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 Indian Health Services (IHS) excluded from the increased provider payments under CMS 2370-F? Is there any change in FMAP under CMS 2370-F for primary care services delivered through IHS?
IHS and tribal facilities are often not separately paid for physician services, but instead receive an all-inclusive rate for inpatient or outpatient service encounters. To the extent that a particular claim is made for primary care services furnished by an eligible physician, there is no exclusion from the requirement for provider payment at least equal to the Medicare Part B fee schedule rate. States would continue to receive Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) at the 100 percent rate for services received through IHS and tribal facilities and reimbursed through the all-inclusive rate. For other physician services, including Medicaid payments for contract health services, states would receive the regular FMAP for the base payment, and 100 percent for the difference between the state plan rate in effect on July 1, 2009 and the applicable 2013 and 2014 Medicare rates.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:94106
SHARE URLThe preamble of the final rule under CMS 2370-F makes it clear that salaried eligible physicians employed by counties must receive the higher payment for eligible Evaluation & Management (E&M) and vaccine services. Does this same logic apply to physicians employed by hospitals and, if so, is it the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) expectation that the Medicaid agency will assure that the salaries of those physicians are increased?
Physicians employed by hospitals whose services are reimbursed by Medicaid on a physician fee schedule must receive the benefit of higher payment. It is the Medicaid agency's responsibility to ensure that hospitals receiving payments on behalf of those physicians comply with all requirements of the program. While hospitals could increase salaries they could also provide additional/bonus payments to eligible physicians to ensure that they receive the benefit of higher Medicaid payment.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:94111
SHARE URLThe final rule under CMS 2370-F clarifies that the 60 percent threshold for eligibility is based on services billed. Are billed services to be defined based on the number of units submitted or dollars?
The 60 percent threshold is based on the number of billed services as identified by individual billing codes for the primary specialty being asserted. That is, the numerator equals total billed codes for Evaluation & Management (E&M) services for the primary specialty, plus vaccine administration services, and the denominator equals the total number of billed codes. Please note that a state may choose to use paid billing codes/services in place of billed codes.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:94116
SHARE URLFor evaluating the claims history under CMS 2370-F, must we use all "billed" claims, including denied claims or claims that are subsequently voided? We would propose to use all paid claims net of voids and adjustments.
If a physician does not provide an attestation by a date established by the State, can the State apply the increased payment under CMS 2370-F prospectively only (that is, to dates of services on and after the date of attestation)? If not, are we correct that 42 CFR 447.45(d)(1) applies such that the claim for additional reimbursement is not payable if the attestation is not received within 12 months of the date of service?
States can establish reasonable timeframes regarding the submission of attestations by physicians. We are aware that many states are experiencing delays in implementing the provisions of the regulation and we have also been made aware that there is considerable confusion on the part of providers regarding enrollment. We expect that states will provide physicians with ample notice of the procedures for enrollment that physicians will be given several months to comply with the requirements. If the state sets a reasonable timeframe, such as three months, and physicians do not enroll within that time, we believe that the state could make payment prospectively from the date of the physician's application as long as this policy is made clear to providers.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:94126
SHARE URLDoes a physician have to self-attest under CMS 2370-F in 2014 as well as 2013? The rule does not indicate that the physician has to self-attest a second time and we don't want to do that, but some who qualified in 2013 (based on 2012 claims history) may not qualify in 2014 (based on 2013 claims history).
You are correct that the rule does not require the physician to submit a new self-attestation in 2014 although states could impose such a requirement. States can rely on the initial self-attestation for purposes of 2014 payments since we would not expect provider practices to vary significantly from year to year.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:94131
SHARE URLWhat form must a physician use to self-attest and qualify for higher payment under CMS 2370-F under this provision?
Attestation forms are developed by the State Medicaid agencies. Physicians should contact their state Medicaid agency for information on the process for becoming eligible for higher payment in their state.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:94136
SHARE URLWhile sports medicine is a subspecialty of internal medicine, it is also a subspecialty of non-primary care specialties? We would only qualify a physician for the board certification for the sports medicine subspecialty under CMS 2370-F when it is a subspecialty of internal medicine. Is this correct?
With respect to self-attestation, if a provider only meets the 60 percent threshold or only meets the Board certification under CMS 2370-F, would the provider only have to attest to that one component to be eligible or is it necessary to meet both components?
Physicians must first self-attest to a primary care designation of internal medicine, family medicine or pediatrics. This attestation signifies that the physicians consider themselves to be eligible specialty practitioners. The self-attestation must then indicate whether the physicians consider themselves to be qualified because of appropriate Board certification or practice history as represented by a 60 percent claims history. Some physicians may be appropriately Board certified and have a 60 percent claims history.
There may be physicians with Board certification in a specialty not recognized for higher payment under the rule who actually practice as pediatricians, family practitioners or internists who would be eligible for higher payment. For example, an Obstetrician/Gynecologist (OB/GYN) who no longer practices in that specialty but practices as a family practitioner could appropriately self-attest to being a primary care provider. Such a provider would need to qualify based on the 60 percent threshold and not Board certification. Physicians that support their initial self-attestation with an attestation of appropriate Board certification can qualify only if they actually have the appropriate Board certification. Practice habits would not be applicable.
There may also be physicians with Board certification in one of the three eligible specialty areas who do not actually practice in those areas. They should not self-attest to being a primary care provider.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:94146
SHARE URLHow should a physician who is certified in internal medicine, family practice or pediatrics by a Board other than the ABMS, the AOA or the ABPS self-attest under CMS 2370-F?
Such a physician would self-attest to a primary specialty designation of family medicine, pediatric medicine or internal medicine and would then attest to, and qualify based on, a 60 percent claims history.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:94151
SHARE URL
Results per page