Frequently Asked Questions

The cost of the tax should be reported in Variable 401 - MCD Provider Tax Cost. A state may separately report the Medicaid portion of the cost of a provider assessment/tax only when it is using a cost based methodology to calculate the UPL. A state may not include this cost when calculating a DRG or Payment based UPL demonstration.

FAQ ID:92366

No, the template does not include variables to report clinical diagnostic laboratory services.

FAQ ID:92371

The Notes tab should include any and all information to fully support the state's UPL demonstration. CMS expects states to provide clarifying information in the Notes tab. For example, this information would provide details for the adjustments to Medicare as input in variables 212.1 and 212.2, various supplemental payments in variables 313.1, 313.2, and 313.3, and adjustments to Medicaid in variables 314.1 and 314.2. In addition to reporting through the notes tab, the state also has the option of using the guidance document or narrative to fully support its UPL demonstration.

FAQ ID:92376

No, facilities that are licensed, covered, and paid under the Medicaid state plan as inpatient hospital or nursing facilities should be included in the UPL calculated for those services. There is no regulatory requirement to conduct separate calculations for designated facility "types" within each of the applicable service categories. States do not need to provide separate UPL demonstrations for IMDs covered under the inpatient hospital or nursing facility services benefit.

FAQ ID:92381

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

All the criteria in the checklists (MITA, MMIS or Custom) are the same. The difference between checklists is the criteria organization within the checklists. If the services solution is innovative, unique, or an unconventional approach, then the custom checklist approach might be appropriate. The RO will work with the state and vendors to decide which checklist set is best suited for the state's certification. Both service and traditional-type solutions need to meet all certification criteria to ensure compliance with federal regulations.

FAQ ID:94901

Yes, CMS will support the costs for this kind of MMIS transition. We encourage states to ensure that both the current vendor's and new solutions provider's contracts account for this transition period and address a prorating of cost during this time. States should minimize the costs of transition by performing due diligence on the anticipated spending. The legacy system provider should be compensated for its role in ensuring a smooth transition, with a ramp-down of other operational costs. The new solutions provider should have deliverables in its contract that speak to the soft launch or phased launch approach, with an uptick in operational costs as the transition progresses.

FAQ ID:94906