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

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

Yes, CMS requires states to use all of the OMB approved templates for their 2019 (07/01/2018 to 06/30/2019) UPL demonstrations submitted to meet the annual UPL reporting requirement and with State Plan Amendment (SPA) submissions. When submitting UPL demonstrations, use the following naming convention: UPL_<UPL Demo Date Range>_<Service Type Abbreviation>_R<Region Number>_<State Abbreviation>_<Workbook Number>.xls. Here is an example of the naming convention: UPL_20170701-20180630_IP_R01_CT_01.xls.

FAQ ID:92196

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 Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has permitted states flexibility in establishing processes to identify services provided by advanced practiced clinicians (APCs), including advanced practice nurses, being personally supervised by eligible physicians who accept professional responsibility for the services they provide. The state may set up a separate system to document that an Ambulatory Payment Classification (APC) is working under the personal supervision of a particular eligible physician. For example, the eligible physician could identify the APCs to the Medicaid agency, which could flag the claims submitted by those APCs under their own provider numbers through the Medicaid Management Information System (MMIS). There is no requirement that the rendering providers indicate on each claim the name of the supervising eligible physicians, however it is important that there be documentation that the eligible physicians have acknowledged their relationship with the advanced practice clinicians. Providing this type of information on a per claim basis is an effective way to document the state's claim for 100 percent federal funding for the increased portion of the payment.

Supplemental Links:

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

FAQ ID:92106

Technical assistance questions, as well as information about state Medicaid prevention efforts, can be directed to: MedicaidCHIPPrevention@cms.hhs.gov and/or Deirdra Stockmann, 410-786-2433.

Supplemental Links:

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

FAQ ID:91501