Frequently Asked Questions are used to provide additional information and/or statutory guidance not found in State Medicaid Director Letters, State Health Official Letters, or CMCS Informational Bulletins. The different sets of FAQs as originally released can be accessed below.
Frequently Asked Questions
In an assessment model, an applicant may be assessed eligible by the Federally-Facilitated Marketplace and later receive a determination as ineligible by the state Medicaid/CHIP agency. Does the state Medicaid agency need to communicate the eligibility finding to the Federally-Facilitated Marketplace?
Yes. In an assessment model, where an applicant is assessed eligible by the Federally-Facilitated Marketplace and later found to be ineligible by the state Medicaid agency, the state must transfer the account to the Federally-Facilitated Marketplace. Once received, the state Medicaid determination will be accepted and the account will be assessed by the Federally-Facilitated Marketplace for enrollment in a qualified health plan (QHP) and eligibility for Advanced Premium Tax Credits/Cost Sharing Reductions.
For the determination model, as discussed in section 435.1200(c), as governed by the agreement signed between the Medicaid agency and the Federally-Facilitated Marketplace, the Federally-Facilitated Marketplace determines eligibility for individuals applying to the Federally-Facilitated Marketplace for Medicaid/CHIP based on MAGI, and the state Medicaid or CHIP agency agrees to accept eligibility findings made by the Federally-Facilitated Marketplace.
Supplemental Links:
- This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 105.59 KB)
FAQ ID:93736
SHARE URLIn an assessment model, if an applicant applied via the Federally-Facilitated Marketplace and is found eligible for Medicaid or CHIP, how will the Federally-Facilitated Marketplace coordinate with the state Medicaid or CHIP agency regarding eligibility, enrollment, redeterminations, or renewals for Medicaid/CHIP?
For individuals assessed eligible for Medicaid/CHIP by the Federally-Facilitated Marketplace, their account will be transferred to the state Medicaid/CHIP agency for a final determination. Once enrolled in Medicaid/CHIP, regardless of where the initial application was submitted, all updates, redeterminations and renewals are handled by the enrolling entity (e.g., the state Medicaid/CHIP agency). No further coordination would be needed with the Federally-Facilitated Marketplace except when an individual is found ineligible for Medicaid or CHIP during the redetermination process. In this case, the state agency would transfer the individual's account to the Federally-Facilitated Marketplace to be assessed for enrollment in a qualified health plan (QHP) and eligibility for Advanced Premium Tax Credits /Cost Sharing Reductions. The Federally-Facilitated Marketplace will not handle redeterminations or renewals for Medicaid/CHIP and will refer individuals to the appropriate site in the state as appropriate.
Supplemental Links:
- This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 105.59 KB)
FAQ ID:93741
SHARE URLWill the Federally-Facilitated Marketplace integrate its enrollment file with the state's client registry so that data for households participating in both state programs and the Marketplace can be synchronized? Will the Federally-Facilitated Marketplace routinely check the Medicaid/CHIP enrollment files to determine any overlap between the Federally-Facilitated Marketplace and Medicaid/CHIP enrollment logs?
No. There will not be integration of the Federally-Facilitated Marketplace and states' client registries. Instead, the Federally-Facilitated Marketplace will both verify current Medicaid/CHIP enrollment as part of the Federally-Facilitated Marketplace "applicant" application, and will also conduct quarterly checks of the Medicaid/CHIP enrollment files to determine any overlap with Federally-Facilitated Marketplace enrollment logs.
Supplemental Links:
- This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 105.59 KB)
FAQ ID:93746
SHARE URLUnder CMS 2370-F, may practice managers or billing staff of large group practices and health systems attest on behalf of their physicians on the basis of information on board certification in the records of the practice or health system?
If these practices and health systems maintain the types of documentation described in the previous answer, FAQ45736, with respect to managed care organizations, attestation by the group or system would be acceptable. As previously noted, a physician actually must be practicing as an internist, pediatrician or family physician in order to be eligible for higher payment. Board certification does not always equate to practice characteristics. Therefore, attestation on the basis of information on board certification alone would not suffice.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:93866
SHARE URLUnder CMS 2370-F, if a physician renders services in both the managed care and fee for service environments, must he or she self-attest to eligibility twice?
No. The attestation and eligibility are physician-specific. If a physician provides services both in a fee-for-service and managed care environment, they need only complete the process of attestation once in order to receive higher payment for all eligible services they provide. CMS expects all information on self-attestation to be fully available to the state, regardless of which party collected this information.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:93871
SHARE URLUnder CMS 2370, may physicians who practice in two (or more) states meet the 60 percent threshold based on all services provided in all states, or must they qualify on the basis of the services they provide in each state?
States have the flexibility to count eligible services provided by a physician in neighboring states in meeting the 60 percent threshold, but are not required to do so.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:93876
SHARE URLThere are at least two current procedural terminology (CPT) codes (99429 and 99499) for which there are no relative value units (RVU) and the state manually prices the services for purposes of Medicaid payment. Will CMS develop a Medicare-like rate for these codes under the CMS 2370-F rule?
These services would not be subject to the minimum payment standard set in the rule because there are no RVUs and there is no conversion factor associated with them. Therefore, a Medicare-like rate cannot be developed. The state may continue to reimburse them at the current Medicaid rate but enhanced federal financial participation (FFP) will not be available for those services.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:93881
SHARE URLUnder CMS 2370-F, if a physician self-attests to being a primary care provider and supports that attestation with evidence of appropriate board certification, must we review that physician's practice to verify that they actually practice in that manner?
No. Verification of current board certification is sufficient.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:93886
SHARE URLUnder CMS 2370-F, if a physician is board certified in a non-eligible specialty (for example dermatology) but practices within the community as for, example, a family practitioner and attests to meeting the 60 percent claims threshold, are we expected to audit his or her practice and, if so, how? May we be specific about our audit requirements in the state plan?
Since the only evidence of eligibility is the self-attestation and claims history, the state would need to take steps to verify the practice characteristics of the physician. This could be done by determining that the physician represents himself in the community as a family practitioner, as evidenced by medical directory listings, billings to other insurers, advertisements, etc.
While we have no objection to the addition of this information to the state plan amendment (SPA), we believe it is more important that the state make providers aware of the audit procedures and requirements as part of the enrollment process.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:93891
SHARE URLUnder CMS 2370-F, there are several codes for which there are relative value units (RVUs), but a rate does not calculate for the non-facility setting. For example, 99217-99221 (observation codes) only have a facility fee. If the state is electing the option of paying the non-facility fee, should it use the facility fee or is there an alternative method for calculation?
When there are RVUs for just one site of service the state should use those RVUs. There is no alternate method for calculation.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:93896
SHARE URL
Results per page