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
Can 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 URLAre there any circumstances that would allow a state to apply the same Upper Payment Limit (UPL) demonstration to multiple years?
When the data that factors into the state's UPL demonstration has not changed from one year to the next, then the state could apply the same overall UPL demonstration to the following year. The state must submit a justification to support the application of a previous year's UPL demonstration to another year.
FAQ ID:92221
SHARE URLCan a contractor that acts on behalf of the Medicaid agency submit the Upper Payment Limit (UPL) demonstrations to CMS?
No, the information must be submitted by the State Medicaid Director (or designated state official).
FAQ ID:92246
SHARE URLMany State demonstrations require that a transition plan to 2014 be submitted by a specified date, in many cases by July 1, 2012. Will CMS provide guidance and technical assistance before then? What specifically is required to be included in the transition plan?
CMS plans to provide technical assistance on transition plans to States through the State Operations and Technical Assistance Team (SOTA) calls and through other calls with the State. We will also be providing additional guidance about the information that should be included in the transition plans. We will consider the transition plans that need to be submitted by the due date as living documents that are open to revision, and will continue to work with States to ensure a seamless transition in 2014 for beneficiaries and States.
Supplemental Links:
ÂFAQ ID:93021
SHARE URLWill CMS approve enrollment caps or periods of ineligibility in section 1115 demonstrations?
The Affordable Care Act provides significant federal support to ensure the availability of coverage to low-income adults. Enrollment caps limit enrollment in coverage on a first come, first serve basis. Periods of ineligibility delay or deny coverage for otherwise eligible individuals. These policies do not further the objectives of the Medicaid program, which is the statutory requirement for allowing section 1115 demonstrations. As such, we do not anticipate that we would authorize enrollment caps or similar policies through section 1115 demonstrations for the new adult group or similar populations.
Supplemental Links:
- This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 105.59 KB)
FAQ ID:93751
SHARE URLCan states that extend eligibility for adults and propose, through a section 1115 demonstration, changes to the delivery of health care services still be eligible for the increased federal match?
Demonstrations focused on changes to how health care services are delivered, such as the use of managed care, will not generally affect the state's matching rate. Please refer to our February 2013 FAQs (PDF, 135.35 KB), which provide further clarification on the two increased federal match rates: the newly eligible rate and the expansion state rate as well as the final FMAP rule published on April 2, 2013. Additionally, CMS issued two State Medicaid Director letters, on July 10, 2012, that provide guidance on how states can adopt integrated care models without the need for a section 1115 demonstration.
Supplemental Links:
- This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 105.59 KB)
FAQ ID:93756
SHARE URLCan a state review providers whose claims meet the 60 percent threshold and assume that those providers would be automatically eligible?
Each physician must self-attest to being a qualified provider. It is not appropriate for a state to rely on a modifier to a claim for the initial self-attestation. Under the final rule, states are not required to independently verify the eligibility of each and every physician who might qualify for higher payment. Therefore, it is important that documentation exist that the physicians themselves supplied a proper attestation. That attestation has two parts. Physicians must attest to an appropriate specialty designation and also must further attest to whether that status is based on either being Board certified or to having the proper claims history. Once the signed self-attestation is in the hands of the Medicaid agency, claims may be identified for higher payment through the use of a modifier.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:94276
SHARE URLCMS clarified in the final rule for CMS 2370-F that, for out of state providers, the beneficiary's home state (e.g., state A) may defer to the determination of the physician's home state (e.g., state B) with respect to eligibility for higher payment. However, if states A and B receive different Medicare locality adjustments, which locality rate must be paid?
As with all Medicaid services, the state in which the beneficiary is determined eligible (state A) sets the payment rate for services. Therefore, state A would be responsible for paying using the methodology it had chosen with respect to determining the appropriate Medicare rate and would not be required to pay the rate the physician would receive from state B.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:94361
SHARE URLWhen does the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) plan to issue a correction to the mistake they noted during the call with Medicaid agencies regarding payment under CMS 2370-F at the lesser of a provider's billed charge or the Medicare rate?
The correction was published in the Federal Register on December 14, 2012. In it CMS clarified that states must reimburse providers the lower or the provider’s charge or the applicable Medicare rate.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:94376
SHARE URLIf a physician presents a certificate for CMS 2370-F eligibility from one of the defined boards, can the certificate be used as the legal document verifying the physician's certification or does the State have to verify with the board that the physician is certified and that the presented certificate is still active and valid?
States may accept the certificate and need not verify. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) expects states to make physicians aware that they are responsible for providing accurate information.
FAQ ID:92686
SHARE URL
Results per page