident, cancer/specified disease, dental, hospital confinement indemnity, hospital confinement sickness indemnity, hospital intensive care, long-term care, short-term disability, specified health event, and vision. An individualized review of the various policy terms would be necessary to determine if they should be considered a third party resource for purposes of Medicaid. If this review determines that the policy provides for payment of health care items and services, the policy is a third party resource and payments would be assigned to the Medicaid agency.

An indemnity policy may be designed to pay a cash benefit to policyholders, unless the policyholder chooses otherwise. The policy may state that these payments may be used to cover medical expenses or living expenses such as rent, child care, or groceries. However, the insurance company may condition payment upon the occurrence of a medical event. Whenever payments are linked to specific medical events, these payments should be considered third party payments. Thus, the state could seek to recover Medicaid payments from the policy benefits.

Where indemnity policies do not qualify as a third party resource, any payments made to a Medicaid beneficiary may be countable as income for Medicaid eligibility purposes.

Supplemental Links:

FAQ ID:94026

SHARE URL

What are the parameters of the Social Security Act related to the liability of health insurers and other third parties in paying for health care services provided to Medicaid beneficiaries?

The Social Security Act (the Act) generally requires health insurers and other third parties that are legally liable to pay for health care services received by Medicaid beneficiaries to pay for the services that are primary to Medicaid. However, state Medicaid agencies might mistakenly pay claims for which a third party may be liable, because they are not aware of the existence of other coverage.

The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA) made a number of changes to title XIX of the Social Security Act intended to strengthen state Medicaid programs' ability to identify and collect from third party payers that are legally responsible to pay claims primary to Medicaid.

Specifically, section Eligibility and Enrollment Systems5 of the DRA amended section 1902(a) (25) of the Act:

  1. To clarify which specific entities are considered "third parties"" and "health insurers" that may be liable for payment and that cannot discriminate against individuals on the basis of Medicaid eligibility; and,
  2. To require that states pass laws requiring health insurers:
    1. To provide the state with the coverage, eligibility, and claims data needed by the state to identify potentially liable third parties, including, at a minimum, name, address, and ID number;
    2. To honor the assignment to the state of a Medicaid beneficiary's right to payment by insurers for health care items or services; and,
    3. Not to deny such assignment or refuse to pay claims submitted by Medicaid based on procedural reasons (e.g., the failure of the beneficiary to present his/her insurance card at the point of sale, or the state's failure to submit an electronic, as opposed to a paper, claim).

Supplemental Links:

FAQ ID:94041

SHARE URL

How are "third parties" defined in the Social Security Act (the Act) and what changes did the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA) make to that definition?

Section 1902(a)(25)(A) of the Act requires states to take all reasonable measures to ascertain the legal liability of "third parties" for health care items and services provided to Medicaid beneficiaries. The DRA did not change the definition of "third parties," but rather clarified the entities subject to the provisions of section 1902(a) (25) (A) and (G) of the Act. Section Eligibility and Enrollment Systems5(a) of the DRA amended section 1902(a)(25)(A) of the Act to clarify that the "third parties" subject to the provisions of 1902(a)(25) include: (1) selfinsured plans, (2) pharmacy benefits managers (PBM), and (3) other parties that are, by statute, contract, or agreement, legally responsible for payment of a claim for a health care item or service, including workers compensation, automobile insurance, and liability insurance plans. The DRA also replaced reference to "a health maintenance organization" with "a managed care organization" (MCO) in identifying the types of third parties to which the provisions of section 1902(a) (25) apply.

Section 1902(a) (25) (G) of the Act prohibits health insurers from taking an individual's Medicaid status into account in enrollment or payment decisions.

Supplemental Links:

FAQ ID:94051

SHARE URL
Results per page