U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Frequently Asked Questions

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.

Showing 1 to 10 of 12 results

Do the data elements comprising the falls risk assessment need to be documented as part of a comprehensive assessment?

No. Although a comprehensive assessment may include falls risk assessment elements, this measure does not require the risk assessment elements to be documented as part of a comprehensive assessment. For this measure, a falls risk assessment is considered complete if the member record includes any documentation of a balance/gait assessment, and documentation of assessment of postural blood pressure, vision, home fall hazards, and/or medications.

FAQ ID:88961

SHARE URL

Do the components of the risk assessment need to be completed during a single encounter?

No, the components can be completed during separate encounters, provided they are documented in the member record as having been performed between August 1 of the year prior to the measurement year and December 31 of the measurement year.

FAQ ID:88966

SHARE URL

Is a standardized tool required for assessment of balance/gait?

No, a standardized tool is not required, although documentation of use of a standardized tool (for example, Get Up & Go, Berg, Tinetti) would meet the balance/gait assessment component of the measure.

FAQ ID:88971

SHARE URL

Can the same standardized tool be used to conduct screening (Part 1) and risk assessment (Part 2)?

Yes, the same tool may be used to conduct the screening and risk assessment for the Screening, Risk Assessment, and Plan of Care to Prevent Future Falls measure.

FAQ ID:88986

SHARE URL

Do the data elements comprising the plan of care to prevent future falls need to be documented as part of a comprehensive care plan?

No. Although a comprehensive care plan may include the elements comprising a plan of care to prevent future falls, the measure does not require the plan of care elements to be documented as part of a comprehensive care plan. For this measure, a plan of care is considered complete if the member record includes any documentation of exercise therapy or referral to exercise between August 1 of the year prior to the measurement year and December 31 of the measurement year.

FAQ ID:88991

SHARE URL

Should the rate of required exclusions be reported with the Screening, Risk Assessment, and Plan of Care to Prevent Future Falls measure's Part 2 performance rate?

Yes, the rate of exclusion for members who refused an assessment and/or a plan of care needs to be reported with the measure’s performance rate.

FAQ ID:88996

SHARE URL

Can the same sample for Part 2 of the Screening, Risk Assessment, and Plan of Care to Prevent Future Falls measure be used for other measures?

No, the sample for Part 2 of the Screening, Risk Assessment, and Plan of Care to Prevent Future Falls measure is different from the systematic sample used for the LTSS Comprehensive Assessment and Update, LTSS Comprehensive Care Plan and Update, LTSS Shared Care Plan with Primary Care Practitioner, and Part 1 of the Screening, Risk Assessment, and Plan of Care to Prevent Future Falls measures. Members included in the sample for Part 2 of this measure must have a documented history of falls (at least two falls or one fall with injury in the past year), including documentation of plan member self-reported history of falls.

FAQ ID:89001

SHARE URL

How should cost data reported for a partial year be treated either when one hospital acquires another hospital or a hospital ceases operation?

When a hospital acquires another hospital, the state should use all available data to determine the UPL and work with CMS to assure appropriate reporting. When a hospital ceases operation, the state should not annualize data if it does not cover a 12-month period.

FAQ ID:92391

SHARE URL

Can provider-controlled settings with Memory Care Units with controlled-egress comply with the new Medicaid HCBS settings rule? If so, what are the requirements for such settings?

Yes, but only if controlled-egress is addressed as a modification of the rules defining home and community-based settings, with the state ensuring that the provider complies with the requirements of 42 C.F.R. 441.301(c)(4)(F), 441.530(a)(vi)(F) and 441.710(a)(vi)(F). Any setting using controlled-egress should assess an individual that exhibits wandering (and the underlying conditions, diseases or disorders) and document the individual's choices about and need for safety measures in his or her person-centered care plan. The plan should document the individual's preferences and opportunities for engagement within the setting's community and within the broader community.

Settings with controlled-egress should be able to demonstrate how they can make individual determinations of unsafe exit-seeking risk and make individual accommodations for those who are not at risk. Should a person choose a setting with controlled-egress, the setting must develop person-centered care plans that honor autonomy as well as minimize safety risks for each person, consistent with his or her plan goals. For example, spouses or partners who are not at risk for exit-seeking and who reside in the same setting should have the ability to come and go by having the code to an electronically controlled exit. Technological solutions, such as unobtrusive electronic pendants that alert staff when an individual is exiting, may be used for those at risk, but may not be necessary for others who have not shown a risk of unsafe exit-seeking. Importantly, such restrictions may not be developed or used for non-personcentered purposes, such as punishment or staff convenience.

In situations where a setting uses controlled-egress on an individual basis to support individuals who wander or exit-seek unsafely, consistent with our regulations, the person-centered plan must document the individual's:

  • Understanding of the setting's safety features, including any controlled-egress,
  • Choices for prevention of unsafe wandering or exit-seeking
  • Consent from the individual and caregivers/representatives to controlled-egress goals for care
  • Services, supports, and environmental design that will enable the individual to participate in desired activities and support their mobility
  • Options that were explored before any modifications occurred to the person-centered plan

Regulations require the person-centered plan to be reviewed at least annually with the Medicaid beneficiary and his or her representative, to determine whether it needs revision. If a secured memory unit is no longer necessary to meet the individual's needs, the individual must be afforded the appropriate services in that setting to integrate into the community and exercise greater autonomy as well as being offered the option of a setting that does not have controlled egress.

To assure fidelity in complying with the regulations defining home and community-based settings, Memory Care Units should attempt to implement as many options as possible that are outlined within this guidance regarding staffing, activities and environmental design to assure optimal community integration for HCBS beneficiaries.

Note that the regulations provide that Medicaid beneficiaries receiving services in home and community-based settings must be free from coercion and restraint. Consistent with this, home and community-based settings should not restrict a participant within a setting, unless such restriction is documented in the person-centered plan, all less restrictive interventions have been exhausted, and such restriction is reassessed over time.

Supplemental Links:

FAQ ID:94976

SHARE URL

What are some promising practices that HCBS settings use to serve people who are at risk of unsafe wandering or exit-seeking?

Person-centered planning is at the core of all promising practices. That said, there are staff, activity, and environmental design approaches, as described below, which could be part of an individual's person-centered plan in response to unsafe wandering and exit-seeking. These promising practices have been compiled from industry and governmental sources and are offered as suggestions as they do not constitute requirements for HCBS services or providers.

Staffing:

  • Ensure that staff have adequate training in person-centered planning and unsafe wandering or exit-seeking, including how to effectively engage and participate with individuals in both planned and spontaneous activities as well as strategies for addressing the underlying needs and preferences that may motivate wandering or exit seeking.
  • Support individuals to move about freely with staff who help individuals walk or leave the room safely (e.g., providing a walking companion).
  • Ensure adequate staffing for activities outside the facility.
  • Ensure staff regularly escorts individuals to locations and activities outside of the setting as outlined in the person-centered services plan.
  • Provide flexible supervision to assure adequate support from resident to resident and from time to time for the same resident dependent upon need.

Activities:

  • Prevent under-stimulation by offering activities that engage the beneficiary's interest. Activities could include music, art, physical exercise, mental stimulation, therapeutic touch, pets, or gardening.
  • Provide a wellness program to help people exercise, have a healthy diet, manage stress, improve balance and gait, and stimulate cognition.
  • Support mobility through engaging activities, such as dog walking, gardening, yoga, and dance.
  • Develop daily meaningful activities and minimize passive entertainment, such as television watching.
  • Make available easily accessible activities, such as playing cards, reading books and magazines.
  • Encourage interaction with others.
  • Ensure that family and friends have unrestricted access to the individual if she or he wants this, and to the setting itself.

Environmental design:

  • Eliminate overstimulation, such as visible doors that people use frequently; noise; and clutter.
  • Create pictures on walls that can be sensory in nature to give individuals a place to stop and experience through sight or touch.
  • Manage shift changes so that individuals do not see significant numbers of staff coming and going through the exit/entrance door at the same time.
  • Use signage to orient the individual to the environment, such as indicating where toilets and bedrooms are, and assuring that there are places for individuals to sit and rest in large spaces within a setting that allow for safe wandering.
  • Disguise exit doors using murals or covering door handles as safety codes permit.
  • Use unobtrusive technological solutions, such as installing electronic coding lock systems on all building exits, or having individuals who wander or exit-seek unsafely wear electronic accessories that monitor their location.
  • Include lockable doors on each individual's room unless the resident's person-centered plan documents that such an arrangement is unsafe, following the requirements of the rule on individual modifications. Alternative features designed for safety, such as doors on living units that are not lockable or secure exits, should be used only when they are part of the resident's person-centered plan, after less intrusive methods have been tried and did not work, as provided in the rule.
  • Ensure unrestricted access to secured outdoor spaces and a safe, uncluttered path for people to wander, which has points of interest and places to rest.
  • Identify quiet, public spaces for individuals to sit, observe and rest while simultaneously being part of the community, and may include items that are used to soften the senses or help with removing sensory stimulation.
  • Enable people to leave the premises when they are not at risk of doing so unsafely. For example, wearable technologies can give people the ability to leave the setting or can limit the unsafe exiting of residents whose person-centered plans document that they are at risk of doing so.
  • Using tools and technology to monitor an individual's activities to promote optimal independence and personal autonomy, but assuring that such resources are not used in place of adequate supervision.
  • Ensure that Medicaid beneficiaries who may wander or exit-seek unsafely carry identification with their name and the service provider's location and contact information,
  • Create a back-up plan or lost-person plan that describes roles and responsibilities when an individual has exited in an unsafe manner.
  • Evaluate each lost-person incident to make revisions to person-centered care plans or to environmental design as necessary.

Supplemental Links:

FAQ ID:94981

SHARE URL
Results per page