Frequently Asked Questions

Under section 1902(a)(25)(H) of the Social Security Act (the Act) before passage of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA), states were required to have laws in effect that to the extent Medicaid payment was made, the state was considered to have acquired the rights of the Medicaid beneficiary to reimbursement by any other party that was liable for payment. However, payers sometimes deny Medicaid claims based on procedural requirements. Section 1902(a)(25)(I) of the Act, added by the DRA, strengthens the statute by requiring states to enact laws that require health insurers:

1. To accept the state's right of recovery and the assignment to the state of the right of a Medicaid beneficiary or other entity to payment from such party for an item or service for which Medicaid has made payment; and,
2. To process and, if appropriate, pay the claim for reimbursement from Medicaid to the same extent that the plan would have been liable had the plan's card been used for billing at the "point of sale" (POS).

Specifically, the state should pass laws which require an insurer to agree not to deny claims submitted by the state on the basis of the date of submission of the claim, the type or format of the claim form, or a failure to present proper documentation of coverage at the POS that is the basis of the claim.

Whether a plan provision affecting payment for an item or service is solely procedural in nature or whether it defines or limits the covered benefits must be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Note that nothing in the DRA negates the state's responsibility to provide proper documentation when submitting claims to the health insurer so that the insurer can determine that a covered service for which the insurer is liable was provided.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 252.32 KB)

FAQ ID:91236

No. States typically do not meet the definition of a covered health care provider under 45 CFR 160.103, and therefore, are not eligible to receive an NPI. If states encounter situations where plans are requiring them to submit an NPI, they can submit a formal complaint to the Office of E-Health Standards and Services (OESS) in CMS by using the online Administrative Simplification Enforcement Tool (ASET). ASET allows individuals or organizations to electronically file a complaint against an entity whose actions they believe violate an Administrative Simplification provision of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA).

States may submit a formal complaint electronically at: https://asett.cms.gov/ASETT_HomePage. ASET users are required to register with OESS and create a user identification name and password. States also may submit a paper complaint. The form is available at: www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Administrative-Simplification/Enforcements/Downloads/HIPAANon-PrivacyComplaintForm.pdf.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 252.32 KB)

FAQ ID:91241

Section 1902(a)(25)(I) of the Social Security Act requires states to have laws in effect that require health insurers to make payment as long as the claim is submitted by the state within three years from the date on which the item or service was furnished.

Some health insurers currently deny claims submitted by Medicaid if they are not filed within a prescribed time limit, which is applied to plan beneficiaries and providers (e.g., a plan might require beneficiaries and providers to submit claims within 30 days from date of service). If the state Medicaid agency is unable to ascertain the existence of the third party coverage and submit a claim within the time limit, the insurer may attempt to avoid liability.

Any action by the state to enforce its rights with respect to such claim must be commenced within six years of the state's submission of such claim. Health insurers also must respond to any inquiry by a state regarding claims submitted within three years from the date on which the item or service was furnished.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 252.32 KB)

FAQ ID:91246

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

In qualifying states, certain United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) grade A or B preventive services and vaccine administration codes are eligible for a one percent FMAP increase under section 4106 of the Affordable Care Act (which amended sections 1902(a)(13) and 1905(b) of the Act). Some of these services may also qualify as a primary care services eligible for an increase in the payment rates under section 1202 of the Affordable Care Act. For these services the federal matching rate is 100 percent for the difference between the Medicaid rate as of July 1, 2009 and the payment made pursuant to section 1202 (the increase). The federal matching payment for the portion of the rate related to the July 1, 2009 base payment would be the regular Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) rate, except that this rate would be increased by one percent if the provisions of section 4106 of the Affordable Care Act are applicable.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set.

FAQ ID:91076

Effective for dates of service on and after January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2014, states are required by law to reimburse qualified providers at the rate that would be paid for the service (if the service were covered) under Medicare. Most states and the District of Columbia will need to submit a Medicaid state plan amendment (SPA) to increase Medicaid rates up to this level. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has issued a state plan amendment (SPA) preprint for the purpose of expediting review and approval of the primary care payment increase.

For dates of service starting January 1, 2013 qualified providers are entitled to receive the higher payment in accordance with the approved Medicaid state plan amendment. States may not have attestation procedures or higher fee schedule rates in place on January 1, 2013. In that event, providers will likely continue to be reimbursed the 2012 rates for a limited period of time. Once attestation procedures are in place and providers are identified as eligible for higher payment, the state will make one or more supplemental payments to ensure that providers receive payment for the difference between the amount paid and the Medicare rate. Qualified providers should receive the total due to them under the provision in a timely manner.

A state may draw federal financial participation for the higher payments only after the SPA methodology is approved.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set.

FAQ ID:91271

The statute specifies that higher payment applies to primary care services delivered by a physician with a specialty designation of family medicine, general internal medicine, or pediatric medicine. The regulation specifies that specialists and subspecialists within those designations as recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) the American Osteopathic Association (AOA) or the American Board of Physician Specialties (ABPS) also qualify for the enhanced payment. Under the regulation, "general internal medicine" encompasses internal medicine and all subspecialties recognized by the ABMS, ABPS and AOA. In order to be eligible for higher payment:

1. Physicians must first self-attest to a covered specialty or subspecialty designation.
2. As part of that attestation they must specify that they either are Board certified in an eligible specialty or subspecialty and/or that 60 percent of their Medicaid claims for the prior year were for the Evaluation and Management (E&M) codes specified in the regulation. It is quite possible that physicians could qualify on the basis of both Board certification and claims history.

Only physicians who can legitimately self-attest to a specialty designation of (general) internal medicine, family medicine or pediatric medicine or a subspecialty within those specialties recognized by the American Board of Physician Specialties (ABPS), American Osteopathic Association (AOA) or American Board of Physician Specialties (ABPS) qualify.

It is possible that a physician might maintain a particular qualifying Board certification but might actually practice in a different field. A physician who maintains one of the eligible certificates, but actually practices in a non-eligible specialty should not self-attest to eligibility for higher payment. Similarly, a physician Board certified in a non-eligible specialty (for example, surgery or dermatology) who practices within the community as, for example, a family practitioner could self-attest to a specialty designation of family medicine, internal medicine or pediatric medicine and a supporting 60 percent claims history. In either case, should the validity of that physician's self-attestation be reviewed by the state as part of the annual statistical sample, the physician's payments would be at risk if the agency finds that the attestation was not accurate.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 50.64 KB)

FAQ ID:91276