Frequently Asked Questions

As we explained in the January 4, 2018 letter, only those items provided in the Medicaid program on a fee-for-service (FFS) basis are to be included in the aggregate expenditure calculation. DME reimbursed under a Medicaid managed care arrangement or a Medicaid competitive bidding contract are not subject to the FFP limitation. If a state is 90% managed care the state would only have to show compliance or a demonstration with the 10% of FFS utilization and expenditures for the relevant DME items.

FAQ ID:93531

So long as the MCOs are not paid on a fee-for-service (FFS) basis, MCOs are not covered under this statute or subject to the limit on FFP. Only the relevant DME items provided in FFS are included in this limit.

FAQ ID:93536

Only those items provided in the Medicaid program on a fee-for-service basis are to be included in the aggregate expenditure calculation. DME reimbursed under a Medicaid managed care arrangement or a Medicaid competitive bidding contract are not subject to the federal financial participation limitation.

FAQ ID:93541

If the HCBS waiver includes FFS payments for DME, the state’s expenditures for DME would be subject to the limit.

FAQ ID:93546

The statute and regulations require that states provide individuals several channels through which they can apply for Medicaid and CHIP coverage - by mail, in person, on line and over the telephone. Following are some guiding principles for administering telephonic applications based on successful strategies many states have in place today.

1. Accepting a Telephonic Application - States may develop their own processes for accepting and adjudicating telephonic applications. The process for accepting applications by phone must be designed to gather data into a sufficient format that will be accessible for account transfer to the appropriate insurance affordability program. For example, a customer service representative could verbally communicate application questions to the applicant, while electronically filling out the online version of the single streamlined application.
2. Voice Signatures - All applications must be signed (under penalty of perjury) in order to complete an eligibility determination. In the case of telephonic applications, states must have a process in place to assist individuals in applying by phone and be able to accept telephonically recorded signatures at the time of application submission. If applicable, states can maintain their current practices of audio recording and accepting voice signatures as required for identity proofing.
3. Records and Storage - Upon request, states must be able to provide individuals with a record of their completed application, including all information used to make the eligibility determination. As such, CMS recommends that states record all telephonic applications. This may be accomplished by taping the complete application transaction as an audio file, or by producing a written transcript of the application transaction, among other options. The length of storage of these records should comply with current regulations on application storage.
4. Confirmations and Receipts - States should provide a confirmation receipt documenting the telephonic application to the applicant. Such confirmation should be provided upon submission of the application or at any time the applicant wishes to end the customer representative interaction. Confirmation receipts can be delivered via electronic or paper mail (based on the applicant's preference). Confirmation receipts must include key information for applicants, including but not limited to the application summary, the eligibility determination summary page, a copy of the attestations/rights and responsibilities and the submission date of the signed application.

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 295.71 KB)

FAQ ID:92156

The submission package consists of the completed templates and any supporting documentation needed to understand the UPL demonstration. This could include the completed Guidance document and supporting documentation (in Microsoft Excel with formulas included, not as a PDF) that is necessary to further explain a state's UPL demonstration, and a summary spreadsheet that aggregates the UPL gap for each of the ownership categories (state government owned, non-state government owned, and private).

FAQ ID:92236

Yes, the templates allow the use of multiple cost centers. For example, if the state uses a cost methodology for ancillary services and a per-diem methodology for routine services, the state will complete one cost template and one per-diem template in order to account for these two cost centers. Every hospital would be featured in each of the two templates; however, to differentiate their provider information, the state would append 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 cost template as 123456-A and in the per diem template as 123456-B. If a Medicare Certification Number is not available then the state should append the Medicaid Provider Number. If there are multiple cost centers under either the cost or per-diem methodology, the state would separate out the cost centers within their respective templates. Each cost center should be associated with only one appended letter and these should be described in the notes tab. When using multiple cost centers, the state should insert a new tab in the templates that summarizes the UPL gap calculations for each of the ownership categories (state government owned, non-state government owned, and private), unless a summary worksheet is already included in the workbook.

FAQ ID:92261

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