Frequently Asked Questions

OMB Circular A-87requires costs associated with building shared state-based Information Technology (IT) systems that support multiple health and human service programs be allocated across all benefitting programs in proportion to their use of the system. The OMB A-87 Exception revised this approach by allowing human service programs (e.g. SNAP, TANF, LIHEAP, etc.) and others to utilize a wide range of IT components, needed by Medicaid but also of use to these other programs, at no additional cost except for interfaces or other uniquely required services specific to those programs. The A-87 Exception applies only to design, development, and implementation. Maintenance and operations work should continue to be allocated in accordance with the A-87 Circular. OMB Circular A-87  – Cost Principles for State, Local, and Indian Tribal Governments, has been Relocated to 2 CFR, Part 225 .

FAQ ID:93611

On July 20, 2015, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced a three-year extension of the Exception to the OMB A-87 cost allocation requirements from December 31, 2015 to December 31, 2018. We are currently making plans for the OMB A-87 exception to end.

FAQ ID:93616

States will need to incur costs for goods and services furnished no later than December 31, 2018 to make use of this Exception. Therefore, if work is completed by December 31, 2018, it can be funded under the OMB A-87 Exception and states should follow typical invoicing and claiming processes. However, if an amount has been obligated by December 31, 2018, but the good or service is not furnished by that date, then such expenditure must be cost allocated by program in proportion to their use of the system in accordance with OMB A-87.

FAQ ID:93621

For FFY2019 annual APDs and budget tables, including the Medicaid Detailed Budget Table (MDBT), must be completed as follows:

• For Q1 FFY2019, states can allocate costs in accordance with the OMB A-87 Exception
• For Q2-Q$ FFY2019, and all APDs going forward, states should allocate costs as required under the OMB A-87 Circular

If a state has already submitted their annual APDs without providing separate budgets they will need to complete an APDU with a revised MDBT and cost allocation plan. The update should address how cost allocation will be done prior to, and after, December 31, 2018. Budget tables should be completed as described above.

The Data and Systems Group (DSG) that approves APDs does not approve cost allocation methodology. States working to develop their new methodologies should send operational cost allocation plans to Cost Allocation Services  and the regional office fiscal staff for all benefiting programs.

FAQ ID:93626

Yes, services covered under the state plan rendered during the PE period will qualify for federal match regardless of the ultimate Medicaid eligibility decision. The standards that states can set for hospitals and the findings from reviews of hospital performance relative to those standards are intended to ensure that hospitals are making appropriate PE determinations and following state hospital PE procedures. When problems are identified, states should take corrective action to ensure future compliance with state policies and procedures.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 151.09 KB)

FAQ ID:92111

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

States have the option to require hospitals to assist individuals in submitting the full application, which can help connect more people to longer-term coverage. While we encourage states to do so, to promote ongoing coverage, as noted above, a full application cannot be required as a condition of receiving a hospital PE determination, as the purpose of PE is to promote quick access to care on an interim basis while the full application process is underway. States can strike a reasonable balance by using the full application for hospital PE determinations, but clearly delineating which questions are necessary for PE purposes. States and hospitals can also use inserts or additional language to differentiate between the hospital PE application and the full application.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 151.09 KB)

FAQ ID:91581

Real-time eligibility determinations make the role of PE different than it has been in the past. In situations in which the individual files a full application right away, the PE period would likely be considerably shorter-and eliminated altogether, as a practical matter, if a real-time determination is made. However, even with the most modernized systems, there invariably will be individuals for whom a real-time eligibility determination will not be possible. There also will be individuals who will not be comfortable with the online application, or ready with the information needed to complete a full online application and will instead opt to apply later or use a paper application. In such situations and for such individuals, PE remains a useful tool to facilitate prompt coverage and enrollment in the program. States have flexibility to in effect minimize the length of the PE periods by requiring that hospitals and other qualified entities assist individuals in submitting the single streamlined application online, as long as the individual is not required to submit the full application online as a condition of qualifying for PE.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 151.09 KB)

FAQ ID:91586

Yes. A simplified method of determining income (e.g., using use of gross income rather than or other simplified approximation of MAGI) per 42 CFR 435.1102(a) is permitted for all types of PE. Our regulations at 42 CFR 435.1102(a) discuss the use of simplified income methods and clearly state that full MAGI-based eligibility determinations cannot be used to determine PE. This requirement applies to all forms of PE, including hospital PE, per 42 CFR 435.1103(a) and 435.1110(a).

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 151.09 KB)

FAQ ID:91591

Yes. A reasonable and simplified way of determining household composition for purposes of determining presumptive eligibility, including under hospital PE, would be to apply the rules for individuals who do not file taxes (i.e. the non-filer rules) as described at 42 CFR 435.603(f).

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 151.09 KB)

FAQ ID:91596