Frequently Asked Questions

Yes. However, the benefit package and cost-sharing structure must be in compliance with separate CHIP rules.

Supplemental Links:

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

FAQ ID:93801

Yes, states will need to submit a CHIP SPA for approval to provide coverage to children under this group in accordance with section 457.60. CMS will make available a simplified SPA template on which the state may report how these protected children will be identified and enrolled and information on benefits and cost-sharing.

Because of the flexibility provided states in establishing eligibility for separate CHIP programs, states could establish a group within an existing separate CHIP or as a standalone separate CHIP with eligibility criteria specific to the chosen option. For example, a state could establish a CHIP group with eligibility limited to children losing Medicaid at their 2014 redetermination using MAGI methodology. Coverage provided under this group would sunset when the last child eligible for 2101(f) protection came up for their first annual renewal in CHIP.

Supplemental Links:

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

FAQ ID:93806

Yes. States will need to conduct a renewal at the end of the 12-month separate CHIP coverage period in accordance with section 457.343 to determine if the child remains eligible for CHIP and, if not, to determine potential eligibility for other insurance affordability programs and transfer the child's account, as appropriate, to the Medicaid agency or the Exchange.

Supplemental Links:

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

FAQ ID:93811

As noted above, the protection afforded under section 2101(f) extends until the child comes up for his or her first regular renewal for coverage under the separate CHIP program, which would be 12 months from the child's transfer from Medicaid to the separate CHIP. When the last child eligible for protection under section 2101(f) comes up for renewal in the separate CHIP, the state may discontinue this part of its program.

Supplemental Links:

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

FAQ ID:93816

No. Systems programmed to determine eligibility based on 2013 rules would not properly determine eligibility based on MAGI methodologies and therefore could not be used to identify these children. Children protected by section 2101(f) are children who lose Medicaid eligibility after MAGI rules (including household composition and family income) are applied but would have remained eligible if the former disregards had also been applied.

Supplemental Links:

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

FAQ ID:93821

No. Section 2101(f) does not apply to children made ineligible for a separate CHIP as a result of the elimination of income disregards. Children losing coverage under a separate CHIP must be screened for eligibility for other insurance affordability programs and their cases electronically transferred per section 457.348.

Supplemental Links:

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

FAQ ID:93826

Yes. States may claim the enhanced match available under title XXI for children enrolled in a separate CHIP in accordance with section 2101(f).

Supplemental Links:

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

FAQ ID:93831

No. The extension of Medicaid coverage to the new group of former foster care children up to age 26 (see section 1902(a)(10)(A)(i)(IX)) and to all children age six and older with incomes up to 133 percent of the (FPL) (1902(a)(10)(A)(i)(VII) are required by the Affordable Care Act and were not affected by the Supreme Court's decision. The Medicaid eligibility change for older children eliminates the confusing "stair step" federal eligibility rules that have put low-income children in the same family in different programs depending on their age. As previously indicated in our Medicaid and CHIP eligibility final rule, the CHIP enhanced matching rate will continue to be available for children transferring from separate CHIP programs to Medicaid as a result of eligibility changes in the Affordable Care Act.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 52.92 KB)

FAQ ID:94096

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