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
Do states need to cost allocate eligibility worker costs across programs? Will claiming the 75 percent FFP require new or increased time reporting by employees? What must a state submit in its operations APD and cost allocation plan?
In situations where eligibility workers determine eligibility for multiple programs, all costs must be distributed to the appropriate programs and governing FFP rates (90/75/50) based on approved time study methodologies and/or cost allocation plans consistent with OMB Circular A-87 cost allocation principles. These costs must also clearly differentiate between resources needed for direct data and systems-related activities and resources needed for MMIS and eligibility determination systems versus program management and oversight activities, which are only eligible for 50 percent FFP. State agencies performing eligibility determination currently develop and maintain methodologies for allocating costs among different health and human services programs. CMS does not anticipate the additional reporting required to obtain 75 percent FFP will add a significant amount of time to that process. From 45 CFR section 95.507, Plan requirements, the cost allocation support should include the following:
- A description of the procedures used to identify, measure, and allocate all costs to each of the programs
- Conform to the accounting principles and standards prescribed in Office of Management and Budget Circular A-87, and other pertinent Department regulations and instructions;
- Contain sufficient information in such detail to make an informed judgment on the correctness and fairness of the state's procedures for identifying, measuring, and allocating the costs
- The cost allocation plan shall contain the following information:
- An organizational chart showing the placement of each unit whose costs are charged to the programs operated by the state agency
- A listing of all federal and all non-federal programs performed, administered, or serviced by these organizational units.
- A description of the activities performed by each organizational unit and, where not self-explanatory an explanation of the benefits provided to federal programs.
- The procedures used to identify, measure, and allocate all costs to each benefiting program and activity (including activities subject to different rates of FFP).
States should consult with their CMS cost allocation leads to determine whether any change to their approved cost allocation plan is needed and work with their counterparts at human services agencies as necessary. The methods of cost allocation should be documented in the state operations APD update submission to support the proposed budget.
Supplemental Links:
- This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 105.59 KB)
FAQ ID:93721
SHARE URLHow will CMS monitor and oversee state implementation? Will CMS ask states to report on enhanced maintenance and operations activities separately on the CMS-64-10 and 37-10? How will CMS verify state reporting?
As noted earlier, states must submit an Operations APD to request this funding. CMS will monitor state implementation of the enhanced 75 percent FFP through ongoing review of state eligibility system implementation and operations, as well as through revised claims reporting. Specifically, CMS is revising the CMS-64-10 and 37-10 forms to separately capture eligibility determination system related maintenance and operations costs. We will separately track costs related to IT systems and eligibility determination staff as follows:
- For the IT and systems maintenance and operations, costs will be reported on the CMS-64-10 and 37-10 on line 28C - Operation of an approved Medicaid eligibility determination system/cost of in-house activities - 75 percent FFP and 28D - Operation of an approved Medicaid eligibility determination system/cost private sector contractors- 75 percent FFP.
- For the Eligibility Determination workers staffing eligible for enhanced match, costs will be reported on the CMS-64-10 and 37-10 on line 28E - Eligibility Determination staff - cost of in-house activities - 75 percent FFP and 28F- Eligibility Determination staff - cost of private sector contractors - 75 percent FFP.
- For the Eligibility Determinations workers staffing eligible for regular administrative match, costs will be reported on the CMS-64-10 and 37-10 on line 28G - Eligibility Determination staff - cost of in-hour activities - 50 percent FFP and 28 H - cost of private sector contractors - 50 percent FFP.
As this enhanced match is implemented, CMS will closely monitor implementation and reporting, and if necessary, will revise how this data is collected on the estimate and expenditure reporting forms to ensure states and CMS have the proper break out to track these activities and their related claims.
Furthermore, CMS will continue to work with states over time to ensure that their systems continue to remain compliant with the Seven Conditions and Standards. For example, under the Reporting Condition, state systems should be able to produce accurate data that are necessary for oversight, administration, evaluation, integrity and transparency. CMS has recently provided technical specifications for the Transformed Medicaid Statistical Information System (TMSIS) data file to states following more than a year of collaboration with states participating in the T-MSIS pilot. CMS envisions that the T-MSIS data file will be submitted on a monthly basis. We anticipate releasing additional guidance on this subject in the coming weeks.
As with all expenditures, federal match must be properly claimed and is subject to review and approval. Again, CMS will work closely with the each state to review and approve costs covered and will use the APD process to confirm with states specific implementation details, before states start to submit claims.
Supplemental Links:
- This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 105.59 KB)
FAQ ID:93726
SHARE URLFor physicians in neighboring states, can we require them to self-attest under CMS 2370-F using our state's protocol, rather than relying on the determination made by the home state's Medicaid program?
Our understanding of the CMS 2370-F rule is that advanced practice clinicians are eligible for the increased payment as long as they are working under the personal supervision of an eligible physician; eligible meaning the supervising physician is also eligible for the increased payment.We are trying to determine if: 1) advanced practice clinicians also can attest that they are working under the personal supervision of an eligible physician at the time of attestation, or 2) if they have to indicate who the supervising physician is on each claim for an eligible service and then we would need to see if that physician is eligible for the increased payment at the time of claim processing.If advanced practice clinicians are billing under their own provider numbers, how can we know that they're under the personal supervision of an eligible physician?
The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has permitted states flexibility in establishing processes to identify services provided by advanced practiced clinicians (APCs), including advanced practice nurses, being personally supervised by eligible physicians who accept professional responsibility for the services they provide. The state may set up a separate system to document that an Ambulatory Payment Classification (APC) is working under the personal supervision of a particular eligible physician. For example, the eligible physician could identify the APCs to the Medicaid agency, which could flag the claims submitted by those APCs under their own provider numbers through the Medicaid Management Information System (MMIS). There is no requirement that the rendering providers indicate on each claim the name of the supervising eligible physicians, however it is important that there be documentation that the eligible physicians have acknowledged their relationship with the advanced practice clinicians. Providing this type of information on a per claim basis is an effective way to document the state's claim for 100 percent federal funding for the increased portion of the payment.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:94101
SHARE URLAre Indian Health Services (IHS) excluded from the increased provider payments under CMS 2370-F? Is there any change in FMAP under CMS 2370-F for primary care services delivered through IHS?
IHS and tribal facilities are often not separately paid for physician services, but instead receive an all-inclusive rate for inpatient or outpatient service encounters. To the extent that a particular claim is made for primary care services furnished by an eligible physician, there is no exclusion from the requirement for provider payment at least equal to the Medicare Part B fee schedule rate. States would continue to receive Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) at the 100 percent rate for services received through IHS and tribal facilities and reimbursed through the all-inclusive rate. For other physician services, including Medicaid payments for contract health services, states would receive the regular FMAP for the base payment, and 100 percent for the difference between the state plan rate in effect on July 1, 2009 and the applicable 2013 and 2014 Medicare rates.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:94106
SHARE URLThe preamble of the final rule under CMS 2370-F makes it clear that salaried eligible physicians employed by counties must receive the higher payment for eligible Evaluation & Management (E&M) and vaccine services. Does this same logic apply to physicians employed by hospitals and, if so, is it the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) expectation that the Medicaid agency will assure that the salaries of those physicians are increased?
Physicians employed by hospitals whose services are reimbursed by Medicaid on a physician fee schedule must receive the benefit of higher payment. It is the Medicaid agency's responsibility to ensure that hospitals receiving payments on behalf of those physicians comply with all requirements of the program. While hospitals could increase salaries they could also provide additional/bonus payments to eligible physicians to ensure that they receive the benefit of higher Medicaid payment.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:94111
SHARE URLThe final rule under CMS 2370-F clarifies that the 60 percent threshold for eligibility is based on services billed. Are billed services to be defined based on the number of units submitted or dollars?
The 60 percent threshold is based on the number of billed services as identified by individual billing codes for the primary specialty being asserted. That is, the numerator equals total billed codes for Evaluation & Management (E&M) services for the primary specialty, plus vaccine administration services, and the denominator equals the total number of billed codes. Please note that a state may choose to use paid billing codes/services in place of billed codes.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:94116
SHARE URLFor physicians in neighboring states, can we require them to self-attest under CMS 2370-F using our state's protocol, rather than relying on the determination made by the home state's Medicaid program?
Are Indian Health Services (IHS) excluded from the increased provider payments under CMS 2370-F? Is there any change in FMAP under CMS 2370-F for primary care services delivered through IHS?
IHS and tribal facilities are often not separately paid for physician services, but instead receive an all-inclusive rate for inpatient or outpatient service encounters. To the extent that a particular claim is made for primary care services furnished by an eligible physician, there is no exclusion from the requirement for provider payment at least equal to the Medicare Part B fee schedule rate. States would continue to receive Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) at the 100 percent rate for services received through IHS and tribal facilities and reimbursed through the all-inclusive rate. For other physician services, including Medicaid payments for contract health services, states would receive the regular FMAP for the base payment, and 100 percent for the difference between the state plan rate in effect on July 1, 2009 and the applicable 2013 and 2014 Medicare rates.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:93956
SHARE URLThe preamble of the final rule under CMS 2370-F makes it clear that salaried eligible physicians employed by counties must receive the higher payment for eligible Evaluation & Management (E&M) and vaccine services. Does this same logic apply to physicians employed by hospitals and, if so, is it the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) expectation that the Medicaid agency will assure that the salaries of those physicians are increased?
Physicians employed by hospitals whose services are reimbursed by Medicaid on a physician fee schedule must receive the benefit of higher payment. It is the Medicaid agency's responsibility to ensure that hospitals receiving payments on behalf of those physicians comply with all requirements of the program. While hospitals could increase salaries they could also provide additional/bonus payments to eligible physicians to ensure that they receive the benefit of higher Medicaid payment.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:93961
SHARE URL
Results per page