Frequently Asked Questions

Yes, the templates allow the use of multiple cost centers. For example, if the state uses a cost methodology for ancillary services and a per-diem methodology for routine services, the state will complete one cost template and one per-diem template in order to account for these two cost centers. Every hospital would be featured in each of the two templates; however, to differentiate their provider information, the state would append the Medicare Certification Number (Medicare ID) (variable 112) with a letter, such as an -A or a -B. For example, if the Medicare ID was 123456, it would be depicted in the cost template as 123456-A and in the per diem template as 123456-B. If a Medicare Certification Number is not available then the state should append the Medicaid Provider Number. If there are multiple cost centers under either the cost or per-diem methodology, the state would separate out the cost centers within their respective templates. Each cost center should be associated with only one appended letter and these should be described in the notes tab. When using multiple cost centers, the state should insert a new tab in the templates that summarizes the UPL gap calculations for each of the ownership categories (state government owned, non-state government owned, and private), unless a summary worksheet is already included in the workbook.

FAQ ID:92261

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

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

IV&V contractor activities must still be performed such as checklist evaluation, artifact review and preparation of IV&V Progress Reports. The state should provide a plan and timeline for how these activities will be supported and performed until the proper IV&V contract can be either procured or aligned with updated CMS guidance on IV&V.

FAQ ID:94866

As contained in the MECT standard RFP/contract language required by CMS, CMS does not cover activities that the state may require of the IV&V contractor during ongoing O&M. However, as Medicaid is moving away from monolithic single applications, it is expected that states will continuously update and replace modules in their enterprise. Therefore, IV&V should always have a role to ensure successful integration and testing.

FAQ ID:94881

If an organization is performing another role (such as systems integrator, PMO, quality assurance, etc.) on the MMIS or E&E project, it may not perform the IV&V function on the same project. A state may contract the same vendor to perform the IV&V role for both its E&E and MMIS projects.

FAQ ID:94886

To reduce potential conflict of interest, CMS is ensuring that states are arranging IV&V services through contracts that should be owned outside of the agency that owns the MMIS or E&E project. The oversight organization for the IV&V contractor should not be involved in oversight of the development effort, a stakeholder in the business implementation, or the DDI contractor. The IV&V contract monitor should be aware of system development problem solving, reporting, and contractor management. This contract oversight provides true independence between the IV&V contractor and system development teams. This requirement is consistent with other HHS agencies' practices and industry best practices.

FAQ ID:94891

FAQ ID:92871

The Review Tool Report is a feature CPOCs, SRTs, Senior Reviewers, Package Approvers, Package Disapprovers, and CMS Report Admins can utilize to see Package Reviewable Units, Reviewers, Reviewable Unit Assessment Values, and Notes.

Log in as CMS Point of Contact or Submission Review Team member. Under the "Records" tab, select "Submission Packages". Then select the link to the submission package. In the left panel, select "Review Tool Report". You may sort the reviews of all Review Team members by Package Reviewable Unit, Reviewer, Reviewable Unit Assessment Value, or Note/Assessments by utilizing the drop-down boxes. You also have the ability to export this report to Excel by selecting "Export to Excel."

FAQ ID:92876

Analyst Notes are a form of brief internal communication for the CMS Review Team. These notes are a part of the official record; however, State users are not able to see these notes. Analyst Notes are part of the Review Tool for each Reviewable Unit and the SRT or CPOC may view the notes from other Review Team members (depending on the type of note) within the Review Tool, and add his/her own notes.

The CMS Point of Contact or Submission Review Team members may add Analysts Notes through the Review Tool. The types of notes available are referenced in a table below. You will start by logging in as the CMS Point of Contact or Submission Review Team member, then going to the "Records" tab. Under the "Records" tab select "Submission Packages" and then select the link to the package. In the left panel select "Analyst Notes". You will then have the ability to search notes entered by Review Team Members.

FAQ ID:92881