Frequently Asked Questions

OMB Circular A-87requires costs associated with building shared state-based Information Technology (IT) systems that support multiple health and human service programs be allocated across all benefitting programs in proportion to their use of the system. The OMB A-87 Exception revised this approach by allowing human service programs (e.g. SNAP, TANF, LIHEAP, etc.) and others to utilize a wide range of IT components, needed by Medicaid but also of use to these other programs, at no additional cost except for interfaces or other uniquely required services specific to those programs. The A-87 Exception applies only to design, development, and implementation. Maintenance and operations work should continue to be allocated in accordance with the A-87 Circular. OMB Circular A-87  – Cost Principles for State, Local, and Indian Tribal Governments, has been Relocated to 2 CFR, Part 225 .

FAQ ID:93611

On July 20, 2015, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced a three-year extension of the Exception to the OMB A-87 cost allocation requirements from December 31, 2015 to December 31, 2018. We are currently making plans for the OMB A-87 exception to end.

FAQ ID:93616

States will need to incur costs for goods and services furnished no later than December 31, 2018 to make use of this Exception. Therefore, if work is completed by December 31, 2018, it can be funded under the OMB A-87 Exception and states should follow typical invoicing and claiming processes. However, if an amount has been obligated by December 31, 2018, but the good or service is not furnished by that date, then such expenditure must be cost allocated by program in proportion to their use of the system in accordance with OMB A-87.

FAQ ID:93621

For FFY2019 annual APDs and budget tables, including the Medicaid Detailed Budget Table (MDBT), must be completed as follows:

• For Q1 FFY2019, states can allocate costs in accordance with the OMB A-87 Exception
• For Q2-Q$ FFY2019, and all APDs going forward, states should allocate costs as required under the OMB A-87 Circular

If a state has already submitted their annual APDs without providing separate budgets they will need to complete an APDU with a revised MDBT and cost allocation plan. The update should address how cost allocation will be done prior to, and after, December 31, 2018. Budget tables should be completed as described above.

The Data and Systems Group (DSG) that approves APDs does not approve cost allocation methodology. States working to develop their new methodologies should send operational cost allocation plans to Cost Allocation Services  and the regional office fiscal staff for all benefiting programs.

FAQ ID:93626

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

The cost of the tax should be reported in Variable 401 - MCD Provider Tax Cost. A state may separately report the Medicaid portion of the cost of a provider assessment/tax only when it is using a cost based methodology to calculate the UPL. A state may not include this cost when calculating a DRG or Payment based UPL demonstration.

FAQ ID:92366

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