Frequently Asked Questions

State Medicaid Director (SMD) Letter #11-004 and SMD Letter #10-016 indicate that states may request 90/10 HITECH administrative funding for HIE infrastructure under the Medicaid EHR Incentive Program. To request this funding, states must submit an Implementation Advance Planning Document Update (IAPD-U) using the approved template, which can be found at http://www.cms.gov/Regulationsand-Guidance/Legislation/EHRIncentivePrograms/Downloads/Medicaid_HIT_IAPD_Template.pdf. In particular, the IAPD-U template Appendix D outlines all the information required for an HIE funding request. The HIE funding request may be submitted in a separate IAPD-U, or it may be included in an IAPD-U that requests other funding for the state's Medicaid EHR Incentive Program.

CMS asks that states reach out early to their regional CMS HITECH contacts if they are considering submitting an IAPD-U for HIE funding. Given the complexity of an HIE request, along with the parameters set out in SMD Letter #11-004, CMS prefers to have one or more preliminary discussions to go over the state's current IAPD landscape, the state's technical model, and the state's approach to meeting the fair share and cost allocation principles.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 288.05 KB)

FAQ ID:92536

Under State Medicaid Director (SMD) Letter #11-004 and SMD Letter #10-016, states may request 90/10 HITECH administrative funding to on-board providers that are eligible for the Medicaid EHR Incentive Program. In this context, on-boarding refers to the HIE's activities involved in connecting a provider to the HIE so that the provider is able to successfully exchange data and use the HIE's services. This HITECH funding is available to cover an HIE's reasonable costs (e.g., interfaces and testing) to on-board eligible providers-that is, the costs incurred by an HIE to on-board a provider. This funding cannot cover the providers' costs to supplement the functionality of providers' specific EHR, nor can it cover the EHR vendors' costs. It is CMS' view that such on-boarding activities meet the criteria set forth in SMD Letter #10-016, Enclosure C.

Funding for on-boarding must comply with the guidance in SMD Letter #11-004 with respect to the fair share principle and cost allocation. However, funding for on-boarding can be used only to connect providers to the HIE if those providers are eligible for Medicaid EHR Incentive payments. Because funding for on-boarding will not directly benefit parties who do not participate in the Medicaid EHR Incentive Program, the fair share principle will be satisfied without contributions from other payers. All appropriate on-boarding costs can be cost allocated entirely to the 90/10 HITECH funding.

Please note that all Medicaid HITECH funding for HIE activities must enable Medicaid providers to meet meaningful use.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 288.05 KB)

FAQ ID:92541

Yes, we encourage states to request 90/10 HITECH administrative funding for DDI of public health HIE infrastructure under the guidance provided in State Medicaid Director (SMD) Letter #10-016 and SMD Letter #11-004. States may request HITECH funds to design, develop, and implement a public health HIE infrastructure that will enable providers to meet the meaningful use objectives related to public health (i.e., electronic lab reporting, immunization registries, cancer registries, specialized registries, and syndromic surveillance). Please note that this funding for public health activities is available for states that plan to create an interface through their HIE to allow providers to submit data to public health departments through a single portal. CMS encourages states to take advantage of this funding to create the functionality at the HIE level. If providers who are not eligible for the Medicaid EHR Incentive Program will also benefit from this infrastructure, the state's request must address the fair share principle and cost allocation. CMS will only reimburse these costs at the 90 percent match rate to the extent they benefit the Medicaid EHR Incentive Program. Other entities that contribute to the HIE must contribute their agreed-upon share.

Please note that the allocation of costs to the Medicaid EHR Incentive Program may vary for different components of the public health infrastructure. For example, the Medicaid EHR Incentive Program may benefit proportionally more from interfaces to an immunization registry than to a cancer registry.

The public health landscape greatly varies among states, and CMS encourages interested states to reach out to their CMS regional HITECH contacts to discuss any proposed HIE funding requests prior to submitting an Implementation Advance Planning Document Update (IAPD-U).

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 288.05 KB)

FAQ ID:92546

Yes. Under Stage 2 meaningful use, providers must provide patients the ability to view online, download, and transmit the patients' health information. CMS understands that for many providers, utilizing a PHR through a HIE will be the best way to achieve this objective. As such, CMS allows states to request funding for PHRs under the Medicaid EHR Incentive Program's guidelines for requesting HIE funding. The parameters for this funding are outlined in State Medicaid Director (SMD) Letter #10-016 and SMD Letter #11-004, which emphasizes the fair share and cost allocation principles. For a provider to use the PHR service via the HIE, the PHR technology would need to be certified as an EHR Module to meet the meaningful use objective's certification criterion. When reviewing a state's request for PHR funding, CMS will consider how the proposed PHR solution affects the state's entire HIE landscape and whether there are any other PHRs options in the state. CMS expects any proposed PHR solution to support providers and stakeholders throughout the state, and not just those who are eligible for the Medicaid EHR Incentive Program. This strategy will best promote sustainability by bringing in other payers and by avoiding the creation of silos.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 288.05 KB)

FAQ ID:92551

As State Medicaid Director (SMD) Letter #10-016 makes clear, states cannot use HITECH administrative funds on activities that could otherwise be funded with MMIS matching funds. That includes activities related to developing and implementing functionality to allow patients to download their data that is housed in the MMIS, because states could potentially use MMIS funds to create this functionality for claims or clinical data that is housed within the MMIS. It is CMS policy that MMIS funding is available for clinical decision support functionality that ties directly to the MMIS to reduce cost and improve outcomes. See 42 CFR 433 Subpart C, and State Medicaid Manual Part 11. Please note that MMIS funding would not be allowable for infrastructure outside the MMIS environment.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 288.05 KB)

FAQ ID:92556

Yes, states can utilize 90/10 HITECH administrative funding to update existing HIE infrastructure to align with new Federal HIE guidelines and requirements to exchange data with Federal agencies. For funding to be available for this purpose, the HIE infrastructure must be used to support Medicaid eligible providers in achieving meaningful use; for instance by supporting the achievement of the requirement to submit a summary of care record electronically for more than 10 percent of eligible transitions.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 288.05 KB)

FAQ ID:92561

Yes, states can utilize 90/10 HITECH administrative funding for the Medicaid EHR Incentive Program to upgrade existing Direct infrastructure, which supports eligible providers in achieving relevant meaningful use objectives, to align with ONC guidelines. For instance, states could use the funds to move from a single certificate for a Health Information Service Provider (HISP) to certificates being issued to each health care related organization in a HISP or a more granular component of an organization (e.g., by department or by individual).

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 288.05 KB)

FAQ ID:92566

The Medicaid statute provides several options for states to pay premiums for adults and children to purchase coverage through private group health plans, and in some case individual plans; in most cases, the statute conditions such arrangements on a determination that they are "cost effective." Cost effective generally means that Medicaid's premium payment to private plans plus the cost of additional services and cost sharing assistance that would be required would be comparable to what it would otherwise pay for the same services. Similar provisions also apply in the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP).

Under all these arrangements, beneficiaries remain Medicaid beneficiaries and continue to be entitled to all benefits and cost-sharing protections. States must have mechanisms in place to "wrap-around" private coverage to the extent that benefits are less and cost sharing requirements are greater than those in Medicaid. In addition under the statutory options in the individual market beneficiaries must be able to choose an alternative to private insurance to receive Medicaid benefits.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 40.01 KB)

FAQ ID:93841

Some states have expressed interest in section 1115 demonstrations to provide premium assistance for the purchase of QHPs in the Exchange. Under section 1115 of the Social Security Act, the Secretary may approve demonstration projects that she determines promote the objectives of the Medicaid program. HHS will consider approving a limited number of premium assistance demonstrations since their results would inform policy for the State Innovation Waivers that start in 2017. As with all such demonstrations, HHS will evaluate each proposal that is submitted and consider it on a case by case basis relative to this standard.

With regard to premium assistance demonstrations, HHS will consider states' ideas on cost effectiveness that include new factors introduced by the creation of Health Insurance Marketplaces and the expansion of Medicaid. For example, states may quantify savings from reduced churning (people moving between Medicaid and Exchanges as a result of fluctuating incomes) and increased competition in Marketplaces given the additional enrollees due to premium assistance. As with all demonstration proposals, the actuarial, economic, and budget justification (including budget neutrality) would need to be reviewed and, if approved, the program and budgetary impact would need to be carefully monitored and evaluated.

To ensure that the demonstrations further the objectives of the program and provide information in a timely way, HHS will only consider proposals that:

• Provide beneficiaries with a choice of at least two qualified health plans (QHPs).
• Make arrangements with the QHPs to provide any necessary wrap around benefits and cost sharing along with appropriate data; this would be done within the context of premium assistance, for example through a supplemental premium. This ensures that coverage is seamless, that cost sharing reductions are effectively delivered and that there is accountability for the payments made.
• Are limited to individuals whose benefits are closely aligned with the benefits available on the Marketplace, that is, individuals in the new Medicaid adult group who must enroll in benchmark coverage and are not described in SSA 1937(a)(2)(B)(an example of a population that is described in SSA 1937(a)(2)(B) is the medically frail). Marketplace plans were not designed to offer broader benefits and could experience unexpected adverse selection due to enrollment of groups that are described in SSA 1937(a)(2)(B).
• End no later than December 31, 2016. Starting in 2017, State Innovation Waiver authority begins which could allow a range of State-designed initiatives.

In addition, a state may increase the opportunity for a successful demonstration by choosing to target within the new adult group individuals with income between 100 and 133 percent of FPL. Medicaid allows for additional cost-sharing flexibility for populations with incomes above 100 percent of FPL; this population is more likely to be subject to churning and would be eligible for advance premium tax credits and Marketplace coverage if a state did not expand Medicaid to 133 percent of FPL.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 40.01 KB)

FAQ ID:93846

No. As stated in the past, the Affordable Care Act does not provide for a phased-in or partial expansion. States that wish to take advantage of the enhanced federal matching funds for newly eligible individuals must extend eligibility to 133% of the federal poverty level (FPL) by adopting the new adult group. Arkansas has initiated discussions about "premium assistance" options for Medicaid beneficiaries; partial expansion is not part of these discussions.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 40.01 KB)

FAQ ID:93851