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
Should the rate of required exclusions be reported with the Screening, Risk Assessment, and Plan of Care to Prevent Future Falls measure's Part 1 performance rate?
The measure excludes plan members who are not ambulatory from the measure rate, but it is not necessary to report the number of members excluded with the measure’s performance rate.
FAQ ID:89006
SHARE URLIs a specific screening tool required for the Screening, Risk Assessment, and Plan of Care to Prevent Future Falls measure?
No, a specific screening tool is not required for this measure. However, potential screening tools may include the Morse Fall Scale and timed Get-Up-And-Go test.
FAQ ID:89011
SHARE URLWhat is the difference between a screening (Part 1) and a risk assessment (Part 2) for the purposes of calculating the Screening, Risk Assessment, and Plan of Care to Prevent Future Falls measure?
A falls screening is an evaluation of whether a Managed Long Term Services and Supports plan member has experienced a history of falls and/or problems with balance or gait. A falls risk assessment includes a balance/gait assessment and one other assessment component and should only be performed for members with a documented history of falls (at least two falls or one fall with injury in the past year).
FAQ ID:89016
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 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 URLHow should more than two adjustments to the per diem be addressed in the nursing facility template for both Medicare and Medicaid Per Diem?
A state may report adjustments by using the following variables: Adjustments to Medicare Per Diem #1 - Variable 212.1 and Adjustments to Medicare Per Diem #2 - Variable 212.2 for the Medicare Per Diem and Adjustment to Medicaid Per Diem #1 - Variable 314.1 and Adjustment to Medicaid Per Diem #2 - Variable 314.2 for the Medicaid Per Diem. A state may report more than one adjustment under a single variable. For example, if the state has three adjustments to their Medicaid per diem, one of these adjustments can be reported in variable 314.1 and the other two adjustments can be added together and reported in variable 314.2. When reporting any adjustment, the state must provide a detailed description of the adjustment(s) in the notes tab.
FAQ ID:92296
SHARE URLAre states required to use the Outpatient Hospital Serves (OPH) Upper Payment Limit (UPL) template to demonstrate the clinical diagnostic laboratory (CDL) services UPL?
No, the template does not include variables to report clinical diagnostic laboratory services.
FAQ ID:92371
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 URL
Results per page