Frequently Asked Questions

Yes. A state may elect to delegate the self-attestation process to its contracting health plans under the following circumstances:

1. Each managed care plan has signed documentation on file (provider contract or credentialing application) from the eligible provider attesting to the fact that he or she has a covered specialty or subspecialty designation. This addresses step one of the two-step self-attestation process specified in the rule.
2. The managed care plan has verification of the provider’s appropriate board certification (as part of the credentialing and re-credentialing process). This addresses one option of the second step in the self-attestation process.
3. Should board certification in the eligible specialty not be able to be verified by the managed care plan, the eligible provider must provide a specific attestation to the managed care plan that 60 percent of their Medicaid claims for the prior year were for the Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) codes specified in the regulation. This addresses a second option for the second step in the self-attestation process.
4.  Such delegation is included in the contract amendment that is otherwise being filed to implement this provision.

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

FAQ ID:91456

The purpose of section 1202 of the Affordable Care Act and the final rule is to ensure access to and utilization of beneficial primary care services. Towards that goal, eligible primary care physicians must receive the full benefit of the enhanced payment at the Medicare rate for eligible services rendered. If a Medicaid managed care health plan retains sub-capitation arrangements, the health plan would be obligated to provide additional payments to providers to ensure that every unit of primary care services provided is reimbursed at the Medicare rate.

Supplemental Links:

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

FAQ ID:91461

Any retroactive payments made to providers in order to ensure that eligible providers receive the applicable Medicare rate for eligible services will not be considered claims subject to the requirements in 42 CFR 447.46.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 41.01 KB)

FAQ ID:91411

While we recognize that health plans may have unique definitions of primary care providers and services, the availability of the increased Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) is limited to the scope of eligible primary care providers and primary care services as defined in statute and implemented by this rule.

Supplemental Links:

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

FAQ ID:91416

CMS will be working collaboratively with the National Association of Medicaid Directors (NAMD) to develop the contract elements necessary to reflect the requirements of this rule. In recognition of the State Medicaid Agency's role in the contracting practice, CMS will describe the suggested content areas rather than issue standardized contractual language. These elements will be described in further detail in a future (Question and Answer) Q&A document.

Supplemental Links:

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

FAQ ID:91421

At this time, the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is not defining the form of information required under 42 CFR 447.400(d)(1), but we do suggest that states with Medicaid managed care programs conduct a baseline assessment of primary care access before the provision goes into effect. This baseline assessment will ensure that Congress, CMS, and researchers have comparative data to evaluate this provision.

Supplemental Links:

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

FAQ ID:91426

As contained in the MECT standard RFP/contract language required by CMS, CMS does not cover activities that the state may require of the IV&V contractor during ongoing O&M. However, as Medicaid is moving away from monolithic single applications, it is expected that states will continuously update and replace modules in their enterprise. Therefore, IV&V should always have a role to ensure successful integration and testing.

FAQ ID:94881

If an organization is performing another role (such as systems integrator, PMO, quality assurance, etc.) on the MMIS or E&E project, it may not perform the IV&V function on the same project. A state may contract the same vendor to perform the IV&V role for both its E&E and MMIS projects.

FAQ ID:94886

To reduce potential conflict of interest, CMS is ensuring that states are arranging IV&V services through contracts that should be owned outside of the agency that owns the MMIS or E&E project. The oversight organization for the IV&V contractor should not be involved in oversight of the development effort, a stakeholder in the business implementation, or the DDI contractor. The IV&V contract monitor should be aware of system development problem solving, reporting, and contractor management. This contract oversight provides true independence between the IV&V contractor and system development teams. This requirement is consistent with other HHS agencies' practices and industry best practices.

FAQ ID:94891

CMS encourages states to reuse modular solutions as much as possible. If a state can reuse a modular solution from another state with minimal changes or customization, CMS will work with the state to streamline the certification process as much as possible to leverage knowledge of the reused solution. However, CMS will still require a certification decision for each state implementation of reused solutions to ensure compliance with federal regulations.

FAQ ID:94896