Frequently Asked Questions

No. Although a comprehensive assessment may include falls risk assessment elements, this measure does not require the risk assessment elements to be documented as part of a comprehensive assessment. For this measure, a falls risk assessment is considered complete if the member record includes any documentation of a balance/gait assessment, and documentation of assessment of postural blood pressure, vision, home fall hazards, and/or medications.

FAQ ID:88961

No, the components can be completed during separate encounters, provided they are documented in the member record as having been performed between August 1 of the year prior to the measurement year and December 31 of the measurement year.

FAQ ID:88966

No, a standardized tool is not required, although documentation of use of a standardized tool (for example, Get Up & Go, Berg, Tinetti) would meet the balance/gait assessment component of the measure.

FAQ ID:88971

Yes, the same tool may be used to conduct the screening and risk assessment for the Screening, Risk Assessment, and Plan of Care to Prevent Future Falls measure.

FAQ ID:88986

No. Although a comprehensive care plan may include the elements comprising a plan of care to prevent future falls, the measure does not require the plan of care elements to be documented as part of a comprehensive care plan. For this measure, a plan of care is considered complete if the member record includes any documentation of exercise therapy or referral to exercise between August 1 of the year prior to the measurement year and December 31 of the measurement year.

FAQ ID:88991

Yes, the rate of exclusion for members who refused an assessment and/or a plan of care needs to be reported with the measure’s performance rate.

FAQ ID:88996

No, the sample for Part 2 of the Screening, Risk Assessment, and Plan of Care to Prevent Future Falls measure is different from the systematic sample used for the LTSS Comprehensive Assessment and Update, LTSS Comprehensive Care Plan and Update, LTSS Shared Care Plan with Primary Care Practitioner, and Part 1 of the Screening, Risk Assessment, and Plan of Care to Prevent Future Falls measures. Members included in the sample for Part 2 of this measure must have a documented history of falls (at least two falls or one fall with injury in the past year), including documentation of plan member self-reported history of falls.

FAQ ID:89001

Variable 408 (Adjustment to the UPL Gap) is intended to allow states to report adjustments to their UPL gap, to the extent that these adjustments are not accounted for in other variables. Here, states could report broad-based increases or reductions in payment, such as a Medicaid volume adjustment for managed care expansion. The source of values input into variable 408 may differ by state. Whenever a state reports data in variable 408 it must include a comprehensive note describing the adjustment.

FAQ ID:92301

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