Frequently Asked Questions

The traditional MEQC program at 42 CFR § 431.810 through 431.822 was originally designed to implement sections 1902(a)(4) “Administration Methods for Proper and Efficient Operation of the State Plan” and 1903(u) “Limitation of FFP for Erroneous Medical Assistance Expenditures” of the Social Security Act (the Act). The program required annual state reviews of Medicaid cases identified through a statistically valid statewide sample of cases selected from the state’s eligibility files. The reviews were conducted to determine whether the sampled cases meet applicable Medicaid eligibility requirements. The program evolved over time to allow states the option of selecting specific areas of focus within the Medicaid program for their annual MEQC reviews.

On July 5, 2017, CMS published a final regulation entitled “Changes to the Payment Error Rate Measurement (PERM) and Medicaid Eligibility Quality Control (MEQC) Programs (CMS-Medicaid Coordination of Benefits8- F).” This final rule updated the MEQC and PERM programs based on the changes to Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program eligibility requirements under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The new regulation has restructured the MEQC program into an ongoing series of pilots that states are required to conduct during the two off-years between triennial PERM review years. The MEQC portions of the regulation are now covered by 42 CFR §§ 431.800-820.

FAQ ID:93416

The regulation requires states to submit a pilot planning document to CMS by November 1 of the year in which each state’s PERM review year ends. The pilot planning document must describe how states will conduct their active and negative case reviews and must be approved by CMS before the MEQC pilots can begin. In addition, the regulation requires states to submit case-level reports and corrective action plans to CMS by August 1 of the year after the MEQC review period ends. The specifications for the MEQC pilot planning documents are provided in the MEQC sub-regulatory guidance effective August 29, 2018. More details on the specifications of the case-level reports and corrective action plans are included in a second round of guidance, MEQC sub-regulatory guidance effective October 22, 2018.

FAQ ID:93421

As reconfigured under the final regulation of July 5, 2017, MEQC will work in conjunction with the Payment Error Rate Measurement (PERM) program. In those years when states undergo their triennial PERM reviews, the states will not conduct MEQC pilots. The latter will only be required in the two off-years between PERM review years. CMS has restructured the MEQC program so that it more effectively complements the PERM program and provides states with the necessary flexibility and opportunity to target specific problems or high-interest areas during the two off-years of the PERM cycle.

FAQ ID:93146

The MEQC requirements on active case reviews generally mirror the requirements of the eligibility component of PERM reviews. The regulation requires that states perform reviews of a sample of active Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) cases to identify new eligibility approvals and renewals that were made in error. As in PERM, states will be required to submit case-level reports on the sampled cases they review and corrective action plans that describe steps taken to remediate the errors found.

However, in contrast to PERM, when states identify errors in their active Medicaid and CHIP cases, they will be required to undertake a payment review. This will consist of a review of all claims paid over the first three months after an erroneous eligibility determination was made, and a summary of the overstated or understated liability. States will in turn be required to submit adjustments to the amount of federal financial participation (FFP) claimed through the CMS-64 reporting process for Medicaid and the CMS-21 reporting process for CHIP. The adjustments are required for identified claims in which too much or too little FFP was received. There is no payment review or re-crediting requirement in PERM, although disallowance of FFP can be taken in states whose PERM error rate exceeds the national threshold of 3% based on a formula described at 42 CFR 431.1010. MEQC contains no such disallowance provision.

The MEQC program also contains one other significant element that is not found in PERM. Besides the requirement that states review at least 400 cases in their active case universe (including a minimum of 200 cases), MEQC requires states to review at least 400 negative case actions. At least 200 of these must be Medicaid and 200 must be CHIP. Negative case actions involve erroneous denials of Medicaid or CHIP eligibility or erroneous terminations from Medicaid or CHIP. This is an area with no PERM counterpart in which states will be developing case-level reporting and corrective actions. Negative case action reviews will not be triggered by PERM findings. Largely for this reason, the regulation requires that states pull their sample of these from the entire Medicaid and CHIP universe of cases. By sampling from the full range of Medicaid and CHIP cases, states should be able to obtain an overview of those sectors in their programs that may be especially vulnerable to improper denials or terminations.

FAQ ID:93196

The PERM/MEQC dates/cycles are as follows:

*??
CMS = Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
CAP = ??

FAQ ID:95156

No, an upper payment limit demonstration considers all Medicaid payments (base and supplemental). States must conduct UPL demonstrations for the applicable services described in State Medicaid Director Letter (SMDL) 13-003 regardless of whether a state makes supplemental payments under the Medicaid state plan for the services.

FAQ ID:92191

Section 1902(a) (25) (I) of the Act defines ""health insurers"" to include self-insured plans, group health plans (as defined in section Medicaid Management Information Systems (MMIS)(l) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA)), service benefit plans, managed care organizations (MCOs), pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), and ""other parties that are, by statute, contract, or agreement, legally responsible for payment of a claim for a health care item or service."" Workers' compensation, automobile insurance, and liability insurance plans all are included within the definition of ""health insurer"" for purposes of this section and the requisite state laws which must be enacted pursuant to it.

The CMS interprets ""other parties that are, by statute, contract, or agreement, legally responsible for payment of a claim"" to include:

1. Prepaid Inpatient Health Plans (PIHPs) and Prepaid Ambulatory Health Plans (PAHPs). For purposes of Medicaid managed care, PIHPs and PAHPs are entities that contract with the state to deliver Medicaid-covered services; in that context, they would also be considered ""other parties that are, by contract, legally responsible for payment of a claim for a health care item or service;"" and,
2. Such entities as third party administrators (TPAs), fiscal intermediaries, and managed care contractors, which administer benefits on behalf of the riskbearing plan sponsor (e.g., an employer with a self-insured health plan). CMS recognizes that entities such as PBMs and TPAs do not necessarily have ultimate financial liability, but, to the extent that they are required, by contract or otherwise, to review claims and authorize payment by the plan sponsor, they are included within the definition of ""third party"" and ""health insurer"" for purposes of section 1902(a) (25) of the Act.

Nothing in revisions to the Social Security Act made by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA) imposes new liability to pay claims on entities that do not otherwise bear such liability. Nor does section 1902(a) (25) of the Act negate any right of indemnification against a plan sponsor or other entity with ultimate liability for health care claims by a contracting party that pays the claims.

Supplemental Links:

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

FAQ ID:94021

Indemnity policies may be considered third party resources if the policies meet certain criteria. Federal Medicaid regulations at 42 CFR 433.136 define a third party as ""any individual, entity, or program that is or may be liable to pay all or part of the expenditures for medical assistance furnished under a state plan."" This includes private insurance. Section 433.136 also defines private insurer to include ""any commercial insurance company offering health or casualty insurance to individuals or groups (including both experience-related insurance contracts and indemnity contracts)."" Private insurers are required to comply with the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA) and related state enactments.

Indemnity plans may include a variety of insurance policies such as accident, cancer/specified disease, dental, hospital confinement indemnity, hospital confinement sickness indemnity, hospital intensive care, long-term care, short-term disability, specified health event, and vision. An individualized review of the various policy terms would be necessary to determine if they should be considered a third party resource for purposes of Medicaid. If this review determines that the policy provides for payment of health care items and services, the policy is a third party resource and payments would be assigned to the Medicaid agency.

An indemnity policy may be designed to pay a cash benefit to policyholders, unless the policyholder chooses otherwise. The policy may state that these payments may be used to cover medical expenses or living expenses such as rent, child care, or groceries. However, the insurance company may condition payment upon the occurrence of a medical event. Whenever payments are linked to specific medical events, these payments should be considered third party payments. Thus, the state could seek to recover Medicaid payments from the policy benefits.

Where indemnity policies do not qualify as a third party resource, any payments made to a Medicaid beneficiary may be countable as income for Medicaid eligibility purposes.

Supplemental Links:

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

FAQ ID:94026

The Social Security Act (the Act) generally requires health insurers and other third parties that are legally liable to pay for health care services received by Medicaid beneficiaries to pay for the services that are primary to Medicaid. However, state Medicaid agencies might mistakenly pay claims for which a third party may be liable, because they are not aware of the existence of other coverage.

The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA) made a number of changes to title XIX of the Social Security Act intended to strengthen state Medicaid programs' ability to identify and collect from third party payers that are legally responsible to pay claims primary to Medicaid.

Specifically, section Eligibility and Enrollment Systems5 of the DRA amended section 1902(a) (25) of the Act:

1. To clarify which specific entities are considered "third parties"" and "health insurers" that may be liable for payment and that cannot discriminate against individuals on the basis of Medicaid eligibility; and,
2. To require that states pass laws requiring health insurers:
   1. To provide the state with the coverage, eligibility, and claims data needed by the state to identify potentially liable third parties, including, at a minimum, name, address, and ID number;
   2. To honor the assignment to the state of a Medicaid beneficiary's right to payment by insurers for health care items or services; and,
   3. Not to deny such assignment or refuse to pay claims submitted by Medicaid based on procedural reasons (e.g., the failure of the beneficiary to present his/her insurance card at the point of sale, or the state's failure to submit an electronic, as opposed to a paper, claim).

Supplemental Links:

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

FAQ ID:94041

Section 1902(a)(25)(A) of the Act requires states to take all reasonable measures to ascertain the legal liability of "third parties" for health care items and services provided to Medicaid beneficiaries. The DRA did not change the definition of "third parties," but rather clarified the entities subject to the provisions of section 1902(a) (25) (A) and (G) of the Act. Section Eligibility and Enrollment Systems5(a) of the DRA amended section 1902(a)(25)(A) of the Act to clarify that the "third parties" subject to the provisions of 1902(a)(25) include: (1) selfinsured plans, (2) pharmacy benefits managers (PBM), and (3) other parties that are, by statute, contract, or agreement, legally responsible for payment of a claim for a health care item or service, including workers compensation, automobile insurance, and liability insurance plans. The DRA also replaced reference to "a health maintenance organization" with "a managed care organization" (MCO) in identifying the types of third parties to which the provisions of section 1902(a) (25) apply.

Section 1902(a) (25) (G) of the Act prohibits health insurers from taking an individual's Medicaid status into account in enrollment or payment decisions.

Supplemental Links:

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

FAQ ID:94051