Frequently Asked Questions are used to provide additional information and/or statutory guidance not found in State Medicaid Director Letters, State Health Official Letters, or CMCS Informational Bulletins. The different sets of FAQs as originally released can be accessed below.
Frequently Asked Questions
Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) can reimburse states for expenditures incurred by Local Education Agencies (LEAs)/school districts for the costs of administrative activities that support the provision of medical services covered under Medicaid or CHIP. Examples of allowable Medicaid and CHIP administrative activities can be found on page 75 of the 2023 Comprehensive Guide to Medicaid Services and Administrative Claiming. In general, some categories where administrative activities can fall include:
- Medicaid and CHIP outreach.
- Facilitating Medicaid and CHIP eligibility determinations.
- Transportation-related activities in support of Medicaid and CHIP services.
- Note, when the State claims federal financial participation (FFP) for necessary transportation as an optional medical service, the State must not also claim the same transportation expenditures as an administrative activity, which would result in duplicative reimbursement.
- Translation and interpretation services related to covered services.
- Program planning, policy development, and interagency coordination related to Medicaid and CHIP.
- Medicaid- and CHIP-related training.
- Referral, coordination, and monitoring of Medicaid and CHIP services (distinct from case management activities covered as a medical service).
All inquiries for the TAC and CMS regarding Medicaid School-Based Services and the 2023 Comprehensive Guide to Medicaid Services and Administrative Claiming should be directed to the TAC mailbox at SchoolBasedServices@cms.hhs.gov. More information on where to send SPA submission packages, including submission systems, pages, and CMS 179 Forms, can be found on Slide 9 of the following CMS Training Slides: https://www.medicaid.gov/state-resource-center/downloads/spa-and-1915-waiver-processing/training-slides.pdf
No, while an RMTS is typically used to identify and allocate cost, it is not the only option. States also have the flexibility to utilize an alternative methodology for reimbursement and/or allocation, provided there is appropriate documentation for CMS review of the chosen methodology. Regulations on personnel expenses in 45 C.F.R. § 75.430(i) require that charges to federal awards must be based on records that reflect the actual work performed. The records must:
- be supported by a system of internal controls that provides reasonable assurance charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated,
- reflect the total activity for which the employee is compensated,
- encompass both federally assisted and all other activities for which the employee is compensated, and
- support the distribution of the employee's salary or wages among specific activities or cost objectives.
First, the activities must be allowable as State program administrative activities. Secondly, the State and/or claiming unit must implement a methodology to properly identify and allocate Medicaid’s portion of cost associated with the allowable State program administrative activity. Finally, the identification and allocation of this cost must be documented in the State’s Public Assistance Cost Allocation Plan (PACAP). According to 45 C.F.R. § 95.517, State Medicaid agencies (SMAs) that intend to claim for allowable administrative activities must have an approved PACAP. As the PACAP is primarily used by the Federal cognizant agency to allocate cost incurred by one direct federal awardee, yet funded by another federal awardee, there may be instances where costs applicable to allowable State program activities are incurred and funded by the SMA. In this instance, the State may identify and allocate the cost via a Medicaid Administrative Claiming (MAC) Plan and include a reference to the identification and allocation of the cost via the MAC Plan in its PACAP.
CMS encourages SMAs to reimburse school districts their allowable costs of conducting Medicaid and CHIP administrative activities. School districts should work with SMAs to develop a plan to document their costs so that the SMA can distribute Medicaid and CHIP FFP to school districts in proportion to each district’s relative expenditures for Medicaid and CHIP administrative activities.
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:
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:
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:
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:
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.