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

SHARE URL

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

SHARE URL

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

SHARE URL

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

SHARE URL

The new AAC requirements were designed to more accurately reflect the pharmacy providers' actual prices paid to acquire drugs and the professional services required to fill a prescription. We agree that each state is able to establish rates that satisfy (or are consistent with) AAC and may be based on a variety of data sources, which may include FSS prices, and other pricing benchmarks.

FAQ ID:95111

SHARE URL

All states are required to adopt the AAC and professional dispensing fee methodology; however, it is not required to be adopted at the individual claim level, but in the aggregate. In accordance with the regulatory requirements at 42 CFR 447.512(b), the state is responsible for establishing a payment methodology, that must not exceed, in the aggregate, payment levels that the agency has determined by applying the lower of the AAC plus a professional dispensing fee or the providers' usual and customary charges to the general public. In conjunction with this the state is also responsible to ensure that pharmacy reimbursement is consistent

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 205.53 KB)

with the requirements of section 1902(a)(30)(A) of the Act, which specify that provider reimbursement rates should be consistent with efficiency, economy, and quality of care while assuring sufficient beneficiary access.

FAQ ID:94691

SHARE URL

If a state is already making payment for prescription drugs under its state plan based on AAC, it may continue to use that methodology. However, if a state decides to change its AAC model of reimbursement, (e.g., the state decides to use the National Average Drug Acquisition Cost (NADAC) instead of a state survey to implement a payment methodology based on AAC), the state must submit a new SPA through the formal SPA process for review.

Additionally, the state should review its currently approved professional dispensing fee (PDF) to determine if, in light of the regulation (42 CFR 447.518), the PDF needs to be revised and a SPA needs to be submitted. The state does not have to submit a new SPA to provide assurance that its dispensing fee is reasonable.

Furthermore, we expect that all states, even those currently operating under an AAC reimbursement methodology, will evaluate their current state plans to determine if a SPA will be required to comply with the reimbursement requirements (including, but not limited to, AAC, PDF, 340B and the federal upper limits (FULs)).

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 205.53 KB)

FAQ ID:94671

SHARE URL

No, CMS will not perform an annual review of PDFs; however, states must consider both the ingredient cost reimbursement and the PDF reimbursement when proposing changes to ensure that total reimbursement to the pharmacy provider is calculated in accordance with requirements of section 1902(a)(30)(A) of the Act.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 205.53 KB)

FAQ ID:94676

SHARE URL

To the extent that a state is conducting a cost of dispensing survey, it should be a transparent, comprehensive, and well-designed tool that addresses a pharmacy provider's cost to dispense the drug product to a Medicaid beneficiary. States have the flexibility to set PDFs, including using national or regional data from another state and we do not require that a state use a specific standard or methodology such as a survey to do so.

Further, states are not required to use a specific formula or methodology such as a cost study or use an inflation update where cost studies are not conducted; however, the burden is on each state to ensure that pharmacy providers are reimbursed in accordance with the requirements in section 1902(a)(30)(A) of the Act. CMS will review each SPA submission against these standards (see 81 FR 5311).

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 205.53 KB)

FAQ ID:94681

SHARE URL

The intent of the new reimbursement methodology requirements is not necessarily to result in a cost neutral outcome. The requirements are to more accurately reflect the pharmacy providers' actual prices paid to acquire drugs and the professional services required to fill a prescription. Each state's AAC reimbursement methodology and proposed professional dispensing fee will be reviewed through the SPA process to ensure they are meeting the requirements of this final rule.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 205.53 KB)

FAQ ID:94686

SHARE URL