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 URLPlease clarify that state flexibility to reimburse in the aggregate extends to reimbursement rates for I/T/U pharmacies and FSS drugs, and that states can establish rates that are based on a variety of data sources, which may include FSS prices, national and State price surveys, AMP data, and other price benchmarks.
The new AAC requirements were designed to more accurately reflect the pharmacy providers' actual prices paid to acquire drugs and the professional services required to fill a prescription. We agree that each state is able to establish rates that satisfy (or are consistent with) AAC and may be based on a variety of data sources, which may include FSS prices, and other pricing benchmarks.
FAQ ID:95111
SHARE URLShould the period of time covered by the Upper Payment Limit (UPL) demonstration be tied to the state's fiscal year?
No, CMS does not require any particular starting point within the fiscal year for the UPL demonstrations. This allows states the flexibility to develop UPL demonstrations that are tied to the provider payment periods described in the state plan payment methodologies for each service. For instance, if a state submits a state plan amendment to update provider payments as of October 1 of each year, the state would document that the SPA changes comply with the UPL for the period 10/1 - 9/30 of that payment year. The UPL must represent the entire payment year. Since UPL demonstrations usually rely on historic data that is projected into a payment year, this is consistent with past practices.
FAQ ID:92226
SHARE URLHow should cost data reported for a partial year be treated either when one hospital acquires another hospital or a hospital ceases operation?
When a hospital acquires another hospital, the state should use all available data to determine the UPL and work with CMS to assure appropriate reporting. When a hospital ceases operation, the state should not annualize data if it does not cover a 12-month period.
FAQ ID:92391
SHARE URLMay a state use all-payer data or the Medicare-specific data from the Medicare Hospital Cost Report (CMS Form 2552) to calculate the cost-to-charge ratios?
Yes, a state may choose between using all-payer data or Medicare-specific data from the Medicare Hospital Cost Report (CMS Form 2552) to determine the cost-to-charge ratios.
FAQ ID:92406
SHARE URLIf a state can prove that they are under the aggregate limits of AAC and PDF and have strong participation by pharmacies, are they required to adopt the AAC and PDF reimbursement methodology at the individual claim level?
All states are required to adopt the AAC and professional dispensing fee methodology; however, it is not required to be adopted at the individual claim level, but in the aggregate. In accordance with the regulatory requirements at 42 CFR 447.512(b), the state is responsible for establishing a payment methodology, that must not exceed, in the aggregate, payment levels that the agency has determined by applying the lower of the AAC plus a professional dispensing fee or the providers' usual and customary charges to the general public. In conjunction with this the state is also responsible to ensure that pharmacy reimbursement is consistent
Supplemental Links:
- This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 205.53 KB)
FAQ ID:94691
SHARE URLIf a state is already using actual acquisition cost (AAC) as their reimbursement methodology, does the state need to file a State Plan Amendment (SPA) or provide assurances that the current formula meets requirements established in the final rule? Is there a requirement for such states to file a SPA to provide assurance that the state's current dispensing fee amount meets the requirements of the final rule?
If a state is already making payment for prescription drugs under its state plan based on AAC, it may continue to use that methodology. However, if a state decides to change its AAC model of reimbursement, (e.g., the state decides to use the National Average Drug Acquisition Cost (NADAC) instead of a state survey to implement a payment methodology based on AAC), the state must submit a new SPA through the formal SPA process for review.
Additionally, the state should review its currently approved professional dispensing fee (PDF) to determine if, in light of the regulation (42 CFR 447.518), the PDF needs to be revised and a SPA needs to be submitted. The state does not have to submit a new SPA to provide assurance that its dispensing fee is reasonable.
Furthermore, we expect that all states, even those currently operating under an AAC reimbursement methodology, will evaluate their current state plans to determine if a SPA will be required to comply with the reimbursement requirements (including, but not limited to, AAC, PDF, 340B and the federal upper limits (FULs)).
Supplemental Links:
- This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 205.53 KB)
FAQ ID:94671
SHARE URLWill there be an annual review of PDFs that are required as part of SPA approvals?
No, CMS will not perform an annual review of PDFs; however, states must consider both the ingredient cost reimbursement and the PDF reimbursement when proposing changes to ensure that total reimbursement to the pharmacy provider is calculated in accordance with requirements of section 1902(a)(30)(A) of the Act.
Supplemental Links:
- This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 205.53 KB)
FAQ ID:94676
SHARE URL
Results per page