Frequently Asked Questions

In order to have services reimbursed under the Federal Medicaid program, a service must meet the definition of a coverable service under section 1905(a) of the Social Security Act. Treatment for ASD is not specifically referenced as a section 1905(a) service. However, some treatment modalities, or components of such treatment modalities, are within the scope of the federal Medicaid program under the following service categories: section 1905(a)(6) Other Licensed Practitioner (OLP), section 1905(a)(13) Preventive Services, and section 1905(a)(11) Therapies :. States may provide services to address ASD under each of these benefit categories. States will need to determine what, if any, steps are needed to implement this policy clarification. In keeping with the role of the Medicaid state plan as a comprehensive written statement of the nature and scope of services available under the state's Medicaid program, a SPA is strongly encouraged to articulate the state's menu of services for ASD treatment.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 252.32 KB)

FAQ ID:93406

The ASD-related services should be provided through the Medicaid state plan for the EPSDT-eligible individuals, rather than the 1915(c) waiver. CMS will work with states to ensure that such services are able to be made available under the state plan. Accordingly, CMS with also work with states to remove the service from the 1915(c) home and community-based services waiver at the next amendment or renewal, whichever comes first.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 252.32 KB)

FAQ ID:93241

States wishing to continue the practice of disregarding parental income may do so by adopting coverage of a reasonable classification of individuals under age 21 under section 42 CFR 435.222. In this case, the "reasonable classification" would be pregnant individuals under age 21 (or under age 18, 19, or 20). The statutory income standard for this group would be based on the state's AFDC payment standard in effect in the state in July 1996. But if a state uses section 1902(r)(2) of the Act to disregard all income for this group, as has been done for other reasonable classifications of children (such as those in state foster care), there will be no determination of income required for eligibility, and MAGI-based income requirements will not apply.

To effectuate this option, states should submit a state plan amendment (SPA) to amend Attachment 2.2-A of the Medicaid state plan to cover a reasonable classification of pregnant individuals under age 21 under 42 CFR 435.222. The state should also amend Supplement 8a to Attachment 2.6-A to disregard all income for this new group.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 295.71 KB)

FAQ ID:92601

The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) approves CHIP programs as stand-alone or Medicaid expansions. Information on whether or not a particular state operates a stand-alone or expansion program is available at http://medicaid.gov/Medicaid-CHIP-Program-Information/By-Topics/Childrens-Health-Insurance-Program-CHIP/Downloads/Map-CHIP-Program-Designs-by-State-.pdf (PDF, 120.65 KB).

FAQ ID:92696

In section 156.100 of the proposed rule on Essential Health Benefits/Actuarial Value/Accreditation, we propose criteria for the selection process for a state that chooses to select a benchmark plan. The essential health benefits benchmark plan would serve as a reference plan, reflecting both the scope of services and limits offered by a typical employer plan in that state. This approach and benchmark selection, which would apply for at least the 2014 and 2015 benefit years, would allow states to build on coverage that is already widely available, minimize market disruption, and provide consumers with familiar products. Since some base-benchmark plan options may not cover all ten of the statutorily required essential health benefits categories, we propose standards for supplementing a base-benchmark plan that does not provide coverage of one or more of the categories.

We also propose that if a base-benchmark plan option does not cover any items and services within an essential health benefits category, the base-benchmark plan must be supplemented by adding that particular category in its entirety from another base-benchmark plan option. The resulting plan, which would reflect a base-benchmark that covers all ten essential health benefits categories, must meet standards for nondiscrimination and balance. After meeting these standards, it would be considered the essential health benefits-benchmark plan.

The proposed rule also outlines the process by which HHS would supplement a default base-benchmark plan, if necessary. We clarify that to the extent that the default base-benchmark plan option does not cover any items and services within an essential health benefits category, the category must be added by supplementing the base-benchmark plan with that particular category in its entirety from another base-benchmark plan option. Specifically, we propose that HHS would supplement the category of benefits in the default base benchmark plan with the first of the following options that offer benefits in that particular essential health benefits category: (1) the largest plan by enrollment in the second largest product in the state's small group market; (2) the largest plan by enrollment in the third largest product in the state's small group market; (3) the largest national Federal Employees Health Benefit Program plan by enrollment across states that is offered to federal employees; (4) the largest dental plan under the Federal Employees Dental and Vision Insurance Program, for pediatric oral care benefits; (5) the largest vision plan under the Federal Employees Dental and Vision Insurance Program, for pediatric vision care benefits; and (6) habilitative services as described in section 156.110(f) or 156.115(a)(4).

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 359.41 KB)

FAQ ID:94466

The U.S. Office of Personal Management released a proposed rule implementing the Multi-State Plan Program on November 30, 2012. To ensure that the Multi-State Plans are competing on a level playing field with other plans in the marketplace, the proposed regulation largely defers to state insurance law and the standards promulgated by HHS and states related to qualified health plans. Under the proposal, Multi-State Plans will be evaluated based largely on the same criteria as other qualified health plans operating in Exchanges. The few areas in which the Office of Personal Management proposes different regulatory standards from those applicable to qualified health plans are areas where the Office of Personal Management has extensive experience through its administration of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. However, in order to ensure that these few differences will not create any unfair advantages, the Office of Personal Management seeks comment from states and other stakeholders on these proposals. The regulation appeared in the Federal Register on December 5, 2012, and the comment period runs through January 4, 2013.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 359.41 KB)

FAQ ID:94471