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 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
How will states and providers know which primary care services will be paid at the higher rates under CMS 2370-F?
Regulation at 42 CFR 447.000(c)(1) and (2) specifies Evaluation and Management codes 99201 through 99499 and vaccine administration codes 90460, 90461, 90471, 90472, 90473, or their successor codes.
Our understanding of the CMS 2370-F rule is that advanced practice clinicians are eligible for the increased payment as long as they are working under the personal supervision of an eligible physician; eligible meaning the supervising physician is also eligible for the increased payment.
The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has permitted states flexibility in establishing processes to identify services provided by advanced practiced clinicians (APCs), including advanced practice nurses, being personally supervised by eligible physicians who accept professional responsibility for the services they provide. The state may set up a separate system to document that an Ambulatory Payment Classification (APC) is working under the personal supervision of a particular eligible physician. For example, the eligible physician could identify the APCs to the Medicaid agency, which could flag the claims submitted by those APCs under their own provider numbers through the Medicaid Management Information System (MMIS). There is no requirement that the rendering providers indicate on each claim the name of the supervising eligible physicians, however it is important that there be documentation that the eligible physicians have acknowledged their relationship with the advanced practice clinicians. Providing this type of information on a per claim basis is an effective way to document the state's claim for 100 percent federal funding for the increased portion of the payment.
The requirements under 42 CFR 438.804 specify that the states submit two methodologies to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for review and approval to implement the CMS 2370-F rule. How does approval of these methodologies impact the approval process for managed care contracts and rate packages for 2013?
Implementing regulations at 42 CFR 438.804 require states to submit to CMS a methodology for calculating the July 1, 2009, baseline rate for eligible primary care services and a methodology for calculating the rate differential eligible for 100 percent of Federal Financial Participation (FFP) by March 31, 2013. Further, 42 CFR 438.6 (c)(5)(vi) establishes Managed Care Organization (MCO), Prepaid Inpatient Health Plan (PHIP) or Prepaid Ambulatory Health Plan (PAHP) contract requirements to comply with this provision. It is CMS's expectation that as soon as practicable after the State submits the required methodologies in 42 CFR 438.804 and receives CMS approval, the State will:
- Submit revised actuarial certification documents reflecting the Medicare rate for eligible primary care services in their MCO, PIHP or PAHP capitation rates; and
- Submit amendment(s) to this contract to ensure compliance with 42 CFR 438.6 (c)(5)(vi).
After CMS approval of the revised contract and rates, the MCO, PIHP or PAHP must direct the full amount of the enhanced payment to the eligible provider to reflect the enhanced payment effective January 1, 2013. Federal financial participation (FFP) is available at a rate of 100 percent for the portion of capitation rates attributable to these enhanced payments; however, receipt of the enhanced FFP is contingent upon the state's successful completion of this process.
May states delegate the self-attestation process to their contracted managed care plans under CMS 2370-F rule?
Yes. A state may elect to delegate the self-attestation process to its contracting health plans under the following circumstances:
- Each managed care plan has signed documentation on file (provider contract or credentialing application) from the eligible provider attesting to the fact that he or she has a covered specialty or subspecialty designation. This addresses step one of the two-step self-attestation process specified in the rule.
- The managed care plan has verification of the provider’s appropriate board certification (as part of the credentialing and re-credentialing process). This addresses one option of the second step in the self-attestation process.
- Should board certification in the eligible specialty not be able to be verified by the managed care plan, the eligible provider must provide a specific attestation to the managed care plan that 60 percent of their Medicaid claims for the prior year were for the Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) codes specified in the regulation. This addresses a second option for the second step in the self-attestation process.
- Such delegation is included in the contract amendment that is otherwise being filed to implement this provision.
Under the CMS 2370-F rule, are managed care organizations (MCOs) permitted to include amounts sufficient to account for the payment differential on expected utilization while still holding the sub-capitated primary care physicians at risk for some level of increase in utilization due to the higher rates? Or must MCOs remove the risk to primary care physicians for utilization to ensure that these physicians receive the increased amount for actual experience?
The purpose of section 1202 of the Affordable Care Act and the final rule is to ensure access to and utilization of beneficial primary care services. Towards that goal, eligible primary care physicians must receive the full benefit of the enhanced payment at the Medicare rate for eligible services rendered. If a Medicaid managed care health plan retains sub-capitation arrangements, the health plan would be obligated to provide additional payments to providers to ensure that every unit of primary care services provided is reimbursed at the Medicare rate.
Will retroactive provider payments by health plans - necessitated by the State's retroactive payment of the higher rates to health plans - be subject to timely claims filing requirements in 42 CFR 447.46? If so, may states impose liquidated damages or other penalties on health plans for violating those requirements?
Any retroactive payments made to providers in order to ensure that eligible providers receive the applicable Medicare rate for eligible services will not be considered claims subject to the requirements in 42 CFR 447.46.
Can managed care plans under contract with a state use their own definitions of primary care providers and services for purposes of complying with CMS 2370-F rule?
While we recognize that health plans may have unique definitions of primary care providers and services, the availability of the increased Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) is limited to the scope of eligible primary care providers and primary care services as defined in statute and implemented by this rule.
When will the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) provide standardized contract language reflecting the requirements of this provision as mentioned during the All-State Call on November 8th?
CMS will be working collaboratively with the National Association of Medicaid Directors (NAMD) to develop the contract elements necessary to reflect the requirements of this rule. In recognition of the State Medicaid Agency's role in the contracting practice, CMS will describe the suggested content areas rather than issue standardized contractual language. These elements will be described in further detail in a future (Question and Answer) Q&A document.
How will states with Medicaid managed care programs comply with the requirement to report provider participation levels specified in 42 CFR 447.400(d)(1)?
At this time, the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is not defining the form of information required under 42 CFR 447.400(d)(1), but we do suggest that states with Medicaid managed care programs conduct a baseline assessment of primary care access before the provision goes into effect. This baseline assessment will ensure that Congress, CMS, and researchers have comparative data to evaluate this provision.
How should states account for the cost of the Health Insurance Providers Fee in their actuarially sound capitation rates?
States and their actuaries have flexibility in incorporating the Health Insurance Providers Fee into the state's managed care capitation rates. This fee is not unlike other taxes and fees that actuaries regularly reflect in developing capitation rates as part of the nonbenefit portion of the rate. CMS believes that the Health Insurance Providers Fee is therefore a reasonable business cost to health plans that is appropriate for consideration as part of the non-benefit component of the rate, just as are other taxes and fees.