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.
Frequently Asked Questions
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 URLIf 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 URLConsidering 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 URLAre 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:
- This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 120.92 KB)
FAQ ID:92166
SHARE URLAt 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:
- This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 120.92 KB)
FAQ ID:92171
SHARE URLUnder CMS 2370-F, may states continue to use discounted reimbursement rates for out-of-state or out-of-network eligible primary care providers, which may be less than the Medicare rate, for calendar years (CYs) 2013 and 2014?
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:
FAQ ID:92131
SHARE URLUnder CMS 2370-F, CMS has indicated that the CMS-64 will be modified for states to report the expenditures that will receive the 100 percent federal medical assistance percentage (FMAP) for the increased expenditures for primary care services. Will the CMS-21 also be modified to report these expenditures for the CHIP Medicaid Expansion population?
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:
FAQ ID:92116
SHARE URLWhen 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 URLDo allergists qualify for higher Medicaid payment under the CMS 2370-F rule?
CMS recently received information from the American Board of Medical Specialties attesting that the American Board of Allergy and Immunology (ABAI) is an ABMS-recognized sub-discipline of the American Board of Pediatrics and the American Board of Internal Medicine.
Specifically, the ABAI is a conjoint board of the American Board of Pediatrics (ABP) and the American Board of Internal medicine (ABIM). All physicians certified by the Board of Allergy and Immunology must first be board certified by either ABP or ABAI. Medical specialists certified by the Allergy and Immunology Board remain subspecialists of Internal Medicine and Pediatrics. However, it is possible that some holders of a certificate from ABAI will not have a current certificate in Internal Medicine or Pediatrics because some diplomats of the ABP and ABIM who hold subspecialty certificates are not required to maintain their primary certificates. The ABMS was concerned that these diplomats might be excluded from eligibility for higher payment under a strict interpretation of the rule even though they do act as their patients' primary care provider in many cases and urged that CMS formally recognize that diplomats of ABAI are, in fact subspecialists in Internal Medicine and Pediatrics and eligible for higher payment up to the Medicare rate.
Based on this information, CMS agrees that allergists are eligible for higher payment under the rule.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:91486
SHARE URLUnder CMS 2370-F, may states continue to use discounted reimbursement rates for out-of-state or out-of-network eligible primary care providers, which may be less than the Medicare rate, for calendar years (CYs) 2013 and 2014?
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:
FAQ ID:91446
SHARE URL
Results per page