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
If a state were to proceed with implementation on January 1, 2013, and submit a state plan by March 31, 2013, would the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) permit the state to claim the enhanced match for services that were reimbursed at the higher rate under CMS 2370-F prior to approval of the state plan?
No. As noted in the final rule, Federal Financial Participation (FFP) in increased rates will not be available until the State Plan Amendment (SPA) is approved.
Supplemental Links:
ÂFAQ ID:92721
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 URLCan states that are "expansion states" under the law receive newly eligible matching rate for some populations in their state?
Yes. The expansion state Federal Medical Assistance Percentage, or matching rate, described in section 1905(z)(2) of the Social Security Act is available to some states that expanded Medicaid coverage prior to enactment of the Affordable Care Act, but does not exclude those states from receiving the increased newly eligible match for expenditures for beneficiaries who meet the statutory qualifications. If a population covered by a state that qualifies as an expansion state meets the criteria for the newly eligible matching rate, the state will receive the newly eligible matching rate for that population. States will receive the highest matching rate possible for a given population; being an expansion state will never disadvantage the state in terms of matching rates for that population.
The following are several examples of circumstances in which an expansion state will receive the newly eligible matching rate for some beneficiaries:
- States are considered expansion states if, as of March 23, 2010, they provided coverage that meets the standards specified in section 1905(z)(3) of the Act to both childless adults and parents up to at least 100 percent of the federal poverty level. If a state provided Medicaid coverage up to 100 percent of the federal poverty level but not above, expenditures for individuals between 100 and 133 percent of the federal poverty level would qualify for the newly eligible matching rate.
- States that qualify as expansion states may have offered less than full benefits, benchmark benefits, or benchmark-equivalent benefits. Individuals who received limited benefits under a Medicaid expansion will qualify as "newly eligible" individuals and the newly eligible matching rate will apply.
- States that qualify as expansion states based on the provision of state-funded coverage will receive the newly eligible matching rate for people previously covered by the state-only program, since they will be newly eligible for Medicaid coverage.
The expansion state matching rate is only available for expenditures for non-pregnant, childless adult populations described in the new low-income adult group. CMS will work with states to ensure that the correct matching rate is applied to expenditures for populations in expansion states that qualify as newly eligible.
Supplemental Links:
- This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 359.41 KB)
FAQ ID:94601
SHARE URL
Results per page