Frequently Asked Questions

All settings must facilitate and optimize Medicaid beneficiaries to live according to their daily routines and rituals, pursue their interests, and maximize opportunities for their engagement with the broader community in a self-determined manner, as outlined in the individual's person-centered service plan. The plan must reflect clinical and support needs as identified through an assessment of functional need, and document the individual's preferences for community integration and how these preferences will be addressed in the setting they have chosen.

Settings can support community integration, in accordance with each individual's person-centered plan by strategies and practices such as:

• Finding out during initial assessments what individuals desire in terms of community engagement and educate them about how the setting's capabilities will meet the individual's needs and preferences. This should be done before the individual makes a decision about services and settings to allow the best fit between the person and place.
• Documenting the factors the person identifies as important in a community such as proximity to and involvement of family, connections to communities of faith, specific cultural resources and activities, and others.
• Recording individual preferences for community integration in the person-centered plan and how the setting will support those preferences (e.g., participating in their faith community, attending a favorite club, Sunday breakfast at the local diner, interests in volunteering or in working, etc.) as well as the transportation needed to achieve desired outcomes, recognizing that many of these activities are leveraged through natural supports and thus would not require Medicaid-funded resources.
• Providing individuals with opportunities to engage others in their settings through activities, outings, and socialization opportunities.
• Providing sufficient staff and transportation to enable individuals' participation in their activities of choice in the broader community. These could include opportunities for work, cultural enjoyment, worship, or volunteering. The person-centered service plan may also include provider-facilitated opportunities to engage in desired activities in the broader community.
• Ensuring that visitors are not restricted, and individuals can connect to their virtual communities of choice through social media noting that this alone does not substitute for community activities and integration.
• Ensuring that individuals have opportunities to visit with and go out with family members and friends, when they want this. Providing an inviting environment and flexible schedules and service times (e.g., meals, medication administration) can encourage family and friends' participation in the life of the residential setting and support their efforts to maintain individuals' connections to the external community.
• Reviewing at least annually whether any parts of the person-centered plan need change. It is important to note that the modifications requirement within the regulations defining home and community-based settings also applies to anyone in a residential or nonresidential setting, and thus the person-centered plan needs to document what services and supports should be made available to allow people to live where they want and do what they want during the day to assure maximum integration with the broader community. For more information on the HCBS rule requirements on person-centered planning, please refer to CMS' previous FAQs on this topic.

All settings, including those in rural communities and those in low density suburban areas, are encouraged to provide adequate transportation opportunities to meet beneficiaries' desires for meaningful community engagement and participation in typical community activities.

Note that visits by community members have value but do not substitute for community access for Medicaid beneficiaries receiving services in residential and adult day settings.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 144.19 KB)

FAQ ID:94986

CMS plans to provide technical assistance on transition plans to States through the State Operations and Technical Assistance Team (SOTA) calls and through other calls with the State. We will also be providing additional guidance about the information that should be included in the transition plans. We will consider the transition plans that need to be submitted by the due date as living documents that are open to revision, and will continue to work with States to ensure a seamless transition in 2014 for beneficiaries and States.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 55.99 KB)

FAQ ID:93021

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.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 159.2 KB)

FAQ ID:91126

States have the flexibility to account for the Health Insurance Providers Fee on a prospective or retroactive basis. In the event that a prospective calculation results in a capitation rate that is too high or too low, the capitation rate may be adjusted after the actual tax assessment is known. States may also account for the fee prospectively by withholding such amounts until the health plan's actual fee is known. The capitation payment, net the amount of the withhold, must remain actuarially sound and the state can only claim Federal Financial Participation (FFP) on the actual expenditures paid from the withhold to reimburse the health plans for the fee.

States may account for the Health Insurance Providers Fee as an aggregated retroactive adjustment to the rates for the contract year once a health plan's liability is known. CMS anticipates that states would move to a prospective calculation as states and health plans obtain more experience with the fee.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 159.2 KB)

FAQ ID:91141

No. There is no Federal Financial Participation (FFP) available for Health Insurance Providers Fee payments made outside of actuarially sound capitation rates, per the requirements of section 1903(m)(2)(A(iii) of the Social Security Act and implementing regulations at 42 CFR 438.6(c)(2). Therefore, any payment for the fee-whether on a prospective or retrospective basis-must be incorporated in the health plan capitation rates and reflected in the payment term under the contract.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 159.2 KB)

FAQ ID:91151

There are reasonable ways to account for the Health Insurance Providers Fee as an adjustment to the states' capitation rates under either approach. In either approach, the amount of the fee should be incorporated as an adjustment to the capitation rates and the resulting payments should be consistent with the actual or estimated amount of the fee.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 159.2 KB)

FAQ ID:91161

No. Since the fee due in 2014 is based on the health plan's 2013 book of business, the adjustment should only apply to the capitation rates for populations that the state covered under the managed care contract in 2013. For example, states that chose to expand Medicaid eligibility starting January 1, 2014, should not adjust the capitation rates for the new adult eligibility group to account for the fee due in 2014, because they were not covered by the managed care plans in 2013. In future years, the Health Insurance Providers Fee will continue to be based on the book of business for the immediately preceding year, so this concept will apply in calculating the fee if any new populations are added to a state's managed care program.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 159.2 KB)

FAQ ID:91181

The potential effect of the fee may be considered in the development of the capitation rates. If the state's actuary takes these potential effects into account in developing the non-benefit component of the capitation rate attributable to the Health Insurance Providers Fee, the assumptions underlying that analysis will be documented in the rate certification.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 159.2 KB)

FAQ ID:91196

Section 9010(h)(3) of the Affordable Care Act and the IRS Health Insurance Providers Fee regulations (78 FR 71476, 71483, November 29, 2013; available at www.irs.gov/businesses/corporations/affordable-care-act-provision-9010) exclude long-term care from the definition of health insurance for purposes of calculating a health plan's fee liability. Where long- term care services are paid a capitation rate separate from other services, these payments can be easily identified and should be excluded by the health plan when reporting premiums subject to the fee to the IRS. However, where long-term care services are not easily identified within the health plan's capitation rates, the health plans may need to consult with the state and their actuaries to determine the appropriate premium receipts to report to the IRS.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set.  (PDF, 159.2 KB)

FAQ ID:91391

CMS believes that the process for reimbursing a health plan for the Health Insurance Providers Fee that was contracted with the state in 2013, but not in 2014, is primarily a matter to be negotiated between the state and the health plan. It is reasonable for a state to make a retroactive adjustment to the 2013 contract year rates for that health plan as it is possible that the state's actuary did not take the Health Insurance Providers Fee into consideration when developing the 2013 rates. In that case, the state may treat the fee in the same manner as it would an error in the development of the rates, and submit any necessary adjustment to CMS for approval.

However, there may be barriers to such adjustments under the contract or applicable state laws. Retroactive rate adjustments for a health plan that has left the market must be made under the contract and within the federal two-year period for timely claims. See Question 3 for more information. Going forward, states that account for the fee on a retroactive basis may want to address rate adjustments due to market exit in the contract. States that account for the fee on a prospective basis will not encounter this issue.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 159.2 KB)

FAQ ID:91396