Frequently Asked Questions

Yes. Mapping data, through V-Look-ups, for example, is a much easier and consistent process for current and future UPL submissions. However, a state may choose to type information and data into unlocked fields in the UPL templates. When a state chooses to input data directly (not through a V-Look-up) into the template, it still must provide the supporting documentation with the source data. Additionally, the state should explain how it mapped data from the supporting documentation into the template. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services utilizes the supporting information to confirm that the information in the templates is correct.

FAQ ID:92451

Yes, a state should submit multiple workbooks to CMS to provide a complete UPL demonstration for each service category subject to the UPL (Inpatient Hospital services (IPH), Outpatient Hospital services (OPH), Nursing Facility services (NF), Clinic, Institutions for Mental Disease (IMD), Intermediate Care Facilities for Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities (ICF/IID), Psychiatric Residential Treatment Facility (PRTF), and Qualified Practitioner supplemental payments). When submitting UPL demonstrations, the state should use the following naming convention: UPL_<UPL Demo Date Range>_<Service Type Abbreviation>_R<Region Number>_<State Abbreviation>_<Workbook Number>.xls. Here is an example of the naming convention: UPL_20170701-20180630_IP_R01_CT_01.xls.As well, states may submit one separate workbook for each ownership category (state government owned, non-state government owned, and private).

FAQ ID:92241

The total UPL gap by ownership category can be shown by inserting a new tab in the file with these calculations, unless a summary worksheet is already included in the workbook. If there are any questions about how to add this tab, please reach out to your CMS Regional Office or send a follow-up question (with your template) to the UPL mailbox and additional guidance will be provided.

FAQ ID:92281

IV&V contractor activities must still be performed such as checklist evaluation, artifact review and preparation of IV&V Progress Reports. The state should provide a plan and timeline for how these activities will be supported and performed until the proper IV&V contract can be either procured or aligned with updated CMS guidance on IV&V.

FAQ ID:94866

As contained in the MECT standard RFP/contract language required by CMS, CMS does not cover activities that the state may require of the IV&V contractor during ongoing O&M. However, as Medicaid is moving away from monolithic single applications, it is expected that states will continuously update and replace modules in their enterprise. Therefore, IV&V should always have a role to ensure successful integration and testing.

FAQ ID:94881

If an organization is performing another role (such as systems integrator, PMO, quality assurance, etc.) on the MMIS or E&E project, it may not perform the IV&V function on the same project. A state may contract the same vendor to perform the IV&V role for both its E&E and MMIS projects.

FAQ ID:94886

To reduce potential conflict of interest, CMS is ensuring that states are arranging IV&V services through contracts that should be owned outside of the agency that owns the MMIS or E&E project. The oversight organization for the IV&V contractor should not be involved in oversight of the development effort, a stakeholder in the business implementation, or the DDI contractor. The IV&V contract monitor should be aware of system development problem solving, reporting, and contractor management. This contract oversight provides true independence between the IV&V contractor and system development teams. This requirement is consistent with other HHS agencies' practices and industry best practices.

FAQ ID:94891

In an assessment model, the Federally-Facilitated Marketplace will not make a final Medicaid determination. Instead, the Federally-Facilitated Marketplace will transmit the account to the Medicaid or CHIP agency when they have evaluated the individual and identified him or her as Medicaid or CHIP eligible, and the Medicaid or CHIP agency will make the formal determination. In a determination model, the Medicaid or CHIP agency delegate the authority to make determinations to the Federally-Facilitated Marketplace. In both an assessment and determination model, as described in more detail in 42 CFR section 435.1200, the Federally-Facilitated Marketplace will utilize the same set of eligibility criteria, including selected state-specific options and standard verification procedures. If the state agency chooses the determination model, it must accept the Federally-Facilitated Marketplace determination as final. If the state chooses the assessment model, it must accept findings made by the Federally-Facilitated Marketplace relating to a criterion of eligibility, as long as the Federally-Facilitated Marketplace applies the same policies and verification procedures as those the state agency employs. In a state with a separate CHIP agency, the state Medicaid and CHIP agencies can make different choices allowing the Federally-Facilitated Marketplace to make an assessment or determination. States must choose either the assessment or determination model for all applications; they may not choose between models on a case-by-case basis. States will need to indicate their assessment or determination decision to CMS in a State Plan Amendment, as well as in the Memorandum of Agreement it signs with 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:93731

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

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