Frequently Asked Questions

We do not believe the statue requires states to cover, under this group, individuals who were in foster care and enrolled in Medicaid when they turned age 18 or aged out of foster care in a different state. However, we believe the statute provides states the option to do so. As noted above, pending publication of a final regulation at section 435.150, states may exercise the option proposed when they complete SPA page S33 for this group.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 120.92 KB)

FAQ ID:92166

Yes. Section 115 of CHIPRA gives states the option to claim expenditures for Medicaid expansion program populations under section 1905(u)(2)(B) of the Act, either at the enhanced FMAP rate using title XXI funds or at the regular FMAP rate using title XIX funds. States that elect to claim expenditures under title XXI will receive the enhanced FMAP rate. However, states that elect to claim expenditures under title XIX will receive the regular Medicaid FMAP rate. Claims submitted at the enhanced FMAP rate will be paid from the state's CHIP allotment.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 120.92 KB)

FAQ ID:92171

CMS acknowledges the customary practice of reimbursing out-of-state or out-of-network providers at a base rate minus a defined percentage. The applicable Medicare rate effectively becomes the ‘floor’ for payments to eligible providers for eligible services rendered in CYs 2013 and 2014. Health plans may pay above that rate but not below.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set.

FAQ ID:92131

No. The only expenditures that count against the CHIP allotment and must be reported on the CMS-21 are those related to the Medicaid rate in effect on July 1, 2009. The difference between those rates and the 2013 and 2014 Medicare rates eligible for 100 percent FMAP are Medicaid expenditures and are reported on the CMS 64.9.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set.

FAQ ID:92116

CMS recently received information from the American Board of Medical Specialties attesting that the American Board of Allergy and Immunology (ABAI) is an ABMS-recognized sub-discipline of the American Board of Pediatrics and the American Board of Internal Medicine.

Specifically, the ABAI is a conjoint board of the American Board of Pediatrics (ABP) and the American Board of Internal medicine (ABIM). All physicians certified by the Board of Allergy and Immunology must first be board certified by either ABP or ABAI. Medical specialists certified by the Allergy and Immunology Board remain subspecialists of Internal Medicine and Pediatrics. However, it is possible that some holders of a certificate from ABAI will not have a current certificate in Internal Medicine or Pediatrics because some diplomats of the ABP and ABIM who hold subspecialty certificates are not required to maintain their primary certificates. The ABMS was concerned that these diplomats might be excluded from eligibility for higher payment under a strict interpretation of the rule even though they do act as their patients' primary care provider in many cases and urged that CMS formally recognize that diplomats of ABAI are, in fact subspecialists in Internal Medicine and Pediatrics and eligible for higher payment up to the Medicare rate.

Based on this information, CMS agrees that allergists are eligible for higher payment under the rule.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set.

FAQ ID:91486

CMS acknowledges the customary practice of reimbursing out-of-state or out-of-network providers at a base rate minus a defined percentage. The applicable Medicare rate effectively becomes the'floor' for payments to eligible providers for eligible services rendered in CYs 2013 and 2014. Health plans may pay above that rate but not below.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set.

FAQ ID:91446

Yes. A state may elect to delegate the self-attestation process to its contracting health plans under the following circumstances:

1. Each managed care plan has signed documentation on file (provider contract or credentialing application) from the eligible provider attesting to the fact that he or she has a covered specialty or subspecialty designation. This addresses step one of the two-step self-attestation process specified in the rule.
2. The managed care plan has verification of the provider’s appropriate board certification (as part of the credentialing and re-credentialing process). This addresses one option of the second step in the self-attestation process.
3. Should board certification in the eligible specialty not be able to be verified by the managed care plan, the eligible provider must provide a specific attestation to the managed care plan that 60 percent of their Medicaid claims for the prior year were for the Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) codes specified in the regulation. This addresses a second option for the second step in the self-attestation process.
4.  Such delegation is included in the contract amendment that is otherwise being filed to implement this provision.

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set.

FAQ ID:91456

The ASD-related services should be provided through the Medicaid state plan for the EPSDT-eligible individuals, rather than the 1915(c) waiver. CMS will work with states to ensure that such services are able to be made available under the state plan. Accordingly, CMS with also work with states to remove the service from the 1915(c) home and community-based services waiver at the next amendment or renewal, whichever comes first.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 252.32 KB)

FAQ ID:93206

No. Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) is one treatment modality for ASD. CMS is not endorsing or requiring any particular treatment modality for ASD. State Medicaid agencies are responsible for determining what services are medically necessary for eligible individuals. States are expected to adhere to long-standing EPSDT obligations for individuals from birth to age 21, including providing medically necessary services available for the treatment of ASD.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 252.32 KB)

FAQ ID:93211

There is no specific time frame for CMS review of state practices in this area. The CMCS Informational Bulletin released July 7, 2014 (see http://www.medicaid.gov/Federal-PolicyGuidance/Downloads/CIB-07-07-14.pdf (PDF, 143.2 KB)), related to Autism Spectrum Disorder discusses the obligations under the Medicaid statute and regulations that are already in effect. However, CMS recognizes that states may not have focused on the application of these requirements in this area. As a result, a state may need time to review its current program policies to determine if changes are needed to existing state regulations and/or policy to ensure compliance. States may also want to confer with the stakeholder community for public input on the benefit design of autism services for children. CMS believes states should complete this work expeditiously and should not delay or deny provision of medically necessary services. CMS is available to provide technical assistance to states to ensure the availability of services that children may need.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 252.32 KB)

FAQ ID:93221