Frequently Asked Questions

The UPL limits payment to the Medicare rate or cost. Providers paid at reconciled cost may receive no more than their reconciled amount. As a result, states cannot attribute the “UPL room” from other providers to pay additional amounts to any provider paid at reconciled cost. Due to this payment limitation, states should not include any provider paid at reconciled cost in their UPL demonstrations; however, they must account for these providers. Specifically, states must include with their UPL submissions documentation of those providers paid at reconciled cost and confirm by provider use of either a Medicare cost report or Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services-approved cost report template to identify allowed cost. Further, states must document the ownership status (state owned, non-state government owned, or private) of each provider.

FAQ ID:92436

Dental services are not covered under Medicare, which means the state may not compare Medicaid rates for comparable dental services for the Medicare Equivalent of the ACR. The state may calculate a dental ACR in order to make supplemental payments to dental services providers and continue to calculate the Medicare Equivalent of the ACR for other services covered by Medicare. The state should submit two separate ACR demonstrations, one for dental services and one for physician (non-dental) services. This will involve completing two versions of the Office of Management and Budget-approved template. If the same provider provides both physician and dental services the state would differentiate the provider information between the two demonstrations by appending 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 physician ACR as 123456-A and in the dental ACR as 12345-B. If a Medicare Certification Number is not available then the state should append the Medicaid Provider Number.

FAQ ID:92441

The total UPL gap by ownership category can be shown by inserting a new tab in the file with these calculations, unless a summary worksheet is already included in the workbook. If there are any questions about how to add this tab, please reach out to your CMS Regional Office or send a follow-up question (with your template) to the UPL mailbox and additional guidance will be provided.

FAQ ID:92281

The UPL limits payment to the Medicare rate or cost. Providers paid at cost may receive no more than their reconciled amount. As a result, states cannot attribute the "UPL room" from other providers to pay additional amounts to any provider paid at cost. Due to this payment limitation, states should not include any provider paid at cost in their UPL demonstrations; however, they must account for these providers. Specifically, states must include with their UPL submissions documentation of those providers paid at cost and, therefore, excluded from the calculation of the UPL.

FAQ ID:92396

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, states can adjust their standards within certain limits established by law.

States can adjust both their adult standards (e.g., for pregnant women) and their children standards, as long as they do not reduce eligibility levels below minimum standards established by the law. CMS can advise states of their options.

FAQ ID:92521