Frequently Asked Questions

Under section 1902(a)(25)(H) of the Social Security Act (the Act) before passage of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA), states were required to have laws in effect that to the extent Medicaid payment was made, the state was considered to have acquired the rights of the Medicaid beneficiary to reimbursement by any other party that was liable for payment. However, payers sometimes deny Medicaid claims based on procedural requirements. Section 1902(a)(25)(I) of the Act, added by the DRA, strengthens the statute by requiring states to enact laws that require health insurers:

1. To accept the state's right of recovery and the assignment to the state of the right of a Medicaid beneficiary or other entity to payment from such party for an item or service for which Medicaid has made payment; and,
2. To process and, if appropriate, pay the claim for reimbursement from Medicaid to the same extent that the plan would have been liable had the plan's card been used for billing at the "point of sale" (POS).

Specifically, the state should pass laws which require an insurer to agree not to deny claims submitted by the state on the basis of the date of submission of the claim, the type or format of the claim form, or a failure to present proper documentation of coverage at the POS that is the basis of the claim.

Whether a plan provision affecting payment for an item or service is solely procedural in nature or whether it defines or limits the covered benefits must be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Note that nothing in the DRA negates the state's responsibility to provide proper documentation when submitting claims to the health insurer so that the insurer can determine that a covered service for which the insurer is liable was provided.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set.

No. States typically do not meet the definition of a covered health care provider under 45 CFR 160.103, and therefore, are not eligible to receive an NPI. If states encounter situations where plans are requiring them to submit an NPI, they can submit a formal complaint to the Office of E-Health Standards and Services (OESS) in CMS by using the online Administrative Simplification Enforcement Tool (ASET). ASET allows individuals or organizations to electronically file a complaint against an entity whose actions they believe violate an Administrative Simplification provision of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA).

States may submit a formal complaint electronically at: https://asett.cms.gov/ASETT_HomePage. ASET users are required to register with OESS and create a user identification name and password. States also may submit a paper complaint. The form is available at: www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Administrative-Simplification/Enforcements/Downloads/HIPAANon-PrivacyComplaintForm.pdf.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set.

Section 1902(a)(25)(I) of the Social Security Act requires states to have laws in effect that require health insurers to make payment as long as the claim is submitted by the state within three years from the date on which the item or service was furnished.

Some health insurers currently deny claims submitted by Medicaid if they are not filed within a prescribed time limit, which is applied to plan beneficiaries and providers (e.g., a plan might require beneficiaries and providers to submit claims within 30 days from date of service). If the state Medicaid agency is unable to ascertain the existence of the third party coverage and submit a claim within the time limit, the insurer may attempt to avoid liability.

Any action by the state to enforce its rights with respect to such claim must be commenced within six years of the state's submission of such claim. Health insurers also must respond to any inquiry by a state regarding claims submitted within three years from the date on which the item or service was furnished.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set.

Generally, the purpose of the 1202 payment increase is to directly benefit physicians performing primary care services. In the instance of salaried physicians, including those working for clinics or other employing organizations that bill on the Medicaid physician fee schedule, this could come in the form of an increased salary. Alternatively, where there is an employment agreement between the physician and the employing entity, the employment agreement might account for the payment increase by noting that the physician accepts his or her salary as payment in full, regardless of Medicaid reimbursement levels.

To the extent that physicians are already receiving payment for Medicaid services that is at least equal to the Medicare rate as required under section 1202 of the ACA, no additional payment under section 1202 should be made to either a managed care health plan or to a group practice or similar organization that employs physicians. The additional payment is to ensure that payment to the physician is at least equal to the 1202 Medicare rate.

States that pay for vaccine administration using the vaccine product codes were required to include a crosswalk to their administration codes as part of their ACA 1202 state plan amendment (SPA). They will therefore be required to submit a new SPA to reflect any changes in those codes. If a state does not use vaccine product codes to pay for vaccine administration and therefore there is no crosswalk in their 1202 SPA, then no updates are necessary to reflect the code changes.

Yes. The original SPAs contained a list of codes that had been added since 2009 that the state was planning on reimbursing at the higher ACA 1202 rate. Therefore, if a state adds codes, it should submit a revised SPA page, updating that list of codes eligible for higher payment.

Yes. The 60 percent threshold can be met by any combination of eligible E&M and vaccine administration codes.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set.

Physicians who are Board-certified by the ABPS in Internal Medicine, Family Practice, or Family Medicine Obstetrics would qualify for higher payment.

Physicians with a certification in Family Medicine Obstetrics are all certified first in family medicine with additional certification in obstetrics. They practice as family practitioners and are therefore able to self-attest to a qualified specialty. This is not true of individuals certified in obstetrics by either the ABMS or AOA who do not qualify for higher payment.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set.

States must have the appropriate self-attestations in hand before they can pay physicians at the higher rate. States can impose reasonable requirements regarding "retroactive" self-attestations to facilitate program administration. For example, a state could limit retroactive payments to the beginning of the month or quarter in which the attestation is submitted. However, physicians must be made aware of the payment provision and of the requirements concerning self-attestation before January 1, 2013 through state provider bulletin or manual systems or other mechanisms.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set.