Frequently Asked Questions

Dental services are not covered under Medicare, which means the state may not compare Medicaid rates for comparable dental services for the Medicare Equivalent of the ACR. The state may calculate a dental ACR in order to make supplemental payments to dental services providers and continue to calculate the Medicare Equivalent of the ACR for other services covered by Medicare. The state should submit two separate ACR demonstrations, one for dental services and one for physician (non-dental) services. This will involve completing two versions of the Office of Management and Budget-approved template. If the same provider provides both physician and dental services the state would differentiate the provider information between the two demonstrations by appending the Medicare Certification Number (Medicare ID) (variable 112) with a letter, such as an -A or a -B. For example, if the Medicare ID was 123456, it would be depicted in the physician ACR as 123456-A and in the dental ACR as 12345-B. If a Medicare Certification Number is not available then the state should append the Medicaid Provider Number.

FAQ ID:92441

Yes, a demonstration submitted within the fiscal year that is used to document that SPA methodology changes comply with the UPL requirements may be used to satisfy the SMDL requirements as long as no subsequent changes are made to the state's provider payment methodology prior to the state's annual submission and CMS has reviewed and accepted the demonstration.

FAQ ID:92216

The regulation only prohibits insurance policies that would be sold ""in conjunction with"" enrollment in the Medicaid managed care plan. Section 438.104 alone does not prohibit a Medicaid managed care plan from providing information about a Qualified Health Plans (QHP) to potential enrollees who could enroll in such a plan as an alternative to the Medicaid managed care plan due to a loss of Medicaid eligibility or to potential enrollees who may consider the benefits of selecting an Medicaid managed care plan that has a related QHP in the event of future eligibility changes. However, Medicaid managed care plans should consult their contracts and the State Medicaid agency to ascertain if other provisions exist that may prohibit or limit such activity.

Section 438.104(b)(1)(iv) implements a provision in section 1932(d)(2)(C) of the Social Security Act, titled ""Prohibition of Tie-Ins."" In promulgating regulations implementing this provision, CMS clarified that we interpreted it to preclude tying enrollment in the Medicaid managed care plan with purchasing (or the provision of) other types of private insurance. We do not intend the statutory prohibition of tie-ins to apply to a discussion of a possible alternative to the Medicaid managed care plan, which a QHP could be if the consumer is determined to be not Medicaid eligible or loses Medicaid eligibility.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 138.58 KB)

FAQ ID:94351

States are encouraged to review their managed care contracts to clearly identify the legal entity with which they are contracted for Medicaid coverage since federal Medicaid managed care regulations do not address this aspect of contracting. If the party to the contract is an entity (such as a parent company) that has a contract with a state Medicaid agency to provide benefits as a Medicaid managed care plan and is also a QHP issuer, then some contractual provisions may apply to both. Although the federal Medicaid regulations do not apply to a QHP issuer or QHP, state law, regulation, or contract language may have implications for the QHP issuer. If changes are needed to narrow the scope of the contract to apply only to the Medicaid managed care plan, we encourage states to make those changes so as to ensure consistent understanding and application of the Medicaid contract terms.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 138.58 KB)

FAQ ID:94371

Yes. Responding to direct questions from consumers is not generally a violation of 42 CFR 438.104. Proactive consumer inquiries to a health plan for information about coverage options, benefits, or provider networks is no different than a consumer obtaining information from the health plan's website. So long as the limits on marketing are satisfied and respected (e.g., the information is accurate and does not mislead, confuse or defraud beneficiaries or the state Medicaid agency), responding to direct questions from potential enrollees with accurate information is not prohibited.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 138.58 KB)

FAQ ID:94391

There is no provision in 42 CFR 438.104 specifically addressing a Medicaid managed care plan's outreach to enrollees for eligibility purposes; therefore, it depends on the Medicaid managed care plan's contract with the state Medicaid agency. The federal regulation at 42 CFR 438.104 defines marketing as ""any communication, from an [Medicaid managed care plan] to a Medicaid beneficiary who is not enrolled in that entity, that can reasonably be interpreted as intended to influence the beneficiary to enroll in that particular [Medicaid managed care plan's] Medicaid product, or either to not enroll in, or to disenroll from, another [Medicaid managed care plan's] Medicaid product."" So long as information and outreach about the eligibility renewal process is neither directed to beneficiaries who are not enrolled with that Medicaid managed care plan, nor intended to influence the beneficiary to enroll in that particular Medicaid managed care plan-or to not enroll in, or disenroll from another Medicaid managed care plan-the activity is not within the scope of 42 CFR 438.104. Materials and information that purely educate an enrollee of that Medicaid managed care plan on the importance of completing the State's Medicaid eligibility renewal process in a timely fashion would not meet the federal definition of marketing. However, Medicaid managed care plans should consult their contracts and the state Medicaid agency to ascertain if other provisions exist that may prohibit or limit such activity.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 138.58 KB)

FAQ ID:94396

No one loses coverage as a result of converting to MAGI rules, but, in states that don't adopt the new adult eligibility group, it is possible that some individuals will lose coverage.

The Affordable Care Act ensured that no one would lose health coverage--if they were not eligible under the new MAGI standards either they would be covered under the new Medicaid adult coverage group or they would be able to purchase insurance through the Marketplace with the benefit of a premium tax credit and likely cost sharing reductions. Following the Supreme Court's decision, the Medicaid expansion is voluntary for states, and in states that do not adopt the new coverage group some individuals may lose coverage at the time of their renewal when the new rules are applied.

FAQ ID:92501

No, the change to MAGI does not affect the size of CHIP Programs.

The number of children in CHIP does not change as a result of MAGI because the new standards have the same value as the old standards; they simply translate the state's pre-MAGI two-step policies into a simpler one-step calculation. For example, if the state under old rules covers children in Medicaid with incomes up to 150% of the Federal Poverty Limit (FPL) and CHIP from 150% to 200% of the FPL, and under MAGI the new Medicaid income standard is 160% of the FPL, that doesn't mean that children between 150% and 160% are losing CHIP coverage--it means that many children between 150% and 160% of the FPL using net income standards were already eligible for Medicaid because of the use of disregards.

FAQ ID:92506

No, the number of children moving from CHIP to Medicaid is not affected by the change to MAGI.

Under the law, those states that cover children ages 6-18 with incomes between 100% and 133% of the FPL in CHIP will be transitioning these children to Medicaid so that children under 133% of the FPL, regardless of their age, are eligible for the same coverage program (some states will continue to have different, higher income standards for younger children). The change to MAGI standards does not change the number of children who will move from CHIP to Medicaid.

FAQ ID:92511

Yes. The new converted standards are based on the state's current income eligibility standards and their pre-2014 disregards. So if children in different age groups have different effective eligibility levels under a state's pre-2014 rules, the children will have different converted standards. For example, if a state has been covering children aged 1-5 to 133% FPL and children aged 6-18 to 100% FPL, the state's MAGI eligibility standard in 2014 may be 139% FPL for children aged 1-5 and 133% FPL for older children.

FAQ ID:92516