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

If the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) grade A or B service is an integral part of the office visit that includes other services, and will not be billed separately, the state may permit providers to charge a copay for the office visit, as the office visit is not eligible for the one percentage point FMAP increase. If the USPSTF grade A or B service is billed separately, or is the only service furnished during the office visit, the state may not permit the provider to charge a copay. The state should work with providers to establish the appropriate billing codes and claims processing guidelines for these situations.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set.

FAQ ID:92121

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

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

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

The American Medical Association created modifier 33 in response to the Affordable Care Act requirements pertaining to preventive services. When the primary purpose of the service is the delivery of an evidence-based service in accordance with a United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) A or B rating in effect and other preventive services identified in preventive services mandates (legislative or regulatory), the service may be identified by appending modifier 33, preventive service, to the service. For separately reported services specifically identified as preventive, the modifier should not be used.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set.

FAQ ID:91991

It is up to the state to set up its payment methodologies and procedures. To the extent that the state processes a claim for a United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) grade A or B preventive service consistent with those procedures, it can claim the enhanced match for that claim. If the state elects a payment methodology using bundled services, generally it cannot claim the enhanced match. But there may be some instances in which it might be appropriate to allocate costs for bundled claims among the included components. To the extent that a state is interested in doing so, it must develop a cost allocation plan, and submit that for CMS approval.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set.

FAQ ID:91996

Provided that the services are medically necessary, states are required to follow only the summary of recommendations for the services that have a rating of A or B from the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). It is up to the state to have a financial monitoring procedure to ensure proper claiming for federal match.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set.

FAQ ID:92006

The state may claim the 1% FMAP increase on both the professional component (interpretation of the x-ray) and the technical component (the actual taking of the x-ray).

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set.

FAQ ID:92011

States seeking the one percentage point FMAP increase should amend their state plans to reflect that they cover and reimburse all United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) grade A and B preventive services and approved vaccines recommended by Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), and their administration, without cost-sharing. An approved state plan amendment is required for the lines to be enterable on the CMS-64 form. As with all other services claimed on the CMS-64, the amounts reported on and its attachments must be actual expenditures for which all supporting documentation, in readily reviewable form, has been compiled and is available immediately at the time the claim is filed. The CMS-64 report form has been modified to allow for reporting of a state's managed care expenditures separate from the state's reporting of fee-for-service (FFS) expenditures. The total expenditures associated with services referenced in section 4106 would be reported on the requisite lines for managed care (line 18A4, 18B1d or 18B2d) and for FFS (line 34A).

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set.

FAQ ID:92021