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
How should states handle eligibility renewals between January 1, 2014 and March 31, 2014 in order to comply with the ACA provisions that prohibit states from terminating an individual's existing Medicaid eligibility prior to April 1, 2014.
According to section 1902(e)(14)(D)(v) of the Act, implemented at 42 CFR 435.603(a)(3), a person enrolled in Medicaid on or before December 31, 2013, shall not be found ineligible solely because of the application of MAGI and new household composition rules before March 31, 2014, or the individual's next regular renewal date, whichever is later.
States have two options regarding implementation. They can apply both pre-MAGI rules and MAGI rules to anyone whose renewal date falls between January 1 and March 31, 2014 as described below. Alternately, states may request the waiver authority to delay renewals outlined in our May 17, 2013 guidance titled, "Facilitating Medicaid and CHIP Enrollment and Renewal in 2014" (available at http://medicaid.gov/sites/default/files/Federal-Policy-Guidance/downloads/SHO-13-003.pdf).
The steps described below will ensure that Medicaid enrollees who come up for renewal between January and March 2014 are addressed appropriately. For example, for an individual who comes up for renewal on February 1, 2014, states need to:
- Conduct an eligibility redetermination by applying MAGI-based methods (at the converted income standard). If eligible, renew coverage for a 12-month period ending in February 2015.
- If the individual is found to be ineligible under step 1, determine whether s/he remains eligible based on 2013 (current) methods and income standard. If so, a finding of eligibility until April 1, 2014 is necessary under the 2013 methods. Go to step 4.
- If the individual is not eligible per either step 1 or 2, consider whether the individual might be eligible on other bases of eligibility, and pursue any possibilities. If no other pathways apply, provide the individual with notice of termination and appeal rights and transfer their account to the Exchange (or CHIP) for eligibility determination and enrollment in a QHP (or CHIP).
- On April 1, 2014, for those who remain eligible per step 2 (using 2013 methods and income standards), consider whether the individual qualifies on other bases of eligibility. If the individual does, renew eligibility until April 1, 2015. If not, provide notice and appeal rights for termination effective April 1, 2014.
Supplemental Links:
- This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 295.71 KB)
FAQ ID:92596
SHARE URLWhen will we have final rules on essential health benefits, actuarial value, and rating?
In section 156.100 of the proposed rule on Essential Health Benefits/Actuarial Value/Accreditation, we propose criteria for the selection process for a state that chooses to select a benchmark plan. The essential health benefits benchmark plan would serve as a reference plan, reflecting both the scope of services and limits offered by a typical employer plan in that state. This approach and benchmark selection, which would apply for at least the 2014 and 2015 benefit years, would allow states to build on coverage that is already widely available, minimize market disruption, and provide consumers with familiar products. Since some base-benchmark plan options may not cover all ten of the statutorily required essential health benefits categories, we propose standards for supplementing a base-benchmark plan that does not provide coverage of one or more of the categories.
We also propose that if a base-benchmark plan option does not cover any items and services within an essential health benefits category, the base-benchmark plan must be supplemented by adding that particular category in its entirety from another base-benchmark plan option. The resulting plan, which would reflect a base-benchmark that covers all ten essential health benefits categories, must meet standards for nondiscrimination and balance. After meeting these standards, it would be considered the essential health benefits-benchmark plan.
The proposed rule also outlines the process by which HHS would supplement a default base-benchmark plan, if necessary. We clarify that to the extent that the default base-benchmark plan option does not cover any items and services within an essential health benefits category, the category must be added by supplementing the base-benchmark plan with that particular category in its entirety from another base-benchmark plan option. Specifically, we propose that HHS would supplement the category of benefits in the default base benchmark plan with the first of the following options that offer benefits in that particular essential health benefits category: (1) the largest plan by enrollment in the second largest product in the state's small group market; (2) the largest plan by enrollment in the third largest product in the state's small group market; (3) the largest national Federal Employees Health Benefit Program plan by enrollment across states that is offered to federal employees; (4) the largest dental plan under the Federal Employees Dental and Vision Insurance Program, for pediatric oral care benefits; (5) the largest vision plan under the Federal Employees Dental and Vision Insurance Program, for pediatric vision care benefits; and (6) habilitative services as described in section 156.110(f) or 156.115(a)(4).
Supplemental Links:
- This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 359.41 KB)
FAQ ID:94466
SHARE URLWhat level of benefit is required in a specific benchmark to satisfy the ten essential health benefit categories? What process will be undertaken by HHS to select backfilling benefit options if a state defaults to the largest small group product?
The U.S. Office of Personal Management released a proposed rule implementing the Multi-State Plan Program on November 30, 2012. To ensure that the Multi-State Plans are competing on a level playing field with other plans in the marketplace, the proposed regulation largely defers to state insurance law and the standards promulgated by HHS and states related to qualified health plans. Under the proposal, Multi-State Plans will be evaluated based largely on the same criteria as other qualified health plans operating in Exchanges. The few areas in which the Office of Personal Management proposes different regulatory standards from those applicable to qualified health plans are areas where the Office of Personal Management has extensive experience through its administration of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. However, in order to ensure that these few differences will not create any unfair advantages, the Office of Personal Management seeks comment from states and other stakeholders on these proposals. The regulation appeared in the Federal Register on December 5, 2012, and the comment period runs through January 4, 2013.
Supplemental Links:
- This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 359.41 KB)
FAQ ID:94471
SHARE URL