U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Frequently Asked Questions

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.

Showing 11 to 20 of 34 results

Is training available for reuse concepts and tools?

The reuse webpage on Medicaid.gov features an introductory video and more information about reuse. The webpage also has policy guidance documents.

The Medicaid Enterprise Systems Reuse Repository has instructions on how to use its features. These include how to add artifacts, search for artifacts, use the discussion forum features, and more.

FAQ ID:93646

SHARE URL

How do states share?

States can share reusable artifacts with others in several ways. States can participate in workgroups such as the Medicaid Management Information System Cohort, State Technical Advisory Group, and any other relevant state groups to facilitate knowledge sharing, partnerships, and collaboration. States with access to the Reuse Repository also may add their reusable artifacts directly to the repository.

View complete instructions for accessing the Medicaid Enterprise Systems (MES) Reuse Repository. Contact MES at MES@cms.hhs.gov for additional assistance in accessing the repository or participating in workgroups.

FAQ ID:93651

SHARE URL

If a state is reusing a system or module already certified in another state, do they still need to go through certification review and decision?

Certification is required for any new implementation, whether it is a custom- developed module that is transferred from another state, or a commercial off-the-shelf module that is being configured and integrated. The certification process looks at the state’s implementation of the solution to ensure the state has met all federal requirements.

States may reuse system documentation and other supporting evidence from a previous state certification if it is available and applicable to their systems and has been reconfirmed by independent verification and validation.

FAQ ID:93656

SHARE URL

What aspects of reuse do states need to be aware of when developing advance planning documents (APDs)?

APDs must demonstrate a reuse-friendly design that includes the sharing of systems, modules, code, and any other developed artifacts. States could include language describing their efforts to find and learn from or reuse components from similar systems, or efforts the state is making to ensure that other states more easily can reuse the proposed system once it is developed.

FAQ ID:93661

SHARE URL

What is the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) policy regarding ownership rights?

From an intellectual property standpoint, reuse is supported by the general grant conditions for Federal Financial Participation (FFP) under 45 CFR 95.617, which require states to "include a clause in all procurement instruments that provides that the State or local government will have all ownership rights in software or modifications thereof and associated documentation designed, developed, or installed with FFP under this subpart."

Further, according to 42 CFR 433.112(6), CMS has "a royalty free, non-exclusive, and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use and authorize others to use, for Federal Government purposes, software, modifications to software, and documentation that is designed, developed, installed or enhanced with 90 percent FFP."

In practice, this means that vendors retain ownership rights to software and other products they have developed under their own initiative and funding, while states and CMS have ownership rights to and may share any software, customizations, configurations, or add-ons funded with FFP.

FAQ ID:93666

SHARE URL

Our Inpatient Hospital Upper Payment Limit (UPL) demonstration is too large to send in one workbook, can we submit our demonstration to CMS in multiple workbooks? Alternatively, may states submit separate workbooks for each ownership category?

Yes, a state should submit multiple workbooks to CMS to provide a complete UPL demonstration for each service category subject to the UPL (Inpatient Hospital services (IPH), Outpatient Hospital services (OPH), Nursing Facility services (NF), Clinic, Institutions for Mental Disease (IMD), Intermediate Care Facilities for Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities (ICF/IID), Psychiatric Residential Treatment Facility (PRTF), and Qualified Practitioner supplemental payments). When submitting UPL demonstrations, the state should use the following naming convention: UPL_<UPL Demo Date Range>_<Service Type Abbreviation>_R<Region Number>_<State Abbreviation>_<Workbook Number>.xls. Here is an example of the naming convention: UPL_20170701-20180630_IP_R01_CT_01.xls.As well, states may submit one separate workbook for each ownership category (state government owned, non-state government owned, and private).

FAQ ID:92241

SHARE URL

This table indicates what reports are available to CMS Users. These can be found under the "Reports" tab.

Report Name

Description

Available For

Clock Status Report

View the regulatory clock statuses

CPOC, CMS Disapproval Coordinator, SRT Admin CMS Report Admin,

State Agency Profile Report

Overview of a State's Medicaid Plan including the prior 12 months' submission package history

CPOC, CMS Disapproval Coordinator, SRT Admin, CMS Report Admin, CSA, SRT

Submission Detail Report

View details on packages by date

CPOC, CMS Disapproval Coordinator, SRT Admin, CMS Report Admin, SME, PA, PD,SRRVW, SRT

Submission Statistics Detail Report

View all Submission Packages currently in review

CPOC, CMS Disapproval Coordinator, SRT Admin, CMS Report Admin, SME, PA, PD, SRRVW, SRT

Submission Statistics Summary Report

View summary of Submission Packages in a specific review status within a specified date range.

CPOC, CMS Disapproval Coordinator, SRT Admin, CMS Report Admin, SME, PA, PD,SRRVW, SRT

Submission Summary Report

Overview of submitted packages by date

CPOC, CMS Disapproval Coordinator, SRT Admin, CMS Report Admin, SME, PA, PD,SRRVW, SRT

Staff Workload Report

View the number of Submission Packages assigned to each CPOC and SRT member, as of the report run date.

CMS Disapproval Coordinator, SRT Admin, CMS Report Admin, CSA

FAQ ID:92871

SHARE URL

What is the Review Tool Report?

The Review Tool Report is a feature CPOCs, SRTs, Senior Reviewers, Package Approvers, Package Disapprovers, and CMS Report Admins can utilize to see Package Reviewable Units, Reviewers, Reviewable Unit Assessment Values, and Notes.

Log in as CMS Point of Contact or Submission Review Team member. Under the "Records" tab, select "Submission Packages". Then select the link to the submission package. In the left panel, select "Review Tool Report". You may sort the reviews of all Review Team members by Package Reviewable Unit, Reviewer, Reviewable Unit Assessment Value, or Note/Assessments by utilizing the drop-down boxes. You also have the ability to export this report to Excel by selecting "Export to Excel."

FAQ ID:92876

SHARE URL

What is the purpose of each Analyst Note Type?

Analyst Notes are a form of brief internal communication for the CMS Review Team. These notes are a part of the official record; however, State users are not able to see these notes. Analyst Notes are part of the Review Tool for each Reviewable Unit and the SRT or CPOC may view the notes from other Review Team members (depending on the type of note) within the Review Tool, and add his/her own notes.


The CMS Point of Contact or Submission Review Team members may add Analysts Notes through the Review Tool. The types of notes available are referenced in a table below. You will start by logging in as the CMS Point of Contact or Submission Review Team member, then going to the "Records" tab. Under the "Records" tab select "Submission Packages" and then select the link to the package. In the left panel select "Analyst Notes". You will then have the ability to search notes entered by Review Team Members.

Analyst Note Type Description Visible By
Note to self Private note for self only Self
For POC (Formal Review) Indicates information that should be included in disposition CPOC
For Review Team For other Review Team members CPOC and SRT
For RAI Indicates something that requires RAI CPOC and SRT
For Correspondence Log Indicates information that should be communicated to the SPOC CPOC and SRT
Non SRT-User Note on behalf of a CMS participant outside of the Review Team CPOC and SRT
General Note A note that doesn't fall into another category All
Justification Provides bases for a recommended disposition POC Admin, CPOC and SRT
Post-Recommendation Included by other CMS users during the package disposition review POC Admin, CPOC and SRT

FAQ ID:92881

SHARE URL

Certain fields within the reviewable units seem misaligned, how do I fix this issue?

If certain fields are misaligned you may need to adjust your compatibility settings. Click the Tools button in the upper right side of your screen, and then click Compatibility View settings. Next click the Add button. The website is added to your Compatibility View and the screen will realign. You can always remove the website by clicking on the website in the list and clicking the Remove button. If an issue persists, please email the MACPro Help Desk at MACPro_HelpDesk@cms.hhs.gov

FAQ ID:92886

SHARE URL
Results per page