Frequently Asked Questions

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

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

The PERM/MEQC dates/cycles are as follows:

*??
CMS = Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
CAP = ??

FAQ ID:95156

Dental services are not covered under Medicare, which means the state may not compare Medicaid rates for comparable dental services for the Medicare Equivalent of the ACR. The state may calculate a dental ACR in order to make supplemental payments to dental services providers and continue to calculate the Medicare Equivalent of the ACR for other services covered by Medicare. The state should submit two separate ACR demonstrations, one for dental services and one for physician (non-dental) services. This will involve completing two versions of the Office of Management and Budget-approved template. If the same provider provides both physician and dental services the state would differentiate the provider information between the two demonstrations by appending the Medicare Certification Number (Medicare ID) (variable 112) with a letter, such as an -A or a -B. For example, if the Medicare ID was 123456, it would be depicted in the physician ACR as 123456-A and in the dental ACR as 12345-B. If a Medicare Certification Number is not available then the state should append the Medicaid Provider Number.

FAQ ID:92441

The submission package consists of the completed templates and any supporting documentation needed to understand the UPL demonstration. This could include the completed Guidance document and supporting documentation (in Microsoft Excel with formulas included, not as a PDF) that is necessary to further explain a state's UPL demonstration, and a summary spreadsheet that aggregates the UPL gap for each of the ownership categories (state government owned, non-state government owned, and private).

FAQ ID:92236

Since 2006, State Medicaid programs have had the option to provide certain groups of Medicaid enrollees with an alternative benefit package known as "benchmark" or "benchmark-equivalent" coverage, based on one of three commercial insurance products or a fourth, "Secretary-approved" coverage option. Beginning on January 1, 2014, all Medicaid benchmark and benchmark-equivalent plans must include at least the ten statutory categories of Essential Health Benefits. Under the Affordable Care Act, the medical assistance provided to the expansion population of adults who become newly eligible for Medicaid as of January 1, 2014, must be provided consistent with section 1937 benchmark authority.

For Medicaid alternative benefit plans, three of the benchmark plans described in section 1937 (the State's largest non-Medicaid HMO, the State's employee health plan, and the FEHBP BCBS plan) may be designated by the Secretary as EHB benchmark reference plans, as described in the EHB Bulletin (link below). A State Medicaid Agency could select any of these section 1937 benchmark plans as its EHB benchmark reference plan for Medicaid. There would be no default EHB benchmark reference plan for purposes of Medicaid; each State Medicaid Agency would be required to identify an EHB benchmark reference plan for purposes of Medicaid as part of its 2014-related Medicaid State Plan changes.

If the EHB benchmark reference plan selected for Medicaid were to lack coverage within one or more of the ten statutorily-required categories of benefits, the section 1937 alternative benefit plan would need to be supplemented to ensure that it provides coverage in each of the ten statutory benefit categories. This would be in addition to any other requirements for Section 1937 plan, including Mental Health Parity and Addition Equity Act compliance.

For more information about the Essential Health Benefits, please see CCIIO's bulletin from December 2011 (available at http://cciio.cms.gov/resources/files/Files2/12162011/essential_health_benefits_bulletin.pdf ) and the CMCS informational bulletin from February 2012 (available at http://www.medicaid.gov/Federal-Policy-Guidance/downloads/CIB-02-17-12.pdf (PDF, 71.68 KB).

FAQ ID:93036

Yes. A State is not required to select the same EHB benchmark reference plan for Medicaid section 1937 plans that it selects for the individual and small group market, and it could have more than one EHB benchmark reference plan for Medicaid (for example, if the State were to develop more than one benefit plan under section 1937).

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 70.98 KB)

FAQ ID:93041

Yes. A State could propose its traditional Medicaid benefit package as a section 1937 alternate benefit plan under the Secretary-approved option available under section 1937 of the Social Security Act. The State would have to ensure that the ten statutory categories of EHB are covered, either through that benefit plan or as a supplement to that plan.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 70.98 KB)

FAQ ID:93046