Frequently Asked Questions

In section 156.100 of the proposed rule on Essential Health Benefits/Actuarial Value/Accreditation, we propose criteria for the selection process for a state that chooses to select a benchmark plan. The essential health benefits benchmark plan would serve as a reference plan, reflecting both the scope of services and limits offered by a typical employer plan in that state. This approach and benchmark selection, which would apply for at least the 2014 and 2015 benefit years, would allow states to build on coverage that is already widely available, minimize market disruption, and provide consumers with familiar products. Since some base-benchmark plan options may not cover all ten of the statutorily required essential health benefits categories, we propose standards for supplementing a base-benchmark plan that does not provide coverage of one or more of the categories.

We also propose that if a base-benchmark plan option does not cover any items and services within an essential health benefits category, the base-benchmark plan must be supplemented by adding that particular category in its entirety from another base-benchmark plan option. The resulting plan, which would reflect a base-benchmark that covers all ten essential health benefits categories, must meet standards for nondiscrimination and balance. After meeting these standards, it would be considered the essential health benefits-benchmark plan.

The proposed rule also outlines the process by which HHS would supplement a default base-benchmark plan, if necessary. We clarify that to the extent that the default base-benchmark plan option does not cover any items and services within an essential health benefits category, the category must be added by supplementing the base-benchmark plan with that particular category in its entirety from another base-benchmark plan option. Specifically, we propose that HHS would supplement the category of benefits in the default base benchmark plan with the first of the following options that offer benefits in that particular essential health benefits category: (1) the largest plan by enrollment in the second largest product in the state's small group market; (2) the largest plan by enrollment in the third largest product in the state's small group market; (3) the largest national Federal Employees Health Benefit Program plan by enrollment across states that is offered to federal employees; (4) the largest dental plan under the Federal Employees Dental and Vision Insurance Program, for pediatric oral care benefits; (5) the largest vision plan under the Federal Employees Dental and Vision Insurance Program, for pediatric vision care benefits; and (6) habilitative services as described in section 156.110(f) or 156.115(a)(4).

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 359.41 KB)

FAQ ID:94466

The U.S. Office of Personal Management released a proposed rule implementing the Multi-State Plan Program on November 30, 2012. To ensure that the Multi-State Plans are competing on a level playing field with other plans in the marketplace, the proposed regulation largely defers to state insurance law and the standards promulgated by HHS and states related to qualified health plans. Under the proposal, Multi-State Plans will be evaluated based largely on the same criteria as other qualified health plans operating in Exchanges. The few areas in which the Office of Personal Management proposes different regulatory standards from those applicable to qualified health plans are areas where the Office of Personal Management has extensive experience through its administration of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. However, in order to ensure that these few differences will not create any unfair advantages, the Office of Personal Management seeks comment from states and other stakeholders on these proposals. The regulation appeared in the Federal Register on December 5, 2012, and the comment period runs through January 4, 2013.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 359.41 KB)

FAQ ID:94471

We believe these files have information that states can rely on. As with any transmission of data or logic process, discrepancies may arise. However, we have done quality reviews and continue to act on reports of issues as quickly as possible by investigating them and introducing systems fixes as needed. We are continuing our testing and quality assurance efforts as well. We expect that states will be doing the same on accounts transferred from states to the FFM. We will continue to rely on our daily desk officer calls and our SOTA process to follow up with states on any questions that may arise.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 198.3 KB)

FAQ ID:91906

If the state would like to exclude individuals from enrollment based on the flat file, please reach out to CMCS to discuss the state's options. Our goal in offering this flat file option is to provide an additional avenue for enrollment and we will work with states on how they might best maximize the use of these files.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 198.3 KB)

FAQ ID:91921

In a letter dated November 29, 2013, (see http://www.medicaid.gov/Federal-PolicyGuidance/downloads/SHO-13-008.pdf (PDF, 117.76 KB)) CMS offered states the opportunity to apply for a waiver under section 1902(e)(14)(A) of the Social Security Act to allow them to make temporary enrollment decisions based on the information included in the flat file. So, as long as states follow the procedures outlined in the guidance and other applicable rules with respect to eligibility and claiming, federal funding is available for this temporary enrollment. Individual's circumstances might change and other factors might arise that could change the outcome of the eligibility determination once the state evaluates eligibility based on the full account transfer. Federal funding is not at risk for states that follow appropriate procedures to enroll beneficiaries based on the FFM's determination or assessment of eligibility.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 198.3 KB)

FAQ ID:91926

Since the waiver is a temporary grant of authority, if changes in circumstance are reported then states have the flexibility to choose to act on reported changes immediately or wait until the full determination occurs. If a state has the capability to review and process the changes reported they can do so, and if a state does not wish to act upon reported changes during this temporary waiver period that is also permissible. States should discuss with CMS how to document the state's policy regarding changes in circumstance in the waiver request.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 198.3 KB)

FAQ ID:91931

Because the Federally Facilitated Marketplace (FFM) is providing eligibility determinations/assessments for Medicaid under the MAGI standard, the state can process enrollment for MAGI individuals under the waiver authority. Since the FFM is providing non-MAGI applicant referrals on the expanded flat file, the state would act upon the non-MAGI referrals in the same manner as it would through the account transfer service.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 198.3 KB)

FAQ ID:91936

Yes, all the regulations and security constraints that apply to paper applications are necessary with the expanded flat file. The state would need to maintain the same level of security for the expanded flat file as they would in regard to paper applications.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 198.3 KB)

FAQ ID:91941

Applicants can apply for whatever state they choose. Sometimes someone will want to file an application for a state they don't currently live in. For example, if they are temporarily residing outside the state or have a family member or tax dependent that needs coverage who lives there. When an applicant applies on the Federally Facilitated Marketplace (FFM), they provide their home address and that information is used to validate the eligibility criteria of state residency during the eligibility determination process. If an applicant does not indicate they have a home address in the state they are applying to, and they do not indicate they are temporarily absent from the state, they will be denied Medicaid, CHIP and APTC for that state in accordance with state and federal rules. However, an applicant can always request a full determination, and in doing so, the account is transferred to the state indicated. In order to respond, the state will need to verify residency, and approve or deny Medicaid as applicable.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 198.3 KB)

FAQ ID:91946

The flat file contains only accounts that have been determined/assessed as eligible for Medicaid or referred for a full determination at the applicant's request. If an individual applies at the FFM, is potentially eligible for Medicaid based on income, and does not indicate that he or she is currently enrolled in Medicaid, the FFM does not check for other coverage. The state would do a check with its system as they do when an applicant applies directly to the state and take appropriate action if the person is already enrolled.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 198.3 KB)

FAQ ID:91951