Frequently Asked Questions

No. Although a comprehensive assessment may include falls risk assessment elements, this measure does not require the risk assessment elements to be documented as part of a comprehensive assessment. For this measure, a falls risk assessment is considered complete if the member record includes any documentation of a balance/gait assessment, and documentation of assessment of postural blood pressure, vision, home fall hazards, and/or medications.

FAQ ID:88961

No, the components can be completed during separate encounters, provided they are documented in the member record as having been performed between August 1 of the year prior to the measurement year and December 31 of the measurement year.

FAQ ID:88966

No, a standardized tool is not required, although documentation of use of a standardized tool (for example, Get Up & Go, Berg, Tinetti) would meet the balance/gait assessment component of the measure.

FAQ ID:88971

Yes, the same tool may be used to conduct the screening and risk assessment for the Screening, Risk Assessment, and Plan of Care to Prevent Future Falls measure.

FAQ ID:88986

No. Although a comprehensive care plan may include the elements comprising a plan of care to prevent future falls, the measure does not require the plan of care elements to be documented as part of a comprehensive care plan. For this measure, a plan of care is considered complete if the member record includes any documentation of exercise therapy or referral to exercise between August 1 of the year prior to the measurement year and December 31 of the measurement year.

FAQ ID:88991

Yes, the rate of exclusion for members who refused an assessment and/or a plan of care needs to be reported with the measure’s performance rate.

FAQ ID:88996

No, the sample for Part 2 of the Screening, Risk Assessment, and Plan of Care to Prevent Future Falls measure is different from the systematic sample used for the LTSS Comprehensive Assessment and Update, LTSS Comprehensive Care Plan and Update, LTSS Shared Care Plan with Primary Care Practitioner, and Part 1 of the Screening, Risk Assessment, and Plan of Care to Prevent Future Falls measures. Members included in the sample for Part 2 of this measure must have a documented history of falls (at least two falls or one fall with injury in the past year), including documentation of plan member self-reported history of falls.

FAQ ID:89001

The Precertification Pilot was an experiment conducted from October 2017-March 2018 designed to streamline certification and attract new vendors. Unfortunately, the pilot was found to be unscalable across Medicaid. However, key learnings from the pilot will be incorporated into current processes and future experiments around vendor engagement, certification, scalability, and sustainability. The goals the Centers from Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) identified at the beginning of the Precertification Pilot process remain the same: reduce the level of effort of certification; shorten the certification timeline; promote modularity and interoperability; reduce risk of system failure; and attract new vendors to the Medicaid IT market. Contact CMS with your ideas for experiments to achieve those goals at MES@cms.hhs.gov.

FAQ ID:95151

Section 1903(i)(7) of the Social Security Act specifies a separate UPL for CDL services which limits payment to no more than the Medicare rate on a per test basis. To meet the statutory provision, the UPL for CDL services must be separately demonstrated from the OPH services UPL. States do not have the ability to "borrow room" from the CDL UPL and apply it to the OPH UPL.

FAQ ID:92401

Yes, but only if controlled-egress is addressed as a modification of the rules defining home and community-based settings, with the state ensuring that the provider complies with the requirements of 42 C.F.R. 441.301(c)(4)(F), 441.530(a)(vi)(F) and 441.710(a)(vi)(F). Any setting using controlled-egress should assess an individual that exhibits wandering (and the underlying conditions, diseases or disorders) and document the individual's choices about and need for safety measures in his or her person-centered care plan. The plan should document the individual's preferences and opportunities for engagement within the setting's community and within the broader community.

Settings with controlled-egress should be able to demonstrate how they can make individual determinations of unsafe exit-seeking risk and make individual accommodations for those who are not at risk. Should a person choose a setting with controlled-egress, the setting must develop person-centered care plans that honor autonomy as well as minimize safety risks for each person, consistent with his or her plan goals. For example, spouses or partners who are not at risk for exit-seeking and who reside in the same setting should have the ability to come and go by having the code to an electronically controlled exit. Technological solutions, such as unobtrusive electronic pendants that alert staff when an individual is exiting, may be used for those at risk, but may not be necessary for others who have not shown a risk of unsafe exit-seeking. Importantly, such restrictions may not be developed or used for non-personcentered purposes, such as punishment or staff convenience.

In situations where a setting uses controlled-egress on an individual basis to support individuals who wander or exit-seek unsafely, consistent with our regulations, the person-centered plan must document the individual's:

• Understanding of the setting's safety features, including any controlled-egress,
• Choices for prevention of unsafe wandering or exit-seeking
• Consent from the individual and caregivers/representatives to controlled-egress goals for care
• Services, supports, and environmental design that will enable the individual to participate in desired activities and support their mobility
• Options that were explored before any modifications occurred to the person-centered plan

Regulations require the person-centered plan to be reviewed at least annually with the Medicaid beneficiary and his or her representative, to determine whether it needs revision. If a secured memory unit is no longer necessary to meet the individual's needs, the individual must be afforded the appropriate services in that setting to integrate into the community and exercise greater autonomy as well as being offered the option of a setting that does not have controlled egress.

To assure fidelity in complying with the regulations defining home and community-based settings, Memory Care Units should attempt to implement as many options as possible that are outlined within this guidance regarding staffing, activities and environmental design to assure optimal community integration for HCBS beneficiaries.

Note that the regulations provide that Medicaid beneficiaries receiving services in home and community-based settings must be free from coercion and restraint. Consistent with this, home and community-based settings should not restrict a participant within a setting, unless such restriction is documented in the person-centered plan, all less restrictive interventions have been exhausted, and such restriction is reassessed over time.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 144.19 KB)

FAQ ID:94976