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 62 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 individuals who were in foster care and enrolled in Medicaid when they turned age 18 or aged out of foster care in a different state eligible under this group?

We do not believe the statue requires states to cover, under this group, individuals who were in foster care and enrolled in Medicaid when they turned age 18 or aged out of foster care in a different state. However, we believe the statute provides states the option to do so. As noted above, pending publication of a final regulation at section 435.150, states may exercise the option proposed when they complete SPA page S33 for this group.

Supplemental Links:

FAQ ID:92166

SHARE URL

At state option, are states allowed to claim title XIX funding instead of title XXI for services provided under a Medicaid expansion program?

Yes. Section 115 of CHIPRA gives states the option to claim expenditures for Medicaid expansion program populations under section 1905(u)(2)(B) of the Act, either at the enhanced FMAP rate using title XXI funds or at the regular FMAP rate using title XIX funds. States that elect to claim expenditures under title XXI will receive the enhanced FMAP rate. However, states that elect to claim expenditures under title XIX will receive the regular Medicaid FMAP rate. Claims submitted at the enhanced FMAP rate will be paid from the state's CHIP allotment.

Supplemental Links:

FAQ ID:92171

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

This table indicates what reports are available to CMS Users. These can be found under the "Reports" tab.

Report Name

Description

Available For

Clock Status Report

View the regulatory clock statuses

CPOC, CMS Disapproval Coordinator, SRT Admin CMS Report Admin,

State Agency Profile Report

Overview of a State's Medicaid Plan including the prior 12 months' submission package history

CPOC, CMS Disapproval Coordinator, SRT Admin, CMS Report Admin, CSA, SRT

Submission Detail Report

View details on packages by date

CPOC, CMS Disapproval Coordinator, SRT Admin, CMS Report Admin, SME, PA, PD,SRRVW, SRT

Submission Statistics Detail Report

View all Submission Packages currently in review

CPOC, CMS Disapproval Coordinator, SRT Admin, CMS Report Admin, SME, PA, PD, SRRVW, SRT

Submission Statistics Summary Report

View summary of Submission Packages in a specific review status within a specified date range.

CPOC, CMS Disapproval Coordinator, SRT Admin, CMS Report Admin, SME, PA, PD,SRRVW, SRT

Submission Summary Report

Overview of submitted packages by date

CPOC, CMS Disapproval Coordinator, SRT Admin, CMS Report Admin, SME, PA, PD,SRRVW, SRT

Staff Workload Report

View the number of Submission Packages assigned to each CPOC and SRT member, as of the report run date.

CMS Disapproval Coordinator, SRT Admin, CMS Report Admin, CSA

FAQ ID:92871

SHARE URL

What is the Review Tool Report?

The Review Tool Report is a feature CPOCs, SRTs, Senior Reviewers, Package Approvers, Package Disapprovers, and CMS Report Admins can utilize to see Package Reviewable Units, Reviewers, Reviewable Unit Assessment Values, and Notes.

Log in as CMS Point of Contact or Submission Review Team member. Under the "Records" tab, select "Submission Packages". Then select the link to the submission package. In the left panel, select "Review Tool Report". You may sort the reviews of all Review Team members by Package Reviewable Unit, Reviewer, Reviewable Unit Assessment Value, or Note/Assessments by utilizing the drop-down boxes. You also have the ability to export this report to Excel by selecting "Export to Excel."

FAQ ID:92876

SHARE URL

What is the purpose of each Analyst Note Type?

Analyst Notes are a form of brief internal communication for the CMS Review Team. These notes are a part of the official record; however, State users are not able to see these notes. Analyst Notes are part of the Review Tool for each Reviewable Unit and the SRT or CPOC may view the notes from other Review Team members (depending on the type of note) within the Review Tool, and add his/her own notes.


The CMS Point of Contact or Submission Review Team members may add Analysts Notes through the Review Tool. The types of notes available are referenced in a table below. You will start by logging in as the CMS Point of Contact or Submission Review Team member, then going to the "Records" tab. Under the "Records" tab select "Submission Packages" and then select the link to the package. In the left panel select "Analyst Notes". You will then have the ability to search notes entered by Review Team Members.

Analyst Note Type Description Visible By
Note to self Private note for self only Self
For POC (Formal Review) Indicates information that should be included in disposition CPOC
For Review Team For other Review Team members CPOC and SRT
For RAI Indicates something that requires RAI CPOC and SRT
For Correspondence Log Indicates information that should be communicated to the SPOC CPOC and SRT
Non SRT-User Note on behalf of a CMS participant outside of the Review Team CPOC and SRT
General Note A note that doesn't fall into another category All
Justification Provides bases for a recommended disposition POC Admin, CPOC and SRT
Post-Recommendation Included by other CMS users during the package disposition review POC Admin, CPOC and SRT

FAQ ID:92881

SHARE URL

Certain fields within the reviewable units seem misaligned, how do I fix this issue?

If certain fields are misaligned you may need to adjust your compatibility settings. Click the Tools button in the upper right side of your screen, and then click Compatibility View settings. Next click the Add button. The website is added to your Compatibility View and the screen will realign. You can always remove the website by clicking on the website in the list and clicking the Remove button. If an issue persists, please email the MACPro Help Desk at MACPro_HelpDesk@cms.hhs.gov

FAQ ID:92886

SHARE URL
Results per page