Frequently Asked Questions are used to provide additional information and/or statutory guidance not found in State Medicaid Director Letters, State Health Official Letters, or CMCS Informational Bulletins. The different sets of FAQs as originally released can be accessed below.
Frequently Asked Questions
What issues should states consider in choosing which MAGI conversion method and data source to use?
Factors that states might want to consider in choosing an income conversion method and data source include whether the state currently maintains or can easily access the data that are needed to do the conversions, as well as the quality and completeness of the state's data. In addition, states will want to consider whether they have the analytical resources needed to do the conversions with their own data, how long it would take them to run the conversions and how much it would cost to pay a contractor to do the analysis. Finally, states should also consider preferences about using state-adjusted SIPP or state data.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:93936
SHARE URLIf a state wants to use the Standardized MAGI Conversion Methodology with its own date, what data elements will it need to use?
Detailed information on how to use state data to apply the standardized conversion methodology is forthcoming, but in general states will need 1) information on net income of each person and the size of the Medicaid eligibility unit to establish which enrollees fall within the 25 percentage point band below the current net income standard; and 2) data on the total amount of disregards for each individual within the 25 percentage point band - if this is not stored as a data element in the state's system, this can be calculated by adding up individual disregards, or as the difference between gross income and net income.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:93941
SHARE URLWhat type of technical assistance is available to states on MAGI Conversion?
Technical assistance for states thinking through their MAGI conversion options is available through the State Health Access Data Assistance Center (SHADAC) at the University of Minnesota. SHADAC is available to help states understand the income conversion methods, the data sources that can be used (SIPP or state data), and factors for states to consider in choosing a methodology. CMS will do conversions for all states using the standardized conversion methodology with SIPP data. States that choose to use state data or that propose a different methodology will need to do the conversions themselves, and SHADAC is available to provide consultation with states as they work through the process. This help is available at no cost to states. States can contact SHADAC for help with income conversion at (612) 486-2439 or by emailing their questions to fmaphelp@shadac.org.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:93946
SHARE URLCan you explain more about how the survey data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) will be reweighted to reflect state demographics for purposes of MAGI Conversion?
To produce reliable state-level results, income conversions using SIPP data will be based on the entire national sample that has been re-weighted to account for state demographic characteristics. The purpose of the reweighting is to ensure that the analysis is done using a population whose characteristics are similar to each state's actual population. The variables used in reweighting include age, parent status, gender, race/ethnicity, total household income as a percent of FPL, types of unearned income (whether the household has any unearned income and whether it includes child support), and whether or not an individual has child care expenses. The re-weighting will be done separately for each state and will ensure that the distribution of these characteristics (and combinations of these characteristics) matches state totals from the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey. In some states, a few of these categories will need to be combined due to small sample size. CMS will be releasing a brief on SIPP and the re-weighting adjustments.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:93951
SHARE URLUnder CMS 2370-F, may practice managers or billing staff of large group practices and health systems attest on behalf of their physicians on the basis of information on board certification in the records of the practice or health system?
If these practices and health systems maintain the types of documentation described in the previous answer, FAQ45736, with respect to managed care organizations, attestation by the group or system would be acceptable. As previously noted, a physician actually must be practicing as an internist, pediatrician or family physician in order to be eligible for higher payment. Board certification does not always equate to practice characteristics. Therefore, attestation on the basis of information on board certification alone would not suffice.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:93866
SHARE URLUnder CMS 2370-F, if a physician renders services in both the managed care and fee for service environments, must he or she self-attest to eligibility twice?
No. The attestation and eligibility are physician-specific. If a physician provides services both in a fee-for-service and managed care environment, they need only complete the process of attestation once in order to receive higher payment for all eligible services they provide. CMS expects all information on self-attestation to be fully available to the state, regardless of which party collected this information.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:93871
SHARE URLUnder CMS 2370, may physicians who practice in two (or more) states meet the 60 percent threshold based on all services provided in all states, or must they qualify on the basis of the services they provide in each state?
States have the flexibility to count eligible services provided by a physician in neighboring states in meeting the 60 percent threshold, but are not required to do so.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:93876
SHARE URLThere are at least two current procedural terminology (CPT) codes (99429 and 99499) for which there are no relative value units (RVU) and the state manually prices the services for purposes of Medicaid payment. Will CMS develop a Medicare-like rate for these codes under the CMS 2370-F rule?
These services would not be subject to the minimum payment standard set in the rule because there are no RVUs and there is no conversion factor associated with them. Therefore, a Medicare-like rate cannot be developed. The state may continue to reimburse them at the current Medicaid rate but enhanced federal financial participation (FFP) will not be available for those services.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:93881
SHARE URLUnder CMS 2370-F, if a physician self-attests to being a primary care provider and supports that attestation with evidence of appropriate board certification, must we review that physician's practice to verify that they actually practice in that manner?
No. Verification of current board certification is sufficient.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:93886
SHARE URLUnder CMS 2370-F, if a physician is board certified in a non-eligible specialty (for example dermatology) but practices within the community as for, example, a family practitioner and attests to meeting the 60 percent claims threshold, are we expected to audit his or her practice and, if so, how? May we be specific about our audit requirements in the state plan?
Since the only evidence of eligibility is the self-attestation and claims history, the state would need to take steps to verify the practice characteristics of the physician. This could be done by determining that the physician represents himself in the community as a family practitioner, as evidenced by medical directory listings, billings to other insurers, advertisements, etc.
While we have no objection to the addition of this information to the state plan amendment (SPA), we believe it is more important that the state make providers aware of the audit procedures and requirements as part of the enrollment process.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:93891
SHARE URL
Results per page