Frequently Asked Questions

Where inflation is not applied to property costs, please separate out this cost from the Medicare UPL by reporting these amounts in variable 402 - Adjustment to the Medicare UPL.

FAQ ID:92361

CMS plans to provide technical assistance on transition plans to States through the State Operations and Technical Assistance Team (SOTA) calls and through other calls with the State. We will also be providing additional guidance about the information that should be included in the transition plans. We will consider the transition plans that need to be submitted by the due date as living documents that are open to revision, and will continue to work with States to ensure a seamless transition in 2014 for beneficiaries and States.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 55.99 KB)

FAQ ID:93021

The Affordable Care Act provides significant federal support to ensure the availability of coverage to low-income adults. Enrollment caps limit enrollment in coverage on a first come, first serve basis. Periods of ineligibility delay or deny coverage for otherwise eligible individuals. These policies do not further the objectives of the Medicaid program, which is the statutory requirement for allowing section 1115 demonstrations. As such, we do not anticipate that we would authorize enrollment caps or similar policies through section 1115 demonstrations for the new adult group or similar populations.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 105.59 KB)

FAQ ID:93751

Demonstrations focused on changes to how health care services are delivered, such as the use of managed care, will not generally affect the state's matching rate. Please refer to our February 2013 FAQs (PDF, 135.35 KB), which provide further clarification on the two increased federal match rates: the newly eligible rate and the expansion state rate as well as the final FMAP rule published on April 2, 2013. Additionally, CMS issued two State Medicaid Director letters, on July 10, 2012, that provide guidance on how states can adopt integrated care models without the need for a section 1115 demonstration.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 105.59 KB)

FAQ ID:93756

CMS continues to work closely with states to provide options and tools that make it easier for states to make changes in their Medicaid programs to improve care and lower costs. In the last six months, we have released guidance giving states flexibility in structuring payments to better incentivize higher-quality and lower-cost care, provided enhanced matching funds for health home care coordination services for those with chronic illnesses, designed new templates to make it easier to submit section 1115 demonstrations and to make it easier for a state to adopt selective contracting in the program, and developed a detailed tool to help support states interested in extending managed care arrangements to long term services and supports. We have also established six learning collaboratives with states to consider together improvements in data analytics, value-based purchasing and other topics of key concern to states and stakeholders, and the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation has released several new initiatives to test new models of care relating to Medicaid populations. Information about these and many other initiatives are available on Medicaid.gov. We welcome continued input and ideas from states and others. States can implement delivery system and payment reforms in their programs whether or not they adopt the low-income adult expansion. With respect to the expansion group in particular, states have considerable flexibility regarding coverage for these individuals. For example, states can choose a benefit package benchmarked to a commercial package or design an equivalent package. States also have significant cost-sharing flexibility for individuals above 100% of the federal poverty level, and we intend to propose other cost-sharing changes that will modernize and update our rules.

Supplemental Links:

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

FAQ ID:94606

Yes, depending on its design. We are interested in working with states to promote better health and health care at lower costs and have been supporting, under a demonstration established by the Affordable Care Act, state initiatives that are specifically aimed at promoting healthy behaviors. Promoting better health and healthier behaviors is a matter of importance to the health care system generally, and state Medicaid programs, like other payers, can shape their benefit design to encourage such behaviors while ensuring that the lowest income Americans have access to affordable quality care. We invite states to continue to come to us with their ideas, including those that promote value and individual ownership in health care decisions as well as accountability tied to improvement in health outcomes. We note in particular that states have considerable flexibility under the law to design benefits for the new adult group and to impose cost-sharing, particularly for those individuals above 100% of the federal poverty level, to accomplish these objectives, including Secretary-approved benchmark coverage.

Supplemental Links:

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

FAQ ID:94611

Consistent with the guidance provided above with respect to demonstrations available under the regular and the enhanced matching rates, CMS will work with states on their proposals and review them consistent with the statutory standard of furthering the interests of the program.

Supplemental Links:

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

FAQ ID:94616

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