Frequently Asked Questions

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

Generally, the purpose of the 1202 payment increase is to directly benefit physicians performing primary care services. In the instance of salaried physicians, including those working for clinics or other employing organizations that bill on the Medicaid physician fee schedule, this could come in the form of an increased salary. Alternatively, where there is an employment agreement between the physician and the employing entity, the employment agreement might account for the payment increase by noting that the physician accepts his or her salary as payment in full, regardless of Medicaid reimbursement levels.

FAQ ID:91081

To the extent that physicians are already receiving payment for Medicaid services that is at least equal to the Medicare rate as required under section 1202 of the ACA, no additional payment under section 1202 should be made to either a managed care health plan or to a group practice or similar organization that employs physicians. The additional payment is to ensure that payment to the physician is at least equal to the 1202 Medicare rate.

FAQ ID:91086

States that pay for vaccine administration using the vaccine product codes were required to include a crosswalk to their administration codes as part of their ACA 1202 state plan amendment (SPA). They will therefore be required to submit a new SPA to reflect any changes in those codes. If a state does not use vaccine product codes to pay for vaccine administration and therefore there is no crosswalk in their 1202 SPA, then no updates are necessary to reflect the code changes.

FAQ ID:91091

Yes. The original SPAs contained a list of codes that had been added since 2009 that the state was planning on reimbursing at the higher ACA 1202 rate. Therefore, if a state adds codes, it should submit a revised SPA page, updating that list of codes eligible for higher payment.

FAQ ID:91096

No. A disability determination is not directly related to the eligibility determination, even though the outcome of that determination may be used to identify the appropriate eligibility group, financial methodology and the benefits that will be available to the individual. The eligibility group, financial methodology and benefits are based on the state plan, not on the eligibility system. Although the disability determination itself is not eligible for the 75% match, the entry of the disability information into the eligibility system may be matched at 75%. This analysis is based on the SMM Sec. 11276.7 B, which discusses prior authorization and claims processing. The prior authorization itself is not eligible for the 75% match, however the program decision, based on that prior authorization, to pay or not pay a claim that is pending in the system is eligible for the 75% match.

Supplemental Links:

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

FAQ ID:92651

Individuals who assist applicants by facilitating their applications, who perform outreach activities, or who enter application data on behalf of the applicant are not eligible for the 75% match. Only individuals who are authorized by the single state agency to enter data other than application elements into the eligibility system, who have responsibility for evaluating data in order to make an eligibility determination, who are authorized to exercise discretion in the evaluation of data, who are authorized to make an eligibility determination and who are accountable to the single state agency for such determinations are eligible the 75% match for those activities. This includes eligibility workers, whether in house or out-stationed, as long as there is a formal, written agreement with the single state agency that authorizes their eligibility activities and specifies direct lines of accountability to the single state agency. Both intake workers and on-going eligibility workers who meet these requirements may be claimed at 75%, based on appropriate cost allocations.

Supplemental Links:

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

FAQ ID:92656

No. The 75%/25% matching rate for eligibility systems is limited by the statute to activities directly related to an eligibility determination. A level of care assessment is not directly related to the eligibility determination. Although the assessment itself is not eligible for the 75% match, the entry of the level of care result into the eligibility system may be matched at 75%.

Supplemental Links:

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

FAQ ID:92646