Frequently Asked Questions

Applicants that indicate they have a disability, need long-term care or are over age 65 are always referred to the Medicaid agency for a determination on a non-MAGI basis, regardless of income and household composition, since the FFM is evaluating eligibility for MAGI-based eligibility groups only. Additionally, applicants may always request a full Medicaid determination at the end of the application process. In assessment states, the Medicaid agency will do a final determination of eligibility for these applicants, whereas in determination states, the Medicaid agency just needs to follow up for a non-MAGI determination. The expanded flat file will contain a specific indicator showing if the applicant requested a full determination.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 198.3 KB)

FAQ ID:92136

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

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

We believe these files have information that states can rely on. As with any transmission of data or logic process, discrepancies may arise. However, we have done quality reviews and continue to act on reports of issues as quickly as possible by investigating them and introducing systems fixes as needed. We are continuing our testing and quality assurance efforts as well. We expect that states will be doing the same on accounts transferred from states to the FFM. We will continue to rely on our daily desk officer calls and our SOTA process to follow up with states on any questions that may arise.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 198.3 KB)

FAQ ID:91906

If the state would like to exclude individuals from enrollment based on the flat file, please reach out to CMCS to discuss the state's options. Our goal in offering this flat file option is to provide an additional avenue for enrollment and we will work with states on how they might best maximize the use of these files.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 198.3 KB)

FAQ ID:91921

In a letter dated November 29, 2013, (see http://www.medicaid.gov/Federal-PolicyGuidance/downloads/SHO-13-008.pdf (PDF, 117.76 KB)) CMS offered states the opportunity to apply for a waiver under section 1902(e)(14)(A) of the Social Security Act to allow them to make temporary enrollment decisions based on the information included in the flat file. So, as long as states follow the procedures outlined in the guidance and other applicable rules with respect to eligibility and claiming, federal funding is available for this temporary enrollment. Individual's circumstances might change and other factors might arise that could change the outcome of the eligibility determination once the state evaluates eligibility based on the full account transfer. Federal funding is not at risk for states that follow appropriate procedures to enroll beneficiaries based on the FFM's determination or assessment of eligibility.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 198.3 KB)

FAQ ID:91926

Since the waiver is a temporary grant of authority, if changes in circumstance are reported then states have the flexibility to choose to act on reported changes immediately or wait until the full determination occurs. If a state has the capability to review and process the changes reported they can do so, and if a state does not wish to act upon reported changes during this temporary waiver period that is also permissible. States should discuss with CMS how to document the state's policy regarding changes in circumstance in the waiver request.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 198.3 KB)

FAQ ID:91931

Because the Federally Facilitated Marketplace (FFM) is providing eligibility determinations/assessments for Medicaid under the MAGI standard, the state can process enrollment for MAGI individuals under the waiver authority. Since the FFM is providing non-MAGI applicant referrals on the expanded flat file, the state would act upon the non-MAGI referrals in the same manner as it would through the account transfer service.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 198.3 KB)

FAQ ID:91936