Frequently Asked Questions

The traditional MEQC program at 42 CFR § 431.810 through 431.822 was originally designed to implement sections 1902(a)(4) “Administration Methods for Proper and Efficient Operation of the State Plan” and 1903(u) “Limitation of FFP for Erroneous Medical Assistance Expenditures” of the Social Security Act (the Act). The program required annual state reviews of Medicaid cases identified through a statistically valid statewide sample of cases selected from the state’s eligibility files. The reviews were conducted to determine whether the sampled cases meet applicable Medicaid eligibility requirements. The program evolved over time to allow states the option of selecting specific areas of focus within the Medicaid program for their annual MEQC reviews.

On July 5, 2017, CMS published a final regulation entitled “Changes to the Payment Error Rate Measurement (PERM) and Medicaid Eligibility Quality Control (MEQC) Programs (CMS-Medicaid Coordination of Benefits8- F).” This final rule updated the MEQC and PERM programs based on the changes to Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program eligibility requirements under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The new regulation has restructured the MEQC program into an ongoing series of pilots that states are required to conduct during the two off-years between triennial PERM review years. The MEQC portions of the regulation are now covered by 42 CFR §§ 431.800-820.

FAQ ID:93416

The regulation requires states to submit a pilot planning document to CMS by November 1 of the year in which each state’s PERM review year ends. The pilot planning document must describe how states will conduct their active and negative case reviews and must be approved by CMS before the MEQC pilots can begin. In addition, the regulation requires states to submit case-level reports and corrective action plans to CMS by August 1 of the year after the MEQC review period ends. The specifications for the MEQC pilot planning documents are provided in the MEQC sub-regulatory guidance effective August 29, 2018. More details on the specifications of the case-level reports and corrective action plans are included in a second round of guidance, MEQC sub-regulatory guidance effective October 22, 2018.

FAQ ID:93421

As reconfigured under the final regulation of July 5, 2017, MEQC will work in conjunction with the Payment Error Rate Measurement (PERM) program. In those years when states undergo their triennial PERM reviews, the states will not conduct MEQC pilots. The latter will only be required in the two off-years between PERM review years. CMS has restructured the MEQC program so that it more effectively complements the PERM program and provides states with the necessary flexibility and opportunity to target specific problems or high-interest areas during the two off-years of the PERM cycle.

FAQ ID:93146

The MEQC requirements on active case reviews generally mirror the requirements of the eligibility component of PERM reviews. The regulation requires that states perform reviews of a sample of active Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) cases to identify new eligibility approvals and renewals that were made in error. As in PERM, states will be required to submit case-level reports on the sampled cases they review and corrective action plans that describe steps taken to remediate the errors found.

However, in contrast to PERM, when states identify errors in their active Medicaid and CHIP cases, they will be required to undertake a payment review. This will consist of a review of all claims paid over the first three months after an erroneous eligibility determination was made, and a summary of the overstated or understated liability. States will in turn be required to submit adjustments to the amount of federal financial participation (FFP) claimed through the CMS-64 reporting process for Medicaid and the CMS-21 reporting process for CHIP. The adjustments are required for identified claims in which too much or too little FFP was received. There is no payment review or re-crediting requirement in PERM, although disallowance of FFP can be taken in states whose PERM error rate exceeds the national threshold of 3% based on a formula described at 42 CFR 431.1010. MEQC contains no such disallowance provision.

The MEQC program also contains one other significant element that is not found in PERM. Besides the requirement that states review at least 400 cases in their active case universe (including a minimum of 200 cases), MEQC requires states to review at least 400 negative case actions. At least 200 of these must be Medicaid and 200 must be CHIP. Negative case actions involve erroneous denials of Medicaid or CHIP eligibility or erroneous terminations from Medicaid or CHIP. This is an area with no PERM counterpart in which states will be developing case-level reporting and corrective actions. Negative case action reviews will not be triggered by PERM findings. Largely for this reason, the regulation requires that states pull their sample of these from the entire Medicaid and CHIP universe of cases. By sampling from the full range of Medicaid and CHIP cases, states should be able to obtain an overview of those sectors in their programs that may be especially vulnerable to improper denials or terminations.

FAQ ID:93196

The PERM/MEQC dates/cycles are as follows:

*??
CMS = Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
CAP = ??

FAQ ID:95156

The statute and regulations require that states provide individuals several channels through which they can apply for Medicaid and CHIP coverage - by mail, in person, on line and over the telephone. Following are some guiding principles for administering telephonic applications based on successful strategies many states have in place today.

1. Accepting a Telephonic Application - States may develop their own processes for accepting and adjudicating telephonic applications. The process for accepting applications by phone must be designed to gather data into a sufficient format that will be accessible for account transfer to the appropriate insurance affordability program. For example, a customer service representative could verbally communicate application questions to the applicant, while electronically filling out the online version of the single streamlined application.
2. Voice Signatures - All applications must be signed (under penalty of perjury) in order to complete an eligibility determination. In the case of telephonic applications, states must have a process in place to assist individuals in applying by phone and be able to accept telephonically recorded signatures at the time of application submission. If applicable, states can maintain their current practices of audio recording and accepting voice signatures as required for identity proofing.
3. Records and Storage - Upon request, states must be able to provide individuals with a record of their completed application, including all information used to make the eligibility determination. As such, CMS recommends that states record all telephonic applications. This may be accomplished by taping the complete application transaction as an audio file, or by producing a written transcript of the application transaction, among other options. The length of storage of these records should comply with current regulations on application storage.
4. Confirmations and Receipts - States should provide a confirmation receipt documenting the telephonic application to the applicant. Such confirmation should be provided upon submission of the application or at any time the applicant wishes to end the customer representative interaction. Confirmation receipts can be delivered via electronic or paper mail (based on the applicant's preference). Confirmation receipts must include key information for applicants, including but not limited to the application summary, the eligibility determination summary page, a copy of the attestations/rights and responsibilities and the submission date of the signed application.

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 295.71 KB)

FAQ ID:92156

No, CMS does not require any particular starting point within the fiscal year for the UPL demonstrations. This allows states the flexibility to develop UPL demonstrations that are tied to the provider payment periods described in the state plan payment methodologies for each service. For instance, if a state submits a state plan amendment to update provider payments as of October 1 of each year, the state would document that the SPA changes comply with the UPL for the period 10/1 - 9/30 of that payment year. The UPL must represent the entire payment year. Since UPL demonstrations usually rely on historic data that is projected into a payment year, this is consistent with past practices.

FAQ ID:92226

The UPL data for out of state providers does not need to be included in the UPL demonstration. If the state has provider level data then it may include it in the demonstration within the private ownership category of providers.

FAQ ID:92426