Frequently Asked Questions

Regardless of whether an EQRO contract is approved before or after May 6, 2016, the change in FFP for EQR-related activities was effective May 6, 2016 for expenditures incurred by the state on or after May 6, 2016. Per general CMS-64 claiming principles, a state incurs an expenditure that may be claimed on the CMS-64 on the date the state pays the EQRO for the completed performance of the contracted EQR-associated activity.

The change to the FFP match rate for expenditure reporting takes effect in the middle of a quarter, which means that states must ensure that claims for expenditures for EQR activities affected by the change in FFP which were paid before May 6th and claims for expenditures which were paid on or after May 6th are reported separately. For only the quarter ending June 30, 2016, the CMS-64 EQRO Line 17 will allow states to report state expenditures associated with PIHP EQRO activities paid prior to May 6, 2016 and claim the enhanced 75 percent match. State expenditures associated with PIHP EQRO activities paid on or after May 6th must be claimed at the 50 percent matching rate.

Supplemental Links:

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

CMS expects to first issue revised protocols for the current mandatory and optional EQR-related activities in the Fall of 2017. We expect to issue the protocol for the new mandatory EQR activity relating to the validation of network adequacy later in 2017 or early 2018. States will have up to one year from the publication of the protocol to implement the new mandatory EQR activity.

Supplemental Links:

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

For questions related to state expenditure reporting and claiming instructions for EQR activities, please contact your CMS regional office financial representative. For specific external quality review questions, including what activities qualify for enhanced match, please contact the Division of Quality and Health Outcomes at ManagedCareQualityTA@cms.hhs.gov.

Supplemental Links:

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

Yes. CMS acknowledges that states may have legitimate reasons to set capitation rates for a time period that differs from 12 months and will take unusual circumstances into account when reviewing compliance with the rating period duration requirements. CMS will approve a rating period other than of 12 months when a state transitions the contract term and rating period from a calendar year to a state fiscal year basis and setting capitation rates for a 6 month or 18 month period would facilitate that transition. There may be other reasonable justifications for such variations in the rating period that CMS would be open to considering. The rationale for a rating period that differs from 12 months as defined in the regulation in section 438.2 should be specified in the rate certification required in section 438.7 for such consideration.

Supplemental Links:

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

The implementation date for non-risk PIHPs and PAHPs, PCCMs, and PCCM entities for provisions tied to a rating period is the earliest date that a risk-based MCO, PIHP, or PAHP would need to comply. For example, the provisions in subpart F relating to appeals and grievances have an implementation date for risk-based contracts of the rating period for contracts starting on or after July 1, 2017. Non-risk PIHPs and PAHPs would need to implement those provisions by July 1, 2017.

Supplemental Links:

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

The regulation at section 438.3(m) has a general reference to "generally accepted accounting principles" and "generally accepted auditing principles." This means that states have the flexibility to specify the applicable generally accepted accounting and auditing principles for the audited financial reports in the managed care plan contracts. The federal regulation does not endorse a particular standard.

Supplemental Links:

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

CMS released an Informational Bulletin (CIB) discussing the change in federal financial participation (FFP) for EQR that was effective May 6, 2016. The CIB includes revised claiming instructions for the CMS-64 and a sample form. It is available at Medicaid.gov on the EQR webpage, under Technical Assistance Documents, and available at https://www.medicaid.gov/federal-policy-guidance/downloads/cib061016.pdf.

Supplemental Links:

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

Yes. We remind states that the requirement that the final capitation rate be specified in the contract is not a new requirement, see section 438.6(c)(2)(ii) of the 2002 final rule. The amount of payment for performance-in this context, the final capitation rate-is a primary component of any contract and must be included for purposes of verifying claims for Federal Financial Participation (FFP) on the CMS-64. In the Final Rule at page 27595, in the context of risk adjustment, CMS suggested that the payment terms under the contract could be identified in an appendix, or additional supporting documentation, to the contract for ease of updating the information when risk adjustment is applied. The state must submit a formal contract amendment when the final capitation rates differ from the payment terms in an approved contract.

Supplemental Links:

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

The regulation only prohibits insurance policies that would be sold ""in conjunction with"" enrollment in the Medicaid managed care plan. Section 438.104 alone does not prohibit a Medicaid managed care plan from providing information about a Qualified Health Plans (QHP) to potential enrollees who could enroll in such a plan as an alternative to the Medicaid managed care plan due to a loss of Medicaid eligibility or to potential enrollees who may consider the benefits of selecting an Medicaid managed care plan that has a related QHP in the event of future eligibility changes. However, Medicaid managed care plans should consult their contracts and the State Medicaid agency to ascertain if other provisions exist that may prohibit or limit such activity.

Section 438.104(b)(1)(iv) implements a provision in section 1932(d)(2)(C) of the Social Security Act, titled ""Prohibition of Tie-Ins."" In promulgating regulations implementing this provision, CMS clarified that we interpreted it to preclude tying enrollment in the Medicaid managed care plan with purchasing (or the provision of) other types of private insurance. We do not intend the statutory prohibition of tie-ins to apply to a discussion of a possible alternative to the Medicaid managed care plan, which a QHP could be if the consumer is determined to be not Medicaid eligible or loses Medicaid eligibility.

Supplemental Links:

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

States are encouraged to review their managed care contracts to clearly identify the legal entity with which they are contracted for Medicaid coverage since federal Medicaid managed care regulations do not address this aspect of contracting. If the party to the contract is an entity (such as a parent company) that has a contract with a state Medicaid agency to provide benefits as a Medicaid managed care plan and is also a QHP issuer, then some contractual provisions may apply to both. Although the federal Medicaid regulations do not apply to a QHP issuer or QHP, state law, regulation, or contract language may have implications for the QHP issuer. If changes are needed to narrow the scope of the contract to apply only to the Medicaid managed care plan, we encourage states to make those changes so as to ensure consistent understanding and application of the Medicaid contract terms.

Supplemental Links:

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