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).

FAQ ID:162306

Yes, States are expected to apply the 2023 Comprehensive Guide to Medicaid Services and Administrative Claiming guidance to all MAC programs for all entities. Both previous guidance documents issued by CMS, including the 1997 School-based Services Technical Review Guide and the 2003 School-based Administrative Claiming Guide, are superseded by the 2023 Comprehensive Guide to Medicaid Services and Administrative Claiming.

FAQ ID:162336

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.

FAQ ID:162321

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.

FAQ ID:162326

The Precertification Pilot was an experiment conducted from October 2017-March 2018 designed to streamline certification and attract new vendors. Unfortunately, the pilot was found to be unscalable across Medicaid. However, key learnings from the pilot will be incorporated into current processes and future experiments around vendor engagement, certification, scalability, and sustainability. The goals the Centers from Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) identified at the beginning of the Precertification Pilot process remain the same: reduce the level of effort of certification; shorten the certification timeline; promote modularity and interoperability; reduce risk of system failure; and attract new vendors to the Medicaid IT market. Contact CMS with your ideas for experiments to achieve those goals at MES@cms.hhs.gov.

FAQ ID:95151

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

CMS encourages states to reuse modular solutions as much as possible. If a state can reuse a modular solution from another state with minimal changes or customization, CMS will work with the state to streamline the certification process as much as possible to leverage knowledge of the reused solution. However, CMS will still require a certification decision for each state implementation of reused solutions to ensure compliance with federal regulations.

FAQ ID:94896

All the criteria in the checklists (MITA, MMIS or Custom) are the same. The difference between checklists is the criteria organization within the checklists. If the services solution is innovative, unique, or an unconventional approach, then the custom checklist approach might be appropriate. The RO will work with the state and vendors to decide which checklist set is best suited for the state's certification. Both service and traditional-type solutions need to meet all certification criteria to ensure compliance with federal regulations.

FAQ ID:94901