Frequently Asked Questions

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

CMS understands that many managed care contracts include a general provision that incorporates changes in federal law during the course of the contract term. Amendments to approved contracts, or contracts under CMS review, for the purpose of updating regulatory citations is not necessary. However, the citations will need to be updated for the next contract year. Outdated regulatory citations in contracts without such a general provision will need to be updated for the next contract year.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 185.26 KB)

FAQ ID:93426

No. If a state does not have a state law or policy that requires CMS approval of the contract and capitation rates prior to the effective date of the contract, the 90 day timeframe is not applicable. However, as a general matter, states should submit the contracts and rates 90 days prior to the start of the contract term. CMS intends to provide future guidance on the prior approval requirements as a condition of claiming FFP in section 438.806, which are distinct from the requirements at section 438.3(a).

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 185.26 KB)

FAQ ID:93431

There is a technical error in section 438.210(a)(2) as the cross-reference should have incorporated subpart B of part 441 rather than subpart B of part 440. All Medicaid beneficiaries under age 21 are entitled to EPSDT services, whether they are enrolled in a managed care plan or they are in fee-for-service. Under section 1905(r) of the Social Security Act (the Act), EPSDT services must include ""[s]uch other necessary health care, diagnostic services, treatment, and other measures described in section 1905(a) to correct or ameliorate defects and physical and mental illness and conditions discovered by the screening services, whether or not such services are covered under the State plan."" CMS intends to issue a regulatory correction to address this error. We also want to remind readers that sections 1902(a)(43) and 1905(r)(5) of the Act are applicable to the provision of EPSDT, despite not being expressly incorporated in part 441. Detailed guidance on EPSDT can be found in ""EPSDT"" A Guide for States: Coverage in the Medicaid benefit for Children and Adolescents, June 2014, available at https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/benefits/downloads/epsdt_coverage_guide.pdf (PDF, 613.1 KB).

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 185.26 KB)

FAQ ID:93436

No. CMS addressed this provision at page 27569 of the Final Rule. Section 438.4(b)(5) does not require there to be different assumptions (such as trend or age, gender, or regional rating) for each rate cell and does not prevent the use of the same assumptions across more than one rate cell. The prohibition on cross-subsidization among rate cells under the contact is to ensure prudent fiscal management and that the capitation rate for each rate cell is independently actuarially sound.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 185.26 KB)

FAQ ID:93441

No. For the rating periods for contracts starting on or after July 1, 2017, managed care plans may not maintain more than one level of appeal. Section 438.402(b) requires that MCOs, PIHPs, and PAHPs ""may have only one level of appeal for enrollees."" Note that states may modify managed care contracts to require managed care plans to provide one level of internal appeal in advance of the rating period for contracts starting on or after July 1, 2017, as subpart F in the 2002 final rule permitted states flexibility as to the number of internal appeals. Please see page 27509 of the Final Rule for additional explanatory information.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 185.26 KB)

FAQ ID:93446