Frequently Asked Questions

Verification services that are conducted as part of the eligibility determination process or to validate a client's attestation, after an eligibility record has been entered into the system, will be eligible for 75 percent FFP.

Those verifications performed post eligibility and normally initiated as part of a sampling approach, including audits, PERM or MEQC activities would be considered program integrity activity and eligible for the 50 percent FFP.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 105.59 KB)

FAQ ID:93716

Since 2006, State Medicaid programs have had the option to provide certain groups of Medicaid enrollees with an alternative benefit package known as "benchmark" or "benchmark-equivalent" coverage, based on one of three commercial insurance products or a fourth, "Secretary-approved" coverage option. Beginning on January 1, 2014, all Medicaid benchmark and benchmark-equivalent plans must include at least the ten statutory categories of Essential Health Benefits. Under the Affordable Care Act, the medical assistance provided to the expansion population of adults who become newly eligible for Medicaid as of January 1, 2014, must be provided consistent with section 1937 benchmark authority.

For Medicaid alternative benefit plans, three of the benchmark plans described in section 1937 (the State's largest non-Medicaid HMO, the State's employee health plan, and the FEHBP BCBS plan) may be designated by the Secretary as EHB benchmark reference plans, as described in the EHB Bulletin (link below). A State Medicaid Agency could select any of these section 1937 benchmark plans as its EHB benchmark reference plan for Medicaid. There would be no default EHB benchmark reference plan for purposes of Medicaid; each State Medicaid Agency would be required to identify an EHB benchmark reference plan for purposes of Medicaid as part of its 2014-related Medicaid State Plan changes.

If the EHB benchmark reference plan selected for Medicaid were to lack coverage within one or more of the ten statutorily-required categories of benefits, the section 1937 alternative benefit plan would need to be supplemented to ensure that it provides coverage in each of the ten statutory benefit categories. This would be in addition to any other requirements for Section 1937 plan, including Mental Health Parity and Addition Equity Act compliance.

For more information about the Essential Health Benefits, please see CCIIO's bulletin from December 2011 (available at http://cciio.cms.gov/resources/files/Files2/12162011/essential_health_benefits_bulletin.pdf ) and the CMCS informational bulletin from February 2012 (available at http://www.medicaid.gov/Federal-Policy-Guidance/downloads/CIB-02-17-12.pdf (PDF, 71.68 KB).

FAQ ID:93036

Yes. A State is not required to select the same EHB benchmark reference plan for Medicaid section 1937 plans that it selects for the individual and small group market, and it could have more than one EHB benchmark reference plan for Medicaid (for example, if the State were to develop more than one benefit plan under section 1937).

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 70.98 KB)

FAQ ID:93041

Yes. A State could propose its traditional Medicaid benefit package as a section 1937 alternate benefit plan under the Secretary-approved option available under section 1937 of the Social Security Act. The State would have to ensure that the ten statutory categories of EHB are covered, either through that benefit plan or as a supplement to that plan.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 70.98 KB)

FAQ ID:93046

The managed care regulations apply to all benefits delivered through a managed care delivery system, regardless of the authority under which the benefits are provided or enrollment is required. Thus, any State which uses a managed care organization to deliver benefits under the authority of section 1937 of the Act must comply with the managed care regulations at 42 CFR 438.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 70.98 KB)

FAQ ID:93051

Yes. 1915 (c) waivers are optional programs that most States currently operate and can continue to operate. States interested in making changes to their 1915(c) waivers should contact their CMS Regional Office with specific questions.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 70.98 KB)

FAQ ID:93056

The 90/10 funding is not contingent on a state's decision to proceed with its Medicaid expansion. As the preamble to the final regulation makes clear, the enhanced funding was not solely for eligibility determination systems that support the Medicaid expansion. (76 Fed Reg 21950-21975 (April 19, 2011) and 42 CFR Part 433.
CMS was clear in the final rule that enhanced funding could be available for eligibility determination systems that determine eligibility for traditional eligibility groups. However, such systems must meet all requirements, standards and conditions included in the final rule, including the Standards and Conditions for Medicaid IT that ensure modernized and efficient eligibility systems that produce accurate and timely eligibility determinations and that can interface seamlessly with the Exchange operating in that state. In all states, including those that do not proceed with the expansion, state eligibility systems must be able to electronically pass accounts between the Exchange (whether state-based or federally-facilitated) in order to facilitate seamless coordination. In addition, the systems must be able to support a single streamlined application for coverage among insurance affordability programs, support Modified Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI)-based eligibility determinations; and must support new renewal processes and connections for data-driven, electronic verifications as described in the Medicaid eligibility final rule issued March 23, 2012 (available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-03- 23/pdf/2012-6560.pdf ).
States are not required to "build in" programming for the new adult group. However, a state that conforms to the Standards and Conditions for Medicaid IT (particularly modular design and separation of business rules from core programming) will be able to quickly and efficiently support enrollment for the expansion population. In addition, enhanced funding is available for states that wish to explicitly "build in" placeholder programming for the new adult group now to provide for future flexibility.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 104.38 KB)

FAQ ID:93216

CMS has developed the Medicaid Eligibility and Enrollment Toolkit (MEET) to provide guidance for states that are conducting E&E systems projects. The MEET is available at https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/data-and-systems/meet/index.html.

Also, various artifacts developed by states are posted in a shared environment for reuse by others. These artifacts can be used to help jump-start projects. More information on reuse, including access to the reuse repository, is available at https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/data-and-systems/reuse/index.html.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 104.38 KB)

FAQ ID:93226

There is no deadline by which states need to decide on the Medicaid expansion. We understand that there are many considerations involved in this decision, and CMS stands ready to work with states on their individual timetables. Regardless of the expansion, every state that uses the Federally Facilitated Exchange will need to support coordination between the Medicaid and CHIP programs and the FFE and otherwise comply with the new MAGI rules as well as the application, renewal and verification procedures described in the Medicaid eligibility final rule issued March 23, 2012 (available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-03-23/pdf/2012- 6560.pdf). We will be working with each state to ensure that the appropriate business rules are accommodated and tested, and the necessary electronic account handoffs are in place, before the FFE is operational and the new Medicaid rules are in effect. We are continuing to provide more guidance and information on these issues as part of the FFE manual and MOU process as well as through our SOTA calls. We are also establishing a state- to- FFE change process to help manage changes in policies that a state may make over time; a state that decides later to proceed with expansion will be accommodated within that process.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 104.38 KB)

FAQ ID:93236

As previously stated in a letter from the Secretary to the nation's governors, the Supreme Court held that a state may not lose federal funding for its existing Medicaid program if the state chooses not to participate in the expansion of Medicaid eligibility for low-income adults. The Court's decision did not affect other provisions of the law. State Medicaid and CHIP programs will need to coordinate with the Federally-facilitated Exchange, regardless of a state's decision to proceed with expansion. States will need to be part of the seamless system for people to apply for all coverage programs; and will need to coordinate eligibility with the new insurance affordability programs. These provisions have relevance regardless of whether a state chooses to participate in the expansion for low-income adults.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 104.38 KB)

FAQ ID:93246