Frequently Asked Questions

Generally, information from the Federal data services hub will only be sent in direct response to a call from the requesting entity. However, in the case of verifications conducted by DHS, there can be up to three steps to a verification, the second and third of which will not be in real time. If the step 1 query fails, the Federal data services hub will automatically invoke step 2, and the response may take up to several days. If step 2 fails, the Federal data services hub will notify the requesting entity which will need to submit additional documentation from the applicant for step 3. The step 3 response can take weeks. During this time, the Federal data services hub will regularly poll DHS to see if the response has come back.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 104.38 KB)

FAQ ID:93316

IV&V contractor activities must still be performed such as checklist evaluation, artifact review and preparation of IV&V Progress Reports. The state should provide a plan and timeline for how these activities will be supported and performed until the proper IV&V contract can be either procured or aligned with updated CMS guidance on IV&V.

FAQ ID:94866

As contained in the MECT standard RFP/contract language required by CMS, CMS does not cover activities that the state may require of the IV&V contractor during ongoing O&M. However, as Medicaid is moving away from monolithic single applications, it is expected that states will continuously update and replace modules in their enterprise. Therefore, IV&V should always have a role to ensure successful integration and testing.

FAQ ID:94881

If an organization is performing another role (such as systems integrator, PMO, quality assurance, etc.) on the MMIS or E&E project, it may not perform the IV&V function on the same project. A state may contract the same vendor to perform the IV&V role for both its E&E and MMIS projects.

FAQ ID:94886

To reduce potential conflict of interest, CMS is ensuring that states are arranging IV&V services through contracts that should be owned outside of the agency that owns the MMIS or E&E project. The oversight organization for the IV&V contractor should not be involved in oversight of the development effort, a stakeholder in the business implementation, or the DDI contractor. The IV&V contract monitor should be aware of system development problem solving, reporting, and contractor management. This contract oversight provides true independence between the IV&V contractor and system development teams. This requirement is consistent with other HHS agencies' practices and industry best practices.

FAQ ID:94891

No. The 75%/25% matching rate for eligibility systems is limited by the statute to activities directly related to an eligibility determination. A level of care assessment is not directly related to the eligibility determination. Although the assessment itself is not eligible for the 75% match, the entry of the level of care result into the eligibility system may be matched at 75%.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 295.71 KB)

FAQ ID:92646

No. A disability determination is not directly related to the eligibility determination, even though the outcome of that determination may be used to identify the appropriate eligibility group, financial methodology and the benefits that will be available to the individual. The eligibility group, financial methodology and benefits are based on the state plan, not on the eligibility system. Although the disability determination itself is not eligible for the 75% match, the entry of the disability information into the eligibility system may be matched at 75%. This analysis is based on the SMM Sec. 11276.7 B, which discusses prior authorization and claims processing. The prior authorization itself is not eligible for the 75% match, however the program decision, based on that prior authorization, to pay or not pay a claim that is pending in the system is eligible for the 75% match.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 295.71 KB)

FAQ ID:92651

Individuals who assist applicants by facilitating their applications, who perform outreach activities, or who enter application data on behalf of the applicant are not eligible for the 75% match. Only individuals who are authorized by the single state agency to enter data other than application elements into the eligibility system, who have responsibility for evaluating data in order to make an eligibility determination, who are authorized to exercise discretion in the evaluation of data, who are authorized to make an eligibility determination and who are accountable to the single state agency for such determinations are eligible the 75% match for those activities. This includes eligibility workers, whether in house or out-stationed, as long as there is a formal, written agreement with the single state agency that authorizes their eligibility activities and specifies direct lines of accountability to the single state agency. Both intake workers and on-going eligibility workers who meet these requirements may be claimed at 75%, based on appropriate cost allocations.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 295.71 KB)

FAQ ID:92656

Yes, 75 percent FFP is available for ongoing costs of operating approved eligibility determination systems, often referred to as "E&E" systems, that meet the Standards and Conditions for Medicaid IT and critical success factors. (See: State Medicaid Director Letter on APD Requirements dated June 27, 2016 (SMD# 16-009), to be found at https://www.medicaid.gov/federal-policy-guidance/federal-policy-guidance.html.

Section 1903(a)(3)(B) of the Social Security Act provides 75 percent FFP for costs associated with operating an approved Medicaid management information system (MMIS). The Medicaid manual further clarifies at Section 11276.3 A. MMIS Operations, "FFP at 75 percent is available for direct costs directly attributable to the Medicaid program for ongoing automated processing of claims, payments, and reports. Included are forms, use of system hardware and supplies, maintenance of software and documentation, and personnel costs of operations control clerks, suspense and/or exception claims processing clerks, data entry operators, microfilm operators, terminal operators, peripheral equipment operators, computer operators, and claims coding clerks if the coded data is used in the MMIS, and all direct costs specifically identified to these cost objectives. Report users, such as staff who perform follow-up investigations, are not considered part of the MMIS."

States may claim 75 percent FFP for the costs of certain personnel closely associated with operating claims processing and related systems under MMIS. As noted in our final rule, Medicaid Program; Federal Funding for Medicaid Eligibility Determination and Enrollment Activities (CMS-2346-F), in response to comments, "enhanced funding is available for staff time spent on mechanized eligibility determination systems in the same manner that they apply to all mechanized claims processing and information retrieval systems, since mechanized eligibility determination systems are now considered to be part of such systems, assuming the requirements of this section are met." (See: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/04/19/2011-9340/medicaid-program-federalfunding-for-medicaid-eligibility-determination-and-enrollment-activities ).H59 Additional information on FFP rates, including tables delineating specific covered costs, is available in the State Medicaid Director Letter on Enhanced Funding dated March 31, 2016 (SMD# 16-004), to be found at https://www.medicaid.gov/federal-policy-guidance/federal-policy-guidance.html.

States should work closely with CMS during the APD process to provide appropriate documentation concerning their cost allocation and claiming plans. In states where workers determine eligibility or provide customer service for multiple health and human service programs, costs should be allocated across programs, as discussed further in FAQ# 40811.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 105.59 KB)

FAQ ID:93696

Eligibility for the enhanced FFP will be based on state systems being compliant with the Standards and Conditions for Medicaid IT, including meeting minimum critical success factors for accepting the new single streamlined application, making MAGI-based determinations and coordinating with Marketplaces. The 75 percent FFP will generally be available when the approved system becomes operational. The 75 percent FFP will not expire.
The start date for the 75 percent FFP for maintenance and operations is the actual start of the operations of the approved eligibility determination system (also referred to as "E&E" system).

We recognize states may be phasing in system upgrades that implement modified adjusted gross income (MAGI)-based eligibility determinations first, with subsequent releases to include non-MAGI and/or other human services programs eligibility. We will allow the 75 percent FFP to begin with the start of the approved MAGI shared eligibility service, based upon an approved Operations APD, that meets the critical success factors. Further, states with challenges in meeting critical success factors at the expected service level must have approved mitigation strategies in order to qualify.

In order to begin claiming, states should submit an Operations APD to CMS that clearly identifies the functions, staff and costs to be charged at the 75 percent FFP level, and it must be approved by CMS before a state can begin claiming the enhanced match.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 105.59 KB)

FAQ ID:93701