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
We understand that Deloitte (Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services contractor) will be calculating the average GPCI values across counties for each state to use in paying primary care providers under CMS 2370-F. When can we expect those values to be disseminated? Will the formula weight each county equally, or will some alternative weight be used based on county population or some other factor?
The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) disseminated the Deloitte fee for service tool to states through the CMS Regional Offices in early January. It permits states to develop rates for each code based on the decisions it makes about site of service and geographic adjustments. The formula used to develop the rate weights each county equally and does not incorporate a weighting factor for population. Using a rate weighted by population is not an option for states to use in developing their fee schedules.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:94036
SHARE URLWe received the Deloitte Excel model but have been unable to open some of the files. Can you help?
CMS can produce the fee schedules for states that are unable to run the program. States should contact Christopher Thompson at Christopher.thompson@cms.hhs.gov.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:94046
SHARE URLFor physicians in neighboring states, can we require them to self-attest under CMS 2370-F using our state's protocol, rather than relying on the determination made by the home state's Medicaid program?
How will populations that are currently eligible based on net income, but will not qualify based on MAGI in 2014, be treated? Will these individuals have an opportunity to enroll in another insurance affordability program after March 31, 2014 or their next redetermination, whichever is later?
As stated under section 1902(e)(14)(D)(v), if the application of the new MAGI-based methods would be the cause of an existing Medicaid beneficiary's (i.e., one determined eligible based on current methods and enrolled in the program prior to January 1, 2014) becoming ineligible for continued coverage based on income, the individual retains Medicaid eligibility until March 31, 2014 or the next scheduled renewal, whichever is later. If, at the appropriate time, an individual is determined to no longer qualify for the current eligibility group, under longstanding Medicaid rules the individual's eligibility must be assessed under other possible eligibility groups before Medicaid eligibility may be terminated (see section 435.930(b) and section 435.916(f)). In accordance with 435.1200, if the individual is no longer Medicaid eligible, the state agency must evaluate the individual for potential eligibility for enrollment in a qualified health plan (QHP) through the Affordable Insurance Exchange, or Marketplace, and for CHIP.
Since the eligibility rules for Medicaid, CHIP and enrollment in a QHP through the Exchange are aligned, we do not expect that the evaluation for potential eligibility for these other programs to pose a burden on state agencies. Once determined to be potentially eligible for another program, the regulations call for ensuring that the information concerning the potentially eligible individual is transferred electronically to the other program.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:94091
SHARE URLOur understanding of the CMS 2370-F rule is that advanced practice clinicians are eligible for the increased payment as long as they are working under the personal supervision of an eligible physician; eligible meaning the supervising physician is also eligible for the increased payment.We are trying to determine if: 1) advanced practice clinicians also can attest that they are working under the personal supervision of an eligible physician at the time of attestation, or 2) if they have to indicate who the supervising physician is on each claim for an eligible service and then we would need to see if that physician is eligible for the increased payment at the time of claim processing.If advanced practice clinicians are billing under their own provider numbers, how can we know that they're under the personal supervision of an eligible physician?
The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has permitted states flexibility in establishing processes to identify services provided by advanced practiced clinicians (APCs), including advanced practice nurses, being personally supervised by eligible physicians who accept professional responsibility for the services they provide. The state may set up a separate system to document that an Ambulatory Payment Classification (APC) is working under the personal supervision of a particular eligible physician. For example, the eligible physician could identify the APCs to the Medicaid agency, which could flag the claims submitted by those APCs under their own provider numbers through the Medicaid Management Information System (MMIS). There is no requirement that the rendering providers indicate on each claim the name of the supervising eligible physicians, however it is important that there be documentation that the eligible physicians have acknowledged their relationship with the advanced practice clinicians. Providing this type of information on a per claim basis is an effective way to document the state's claim for 100 percent federal funding for the increased portion of the payment.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:94101
SHARE URLAre Indian Health Services (IHS) excluded from the increased provider payments under CMS 2370-F? Is there any change in FMAP under CMS 2370-F for primary care services delivered through IHS?
IHS and tribal facilities are often not separately paid for physician services, but instead receive an all-inclusive rate for inpatient or outpatient service encounters. To the extent that a particular claim is made for primary care services furnished by an eligible physician, there is no exclusion from the requirement for provider payment at least equal to the Medicare Part B fee schedule rate. States would continue to receive Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) at the 100 percent rate for services received through IHS and tribal facilities and reimbursed through the all-inclusive rate. For other physician services, including Medicaid payments for contract health services, states would receive the regular FMAP for the base payment, and 100 percent for the difference between the state plan rate in effect on July 1, 2009 and the applicable 2013 and 2014 Medicare rates.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:94106
SHARE URLThe preamble of the final rule under CMS 2370-F makes it clear that salaried eligible physicians employed by counties must receive the higher payment for eligible Evaluation & Management (E&M) and vaccine services. Does this same logic apply to physicians employed by hospitals and, if so, is it the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) expectation that the Medicaid agency will assure that the salaries of those physicians are increased?
Physicians employed by hospitals whose services are reimbursed by Medicaid on a physician fee schedule must receive the benefit of higher payment. It is the Medicaid agency's responsibility to ensure that hospitals receiving payments on behalf of those physicians comply with all requirements of the program. While hospitals could increase salaries they could also provide additional/bonus payments to eligible physicians to ensure that they receive the benefit of higher Medicaid payment.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:94111
SHARE URLThe final rule under CMS 2370-F clarifies that the 60 percent threshold for eligibility is based on services billed. Are billed services to be defined based on the number of units submitted or dollars?
The 60 percent threshold is based on the number of billed services as identified by individual billing codes for the primary specialty being asserted. That is, the numerator equals total billed codes for Evaluation & Management (E&M) services for the primary specialty, plus vaccine administration services, and the denominator equals the total number of billed codes. Please note that a state may choose to use paid billing codes/services in place of billed codes.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:94116
SHARE URLFor evaluating the claims history under CMS 2370-F, must we use all "billed" claims, including denied claims or claims that are subsequently voided? We would propose to use all paid claims net of voids and adjustments.
If a physician does not provide an attestation by a date established by the State, can the State apply the increased payment under CMS 2370-F prospectively only (that is, to dates of services on and after the date of attestation)? If not, are we correct that 42 CFR 447.45(d)(1) applies such that the claim for additional reimbursement is not payable if the attestation is not received within 12 months of the date of service?
States can establish reasonable timeframes regarding the submission of attestations by physicians. We are aware that many states are experiencing delays in implementing the provisions of the regulation and we have also been made aware that there is considerable confusion on the part of providers regarding enrollment. We expect that states will provide physicians with ample notice of the procedures for enrollment that physicians will be given several months to comply with the requirements. If the state sets a reasonable timeframe, such as three months, and physicians do not enroll within that time, we believe that the state could make payment prospectively from the date of the physician's application as long as this policy is made clear to providers.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:94126
SHARE URL
Results per page