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
Should IV&V progress reports include all the checklist sets every time they submit a progress report?
No. Only the checklists pertaining to the modules undergoing review need to be included, and that only for the report created in preparation for a milestone review. However, the IV&V progress report should include risks and recommendations for the entire project--not just those about to undergo a milestone review.
FAQ ID:95086
SHARE URLWhy are there Standards and Conditions (S&C) and Access and Delivery (A&D) criteria in the Information Architecture checklist?
When streamlining the core checklists (IA, TA and S&C checklists), we found that some criteria fit better in other checklists, so they were moved. To keep traceability simple for the states, we chose to keep the original identifiers for any criteria that were moved. The same holds true for criteria moved to the programmatic tab of the IV&V progress report template.
FAQ ID:95091
SHARE URLAre Eligibility and Enrollment (E&E) systems now going to be certified the way MMIS systems are certified?
No, E&E systems are not subject to certification. Though the Medicaid Eligibility and Enrollment Toolkit (MEET) was based on the MMIS toolkit, the MEET was created as a way to align how CMS reviews Medicaid enterprise systems and is a means for CMS to provide technical assistance to the states.
FAQ ID:95096
SHARE URLBased on CMS guidance, states may take up to 18 months to bring an IV&V contractor on board to perform certification tasks or align current IV&V contract to comply with CMS guidance pertaining to scope of services and financial independence. What must the state do if the IV&V contractor's start up is delayed?
IV&V contractor activities must still be performed such as checklist evaluation, artifact review and preparation of IV&V Progress Reports. The state should provide a plan and timeline for how these activities will be supported and performed until the proper IV&V contract can be either procured or aligned with updated CMS guidance on IV&V.
FAQ ID:94866
SHARE URLWhat is the applicability of Minimum Acceptable Risk Standards for Exchanges (MARS-E) 2.0 to states' Medicaid Management Information Systems (MMIS)?
MARS-E 2.0 compliance is not required by CMS for states' MMIS, but CMS recommends that states follow applicable national privacy and security standards and practices for their MMIS. MARS-E 2.0 compliance is required for states' Medicaid/CHIP Eligibility and Enrollment (E&E) systems in order to maintain their Authority to Connect with CMS. Link for more information about MARS-E 2.0: https://www.medicaid.gov/federal-policy-guidance/downloads/cib-09-23-2015.pdf (PDF, 105.5 KB).
FAQ ID:94871
SHARE URLCan state Medicaid agencies access federal financial participation (FFP) to support system changes necessary to meet HIPAA, NIST cybersecurity, or MARS-E 2.0 standards?
For E&E and MMIS, enhanced FFP funding is available at 90 percent via the usual Advanced Planning Document process.
FAQ ID:94876
SHARE URLIf a state can prove that they are under the aggregate limits of AAC and PDF and have strong participation by pharmacies, are they required to adopt the AAC and PDF reimbursement methodology at the individual claim level?
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)
FAQ ID:94691
SHARE URLIf a state is already using actual acquisition cost (AAC) as their reimbursement methodology, does the state need to file a State Plan Amendment (SPA) or provide assurances that the current formula meets requirements established in the final rule? Is there a requirement for such states to file a SPA to provide assurance that the state's current dispensing fee amount meets the requirements of the final rule?
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 URLWill there be an annual review of PDFs that are required as part of SPA approvals?
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 URLWill CMS be providing guidance to states to ensure that states include reasonable components in their cost of dispensing survey?
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
Results per page