Frequently Asked Questions

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

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

If a woman indicates on an initial application that she is pregnant, she should be enrolled in Medicaid coverage as a pregnant woman, rather than in the new adult group. However, as stated in the preamble to the March 23, 2012 Medicaid and CHIP Eligibility & Enrollment final rule , states are not required to track the pregnancy status of women already enrolled through the new adult group. Women should be informed of the benefits afforded to pregnant women under the state's Medicaid program and if a woman becomes pregnant and requests a change in coverage category, the state must make the change if she is eligible.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 135.35 KB)

FAQ ID:92151

If a woman is enrolled in a group for pregnant women, before the end of the post-partum period, as specified in the definition of "pregnant woman" at 42 CFR 435.4, the state Medicaid agency will need to re-evaluate the woman's eligibility for other groups, including the lowincome adult group and advance payment of premium tax credits through the Marketplace. Our regulations at 42 CFR 435.916 explain the requirements for states in connection with renewals of eligibility or determinations of ineligibility based on a change in circumstances. The procedures outlined in the regulation are intended to promote continuity of coverage.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 135.35 KB)

FAQ ID:92161

No, states that already have submitted their 2018 (07/01/2017 - 06/30/2018) inpatient hospital, outpatient hospital, or nursing facility services UPL demonstrations will not have to resubmit using the templates. In that instance, CMS will populate the templates using data already submitted by the state.

FAQ ID:92211

No, the information must be submitted by the State Medicaid Director (or designated state official).

FAQ ID:92246

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

States wishing to continue the practice of disregarding parental income may do so by adopting coverage of a reasonable classification of individuals under age 21 under section 42 CFR 435.222. In this case, the "reasonable classification" would be pregnant individuals under age 21 (or under age 18, 19, or 20). The statutory income standard for this group would be based on the state's AFDC payment standard in effect in the state in July 1996. But if a state uses section 1902(r)(2) of the Act to disregard all income for this group, as has been done for other reasonable classifications of children (such as those in state foster care), there will be no determination of income required for eligibility, and MAGI-based income requirements will not apply.

To effectuate this option, states should submit a state plan amendment (SPA) to amend Attachment 2.2-A of the Medicaid state plan to cover a reasonable classification of pregnant individuals under age 21 under 42 CFR 435.222. The state should also amend Supplement 8a to Attachment 2.6-A to disregard all income for this new group.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 295.71 KB)

FAQ ID:92601

No. As stated in the past, the Affordable Care Act does not provide for a phased-in or partial expansion. States that wish to take advantage of the enhanced federal matching funds for newly eligible individuals must extend eligibility to 133% of the federal poverty level (FPL) by adopting the new adult group. Arkansas has initiated discussions about "premium assistance" options for Medicaid beneficiaries; partial expansion is not part of these discussions.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 40.01 KB)

FAQ ID:93836

The Medicaid statute provides several options for states to pay premiums for adults and children to purchase coverage through private group health plans, and in some case individual plans; in most cases, the statute conditions such arrangements on a determination that they are "cost effective." Cost effective generally means that Medicaid's premium payment to private plans plus the cost of additional services and cost sharing assistance that would be required would be comparable to what it would otherwise pay for the same services. Similar provisions also apply in the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP).

Under all these arrangements, beneficiaries remain Medicaid beneficiaries and continue to be entitled to all benefits and cost-sharing protections. States must have mechanisms in place to "wrap-around" private coverage to the extent that benefits are less and cost sharing requirements are greater than those in Medicaid. In addition under the statutory options in the individual market beneficiaries must be able to choose an alternative to private insurance to receive Medicaid benefits.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 40.01 KB)

FAQ ID:93841