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 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
Must the completion of a Managed Long Term Services and Supports (MLTSS) comprehensive care plan take place in the home?
No, for the LTSS Comprehensive Care Plan and Update measure, the care plan does not have to take place in the member’s home. However, it must be done face-to-face unless certain exceptions are met. These exceptions include circumstances in which:
- The member was offered a face-to-face discussion and refused (either refused a face-to-face encounter or requested a telephone discussion instead of a face-to-face discussion).
- The state policy, regulation, or other state guidance excludes the member from a requirement for face-to-face discussion of a care plan.
What if there are multiple Managed Long Term Services and Supports (MLTSS) LTSS Comprehensive Care Plan and Update care plans documented during the measurement period?
Use the most recently updated care plan.
How should a Managed Long Term Services and Supports (MLTSS) member's refusal to sign an LTSS Comprehensive Care Plan and Update plan be documented?
To meet the LTSS Comprehensive Care Plan and Update measure numerator, the care plan must be signed by the member, unless the care plan is under appeal in the specified timeframe, and there is documentation that the care plan was in appeal. There is an exclusion for members who refuse to take part in care planning. This exclusion is reported with the measure rate, so the overall measure rate can be interpreted correctly. For example, a plan that is not successful at engaging members in care planning, indicated by a high exclusion rate, would suggest the overall rate on the measure should be interpreted with caution.
What if a Managed Long Term Services and Supports (MLTSS) member could not be reached for the LTSS Comprehensive Care Plan and Update?
There must be documentation that at least three attempts were made to reach the member, and they could not be reached. The rate of exclusion due to inability to reach a member should also be reported along with the measure performance rate.
What if a Managed Long Term Services and Supports (MLTSS) member either does not have a caregiver involved or does not want their caregiver involved in the LTSS Comprehensive Care Plan and Update? What if a member's caregiver declines to participate in care planning?
In these circumstances, MLTSS plan records should clearly document that no caregiver was involved to satisfy the measure criteria. For example, there are situations in which it may not be appropriate to engage the caregiver, including cases in which the member refused to involve the caregiver, or the invited caregiver declined to participate. Reasons for lack of caregiver involvement are not required; documentation that a caregiver was not involved suffices.
If no deficit is identified for one of the core elements required for the care plan (for example, functional needs), what should the care plan contain?
For certain elements of the care plan, documentation of no deficit suffices to receive credit for the elements (for example, functional needs, medical needs, cognitive impairment needs). Other elements in the core and supplemental rates of the Managed Long Term Services and Supports (MLTSS) LTSS Comprehensive Care Plan and Update measure require documentation regardless of whether a deficit is identified (for example, individualized member goal, plan for follow-up and communication, plan for emergency). Refer to the details in the measure specification to identify where documentation of no deficit meets the element definition.
How will the Medicaid Eligibility Quality Control (MEQC) program be realigned under the final regulation issued July 5, 2017?
As reconfigured under the final regulation of July 5, 2017, MEQC will work in conjunction with the Payment Error Rate Measurement (PERM) program. In those years when states undergo their triennial PERM reviews, the states will not conduct MEQC pilots. The latter will only be required in the two off-years between PERM review years. CMS has restructured the MEQC program so that it more effectively complements the PERM program and provides states with the necessary flexibility and opportunity to target specific problems or high-interest areas during the two off-years of the PERM cycle.
How does Medicaid Eligibility Quality Control (MEQC) differ from Payment Error Rate Measurement (PERM)?
The MEQC requirements on active case reviews generally mirror the requirements of the eligibility component of PERM reviews. The regulation requires that states perform reviews of a sample of active Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) cases to identify new eligibility approvals and renewals that were made in error. As in PERM, states will be required to submit case-level reports on the sampled cases they review and corrective action plans that describe steps taken to remediate the errors found.
However, in contrast to PERM, when states identify errors in their active Medicaid and CHIP cases, they will be required to undertake a payment review. This will consist of a review of all claims paid over the first three months after an erroneous eligibility determination was made, and a summary of the overstated or understated liability. States will in turn be required to submit adjustments to the amount of federal financial participation (FFP) claimed through the CMS-64 reporting process for Medicaid and the CMS-21 reporting process for CHIP. The adjustments are required for identified claims in which too much or too little FFP was received. There is no payment review or re-crediting requirement in PERM, although disallowance of FFP can be taken in states whose PERM error rate exceeds the national threshold of 3% based on a formula described at 42 CFR 431.1010. MEQC contains no such disallowance provision.
The MEQC program also contains one other significant element that is not found in PERM. Besides the requirement that states review at least 400 cases in their active case universe (including a minimum of 200 cases), MEQC requires states to review at least 400 negative case actions. At least 200 of these must be Medicaid and 200 must be CHIP. Negative case actions involve erroneous denials of Medicaid or CHIP eligibility or erroneous terminations from Medicaid or CHIP. This is an area with no PERM counterpart in which states will be developing case-level reporting and corrective actions. Negative case action reviews will not be triggered by PERM findings. Largely for this reason, the regulation requires that states pull their sample of these from the entire Medicaid and CHIP universe of cases. By sampling from the full range of Medicaid and CHIP cases, states should be able to obtain an overview of those sectors in their programs that may be especially vulnerable to improper denials or terminations.
What was the traditional Medicaid Eligibility Quality Control (MEQC) program based on and how has it changed?
The traditional MEQC program at 42 CFR § 431.810 through 431.822 was originally designed to implement sections 1902(a)(4) “Administration Methods for Proper and Efficient Operation of the State Plan” and 1903(u) “Limitation of FFP for Erroneous Medical Assistance Expenditures” of the Social Security Act (the Act). The program required annual state reviews of Medicaid cases identified through a statistically valid statewide sample of cases selected from the state’s eligibility files. The reviews were conducted to determine whether the sampled cases meet applicable Medicaid eligibility requirements. The program evolved over time to allow states the option of selecting specific areas of focus within the Medicaid program for their annual MEQC reviews.
On July 5, 2017, CMS published a final regulation entitled “Changes to the Payment Error Rate Measurement (PERM) and Medicaid Eligibility Quality Control (MEQC) Programs (CMS-Medicaid Coordination of Benefits8- F).” This final rule updated the MEQC and PERM programs based on the changes to Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program eligibility requirements under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The new regulation has restructured the MEQC program into an ongoing series of pilots that states are required to conduct during the two off-years between triennial PERM review years. The MEQC portions of the regulation are now covered by 42 CFR §§ 431.800-820.
What deliverables must states furnish to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) per the new Medicaid Eligibility Quality Control (MEQC) regulation?
The regulation requires states to submit a pilot planning document to CMS by November 1 of the year in which each state’s PERM review year ends. The pilot planning document must describe how states will conduct their active and negative case reviews and must be approved by CMS before the MEQC pilots can begin. In addition, the regulation requires states to submit case-level reports and corrective action plans to CMS by August 1 of the year after the MEQC review period ends. The specifications for the MEQC pilot planning documents are provided in the MEQC sub-regulatory guidance effective August 29, 2018. More details on the specifications of the case-level reports and corrective action plans are included in a second round of guidance, MEQC sub-regulatory guidance effective October 22, 2018.