Frequently Asked Questions

Generally, information from the Federal data services hub will only be sent in direct response to a call from the requesting entity. However, in the case of verifications conducted by DHS, there can be up to three steps to a verification, the second and third of which will not be in real time. If the step 1 query fails, the Federal data services hub will automatically invoke step 2, and the response may take up to several days. If step 2 fails, the Federal data services hub will notify the requesting entity which will need to submit additional documentation from the applicant for step 3. The step 3 response can take weeks. During this time, the Federal data services hub will regularly poll DHS to see if the response has come back.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 104.38 KB)

FAQ ID:93316

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

Yes, a state should submit multiple workbooks to CMS to provide a complete UPL demonstration for each service category subject to the UPL (Inpatient Hospital services (IPH), Outpatient Hospital services (OPH), Nursing Facility services (NF), Clinic, Institutions for Mental Disease (IMD), Intermediate Care Facilities for Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities (ICF/IID), Psychiatric Residential Treatment Facility (PRTF), and Qualified Practitioner supplemental payments). When submitting UPL demonstrations, the state should use the following naming convention: UPL_<UPL Demo Date Range>_<Service Type Abbreviation>_R<Region Number>_<State Abbreviation>_<Workbook Number>.xls. Here is an example of the naming convention: UPL_20170701-20180630_IP_R01_CT_01.xls.As well, states may submit one separate workbook for each ownership category (state government owned, non-state government owned, and private).

FAQ ID:92241

The total UPL gap by ownership category can be shown by inserting a new tab in the file with these calculations, unless a summary worksheet is already included in the workbook. If there are any questions about how to add this tab, please reach out to your CMS Regional Office or send a follow-up question (with your template) to the UPL mailbox and additional guidance will be provided.

FAQ ID:92281

No. CMS does not participate the state's in E&E or in MMIS system development life cycle (SDLC) level reviews.

FAQ ID:95056

Yes. The rules pertaining to procuring IV&V contracts (State Medicaid Director Letter 16-010) apply to both E&E and MMIS.

FAQ ID:95061

In most cases once they are created, the documents will simply be updated to account for the additional modules being planned or developed. A new document is not necessarily created for each module. If a state calls a document by a different name, the state should inform CMS of the name difference.

FAQ ID:95076

Granting CMS direct access to the state's evidence repository is the preferred method for making evidence available to CMS. If that is not possible, the state may make other secure arrangements with CMS, such as using encrypted File Transfer Protocol (FTP). It is critical to follow all Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) regulations when submitting evidence that contains personal health information (PHI) and personally identifiable information (PII).

FAQ ID:95081

No. Only the checklists pertaining to the modules undergoing review need to be included, and that only for the report created in preparation for a milestone review. However, the IV&V progress report should include risks and recommendations for the entire project--not just those about to undergo a milestone review.

FAQ ID:95086

When streamlining the core checklists (IA, TA and S&C checklists), we found that some criteria fit better in other checklists, so they were moved. To keep traceability simple for the states, we chose to keep the original identifiers for any criteria that were moved. The same holds true for criteria moved to the programmatic tab of the IV&V progress report template.

FAQ ID:95091