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

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

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