Frequently Asked Questions

The UPL demonstration year is defined according to the last year encompassed by the demonstration. For example, a UPL covering the period 07/01/2016 to 06/30/2017 is defined as the 2017 UPL.

FAQ ID:92231

The submission package consists of the completed templates and any supporting documentation needed to understand the UPL demonstration. This could include the completed Guidance document and supporting documentation (in Microsoft Excel with formulas included, not as a PDF) that is necessary to further explain a state's UPL demonstration, and a summary spreadsheet that aggregates the UPL gap for each of the ownership categories (state government owned, non-state government owned, and private).

FAQ ID:92236

Yes, a state should submit multiple workbooks to CMS to provide a complete UPL demonstration for each service category subject to the UPL (Inpatient Hospital services (IPH), Outpatient Hospital services (OPH), Nursing Facility services (NF), Clinic, Institutions for Mental Disease (IMD), Intermediate Care Facilities for Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities (ICF/IID), Psychiatric Residential Treatment Facility (PRTF), and Qualified Practitioner supplemental payments). When submitting UPL demonstrations, the state should use the following naming convention: UPL_<UPL Demo Date Range>_<Service Type Abbreviation>_R<Region Number>_<State Abbreviation>_<Workbook Number>.xls. Here is an example of the naming convention: UPL_20170701-20180630_IP_R01_CT_01.xls.As well, states may submit one separate workbook for each ownership category (state government owned, non-state government owned, and private).

FAQ ID:92241

No, the information must be submitted by the State Medicaid Director (or designated state official).

FAQ ID:92246

States are requested to submit their UPL demonstrations to the UPL mailbox at MedicaidUPL@cms.hhs.gov, but should also send a copy of each demonstration to their CMS Regional Office, including the National Institutional Reimbursement Team (NIRT) and Non-Institutional Payment Team (NIPT) staff as appropriate, and addressed to the Associate Regional Administrator. UPL demonstrations should be submitted to meet the annual reporting requirement described in SMDL 13-003, as well as when proposing changes in payment through SPAs.

FAQ ID:92251

The Regional Office will continue to review state UPL demonstrations and states will continue to work with the CMS Regional Offices as a first point of contact concerning their UPL demonstrations.

FAQ ID:92256

As contained in the MECT standard RFP/contract language required by CMS, CMS does not cover activities that the state may require of the IV&V contractor during ongoing O&M. However, as Medicaid is moving away from monolithic single applications, it is expected that states will continuously update and replace modules in their enterprise. Therefore, IV&V should always have a role to ensure successful integration and testing.

FAQ ID:94881

If an organization is performing another role (such as systems integrator, PMO, quality assurance, etc.) on the MMIS or E&E project, it may not perform the IV&V function on the same project. A state may contract the same vendor to perform the IV&V role for both its E&E and MMIS projects.

FAQ ID:94886

To reduce potential conflict of interest, CMS is ensuring that states are arranging IV&V services through contracts that should be owned outside of the agency that owns the MMIS or E&E project. The oversight organization for the IV&V contractor should not be involved in oversight of the development effort, a stakeholder in the business implementation, or the DDI contractor. The IV&V contract monitor should be aware of system development problem solving, reporting, and contractor management. This contract oversight provides true independence between the IV&V contractor and system development teams. This requirement is consistent with other HHS agencies' practices and industry best practices.

FAQ ID:94891

CMS encourages states to reuse modular solutions as much as possible. If a state can reuse a modular solution from another state with minimal changes or customization, CMS will work with the state to streamline the certification process as much as possible to leverage knowledge of the reused solution. However, CMS will still require a certification decision for each state implementation of reused solutions to ensure compliance with federal regulations.

FAQ ID:94896