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
How should states handle eligibility renewals between January 1, 2014 and March 31, 2014 in order to comply with the ACA provisions that prohibit states from terminating an individual's existing Medicaid eligibility prior to April 1, 2014.
According to section 1902(e)(14)(D)(v) of the Act, implemented at 42 CFR 435.603(a)(3), a person enrolled in Medicaid on or before December 31, 2013, shall not be found ineligible solely because of the application of MAGI and new household composition rules before March 31, 2014, or the individual's next regular renewal date, whichever is later.
States have two options regarding implementation. They can apply both pre-MAGI rules and MAGI rules to anyone whose renewal date falls between January 1 and March 31, 2014 as described below. Alternately, states may request the waiver authority to delay renewals outlined in our May 17, 2013 guidance titled, "Facilitating Medicaid and CHIP Enrollment and Renewal in 2014" (available at http://medicaid.gov/sites/default/files/Federal-Policy-Guidance/downloads/SHO-13-003.pdf).
The steps described below will ensure that Medicaid enrollees who come up for renewal between January and March 2014 are addressed appropriately. For example, for an individual who comes up for renewal on February 1, 2014, states need to:
- Conduct an eligibility redetermination by applying MAGI-based methods (at the converted income standard). If eligible, renew coverage for a 12-month period ending in February 2015.
- If the individual is found to be ineligible under step 1, determine whether s/he remains eligible based on 2013 (current) methods and income standard. If so, a finding of eligibility until April 1, 2014 is necessary under the 2013 methods. Go to step 4.
- If the individual is not eligible per either step 1 or 2, consider whether the individual might be eligible on other bases of eligibility, and pursue any possibilities. If no other pathways apply, provide the individual with notice of termination and appeal rights and transfer their account to the Exchange (or CHIP) for eligibility determination and enrollment in a QHP (or CHIP).
- On April 1, 2014, for those who remain eligible per step 2 (using 2013 methods and income standards), consider whether the individual qualifies on other bases of eligibility. If the individual does, renew eligibility until April 1, 2015. If not, provide notice and appeal rights for termination effective April 1, 2014.
Supplemental Links:
- This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 295.71 KB)
FAQ ID:92596
SHARE URLCan a state review providers whose claims meet the 60 percent threshold and assume that those providers would be automatically eligible?
Each physician must self-attest to being a qualified provider. It is not appropriate for a state to rely on a modifier to a claim for the initial self-attestation. Under the final rule, states are not required to independently verify the eligibility of each and every physician who might qualify for higher payment. Therefore, it is important that documentation exist that the physicians themselves supplied a proper attestation. That attestation has two parts. Physicians must attest to an appropriate specialty designation and also must further attest to whether that status is based on either being Board certified or to having the proper claims history. Once the signed self-attestation is in the hands of the Medicaid agency, claims may be identified for higher payment through the use of a modifier.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:94276
SHARE URLCMS clarified in the final rule for CMS 2370-F that, for out of state providers, the beneficiary's home state (e.g., state A) may defer to the determination of the physician's home state (e.g., state B) with respect to eligibility for higher payment. However, if states A and B receive different Medicare locality adjustments, which locality rate must be paid?
As with all Medicaid services, the state in which the beneficiary is determined eligible (state A) sets the payment rate for services. Therefore, state A would be responsible for paying using the methodology it had chosen with respect to determining the appropriate Medicare rate and would not be required to pay the rate the physician would receive from state B.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:94361
SHARE URLWhen does the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) plan to issue a correction to the mistake they noted during the call with Medicaid agencies regarding payment under CMS 2370-F at the lesser of a provider's billed charge or the Medicare rate?
The correction was published in the Federal Register on December 14, 2012. In it CMS clarified that states must reimburse providers the lower or the provider’s charge or the applicable Medicare rate.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:94376
SHARE URLIf a physician presents a certificate for CMS 2370-F eligibility from one of the defined boards, can the certificate be used as the legal document verifying the physician's certification or does the State have to verify with the board that the physician is certified and that the presented certificate is still active and valid?
States may accept the certificate and need not verify. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) expects states to make physicians aware that they are responsible for providing accurate information.
FAQ ID:92686
SHARE URLThe final rule for CMS 2370-F indicated that 100 percent Federal Financial Participation (FFP) is not available for stand-alone Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) plans. What criteria should be used to determine if a plan is a stand-alone CHIP plan? What agency will determine if a plan is a stand-alone CHIP plan?
The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) approves CHIP programs as stand-alone or Medicaid expansions. Information on whether or not a particular state operates a stand-alone or expansion program is available at http://medicaid.gov/Medicaid-CHIP-Program-Information/By-Topics/Childrens-Health-Insurance-Program-CHIP/Downloads/Map-CHIP-Program-Designs-by-State-.pdf (PDF, 120.65 KB).
FAQ ID:92696
SHARE URLFederally qualified health centers (FQHCs)/ rural health clinics (RHCs) which receive an encounter rate are excluded under the rule for CMS-2370 F. Are FQHCs/RHCs who are paid provider fee-for-service included in the increase?
FQHCs and RHCs are required by law to be paid at least prospective payment system (PPS) for core primary care services. Physician services are core FQHC and RHC services and, therefore, should not be reimbursed on a fee-for-service basis.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:92701
SHARE URLIn our state, advanced practice nurses must have a collaborative practice agreement with a physician within 50 miles of their office. Under the collaborative practice agreement, a physician must review a certain percentage of the nurse's patient charts every 2 weeks. Such nurses bill independently using their own Medicaid number. Is the collaborative practice agreement enough documentation for an advance practice nurse, with at least 60 percent of services billed by the nurse for calendar year (CY) 2012 for
Increased payment is available for services provided by eligible physicians or for services provided under their personal supervision. This means that the physician accepts professional responsibility (and legal liability) for the services provided. It does not appear that the collaborative arrangement requires that the physician accept professional responsibility for each of the services provided by the nurses. Therefore, increased payment would not be available.
However, if the physician is required to accept professional responsibility for the services provided by the advanced practice nurses and the physician is eligible based on self-attestation to a specified primary care specialty designation supported by either appropriate Board certification or a 60 percent claims history, then increased payment would be available.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:92706
SHARE URLIf the supervising physician does not self-attest to the physician specialty or subspecialty qualification under CMS 2370-F, can the physician supervise a mid-level provider? If the supervising physician self-attests to the 60 percent threshold, but not one of the defined specialty or subspecialty qualifications, can the physician supervise a mid-level?
The eligibility of services provided by mid-level/non-physician practitioners is dependent on 1) the eligibility of the physician and 2) whether or not the physician accepts professional responsibility for the services provided by the mid-level. As previously noted, physicians are eligible only if they first self-attest to a specified specialty designation and also to either being appropriately Board certified or having a 60 percent claims history.
Supplemental Links:
ÂFAQ ID:92711
SHARE URLIs it permissible for states with Medicare geographic adjustments that opt to develop rates based on the mean Medicare rate over all counties for each Evaluation & Management code under CMS 2370-F to use a weighted mean based on either the county population or the county Medicaid enrollment?
We believe this would be acceptable. However, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) would review the methodology as part of the SPA approval process.
Supplemental Links:
ÂFAQ ID:92716
SHARE URL
Results per page