Frequently Asked Questions are used to provide additional information and/or statutory guidance not found in State Medicaid Director Letters, State Health Official Letters, or CMCS Informational Bulletins. The different sets of FAQs as originally released can be accessed below.
Frequently Asked Questions
Do states need to track people enrolled in the adult group who become pregnant? If a woman indicates on the application she is pregnant, do states need to enroll her as a pregnant woman if she is otherwise eligible for the adult group? Would there be a need to track pregnancy if the benefits for both groups are the same?
If a woman indicates on an initial application that she is pregnant, she should be enrolled in Medicaid coverage as a pregnant woman, rather than in the new adult group. However, as stated in the preamble to the March 23, 2012 Medicaid and CHIP Eligibility & Enrollment final rule , states are not required to track the pregnancy status of women already enrolled through the new adult group. Women should be informed of the benefits afforded to pregnant women under the state's Medicaid program and if a woman becomes pregnant and requests a change in coverage category, the state must make the change if she is eligible.
Supplemental Links:
- This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 135.35 KB)
FAQ ID:92151
SHARE URLIf a woman moves from the adult group under 1902(a)(10)(A)(i)(VIII) to the pregnant woman group, are states then required to move former pregnant women from the pregnant women eligibility group back to the adult group when the post-partum period ends?
If a woman is enrolled in a group for pregnant women, before the end of the post-partum period, as specified in the definition of "pregnant woman" at 42 CFR 435.4, the state Medicaid agency will need to re-evaluate the woman's eligibility for other groups, including the lowincome adult group and advance payment of premium tax credits through the Marketplace. Our regulations at 42 CFR 435.916 explain the requirements for states in connection with renewals of eligibility or determinations of ineligibility based on a change in circumstances. The procedures outlined in the regulation are intended to promote continuity of coverage.
Supplemental Links:
- This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 135.35 KB)
FAQ ID:92161
SHARE URLOne of the required fields in the Nursing Facility template is the Medicare Provider Number (Medicare Certification Number - Variable 112), but not all facilities are Medicare certified. How should data be entered for these facilities since it is a required field?
When a Medicare provider number is not available, such as for some nursing facilities, the state should populate variable 112 using the acronym NMC, which stands for "Not Medicare Certified". Adding this information will help to clearly identify the facility's status.
FAQ ID:92286
SHARE URLCan the Outpatient Hospital (OPH) Services Upper Payment Limit (UPL) demonstration consider Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory (CDL) services?
Section 1903(i)(7) of the Social Security Act specifies a separate UPL for CDL services which limits payment to no more than the Medicare rate on a per test basis. To meet the statutory provision, the UPL for CDL services must be separately demonstrated from the OPH services UPL. States do not have the ability to "borrow room" from the CDL UPL and apply it to the OPH UPL.
FAQ ID:92401
SHARE URLIs there a strategy for states to retain coverage of pregnant teens without being required to count parents' income in 2014?
States wishing to continue the practice of disregarding parental income may do so by adopting coverage of a reasonable classification of individuals under age 21 under section 42 CFR 435.222. In this case, the "reasonable classification" would be pregnant individuals under age 21 (or under age 18, 19, or 20). The statutory income standard for this group would be based on the state's AFDC payment standard in effect in the state in July 1996. But if a state uses section 1902(r)(2) of the Act to disregard all income for this group, as has been done for other reasonable classifications of children (such as those in state foster care), there will be no determination of income required for eligibility, and MAGI-based income requirements will not apply.
To effectuate this option, states should submit a state plan amendment (SPA) to amend Attachment 2.2-A of the Medicaid state plan to cover a reasonable classification of pregnant individuals under age 21 under 42 CFR 435.222. The state should also amend Supplement 8a to Attachment 2.6-A to disregard all income for this new group.
Supplemental Links:
- This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 295.71 KB)
FAQ ID:92601
SHARE URLWhen will we have final rules on essential health benefits, actuarial value, and rating?
In section 156.100 of the proposed rule on Essential Health Benefits/Actuarial Value/Accreditation, we propose criteria for the selection process for a state that chooses to select a benchmark plan. The essential health benefits benchmark plan would serve as a reference plan, reflecting both the scope of services and limits offered by a typical employer plan in that state. This approach and benchmark selection, which would apply for at least the 2014 and 2015 benefit years, would allow states to build on coverage that is already widely available, minimize market disruption, and provide consumers with familiar products. Since some base-benchmark plan options may not cover all ten of the statutorily required essential health benefits categories, we propose standards for supplementing a base-benchmark plan that does not provide coverage of one or more of the categories.
We also propose that if a base-benchmark plan option does not cover any items and services within an essential health benefits category, the base-benchmark plan must be supplemented by adding that particular category in its entirety from another base-benchmark plan option. The resulting plan, which would reflect a base-benchmark that covers all ten essential health benefits categories, must meet standards for nondiscrimination and balance. After meeting these standards, it would be considered the essential health benefits-benchmark plan.
The proposed rule also outlines the process by which HHS would supplement a default base-benchmark plan, if necessary. We clarify that to the extent that the default base-benchmark plan option does not cover any items and services within an essential health benefits category, the category must be added by supplementing the base-benchmark plan with that particular category in its entirety from another base-benchmark plan option. Specifically, we propose that HHS would supplement the category of benefits in the default base benchmark plan with the first of the following options that offer benefits in that particular essential health benefits category: (1) the largest plan by enrollment in the second largest product in the state's small group market; (2) the largest plan by enrollment in the third largest product in the state's small group market; (3) the largest national Federal Employees Health Benefit Program plan by enrollment across states that is offered to federal employees; (4) the largest dental plan under the Federal Employees Dental and Vision Insurance Program, for pediatric oral care benefits; (5) the largest vision plan under the Federal Employees Dental and Vision Insurance Program, for pediatric vision care benefits; and (6) habilitative services as described in section 156.110(f) or 156.115(a)(4).
Supplemental Links:
- This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 359.41 KB)
FAQ ID:94466
SHARE URLWhat level of benefit is required in a specific benchmark to satisfy the ten essential health benefit categories? What process will be undertaken by HHS to select backfilling benefit options if a state defaults to the largest small group product?
The U.S. Office of Personal Management released a proposed rule implementing the Multi-State Plan Program on November 30, 2012. To ensure that the Multi-State Plans are competing on a level playing field with other plans in the marketplace, the proposed regulation largely defers to state insurance law and the standards promulgated by HHS and states related to qualified health plans. Under the proposal, Multi-State Plans will be evaluated based largely on the same criteria as other qualified health plans operating in Exchanges. The few areas in which the Office of Personal Management proposes different regulatory standards from those applicable to qualified health plans are areas where the Office of Personal Management has extensive experience through its administration of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. However, in order to ensure that these few differences will not create any unfair advantages, the Office of Personal Management seeks comment from states and other stakeholders on these proposals. The regulation appeared in the Federal Register on December 5, 2012, and the comment period runs through January 4, 2013.
Supplemental Links:
- This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 359.41 KB)
FAQ ID:94471
SHARE URL
Results per page