Frequently Asked Questions

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

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

Beginning in 2014, the Affordable Care Act authorizes two types of increased federal medical assistance percentages (FMAPs) for state expenditures for low-income individuals in the new adult group (that is, the group described in section 1902(a)(10)(A)(i)(VIII) of the Social Security Act (the Act)) - the newly eligible FMAP and the expansion state FMAP. Under the statute, these two increased federal matching rates are only available to states that adopt the new adult group.

The newly eligible FMAP is available for medical assistance expenditures on behalf of "newly eligible" individuals, who are defined (in section 1905(y)(2) of the Act) as individuals between the ages of 19 and 64 who are enrolled in the new adult group and who would not have been eligible for full benefits, benchmark coverage (described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of section 1937(b)(1) of the Act), or benchmark-equivalent coverage (described in section 1937(b)(2) of the Act) as of December 1, 2009. An individual may also be "newly eligible" if he or she would have been eligible but could not have been enrolled for such benefits or coverage because the applicable Medicaid waiver or demonstration had limited or capped enrollment as of December 1, 2009.

The newly eligible FMAP (described in section 1905(y)(1) of the Act) is 100 percent in calendar years 2014-2016, 95 percent in calendar year 2017, 94 percent in calendar year 2018, 93 percent in calendar year 2019, and 90 percent in calendar years 2020 and beyond. The expansion state FMAP (described in section 1905(z)(2) of the Act) is an alternate increased FMAP available to match the expenditures for certain adults in states that previously expanded Medicaid and, as a result, may not qualify for the newly eligible FMAP. More details about the expansion state FMAP are included in Question 5. In our August 17, 2011 eligibility NPRM, we proposed that methods for assigning the appropriate FMAP would not require that states undertake the process of using their old eligibility rules to determine if someone would have been eligible under December 2009 rules. We have been consulting with states to test different methodologies for accuracy and simplicity.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 52.92 KB)

FAQ ID:94071

As described above, the newly eligible FMAP applies to adults in the new low-income adult eligibility group who would not have been eligible for full benefits, benchmark benefits, or benchmark-equivalent benefits under the state's rules as of December 1, 2009. At the time of approval of the section 1115 demonstrations in effect as of that date, neither CMS nor states explicitly designated the coverage offered under demonstrations as "benchmark" or "benchmark-equivalent" coverage, even though the coverage offered to demonstration beneficiaries may have met such standards. Therefore, CMS is requesting that states that used section 1115 demonstrations to expand coverage to low-income adults as of December 1, 2009 provide CMS with an analysis of the benefit package that was offered so that CMS can determine whether the benefits provided could have met a benchmark or benchmark equivalent standard, as in effect in December 2009. A separate analysis should be undertaken for each demonstration benefit package, if different demonstration populations received different benefits under the demonstration.

In conducting the benefit analysis, it will be important for states to utilize a consistent methodology and provide CMS with sufficient data to substantiate their analyses. States' benchmark-equivalence analyses must be certified by a qualified actuary and must include information on the data, assumptions, and methodology used to calculate actuarial values, in accordance with regulations implementing section 1937 of the Act, which are already in effect at 42 C.F.R. 440.330-340. CMS is working with all affected states (that is, states with demonstrations covering adults in effect on December 1, 2009) and will provide them with guidance about the form and manner in which to provide information about eligibility and benefits in effect as of December 1, 2009. CMS will use the benefit analysis that states provide to determine the appropriate FMAP. If any state has questions about this process, they should contact their State Operations and Technical Assistance (SOTA) team representative.

It is also important to note that if the benefit analysis described above indicates that the newly eligible FMAP is not available for a particular population, states may nevertheless be able to claim the expansion state FMAP for certain non-pregnant adults enrolled in the new adult group (as described in Question 5). CMS will work with each state that expanded coverage to adults prior to the enactment of the Affordable Care Act to address questions and to ensure that the correct FMAP is applied to expenditures for each population.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 52.92 KB)

FAQ ID:94076

When Congress enacted the Affordable Care Act, some states had already expanded coverage to adults at higher incomes. The expansion state designation under the statute provides an alternate increased FMAP to states that adopt the new adult group but where some individuals in the new group do not qualify for the newly eligible FMAP because they would have qualified for full benefits, benchmark benefits, or benchmark-equivalent benefits under the state's rules as of December 1, 2009. The expansion state FMAP may be available to qualifying states for expenditures for certain non-pregnant childless adults (those who are enrolled in the new adult group and who the state may require to enroll in benchmark coverage), to the extent that such individuals do not qualify for the newly eligible FMAP.

A qualifying expansion state (described in section 1905(z)(3) of the Act) is a state that, as of March 23, 2010 (the date of enactment of the Affordable Care Act), provided "health benefits coverage" either through Medicaid or a fully state-funded program to parents and nonpregnant childless adults up to at least 100 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL). For purposes of this statutory definition, such health benefits coverage as of March 23, 2010 must have:

• Included inpatient hospital services.
• Not been dependent on access to employer coverage, employer contribution, or employment.
• Not been limited to premium assistance, hospital-only benefits, a high deductible health plan, or a health opportunity account

States seeking to confirm their status as expansion states should provide CMS with an analysis of the scope of coverage provided as of March 23, 2010, citing applicable demonstration special terms and conditions or state-based policies to establish eligibility levels and the coverage provided. As we have explained in a previously released FAQ, if a population covered by a state that qualifies as an expansion state meets the criteria for the newly eligible matching rate, the state will receive the newly eligible matching rate for that population. A state will always receive the more favorable FMAP if two FMAPs might be applicable for a particular population. For example, states that qualify as expansion states may be eligible for the newly eligible FMAP if the expansion offered less than full benefits, benchmark benefits, or benchmark-equivalent benefits, or if the expansion started after December 1, 2009. In such an instance, expenditures for adults in the new adult coverage group will be subject to the newly eligible FMAP. The expansion state FMAP (described in section 1905(z)(2) of the Act) is the regular FMAP rate increased by the number of percentage points equal to a "transition percentage" (which ranges from 50-100 percent) of the gap between the regular Medicaid FMAP and the increased "newly eligible" FMAP. In 2019 and beyond, the expansion state FMAP will be equal to the newly eligible FMAP, which means it will be 93 percent in 2019 and 90 percent in 2020 and thereafter.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 52.92 KB)

FAQ ID:94081

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:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 41.01 KB)

FAQ ID:94276

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:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 41.01 KB)

FAQ ID:94361

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:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 41.01 KB)

FAQ ID:94376

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

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