Frequently Asked Questions

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.

FAQ ID:93416

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.

FAQ ID:93421

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.

FAQ ID:93146

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.

FAQ ID:93196

The PERM/MEQC dates/cycles are as follows:

*??
CMS = Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
CAP = ??

FAQ ID:95156

The regulation only prohibits insurance policies that would be sold ""in conjunction with"" enrollment in the Medicaid managed care plan. Section 438.104 alone does not prohibit a Medicaid managed care plan from providing information about a Qualified Health Plans (QHP) to potential enrollees who could enroll in such a plan as an alternative to the Medicaid managed care plan due to a loss of Medicaid eligibility or to potential enrollees who may consider the benefits of selecting an Medicaid managed care plan that has a related QHP in the event of future eligibility changes. However, Medicaid managed care plans should consult their contracts and the State Medicaid agency to ascertain if other provisions exist that may prohibit or limit such activity.

Section 438.104(b)(1)(iv) implements a provision in section 1932(d)(2)(C) of the Social Security Act, titled ""Prohibition of Tie-Ins."" In promulgating regulations implementing this provision, CMS clarified that we interpreted it to preclude tying enrollment in the Medicaid managed care plan with purchasing (or the provision of) other types of private insurance. We do not intend the statutory prohibition of tie-ins to apply to a discussion of a possible alternative to the Medicaid managed care plan, which a QHP could be if the consumer is determined to be not Medicaid eligible or loses Medicaid eligibility.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 138.58 KB)

FAQ ID:94351

States are encouraged to review their managed care contracts to clearly identify the legal entity with which they are contracted for Medicaid coverage since federal Medicaid managed care regulations do not address this aspect of contracting. If the party to the contract is an entity (such as a parent company) that has a contract with a state Medicaid agency to provide benefits as a Medicaid managed care plan and is also a QHP issuer, then some contractual provisions may apply to both. Although the federal Medicaid regulations do not apply to a QHP issuer or QHP, state law, regulation, or contract language may have implications for the QHP issuer. If changes are needed to narrow the scope of the contract to apply only to the Medicaid managed care plan, we encourage states to make those changes so as to ensure consistent understanding and application of the Medicaid contract terms.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 138.58 KB)

FAQ ID:94371

Yes. Responding to direct questions from consumers is not generally a violation of 42 CFR 438.104. Proactive consumer inquiries to a health plan for information about coverage options, benefits, or provider networks is no different than a consumer obtaining information from the health plan's website. So long as the limits on marketing are satisfied and respected (e.g., the information is accurate and does not mislead, confuse or defraud beneficiaries or the state Medicaid agency), responding to direct questions from potential enrollees with accurate information is not prohibited.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 138.58 KB)

FAQ ID:94391

There is no provision in 42 CFR 438.104 specifically addressing a Medicaid managed care plan's outreach to enrollees for eligibility purposes; therefore, it depends on the Medicaid managed care plan's contract with the state Medicaid agency. The federal regulation at 42 CFR 438.104 defines marketing as ""any communication, from an [Medicaid managed care plan] to a Medicaid beneficiary who is not enrolled in that entity, that can reasonably be interpreted as intended to influence the beneficiary to enroll in that particular [Medicaid managed care plan's] Medicaid product, or either to not enroll in, or to disenroll from, another [Medicaid managed care plan's] Medicaid product."" So long as information and outreach about the eligibility renewal process is neither directed to beneficiaries who are not enrolled with that Medicaid managed care plan, nor intended to influence the beneficiary to enroll in that particular Medicaid managed care plan-or to not enroll in, or disenroll from another Medicaid managed care plan-the activity is not within the scope of 42 CFR 438.104. Materials and information that purely educate an enrollee of that Medicaid managed care plan on the importance of completing the State's Medicaid eligibility renewal process in a timely fashion would not meet the federal definition of marketing. However, Medicaid managed care plans should consult their contracts and the state Medicaid agency to ascertain if other provisions exist that may prohibit or limit such activity.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 138.58 KB)

FAQ ID:94396

CMS regulations at 42 CFR 435.603(f)(2) provide that the parents would be included in the child's household in this situation. However, if the parents do not intend to continue to claim the child as a tax dependent for the following tax year, states may alternatively use the option provided at 435.603(h)(3) to consider the child's move to the live with another caretaker relative as a "reasonably predictable change in income" and apply the non-filer rules to the child at 435.603(f)(3). Under the non-filer rules, neither the parents nor the caretaker with whom the child is living would be included in the child's household for purposes of Medicaid and CHIP eligibility.

Note that to be claimed as a "qualifying child," children generally must live with their parents for at least half of the year (certain exceptions apply), but parents may also be able to continue to claim a child as a "qualifying relative." States are not expected to determine whether or not a parent is permitted to claim their child as a tax dependent or not, but states may wish to consult IRS Publication 501 to better understand the general requirements which must be met for a tax filer to claim another individual either as a "qualifying child" or "qualifying relative." IRS Publication 501 can be accessed at the following link: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p501.pdf.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 295.71 KB)

FAQ ID:92571