Frequently Asked Questions

No, a state is not required to reference or rely on the ASAM Criteria however, states should use guidelines/patient placement tools that are comparable to ASAM criteria. The State Medicaid Director Letter describing the SUD section 1115 demonstration opportunity references the ASAM Criteria as a recognized standard and an example of a patient placement assessment tool that states could use. Participating states are expected to ensure that providers use an SUD-specific, multi-dimensional assessment tool in determining the types of treatments and level of care a beneficiary with an SUD may need. The ASAM Criteria is referenced as a representative example of such an assessment tool. 

Some states proposed alternative needs assessment tools. CMS reviews each alternative proposal on an individual basis, and CMS has so far determined that those alternatives are comparable to the ASAM Criteria and meet the expectations for this demonstration initiative. In addition, participating states are expected to implement provider qualifications for residential treatment providers that reflect well-established standards for these treatment settings. Again, the ASAM Criteria is referenced as an example of a resource that states may use for determining those standards.

FAQ ID:93681

Yes, the denominator for this measure includes all MLTSS members with a care plan meeting the criteria outlined in the LTSS Comprehensive Care Plan and Update measure core rate.

FAQ ID:89201

A PCP is a physician, non-physician (for example, nurse practitioner, physician assistant), or group of providers who offers primary care medical services. However, a care plan can be shared with a medical care practitioner other than the PCP if the practitioner is identified by the member as the primary point of contact for their medical care. Therefore, any medical care practitioner identified by the member as the primary point of contact for their medical care is considered their PCP for the purpose of calculating the measure.

FAQ ID:89206

The care plan is shared with the PCP to promote coordination of medical and LTSS services.

FAQ ID:89211

The measure specifications allow sharing the care plan by mail, fax, secure email, or mutual access to an electronic portal or Electronic Health Record. Members who refuse to share their care plan are excluded from the measure denominator, but there must be documentation in the record that the member refused to share the care plan (noting verbal refusal suffices). The rate of exclusion due to a member refusing to share their care plan with the PCP should also be reported along with the measure performance rate.

FAQ ID:89216

No. MLTSS plans are not required to share the full care plan with the PCP or other documented medical care practitioner. MLTSS plans may choose which parts of the care plan are most relevant to the practitioner.

FAQ ID:89221

No, the LTSS Shared Care Plan with Primary Care Practitioner (PCP) measure only looks to see that a care plan was sent to a primary care practitioner (PCP) by the MLTSS plan. No signature from the PCP is necessary to count towards the numerator of this measure.

FAQ ID:89226

There is no need for a release of information. If a member gives the plan the contact information for their PCP, the plan can share information with that PCP. Plans or other providers of LTSS should try to coordinate LTSS services with medical services, even if they are not the primary payer for medical services for the member. Plans that do not know the member’s PCP can/should ask the member to identify their PCP and request their contact information. The measure is intended to determine whether plans tried to connect with the medical care provider. There is an exclusion in this measure for members who refuse to have their care plan shared with the PCP, so if the member refuses, this should be documented, and such members are excluded from the measure rate.

FAQ ID:89231

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

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