Frequently Asked Questions

The measure excludes plan members who are not ambulatory from the measure rate, but it is not necessary to report the number of members excluded with the measure’s performance rate.

FAQ ID:89006

No, a specific screening tool is not required for this measure. However, potential screening tools may include the Morse Fall Scale and timed Get-Up-And-Go test.

FAQ ID:89011

A falls screening is an evaluation of whether a Managed Long Term Services and Supports plan member has experienced a history of falls and/or problems with balance or gait. A falls risk assessment includes a balance/gait assessment and one other assessment component and should only be performed for members with a documented history of falls (at least two falls or one fall with injury in the past year).

FAQ ID:89016

Generally, information from the Federal data services hub will only be sent in direct response to a call from the requesting entity. However, in the case of verifications conducted by DHS, there can be up to three steps to a verification, the second and third of which will not be in real time. If the step 1 query fails, the Federal data services hub will automatically invoke step 2, and the response may take up to several days. If step 2 fails, the Federal data services hub will notify the requesting entity which will need to submit additional documentation from the applicant for step 3. The step 3 response can take weeks. During this time, the Federal data services hub will regularly poll DHS to see if the response has come back.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 104.38 KB)

FAQ ID:93316

When the data that factors into the state's UPL demonstration has not changed from one year to the next, then the state could apply the same overall UPL demonstration to the following year. The state must submit a justification to support the application of a previous year's UPL demonstration to another year.

FAQ ID:92221

Yes, the templates allow the use of multiple cost centers. For example, if the state uses a cost methodology for ancillary services and a per-diem methodology for routine services, the state will complete one cost template and one per-diem template in order to account for these two cost centers. Every hospital would be featured in each of the two templates; however, to differentiate their provider information, the state would append the Medicare Certification Number (Medicare ID) (variable 112) with a letter, such as an -A or a -B. For example, if the Medicare ID was 123456, it would be depicted in the cost template as 123456-A and in the per diem template as 123456-B. If a Medicare Certification Number is not available then the state should append the Medicaid Provider Number. If there are multiple cost centers under either the cost or per-diem methodology, the state would separate out the cost centers within their respective templates. Each cost center should be associated with only one appended letter and these should be described in the notes tab. When using multiple cost centers, the state should insert a new tab in the templates that summarizes the UPL gap calculations for each of the ownership categories (state government owned, non-state government owned, and private), unless a summary worksheet is already included in the workbook.

FAQ ID:92261

No. The 75%/25% matching rate for eligibility systems is limited by the statute to activities directly related to an eligibility determination. A level of care assessment is not directly related to the eligibility determination. Although the assessment itself is not eligible for the 75% match, the entry of the level of care result into the eligibility system may be matched at 75%.

Supplemental Links:

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

FAQ ID:92646

No. A disability determination is not directly related to the eligibility determination, even though the outcome of that determination may be used to identify the appropriate eligibility group, financial methodology and the benefits that will be available to the individual. The eligibility group, financial methodology and benefits are based on the state plan, not on the eligibility system. Although the disability determination itself is not eligible for the 75% match, the entry of the disability information into the eligibility system may be matched at 75%. This analysis is based on the SMM Sec. 11276.7 B, which discusses prior authorization and claims processing. The prior authorization itself is not eligible for the 75% match, however the program decision, based on that prior authorization, to pay or not pay a claim that is pending in the system is eligible for the 75% match.

Supplemental Links:

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

FAQ ID:92651

Individuals who assist applicants by facilitating their applications, who perform outreach activities, or who enter application data on behalf of the applicant are not eligible for the 75% match. Only individuals who are authorized by the single state agency to enter data other than application elements into the eligibility system, who have responsibility for evaluating data in order to make an eligibility determination, who are authorized to exercise discretion in the evaluation of data, who are authorized to make an eligibility determination and who are accountable to the single state agency for such determinations are eligible the 75% match for those activities. This includes eligibility workers, whether in house or out-stationed, as long as there is a formal, written agreement with the single state agency that authorizes their eligibility activities and specifies direct lines of accountability to the single state agency. Both intake workers and on-going eligibility workers who meet these requirements may be claimed at 75%, based on appropriate cost allocations.

Supplemental Links:

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

FAQ ID:92656

Yes, 75 percent FFP is available for ongoing costs of operating approved eligibility determination systems, often referred to as "E&E" systems, that meet the Standards and Conditions for Medicaid IT and critical success factors. (See: State Medicaid Director Letter on APD Requirements dated June 27, 2016 (SMD# 16-009), to be found at https://www.medicaid.gov/federal-policy-guidance/federal-policy-guidance.html.

Section 1903(a)(3)(B) of the Social Security Act provides 75 percent FFP for costs associated with operating an approved Medicaid management information system (MMIS). The Medicaid manual further clarifies at Section 11276.3 A. MMIS Operations, "FFP at 75 percent is available for direct costs directly attributable to the Medicaid program for ongoing automated processing of claims, payments, and reports. Included are forms, use of system hardware and supplies, maintenance of software and documentation, and personnel costs of operations control clerks, suspense and/or exception claims processing clerks, data entry operators, microfilm operators, terminal operators, peripheral equipment operators, computer operators, and claims coding clerks if the coded data is used in the MMIS, and all direct costs specifically identified to these cost objectives. Report users, such as staff who perform follow-up investigations, are not considered part of the MMIS."

States may claim 75 percent FFP for the costs of certain personnel closely associated with operating claims processing and related systems under MMIS. As noted in our final rule, Medicaid Program; Federal Funding for Medicaid Eligibility Determination and Enrollment Activities (CMS-2346-F), in response to comments, "enhanced funding is available for staff time spent on mechanized eligibility determination systems in the same manner that they apply to all mechanized claims processing and information retrieval systems, since mechanized eligibility determination systems are now considered to be part of such systems, assuming the requirements of this section are met." (See: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/04/19/2011-9340/medicaid-program-federalfunding-for-medicaid-eligibility-determination-and-enrollment-activities ).H59 Additional information on FFP rates, including tables delineating specific covered costs, is available in the State Medicaid Director Letter on Enhanced Funding dated March 31, 2016 (SMD# 16-004), to be found at https://www.medicaid.gov/federal-policy-guidance/federal-policy-guidance.html.

States should work closely with CMS during the APD process to provide appropriate documentation concerning their cost allocation and claiming plans. In states where workers determine eligibility or provide customer service for multiple health and human service programs, costs should be allocated across programs, as discussed further in FAQ# 40811.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 105.59 KB)

FAQ ID:93696