States have broad flexibility to determine what services can be delivered via telehealth. Further information can be found in the Telehealth Toolkits (COVID-19 & February 2024 Versions), accessible through this link: State Medicaid and CHIP Telehealth Toolkits landing page.

If medical necessity has been determined, Code 4C. Direct Medical Services – Covered on a Medical Plan of Care, Not Covered as IDEA/IEP Service is the correct code. This code should be used when district staff (employees or contracted staff) provide covered direct medical services under the SBS Program where documented on a medical plan other than an IEP/IFSP or where medical necessity has been otherwise established.

No, generally, States that employ a State plan payment methodology that reimburses a provider for the actual cost of Medicaid services and/or administrative activities may not use a fee schedule rate as a proxy for cost. Instead, states must use cost identification methodologies and supporting documentation methods that are consistent with the requirements of 45 C.F.R. Part 75 and approved by CMS.

There are no federal requirements for Current Procedural Terminology or International Classification of Diseases codes for Medicaid billing. States may have their own requirements, however. We advise communication between SMAs, SEAs, and LEAs within a State to ensure proper SBS coding guidance.

No, States may opt to maintain their current approach, including a fee schedule approach, if the existing State Plan Amendment (SPA) and underlying implementation mechanisms are compliant with all of the federal requirements discussed in the new SBS Guide. The newly introduced flexibilities are available options for States, but their adoption is not mandatory. If a State wants to depart from its currently approved SBS payment and/or claiming approach, including replacing a current fee schedule methodology or providing higher fee schedule payment amounts, a SPA is necessary.

As stated on page 91 of the 2023 Comprehensive Guide to Medicaid Services and Administrative Claiming, as required by CMS, the supporting documentation file for each claim of FFP must include, at a minimum, the following:

No, if your State's CMS-approved TSIP already adheres to the 2023 Comprehensive Guide to Medicaid Services and Administrative Claiming on page 112, then the State does not need to amend its TSIP for error rates. We do recommend States look closely at their previously approved Time Study methodology to ensure full compliance with all applicable Federal requirements as discussed in the 2023 Comprehensive Guide to Medicaid Services and Administrative Claiming.

CMS’s general standard regarding time study notification and response time is up to two-day upfront notification and up to a two-day response period. CMS is also willing to work with States that are not immediately able to meet these standards to work out a plan to eventually get to no more than a two-day upfront notification and a two-day response period. If a State believes that up to two days prior notice and two days response is not achievable, the State can propose an alternative to CMS and provide its rationale.

If the valid response rate is above 85 percent, nonresponses may be discarded and not included in the time study results. However, if the valid response rate is below 85 percent, regardless of the 15 percent oversample, CMS has required all non-responses to be included and coded as non-Medicaid.

CMS’ longstanding standard policy has been to recommend a 15 percent oversampling for RMTS to ensure a valid response rate of at least 85 percent or include all nonresponses as non-Medicaid and unallowable.