Frequently Asked Questions

No; discharges for planned hospital admissions are excluded from the measure denominator. Identify planned discharges using the value sets (XLSX, 2.88 MB).

FAQ ID:89236

Yes, both the re-assessment and the care plan must include each of the nine specified core elements. The re-assessment and care plan must be done face-to-face unless there is documentation that the member refused a face-to-face encounter.

FAQ ID:89241

The denominator for the Reassessment/Care Plan Update after Inpatient Discharge measure is identified through administrative claims for inpatient discharges. Managed care plans that are not the primary payer for inpatient care, which is usually covered under a medical benefit, do not routinely have reliable access to administrative claims for inpatient stays to identify individuals who are eligible to be counted in the measure denominator. Therefore, the eligible population for this measure is restricted to individuals who receive both medical and LTSS benefits through the managed care plan providing MLTSS.

FAQ ID:89246

If MLTSS plans can obtain timely, complete, and accurate inpatient claims data for their members, then a state may choose to deviate from the measure specifications to require MLTSS plans not providing medical benefits report this measure. For example, because the timely transfer of information between hospitals and MLTSS plans is key to ensuring smooth transfers between settings of care, MLTSS plans may have access to hospital discharge data through state or regional health information exchanges. In some cases, MLTSS plans are working closely with hospitals to share timely information about admissions and discharges. In addition, some states have the data and capacity to construct this measure for MLTSS plans using Medicare claims data for Medicare- Medicaid dual eligible beneficiaries (see more information about state access to Medicare claims data).

FAQ ID:89251

A reassessment with the member after they have been discharged from an inpatient facility is required to determine whether a member has had a change (or no change) in their LTSS needs. Even if the reassessment conducted post-discharge finds no change in a member’s LTSS needs, the second rate for this measure (Reassessment and Care Plan Update after Inpatient Discharge), Managed Long Term Services and Supports (MLTSS) plan care managers should conduct a care plan update and document that they considered each of the nine core elements of the care plan, and determined that the plan of care for each element remains the same; documentation of “no changes” in the care plan as a whole does not meet the numerator criteria.

FAQ ID:89256

The Precertification Pilot was an experiment conducted from October 2017-March 2018 designed to streamline certification and attract new vendors. Unfortunately, the pilot was found to be unscalable across Medicaid. However, key learnings from the pilot will be incorporated into current processes and future experiments around vendor engagement, certification, scalability, and sustainability. The goals the Centers from Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) identified at the beginning of the Precertification Pilot process remain the same: reduce the level of effort of certification; shorten the certification timeline; promote modularity and interoperability; reduce risk of system failure; and attract new vendors to the Medicaid IT market. Contact CMS with your ideas for experiments to achieve those goals at MES@cms.hhs.gov.

FAQ ID:95151

CMS released an Informational Bulletin (CIB) discussing the change in federal financial participation (FFP) for EQR that was effective May 6, 2016. The CIB includes revised claiming instructions for the CMS-64 and a sample form. It is available at Medicaid.gov on the EQR webpage, under Technical Assistance Documents, and available at https://www.medicaid.gov/federal-policy-guidance/downloads/cib061016.pdf (PDF, 279.08 KB).

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 185.26 KB)

FAQ ID:93471

Yes. We remind states that the requirement that the final capitation rate be specified in the contract is not a new requirement, see section 438.6(c)(2)(ii) of the 2002 final rule. The amount of payment for performance-in this context, the final capitation rate-is a primary component of any contract and must be included for purposes of verifying claims for Federal Financial Participation (FFP) on the CMS-64. In the Final Rule at page 27595, in the context of risk adjustment, CMS suggested that the payment terms under the contract could be identified in an appendix, or additional supporting documentation, to the contract for ease of updating the information when risk adjustment is applied. The state must submit a formal contract amendment when the final capitation rates differ from the payment terms in an approved contract.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 185.26 KB)

FAQ ID:93171

Under section 438.370, the enhanced match of 75 percent is available for the EQR-related activities described in section 438.358 if all of the following conditions are met:

• The EQR activity is performed on a managed care organization (MCO) by an entity meeting the requirements of a qualified EQRO in section 438.354 or its subcontractor;
• The activity is performed pursuant to a contract approved by CMS; and
• The activity is performed in accordance with a protocol issued by CMS.

FFP at the 50 percent matching rate is available for mandatory and optional EQR-related activities for PIHPs, PAHPs, and affected PCCM entities, regardless of whether the activities were conducted by an EQRO or another entity. FFP at the 50 percent matching rate is also available for EQR and related activities performed for MCOs that are conducted by an entity that is not a qualified EQRO. This is a change from previous regulations, under which the enhanced match was available for EQR of PIHPs to the same extent as MCOs. This provision took effect May 6, 2016.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 185.26 KB)

FAQ ID:94646

Regardless of whether an EQRO contract is approved before or after May 6, 2016, the change in FFP for EQR-related activities was effective May 6, 2016 for expenditures incurred by the state on or after May 6, 2016. Per general CMS-64 claiming principles, a state incurs an expenditure that may be claimed on the CMS-64 on the date the state pays the EQRO for the completed performance of the contracted EQR-associated activity.

The change to the FFP match rate for expenditure reporting takes effect in the middle of a quarter, which means that states must ensure that claims for expenditures for EQR activities affected by the change in FFP which were paid before May 6th and claims for expenditures which were paid on or after May 6th are reported separately. For only the quarter ending June 30, 2016, the CMS-64 EQRO Line 17 will allow states to report state expenditures associated with PIHP EQRO activities paid prior to May 6, 2016 and claim the enhanced 75 percent match. State expenditures associated with PIHP EQRO activities paid on or after May 6th must be claimed at the 50 percent matching rate.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 185.26 KB)

FAQ ID:94651