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
Should the rate of required exclusions be reported with the Screening, Risk Assessment, and Plan of Care to Prevent Future Falls measure's Part 1 performance rate?
The measure excludes plan members who are not ambulatory from the measure rate, but it is not necessary to report the number of members excluded with the measure’s performance rate.
FAQ ID:89006
SHARE URLIs a specific screening tool required for the Screening, Risk Assessment, and Plan of Care to Prevent Future Falls measure?
No, a specific screening tool is not required for this measure. However, potential screening tools may include the Morse Fall Scale and timed Get-Up-And-Go test.
FAQ ID:89011
SHARE URLWhat is the difference between a screening (Part 1) and a risk assessment (Part 2) for the purposes of calculating the Screening, Risk Assessment, and Plan of Care to Prevent Future Falls measure?
A falls screening is an evaluation of whether a Managed Long Term Services and Supports plan member has experienced a history of falls and/or problems with balance or gait. A falls risk assessment includes a balance/gait assessment and one other assessment component and should only be performed for members with a documented history of falls (at least two falls or one fall with injury in the past year).
FAQ ID:89016
SHARE URLCan a state type information and data into unlocked fields in the Upper Payment Limit (UPL) templates or must the data from state-developed UPL reports/workbooks be mapped through, for example, V-Look-ups into the UPL templates?
Yes. Mapping data, through V-Look-ups, for example, is a much easier and consistent process for current and future UPL submissions. However, a state may choose to type information and data into unlocked fields in the UPL templates. When a state chooses to input data directly (not through a V-Look-up) into the template, it still must provide the supporting documentation with the source data. Additionally, the state should explain how it mapped data from the supporting documentation into the template. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services utilizes the supporting information to confirm that the information in the templates is correct.
FAQ ID:92451
SHARE URLCan you explain the difference between a prospective Upper Payment Limit (UPL) and a retrospective UPL?
The difference between a prospective and retrospective UPL is in the relationship between the UPL demonstration period and the date when the UPL is submitted. For a UPL demonstration period of 7/1/2018 to 6/30/2019, a UPL is considered retrospective when it is submitted on or after the start of the demonstration period (on or after 7/1/2018). Using the same UPL demonstration period (7/1/2018 to 6/30/2019), a UPL is considered prospective if it is submitted prior to 7/1/2018.
FAQ ID:92431
SHARE URLFor our Nursing Facility (NF) Upper Payment Limit (UPL) calculation we separate Medicaid allowable costs into three categories: salaries and benefits, operating costs, and property costs. Based on previous guidance from CMS, we do not apply an inflation factor to the property costs. In looking at the template, it appears the inflation factor is applied to all costs. Is this correct?
Where inflation is not applied to property costs, please separate out this cost from the Medicare UPL by reporting these amounts in variable 402 - Adjustment to the Medicare UPL.
FAQ ID:92361
SHARE URLWill any individuals lose coverage as a result of the new MAGI-based income methodology?
No one loses coverage as a result of converting to MAGI rules, but, in states that don't adopt the new adult eligibility group, it is possible that some individuals will lose coverage.
The Affordable Care Act ensured that no one would lose health coverage--if they were not eligible under the new MAGI standards either they would be covered under the new Medicaid adult coverage group or they would be able to purchase insurance through the Marketplace with the benefit of a premium tax credit and likely cost sharing reductions. Following the Supreme Court's decision, the Medicaid expansion is voluntary for states, and in states that do not adopt the new coverage group some individuals may lose coverage at the time of their renewal when the new rules are applied.
FAQ ID:92501
SHARE URLIt looks like in some states CHIP has gotten smaller; do the new MAGI rules result in smaller CHIP programs?
No, the change to MAGI does not affect the size of CHIP Programs.
The number of children in CHIP does not change as a result of MAGI because the new standards have the same value as the old standards; they simply translate the state's pre-MAGI two-step policies into a simpler one-step calculation. For example, if the state under old rules covers children in Medicaid with incomes up to 150% of the Federal Poverty Limit (FPL) and CHIP from 150% to 200% of the FPL, and under MAGI the new Medicaid income standard is 160% of the FPL, that doesn't mean that children between 150% and 160% are losing CHIP coverage--it means that many children between 150% and 160% of the FPL using net income standards were already eligible for Medicaid because of the use of disregards.
FAQ ID:92506
SHARE URLDo the new MAGI standards mean that more children will move from CHIP to Medicaid?
No, the number of children moving from CHIP to Medicaid is not affected by the change to MAGI.
Under the law, those states that cover children ages 6-18 with incomes between 100% and 133% of the FPL in CHIP will be transitioning these children to Medicaid so that children under 133% of the FPL, regardless of their age, are eligible for the same coverage program (some states will continue to have different, higher income standards for younger children). The change to MAGI standards does not change the number of children who will move from CHIP to Medicaid.
FAQ ID:92511
SHARE URLWith regards to MAGI, can states that want to have one eligibility level for children, ages 1-18, do so?
Yes. The new converted standards are based on the state's current income eligibility standards and their pre-2014 disregards. So if children in different age groups have different effective eligibility levels under a state's pre-2014 rules, the children will have different converted standards. For example, if a state has been covering children aged 1-5 to 133% FPL and children aged 6-18 to 100% FPL, the state's MAGI eligibility standard in 2014 may be 139% FPL for children aged 1-5 and 133% FPL for older children.
FAQ ID:92516
SHARE URL
Results per page