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
What issues should states consider in choosing which MAGI conversion method and data source to use?
Factors that states might want to consider in choosing an income conversion method and data source include whether the state currently maintains or can easily access the data that are needed to do the conversions, as well as the quality and completeness of the state's data. In addition, states will want to consider whether they have the analytical resources needed to do the conversions with their own data, how long it would take them to run the conversions and how much it would cost to pay a contractor to do the analysis. Finally, states should also consider preferences about using state-adjusted SIPP or state data.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:93936
SHARE URLIf a state wants to use the Standardized MAGI Conversion Methodology with its own date, what data elements will it need to use?
Detailed information on how to use state data to apply the standardized conversion methodology is forthcoming, but in general states will need 1) information on net income of each person and the size of the Medicaid eligibility unit to establish which enrollees fall within the 25 percentage point band below the current net income standard; and 2) data on the total amount of disregards for each individual within the 25 percentage point band - if this is not stored as a data element in the state's system, this can be calculated by adding up individual disregards, or as the difference between gross income and net income.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:93941
SHARE URLWhat type of technical assistance is available to states on MAGI Conversion?
Technical assistance for states thinking through their MAGI conversion options is available through the State Health Access Data Assistance Center (SHADAC) at the University of Minnesota. SHADAC is available to help states understand the income conversion methods, the data sources that can be used (SIPP or state data), and factors for states to consider in choosing a methodology. CMS will do conversions for all states using the standardized conversion methodology with SIPP data. States that choose to use state data or that propose a different methodology will need to do the conversions themselves, and SHADAC is available to provide consultation with states as they work through the process. This help is available at no cost to states. States can contact SHADAC for help with income conversion at (612) 486-2439 or by emailing their questions to fmaphelp@shadac.org.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:93946
SHARE URLCan you explain more about how the survey data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) will be reweighted to reflect state demographics for purposes of MAGI Conversion?
To produce reliable state-level results, income conversions using SIPP data will be based on the entire national sample that has been re-weighted to account for state demographic characteristics. The purpose of the reweighting is to ensure that the analysis is done using a population whose characteristics are similar to each state's actual population. The variables used in reweighting include age, parent status, gender, race/ethnicity, total household income as a percent of FPL, types of unearned income (whether the household has any unearned income and whether it includes child support), and whether or not an individual has child care expenses. The re-weighting will be done separately for each state and will ensure that the distribution of these characteristics (and combinations of these characteristics) matches state totals from the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey. In some states, a few of these categories will need to be combined due to small sample size. CMS will be releasing a brief on SIPP and the re-weighting adjustments.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:93951
SHARE URLFor physicians in neighboring states, can we require them to self-attest under CMS 2370-F using our state's protocol, rather than relying on the determination made by the home state's Medicaid program?
How will populations that are currently eligible based on net income, but will not qualify based on MAGI in 2014, be treated? Will these individuals have an opportunity to enroll in another insurance affordability program after March 31, 2014 or their next redetermination, whichever is later?
As stated under section 1902(e)(14)(D)(v), if the application of the new MAGI-based methods would be the cause of an existing Medicaid beneficiary's (i.e., one determined eligible based on current methods and enrolled in the program prior to January 1, 2014) becoming ineligible for continued coverage based on income, the individual retains Medicaid eligibility until March 31, 2014 or the next scheduled renewal, whichever is later. If, at the appropriate time, an individual is determined to no longer qualify for the current eligibility group, under longstanding Medicaid rules the individual's eligibility must be assessed under other possible eligibility groups before Medicaid eligibility may be terminated (see section 435.930(b) and section 435.916(f)). In accordance with 435.1200, if the individual is no longer Medicaid eligible, the state agency must evaluate the individual for potential eligibility for enrollment in a qualified health plan (QHP) through the Affordable Insurance Exchange, or Marketplace, and for CHIP.
Since the eligibility rules for Medicaid, CHIP and enrollment in a QHP through the Exchange are aligned, we do not expect that the evaluation for potential eligibility for these other programs to pose a burden on state agencies. Once determined to be potentially eligible for another program, the regulations call for ensuring that the information concerning the potentially eligible individual is transferred electronically to the other program.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:94091
SHARE URLOur understanding of the CMS 2370-F rule is that advanced practice clinicians are eligible for the increased payment as long as they are working under the personal supervision of an eligible physician; eligible meaning the supervising physician is also eligible for the increased payment.We are trying to determine if: 1) advanced practice clinicians also can attest that they are working under the personal supervision of an eligible physician at the time of attestation, or 2) if they have to indicate who the supervising physician is on each claim for an eligible service and then we would need to see if that physician is eligible for the increased payment at the time of claim processing.If advanced practice clinicians are billing under their own provider numbers, how can we know that they're under the personal supervision of an eligible physician?
The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has permitted states flexibility in establishing processes to identify services provided by advanced practiced clinicians (APCs), including advanced practice nurses, being personally supervised by eligible physicians who accept professional responsibility for the services they provide. The state may set up a separate system to document that an Ambulatory Payment Classification (APC) is working under the personal supervision of a particular eligible physician. For example, the eligible physician could identify the APCs to the Medicaid agency, which could flag the claims submitted by those APCs under their own provider numbers through the Medicaid Management Information System (MMIS). There is no requirement that the rendering providers indicate on each claim the name of the supervising eligible physicians, however it is important that there be documentation that the eligible physicians have acknowledged their relationship with the advanced practice clinicians. Providing this type of information on a per claim basis is an effective way to document the state's claim for 100 percent federal funding for the increased portion of the payment.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:94101
SHARE URLAre Indian Health Services (IHS) excluded from the increased provider payments under CMS 2370-F? Is there any change in FMAP under CMS 2370-F for primary care services delivered through IHS?
IHS and tribal facilities are often not separately paid for physician services, but instead receive an all-inclusive rate for inpatient or outpatient service encounters. To the extent that a particular claim is made for primary care services furnished by an eligible physician, there is no exclusion from the requirement for provider payment at least equal to the Medicare Part B fee schedule rate. States would continue to receive Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) at the 100 percent rate for services received through IHS and tribal facilities and reimbursed through the all-inclusive rate. For other physician services, including Medicaid payments for contract health services, states would receive the regular FMAP for the base payment, and 100 percent for the difference between the state plan rate in effect on July 1, 2009 and the applicable 2013 and 2014 Medicare rates.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:94106
SHARE URLThe preamble of the final rule under CMS 2370-F makes it clear that salaried eligible physicians employed by counties must receive the higher payment for eligible Evaluation & Management (E&M) and vaccine services. Does this same logic apply to physicians employed by hospitals and, if so, is it the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) expectation that the Medicaid agency will assure that the salaries of those physicians are increased?
Physicians employed by hospitals whose services are reimbursed by Medicaid on a physician fee schedule must receive the benefit of higher payment. It is the Medicaid agency's responsibility to ensure that hospitals receiving payments on behalf of those physicians comply with all requirements of the program. While hospitals could increase salaries they could also provide additional/bonus payments to eligible physicians to ensure that they receive the benefit of higher Medicaid payment.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:94111
SHARE URLThe final rule under CMS 2370-F clarifies that the 60 percent threshold for eligibility is based on services billed. Are billed services to be defined based on the number of units submitted or dollars?
The 60 percent threshold is based on the number of billed services as identified by individual billing codes for the primary specialty being asserted. That is, the numerator equals total billed codes for Evaluation & Management (E&M) services for the primary specialty, plus vaccine administration services, and the denominator equals the total number of billed codes. Please note that a state may choose to use paid billing codes/services in place of billed codes.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:94116
SHARE URL
Results per page