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
What was the traditional Medicaid Eligibility Quality Control (MEQC) program based on and how has it changed?
The traditional MEQC program at 42 CFR § 431.810 through 431.822 was originally designed to implement sections 1902(a)(4) “Administration Methods for Proper and Efficient Operation of the State Plan” and 1903(u) “Limitation of FFP for Erroneous Medical Assistance Expenditures” of the Social Security Act (the Act). The program required annual state reviews of Medicaid cases identified through a statistically valid statewide sample of cases selected from the state’s eligibility files. The reviews were conducted to determine whether the sampled cases meet applicable Medicaid eligibility requirements. The program evolved over time to allow states the option of selecting specific areas of focus within the Medicaid program for their annual MEQC reviews.
On July 5, 2017, CMS published a final regulation entitled “Changes to the Payment Error Rate Measurement (PERM) and Medicaid Eligibility Quality Control (MEQC) Programs (CMS-Medicaid Coordination of Benefits8- F).” This final rule updated the MEQC and PERM programs based on the changes to Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program eligibility requirements under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The new regulation has restructured the MEQC program into an ongoing series of pilots that states are required to conduct during the two off-years between triennial PERM review years. The MEQC portions of the regulation are now covered by 42 CFR §§ 431.800-820.
FAQ ID:93416
SHARE URLWhat deliverables must states furnish to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) per the new Medicaid Eligibility Quality Control (MEQC) regulation?
The regulation requires states to submit a pilot planning document to CMS by November 1 of the year in which each state’s PERM review year ends. The pilot planning document must describe how states will conduct their active and negative case reviews and must be approved by CMS before the MEQC pilots can begin. In addition, the regulation requires states to submit case-level reports and corrective action plans to CMS by August 1 of the year after the MEQC review period ends. The specifications for the MEQC pilot planning documents are provided in the MEQC sub-regulatory guidance effective August 29, 2018. More details on the specifications of the case-level reports and corrective action plans are included in a second round of guidance, MEQC sub-regulatory guidance effective October 22, 2018.
FAQ ID:93421
SHARE URLHow will the Medicaid Eligibility Quality Control (MEQC) program be realigned under the final regulation issued July 5, 2017?
As reconfigured under the final regulation of July 5, 2017, MEQC will work in conjunction with the Payment Error Rate Measurement (PERM) program. In those years when states undergo their triennial PERM reviews, the states will not conduct MEQC pilots. The latter will only be required in the two off-years between PERM review years. CMS has restructured the MEQC program so that it more effectively complements the PERM program and provides states with the necessary flexibility and opportunity to target specific problems or high-interest areas during the two off-years of the PERM cycle.
FAQ ID:93146
SHARE URLHow does Medicaid Eligibility Quality Control (MEQC) differ from Payment Error Rate Measurement (PERM)?
The MEQC requirements on active case reviews generally mirror the requirements of the eligibility component of PERM reviews. The regulation requires that states perform reviews of a sample of active Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) cases to identify new eligibility approvals and renewals that were made in error. As in PERM, states will be required to submit case-level reports on the sampled cases they review and corrective action plans that describe steps taken to remediate the errors found.
However, in contrast to PERM, when states identify errors in their active Medicaid and CHIP cases, they will be required to undertake a payment review. This will consist of a review of all claims paid over the first three months after an erroneous eligibility determination was made, and a summary of the overstated or understated liability. States will in turn be required to submit adjustments to the amount of federal financial participation (FFP) claimed through the CMS-64 reporting process for Medicaid and the CMS-21 reporting process for CHIP. The adjustments are required for identified claims in which too much or too little FFP was received. There is no payment review or re-crediting requirement in PERM, although disallowance of FFP can be taken in states whose PERM error rate exceeds the national threshold of 3% based on a formula described at 42 CFR 431.1010. MEQC contains no such disallowance provision.
The MEQC program also contains one other significant element that is not found in PERM. Besides the requirement that states review at least 400 cases in their active case universe (including a minimum of 200 cases), MEQC requires states to review at least 400 negative case actions. At least 200 of these must be Medicaid and 200 must be CHIP. Negative case actions involve erroneous denials of Medicaid or CHIP eligibility or erroneous terminations from Medicaid or CHIP. This is an area with no PERM counterpart in which states will be developing case-level reporting and corrective actions. Negative case action reviews will not be triggered by PERM findings. Largely for this reason, the regulation requires that states pull their sample of these from the entire Medicaid and CHIP universe of cases. By sampling from the full range of Medicaid and CHIP cases, states should be able to obtain an overview of those sectors in their programs that may be especially vulnerable to improper denials or terminations.
FAQ ID:93196
SHARE URLIs there a simplified Payment Error Rate Measurement (PERM)/Medicaid Eligibility Quality Control (MEQC) timeline with milestone dates/cycles that can be provided to states (all cycles)?
The PERM/MEQC dates/cycles are as follows:
| PERM Cycle* | PERM Review Period | MEQC Planning Document Due to CMS | MEQC Review Period | MEQC Case-Level Report on Findings and CAP Due to CMS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cycle 1 | July 1, 2017 – June 30, 2018 | November 1, 2018 | January 1 – December 1, 2019 | August 1, 2020 |
| Cycle 2 | July 1, 2018 – June 30, 2019 | November 1, 2019 | January 1 – December 1, 2020 | August 1, 2021 |
| Cycle 3 | July 1, 2019 – June 30, 2020 | November 1, 2020 | January 1 – December 1, 2021 | August 1, 2022 |
*??
CMS = Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
CAP = ??
FAQ ID:95156
SHARE URLPlease clarify that state flexibility to reimburse in the aggregate extends to reimbursement rates for I/T/U pharmacies and FSS drugs, and that states can establish rates that are based on a variety of data sources, which may include FSS prices, national and State price surveys, AMP data, and other price benchmarks.
The new AAC requirements were designed to more accurately reflect the pharmacy providers' actual prices paid to acquire drugs and the professional services required to fill a prescription. We agree that each state is able to establish rates that satisfy (or are consistent with) AAC and may be based on a variety of data sources, which may include FSS prices, and other pricing benchmarks.
FAQ ID:95111
SHARE URLIf a state can prove that they are under the aggregate limits of AAC and PDF and have strong participation by pharmacies, are they required to adopt the AAC and PDF reimbursement methodology at the individual claim level?
All states are required to adopt the AAC and professional dispensing fee methodology; however, it is not required to be adopted at the individual claim level, but in the aggregate. In accordance with the regulatory requirements at 42 CFR 447.512(b), the state is responsible for establishing a payment methodology, that must not exceed, in the aggregate, payment levels that the agency has determined by applying the lower of the AAC plus a professional dispensing fee or the providers' usual and customary charges to the general public. In conjunction with this the state is also responsible to ensure that pharmacy reimbursement is consistent
Supplemental Links:
- This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 205.53 KB)
FAQ ID:94691
SHARE URLIf a state is already using actual acquisition cost (AAC) as their reimbursement methodology, does the state need to file a State Plan Amendment (SPA) or provide assurances that the current formula meets requirements established in the final rule? Is there a requirement for such states to file a SPA to provide assurance that the state's current dispensing fee amount meets the requirements of the final rule?
If a state is already making payment for prescription drugs under its state plan based on AAC, it may continue to use that methodology. However, if a state decides to change its AAC model of reimbursement, (e.g., the state decides to use the National Average Drug Acquisition Cost (NADAC) instead of a state survey to implement a payment methodology based on AAC), the state must submit a new SPA through the formal SPA process for review.
Additionally, the state should review its currently approved professional dispensing fee (PDF) to determine if, in light of the regulation (42 CFR 447.518), the PDF needs to be revised and a SPA needs to be submitted. The state does not have to submit a new SPA to provide assurance that its dispensing fee is reasonable.
Furthermore, we expect that all states, even those currently operating under an AAC reimbursement methodology, will evaluate their current state plans to determine if a SPA will be required to comply with the reimbursement requirements (including, but not limited to, AAC, PDF, 340B and the federal upper limits (FULs)).
Supplemental Links:
- This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 205.53 KB)
FAQ ID:94671
SHARE URLWill there be an annual review of PDFs that are required as part of SPA approvals?
No, CMS will not perform an annual review of PDFs; however, states must consider both the ingredient cost reimbursement and the PDF reimbursement when proposing changes to ensure that total reimbursement to the pharmacy provider is calculated in accordance with requirements of section 1902(a)(30)(A) of the Act.
Supplemental Links:
- This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 205.53 KB)
FAQ ID:94676
SHARE URLWill CMS be providing guidance to states to ensure that states include reasonable components in their cost of dispensing survey?
To the extent that a state is conducting a cost of dispensing survey, it should be a transparent, comprehensive, and well-designed tool that addresses a pharmacy provider's cost to dispense the drug product to a Medicaid beneficiary. States have the flexibility to set PDFs, including using national or regional data from another state and we do not require that a state use a specific standard or methodology such as a survey to do so.
Further, states are not required to use a specific formula or methodology such as a cost study or use an inflation update where cost studies are not conducted; however, the burden is on each state to ensure that pharmacy providers are reimbursed in accordance with the requirements in section 1902(a)(30)(A) of the Act. CMS will review each SPA submission against these standards (see 81 FR 5311).
Supplemental Links:
- This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 205.53 KB)
FAQ ID:94681
SHARE URL
Results per page