Frequently Asked Questions

CMS acknowledges the customary practice of reimbursing out-of-state or out-of-network providers at a base rate minus a defined percentage. The applicable Medicare rate effectively becomes the ‘floor’ for payments to eligible providers for eligible services rendered in CYs 2013 and 2014. Health plans may pay above that rate but not below.

Supplemental Links:

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

FAQ ID:92131

No. The only expenditures that count against the CHIP allotment and must be reported on the CMS-21 are those related to the Medicaid rate in effect on July 1, 2009. The difference between those rates and the 2013 and 2014 Medicare rates eligible for 100 percent FMAP are Medicaid expenditures and are reported on the CMS 64.9.

Supplemental Links:

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

FAQ ID:92116

No, CMS does not require any particular starting point within the fiscal year for the UPL demonstrations. This allows states the flexibility to develop UPL demonstrations that are tied to the provider payment periods described in the state plan payment methodologies for each service. For instance, if a state submits a state plan amendment to update provider payments as of October 1 of each year, the state would document that the SPA changes comply with the UPL for the period 10/1 - 9/30 of that payment year. The UPL must represent the entire payment year. Since UPL demonstrations usually rely on historic data that is projected into a payment year, this is consistent with past practices.

FAQ ID:92226

The state should complete one template each for the DRG and per diem UPL calculations and these should be placed in one file. The state should also include a summary worksheet in the same file that shows the UPL gap for each ownership category (state government owned, non-state government owned, and private). States should include all necessary supporting documentation.

FAQ ID:92276

When a hospital acquires another hospital, the state should use all available data to determine the UPL and work with CMS to assure appropriate reporting. When a hospital ceases operation, the state should not annualize data if it does not cover a 12-month period.

FAQ ID:92391

The UPL data for out of state providers does not need to be included in the UPL demonstration. If the state has provider level data then it may include it in the demonstration within the private ownership category of providers.

FAQ ID:92426

CMS recently received information from the American Board of Medical Specialties attesting that the American Board of Allergy and Immunology (ABAI) is an ABMS-recognized sub-discipline of the American Board of Pediatrics and the American Board of Internal Medicine.

Specifically, the ABAI is a conjoint board of the American Board of Pediatrics (ABP) and the American Board of Internal medicine (ABIM). All physicians certified by the Board of Allergy and Immunology must first be board certified by either ABP or ABAI. Medical specialists certified by the Allergy and Immunology Board remain subspecialists of Internal Medicine and Pediatrics. However, it is possible that some holders of a certificate from ABAI will not have a current certificate in Internal Medicine or Pediatrics because some diplomats of the ABP and ABIM who hold subspecialty certificates are not required to maintain their primary certificates. The ABMS was concerned that these diplomats might be excluded from eligibility for higher payment under a strict interpretation of the rule even though they do act as their patients' primary care provider in many cases and urged that CMS formally recognize that diplomats of ABAI are, in fact subspecialists in Internal Medicine and Pediatrics and eligible for higher payment up to the Medicare rate.

Based on this information, CMS agrees that allergists are eligible for higher payment under the rule.

Supplemental Links:

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

FAQ ID:91486

CMS acknowledges the customary practice of reimbursing out-of-state or out-of-network providers at a base rate minus a defined percentage. The applicable Medicare rate effectively becomes the'floor' for payments to eligible providers for eligible services rendered in CYs 2013 and 2014. Health plans may pay above that rate but not below.

Supplemental Links:

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

FAQ ID:91446

Yes. A state may elect to delegate the self-attestation process to its contracting health plans under the following circumstances:

1. Each managed care plan has signed documentation on file (provider contract or credentialing application) from the eligible provider attesting to the fact that he or she has a covered specialty or subspecialty designation. This addresses step one of the two-step self-attestation process specified in the rule.
2. The managed care plan has verification of the provider’s appropriate board certification (as part of the credentialing and re-credentialing process). This addresses one option of the second step in the self-attestation process.
3. Should board certification in the eligible specialty not be able to be verified by the managed care plan, the eligible provider must provide a specific attestation to the managed care plan that 60 percent of their Medicaid claims for the prior year were for the Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) codes specified in the regulation. This addresses a second option for the second step in the self-attestation process.
4.  Such delegation is included in the contract amendment that is otherwise being filed to implement this provision.

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

FAQ ID:91456

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