Frequently Asked Questions

CMS acknowledges the customary practice of reimbursing out-of-state or out-of-network providers at a base rate minus a defined percentage. The applicable Medicare rate effectively becomes the ‘floor’ for payments to eligible providers for eligible services rendered in CYs 2013 and 2014. Health plans may pay above that rate but not below.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set.

FAQ ID:92131

Yes, services covered under the state plan rendered during the PE period will qualify for federal match regardless of the ultimate Medicaid eligibility decision. The standards that states can set for hospitals and the findings from reviews of hospital performance relative to those standards are intended to ensure that hospitals are making appropriate PE determinations and following state hospital PE procedures. When problems are identified, states should take corrective action to ensure future compliance with state policies and procedures.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 151.09 KB)

FAQ ID:92111

No. The only expenditures that count against the CHIP allotment and must be reported on the CMS-21 are those related to the Medicaid rate in effect on July 1, 2009. The difference between those rates and the 2013 and 2014 Medicare rates eligible for 100 percent FMAP are Medicaid expenditures and are reported on the CMS 64.9.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set.

FAQ ID:92116

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.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set.

FAQ ID:92106

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:

1. Submit revised actuarial certification documents reflecting the Medicare rate for eligible primary care services in their MCO, PIHP or PAHP capitation rates; and
2. 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.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set.

FAQ ID:91266

The American Medical Association created modifier 33 in response to the Affordable Care Act requirements pertaining to preventive services. When the primary purpose of the service is the delivery of an evidence-based service in accordance with a United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) A or B rating in effect and other preventive services identified in preventive services mandates (legislative or regulatory), the service may be identified by appending modifier 33, preventive service, to the service. For separately reported services specifically identified as preventive, the modifier should not be used.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set.

FAQ ID:91991

It is up to the state to set up its payment methodologies and procedures. To the extent that the state processes a claim for a United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) grade A or B preventive service consistent with those procedures, it can claim the enhanced match for that claim. If the state elects a payment methodology using bundled services, generally it cannot claim the enhanced match. But there may be some instances in which it might be appropriate to allocate costs for bundled claims among the included components. To the extent that a state is interested in doing so, it must develop a cost allocation plan, and submit that for CMS approval.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set.

FAQ ID:91996

Provided that the services are medically necessary, states are required to follow only the summary of recommendations for the services that have a rating of A or B from the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). It is up to the state to have a financial monitoring procedure to ensure proper claiming for federal match.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set.

FAQ ID:92006

The state may claim the 1% FMAP increase on both the professional component (interpretation of the x-ray) and the technical component (the actual taking of the x-ray).

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set.

FAQ ID:92011

States seeking the one percentage point FMAP increase should amend their state plans to reflect that they cover and reimburse all United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) grade A and B preventive services and approved vaccines recommended by Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), and their administration, without cost-sharing. An approved state plan amendment is required for the lines to be enterable on the CMS-64 form. As with all other services claimed on the CMS-64, the amounts reported on and its attachments must be actual expenditures for which all supporting documentation, in readily reviewable form, has been compiled and is available immediately at the time the claim is filed. The CMS-64 report form has been modified to allow for reporting of a state's managed care expenditures separate from the state's reporting of fee-for-service (FFS) expenditures. The total expenditures associated with services referenced in section 4106 would be reported on the requisite lines for managed care (line 18A4, 18B1d or 18B2d) and for FFS (line 34A).

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set.

FAQ ID:92021