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
Sections 1814(a)(1), 1835(a)(1), and 1842(b)(3)(B) of the Social Security Act, as well as the Medicare regulations at 42 CFR section 424.44, specify the time limits for filing Medicare Fee-For-Service (FFS)--Part A and Part B--claims.
The Affordable Care Act reduced the maximum period for submission of all Medicare FFS claims to no more than 12 months (one calendar year) after the date services were furnished. This time limit policy for claims submission became effective for services furnished on or after January 1, 2010. In addition, claims for services furnished prior to January 1, 2010, had to be submitted no later than December 31, 2010. Section 6404 of the Affordable Care Act also mandated that CMS may specify exceptions to the one calendar year time limit for filing Medicare claims.
Supplemental Links:
Date: September 11, 2014
Topics:
Medicaid Coordination of Benefits
Subtopics:
General Information
FAQ ID: 94311
Medicare regulations at 42 CFR section 424.44(b) allow for the following exceptions to the 1 calendar year time limit for filing fee for service claims:
- Administrative error, if failure to meet the filing deadline was caused by error or misrepresentation of an employee, Medicare contractor, or agent of the Department that was performing Medicare functions and acting within the scope of its authority.
- Retroactive Medicare entitlement, where a beneficiary receives notification of Medicare entitlement retroactive to or before the date the service was furnished. For example, at the time services were furnished the beneficiary was not entitled to Medicare. However, after the timely filing period has expired, the beneficiary subsequently receives notification of Medicare entitlement effective retroactively to or before the date of the furnished service.
- Retroactive Medicare entitlement involving state Medicaid agencies, where a state Medicaid agency recoups payment from a provider or supplier 6 months or more after the date the service was furnished to a dually eligible beneficiary. For example, at the time the service was furnished, the beneficiary was only entitled to Medicaid and not to Medicare. Subsequently, the beneficiary receives notification of Medicare entitlement effective retroactively to or before the date of the furnished service. The state Medicaid agency recoups its money from the provider or supplier and the provider or supplier cannot submit the claim to Medicare, because the timely filing limit has expired.
- Retroactive disenrollment from a Medicare Advantage (MA) plan or Program of All-inclusive Care of the Elderly (PACE) provider organization, where a beneficiary was enrolled in an MA plan or PACE provider organization, but later was disenrolled from the MA plan or PACE provider organization retroactive to or before the date the service was furnished, and the MA plan or PACE provider organization recoups its payment from a provider or supplier 6 months or more after the date the service was furnished.
Supplemental Links:
Date: September 11, 2014
Topics:
Medicaid Coordination of Benefits
Subtopics:
General Information
FAQ ID: 94316
No. Based upon federal authority set forth at 10 U.S.C. section 1103, Congress explicitly provided for preemption of state and local laws pertaining to health care financing methods for a contract entered into for medical and/or dental care, under Chapter 55 of the Armed Forces Title of the U.S. Code, by the Secretary of Defense or administering Department of Defense secretaries. The preemption applies to contracts entered into for the purpose of administering TRICARE. Thus, it is the position of the Department of Defense that TRICARE's 1-year timely filing limit is not superseded by the 3-year limit established in the DRA for health insurers who are regulated by the states, and that TRICARE is exempt, not only from the DRA timely filing requirements, but from the DRA requirements altogether.
Supplemental Links:
Date: September 11, 2014
Topics:
Medicaid Coordination of Benefits
Subtopics:
General Information
FAQ ID: 94326
Generally, the purpose of the 1202 payment increase is to directly benefit physicians performing primary care services. In the instance of salaried physicians, including those working for clinics or other employing organizations that bill on the Medicaid physician fee schedule, this could come in the form of an increased salary. Alternatively, where there is an employment agreement between the physician and the employing entity, the employment agreement might account for the payment increase by noting that the physician accepts his or her salary as payment in full, regardless of Medicaid reimbursement levels.
Date: April 14, 2014
Topics:
Affordable Care Act
Subtopics:
Final Rule
Provider Payments
FAQ ID: 91081
To the extent that physicians are already receiving payment for Medicaid services that is at least equal to the Medicare rate as required under section 1202 of the ACA, no additional payment under section 1202 should be made to either a managed care health plan or to a group practice or similar organization that employs physicians. The additional payment is to ensure that payment to the physician is at least equal to the 1202 Medicare rate.
Date: April 14, 2014
Topics:
Affordable Care Act
Subtopics:
Final Rule
Provider Payments
FAQ ID: 91086
States that pay for vaccine administration using the vaccine product codes were required to include a crosswalk to their administration codes as part of their ACA 1202 state plan amendment (SPA). They will therefore be required to submit a new SPA to reflect any changes in those codes. If a state does not use vaccine product codes to pay for vaccine administration and therefore there is no crosswalk in their 1202 SPA, then no updates are necessary to reflect the code changes.
Date: April 14, 2014
Topics:
Affordable Care Act
Subtopics:
Final Rule
Provider Payments
FAQ ID: 91091
Yes. The original SPAs contained a list of codes that had been added since 2009 that the state was planning on reimbursing at the higher ACA 1202 rate. Therefore, if a state adds codes, it should submit a revised SPA page, updating that list of codes eligible for higher payment.
Date: April 14, 2014
Topics:
Affordable Care Act
Subtopics:
Final Rule
Provider Payments
FAQ ID: 91096
A state is not required to cover all of the primary care service billing codes if it did not previously do so. Rather, to the extent that it reimburses physicians using any of the billing codes specified in the final rule, the state must pay at the Medicare rate in the calendar years (CYs) 2013 and 2014.
Supplemental Links:
Date: February 11, 2014
Topics:
Affordable Care Act
Subtopics:
Final Rule
Primary Care Services
FAQ ID: 91346
A state may not add any of the eligible service codes solely for the purpose of obtaining enhanced federal matching funds. For example, a state may not eliminate a code currently in use and attempt to substitute it with another Evaluation and Management (E&M) code. However, we recognize that a handful of codes have been added to the E&M code set since 2009. States which added those codes to their fee schedules will receive higher match for those services.
Supplemental Links:
Date: February 11, 2014
Topics:
Affordable Care Act
Subtopics:
Final Rule
Primary Care Services
FAQ ID: 91351
Under Medicare and Medicaid principles, payment is to be made at the lower of provider charges or the rate, which in this case is the applicable Medicare rate. This language was inadvertently omitted from the final rule. The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is processing a technical correction to the regulatory text at 42 CFR 447.405 to restore this language.
Supplemental Links:
Date: February 11, 2014
Topics:
Affordable Care Act
Subtopics:
Final Rule
Primary Care Services
FAQ ID: 91356