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
Federally qualified health centers (FQHCs)/ rural health clinics (RHCs) which receive an encounter rate are excluded under the rule for CMS-2370 F. Are FQHCs/RHCs who are paid provider fee-for-service included in the increase?
FQHCs and RHCs are required by law to be paid at least prospective payment system (PPS) for core primary care services. Physician services are core FQHC and RHC services and, therefore, should not be reimbursed on a fee-for-service basis.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:92701
SHARE URLIn our state, advanced practice nurses must have a collaborative practice agreement with a physician within 50 miles of their office. Under the collaborative practice agreement, a physician must review a certain percentage of the nurse's patient charts every 2 weeks. Such nurses bill independently using their own Medicaid number. Is the collaborative practice agreement enough documentation for an advance practice nurse, with at least 60 percent of services billed by the nurse for calendar year (CY) 2012 for
Increased payment is available for services provided by eligible physicians or for services provided under their personal supervision. This means that the physician accepts professional responsibility (and legal liability) for the services provided. It does not appear that the collaborative arrangement requires that the physician accept professional responsibility for each of the services provided by the nurses. Therefore, increased payment would not be available.
However, if the physician is required to accept professional responsibility for the services provided by the advanced practice nurses and the physician is eligible based on self-attestation to a specified primary care specialty designation supported by either appropriate Board certification or a 60 percent claims history, then increased payment would be available.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:92706
SHARE URLIf the supervising physician does not self-attest to the physician specialty or subspecialty qualification under CMS 2370-F, can the physician supervise a mid-level provider? If the supervising physician self-attests to the 60 percent threshold, but not one of the defined specialty or subspecialty qualifications, can the physician supervise a mid-level?
The eligibility of services provided by mid-level/non-physician practitioners is dependent on 1) the eligibility of the physician and 2) whether or not the physician accepts professional responsibility for the services provided by the mid-level. As previously noted, physicians are eligible only if they first self-attest to a specified specialty designation and also to either being appropriately Board certified or having a 60 percent claims history.
Supplemental Links:
ÂFAQ ID:92711
SHARE URLIs it permissible for states with Medicare geographic adjustments that opt to develop rates based on the mean Medicare rate over all counties for each Evaluation & Management code under CMS 2370-F to use a weighted mean based on either the county population or the county Medicaid enrollment?
We believe this would be acceptable. However, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) would review the methodology as part of the SPA approval process.
Supplemental Links:
ÂFAQ ID:92716
SHARE URLIf a state were to proceed with implementation on January 1, 2013, and submit a state plan by March 31, 2013, would the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) permit the state to claim the enhanced match for services that were reimbursed at the higher rate under CMS 2370-F prior to approval of the state plan?
No. As noted in the final rule, Federal Financial Participation (FFP) in increased rates will not be available until the State Plan Amendment (SPA) is approved.
Supplemental Links:
ÂFAQ ID:92721
SHARE URLWhen will we have final rules on essential health benefits, actuarial value, and rating?
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
SHARE URLWhat level of benefit is required in a specific benchmark to satisfy the ten essential health benefit categories? What process will be undertaken by HHS to select backfilling benefit options if a state defaults to the largest small group product?
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
SHARE URL
Results per page