Frequently Asked Questions

OMB Circular A-87requires costs associated with building shared state-based Information Technology (IT) systems that support multiple health and human service programs be allocated across all benefitting programs in proportion to their use of the system. The OMB A-87 Exception revised this approach by allowing human service programs (e.g. SNAP, TANF, LIHEAP, etc.) and others to utilize a wide range of IT components, needed by Medicaid but also of use to these other programs, at no additional cost except for interfaces or other uniquely required services specific to those programs. The A-87 Exception applies only to design, development, and implementation. Maintenance and operations work should continue to be allocated in accordance with the A-87 Circular. OMB Circular A-87  – Cost Principles for State, Local, and Indian Tribal Governments, has been Relocated to 2 CFR, Part 225 .

FAQ ID:93611

On July 20, 2015, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced a three-year extension of the Exception to the OMB A-87 cost allocation requirements from December 31, 2015 to December 31, 2018. We are currently making plans for the OMB A-87 exception to end.

FAQ ID:93616

States will need to incur costs for goods and services furnished no later than December 31, 2018 to make use of this Exception. Therefore, if work is completed by December 31, 2018, it can be funded under the OMB A-87 Exception and states should follow typical invoicing and claiming processes. However, if an amount has been obligated by December 31, 2018, but the good or service is not furnished by that date, then such expenditure must be cost allocated by program in proportion to their use of the system in accordance with OMB A-87.

FAQ ID:93621

For FFY2019 annual APDs and budget tables, including the Medicaid Detailed Budget Table (MDBT), must be completed as follows:

• For Q1 FFY2019, states can allocate costs in accordance with the OMB A-87 Exception
• For Q2-Q$ FFY2019, and all APDs going forward, states should allocate costs as required under the OMB A-87 Circular

If a state has already submitted their annual APDs without providing separate budgets they will need to complete an APDU with a revised MDBT and cost allocation plan. The update should address how cost allocation will be done prior to, and after, December 31, 2018. Budget tables should be completed as described above.

The Data and Systems Group (DSG) that approves APDs does not approve cost allocation methodology. States working to develop their new methodologies should send operational cost allocation plans to Cost Allocation Services  and the regional office fiscal staff for all benefiting programs.

FAQ ID:93626

If a woman indicates on an initial application that she is pregnant, she should be enrolled in Medicaid coverage as a pregnant woman, rather than in the new adult group. However, as stated in the preamble to the March 23, 2012 Medicaid and CHIP Eligibility & Enrollment final rule , states are not required to track the pregnancy status of women already enrolled through the new adult group. Women should be informed of the benefits afforded to pregnant women under the state's Medicaid program and if a woman becomes pregnant and requests a change in coverage category, the state must make the change if she is eligible.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 135.35 KB)

FAQ ID:92151

If a woman is enrolled in a group for pregnant women, before the end of the post-partum period, as specified in the definition of "pregnant woman" at 42 CFR 435.4, the state Medicaid agency will need to re-evaluate the woman's eligibility for other groups, including the lowincome adult group and advance payment of premium tax credits through the Marketplace. Our regulations at 42 CFR 435.916 explain the requirements for states in connection with renewals of eligibility or determinations of ineligibility based on a change in circumstances. The procedures outlined in the regulation are intended to promote continuity of coverage.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 135.35 KB)

FAQ ID:92161

Variable 408 (Adjustment to the UPL Gap) is intended to allow states to report adjustments to their UPL gap, to the extent that these adjustments are not accounted for in other variables. Here, states could report broad-based increases or reductions in payment, such as a Medicaid volume adjustment for managed care expansion. The source of values input into variable 408 may differ by state. Whenever a state reports data in variable 408 it must include a comprehensive note describing the adjustment.

FAQ ID:92301

Yes, a state may choose between using all-payer data or Medicare-specific data from the Medicare Hospital Cost Report (CMS Form 2552) to determine the cost-to-charge ratios.

FAQ ID:92406

Within the parameters set by State Medicaid Director (SMD) Letter #11-004 and SMD Letter #10-016, states may request 90/10 HITECH administrative funding for a wide range of HIE activities that support meaningful use.

States may request this funding for two broad categories of their administrative activities related to HIEs: (1) on-boarding, and (2) design, development, and implementation (DDI) of infrastructure. In this context, on-boarding refers to the state's or HIE's activities related to connecting a provider to an HIE so that the provider is able to successfully exchange data and use the HIE's services; this funding cannot cover costs incurred by the provider or the vendor. For more information, please see the later FAQ that specifically discusses on-boarding. With respect to infrastructure DDI, CMS is able to provide matching funds for a variety of state activities that will enable providers who are eligible for the Medicaid EHR Incentive Program to meet meaningful use. If the requirements of SMD Letters #10-016 and #11-004 are met, CMS will provide funding for state administrative activities related to core HIE services (for example, designing and developing a provider directory, privacy and security applications, and/or data warehouses), public health infrastructure, and electronic Clinical Quality Measurement (eCQM) infrastructure.

CMS recognizes that there are multiple types of HIE models emerging among the states, and will review each proposal individually. SMD Letter #11-004 outlines some of the characteristics that CMS encourages, but a state may provide justification for why an alternate model is more appropriate given the unique circumstances in that state. 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) for HIE funding. Please note that cost allocation and fair share principles are critical requirements outlined in SMD Letter #11-004, and so the state must ensure that its funding request complies with the principles outlined in the SMD letter.

Supplemental Links:

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

FAQ ID:92526

Yes, but only in specific circumstances. States may request time-limited HITECH funding for staffing costs related to on-boarding eligible Medicaid providers to the HIE or to building initial infrastructure. The staff may sit in the state Medicaid agency or the HIE itself, depending on the state's situation. Any staffing costs for on-boarding or infrastructure must be time-limited to ensure that the costs do not become operational in nature. When requesting HITECH funds to cover staffing costs, states should present a justification that describes how many eligible providers are anticipated to on-board to the HIE and the amount of staffing time necessary to on-board those providers or build infrastructure.

Please note that HITECH administrative funding will also be available for personnel that sit within the Medicaid agency itself and support only Medicaid providers. However, the fair share and cost allocation principles outlined in the State Medicaid Director (SMD) Letter #11-004 still apply. If those personnel work on other State Medicaid program activities that do not benefit the Medicaid EHR Incentive Program, then HITECH funds must be cost allocated between the Medicaid EHR Incentive Program and the Medicaid agency personnel's other activities.

Supplemental Links:

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

FAQ ID:92531