Frequently Asked Questions

The difference between a prospective and retrospective UPL is in the relationship between the UPL demonstration period and the date when the UPL is submitted. For a UPL demonstration period of 7/1/2018 to 6/30/2019, a UPL is considered retrospective when it is submitted on or after the start of the demonstration period (on or after 7/1/2018). Using the same UPL demonstration period (7/1/2018 to 6/30/2019), a UPL is considered prospective if it is submitted prior to 7/1/2018.

FAQ ID:92431

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

Yes, the template allows the use of multiple cost centers with multiple cost-to-charge ratios. The state would separately report the costs and payments associated with each of the cost centers in the cost template. To differentiate the cost centers, the state would append the Medicare Certification Number (Medicare ID) (variable 112) with a letter, for example an -A, -B, or -C, that would be used as a unique identifier for each cost center.

FAQ ID:92266

Yes, the templates allow the use of multiple methodologies. The state would complete the templates associated with the UPL methodologies used. For example, if the state uses a cost-based methodology for state owned hospitals and a payment-based methodology for private hospitals, then the state would complete the cost template for the state owned hospitals and the payment template for the private hospitals. When using multiple methodologies, 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:92271

When a Medicare provider number is not available, such as for some nursing facilities, the state should populate variable 112 using the acronym NMC, which stands for "Not Medicare Certified". Adding this information will help to clearly identify the facility's status.

FAQ ID:92286

The cost of the tax should be reported in Variable 401 - MCD Provider Tax Cost. A state may separately report the Medicaid portion of the cost of a provider assessment/tax only when it is using a cost based methodology to calculate the UPL. A state may not include this cost when calculating a DRG or Payment based UPL demonstration.

FAQ ID:92366

It's a new, simpler way to determine eligibility for Medicaid and CHIP.

The Affordable Care Act provides new simplified method for calculating income eligibility for Medicaid, CHIP and financial assistance available through the health insurance Marketplace. This new method calculates eligibility for all programs based on what is called modified adjusted gross income (MAGI). By using one set of income eligibility rules across all insurance affordability programs, the new law makes it easier for people to apply for health coverage through one application and enroll in the appropriate program. MAGI will replace the current process for calculating Medicaid eligibility that is in place today, which uses income deductions (known as "disregards") that are different in each state and often differ by eligibility group.

FAQ ID:92461

The new rules apply to most people who are eligible for Medicaid and Chip, but not the elderly or people who qualify based on a disability.

For coverage effective January 2014, MAGI will be the basis for determining both Medicaid and CHIP eligibility for children, pregnant women, parents and the adults enrolled under the new adult eligibility group created by the ACA (in states that adopt that eligibility group.) Individuals age 65 and older and those who qualify for Medicaid based on disability are not affected by the new rules.

FAQ ID:92466

Yes. A state's decision whether or not to extend Medicaid coverage for low-income adults in 2014 is not related to the use of MAGI. MAGI rules simplify the eligibility rules and promote coordination between Medicaid and CHIP and coverage available through the Marketplace; coordination will be important for consumers in all states regardless of a state's decision on Medicaid eligibility for low-income adults.

FAQ ID:92471

The eligibility standards (where there's been no expansion) are not any higher than the old standards; they are expressed in a different way (gross versus net).

In the past, Medicaid and CHIP eligibility used a combination of an income eligibility standard--often expressed as a percentage of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL)--and a series of deductions (known as "disregards" that were like footnotes or 'below the line' adjustments to income and were determined by each state. The new way of calculating eligibility based on MAGI translates that two-part process into a one step process using an income standard that incorporates the 'below the line' deductions. This makes the new standard appear higher than the old one (e.g. from 185% of the FPL to 193% of the FPL for pregnant women). In effect, however, the new income standard represents what the state's old two-step process would have resulted in, just expressed in a different way.

FAQ ID:92476