Frequently Asked Questions

Effective state fiscal year 2020, each state must submit a complete data set of payments to Medicaid providers, including providers paid at cost, as well as critical access hospitals. This would require states to submit cost and payment data to CMS that previously was not requested.

FAQ ID:92456

The Precertification Pilot was an experiment conducted from October 2017-March 2018 designed to streamline certification and attract new vendors. Unfortunately, the pilot was found to be unscalable across Medicaid. However, key learnings from the pilot will be incorporated into current processes and future experiments around vendor engagement, certification, scalability, and sustainability. The goals the Centers from Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) identified at the beginning of the Precertification Pilot process remain the same: reduce the level of effort of certification; shorten the certification timeline; promote modularity and interoperability; reduce risk of system failure; and attract new vendors to the Medicaid IT market. Contact CMS with your ideas for experiments to achieve those goals at MES@cms.hhs.gov.

FAQ ID:95151

The difference between a prospective and retrospective UPL is in the relationship between the UPL demonstration period and the date when the UPL is submitted. For a UPL demonstration period of 7/1/2018 to 6/30/2019, a UPL is considered retrospective when it is submitted on or after the start of the demonstration period (on or after 7/1/2018). Using the same UPL demonstration period (7/1/2018 to 6/30/2019), a UPL is considered prospective if it is submitted prior to 7/1/2018.

FAQ ID:92431

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

Dental services are not covered under Medicare, which means the state may not compare Medicaid rates for comparable dental services for the Medicare Equivalent of the ACR. The state may calculate a dental ACR in order to make supplemental payments to dental services providers and continue to calculate the Medicare Equivalent of the ACR for other services covered by Medicare. The state should submit two separate ACR demonstrations, one for dental services and one for physician (non-dental) services. This will involve completing two versions of the Office of Management and Budget-approved template. If the same provider provides both physician and dental services the state would differentiate the provider information between the two demonstrations by appending the Medicare Certification Number (Medicare ID) (variable 112) with a letter, such as an -A or a -B. For example, if the Medicare ID was 123456, it would be depicted in the physician ACR as 123456-A and in the dental ACR as 12345-B. If a Medicare Certification Number is not available then the state should append the Medicaid Provider Number.

FAQ ID:92441

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

When the data that factors into the state's UPL demonstration has not changed from one year to the next, then the state could apply the same overall UPL demonstration to the following year. The state must submit a justification to support the application of a previous year's UPL demonstration to another year.

FAQ ID:92221

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

The UPL demonstration year is defined according to the last year encompassed by the demonstration. For example, a UPL covering the period 07/01/2016 to 06/30/2017 is defined as the 2017 UPL.

FAQ ID:92231

The submission package consists of the completed templates and any supporting documentation needed to understand the UPL demonstration. This could include the completed Guidance document and supporting documentation (in Microsoft Excel with formulas included, not as a PDF) that is necessary to further explain a state's UPL demonstration, and a summary spreadsheet that aggregates the UPL gap for each of the ownership categories (state government owned, non-state government owned, and private).

FAQ ID:92236