Frequently Asked Questions

Under section 1902(a)(25)(H) of the Social Security Act (the Act) before passage of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA), states were required to have laws in effect that to the extent Medicaid payment was made, the state was considered to have acquired the rights of the Medicaid beneficiary to reimbursement by any other party that was liable for payment. However, payers sometimes deny Medicaid claims based on procedural requirements. Section 1902(a)(25)(I) of the Act, added by the DRA, strengthens the statute by requiring states to enact laws that require health insurers:

1. To accept the state's right of recovery and the assignment to the state of the right of a Medicaid beneficiary or other entity to payment from such party for an item or service for which Medicaid has made payment; and,
2. To process and, if appropriate, pay the claim for reimbursement from Medicaid to the same extent that the plan would have been liable had the plan's card been used for billing at the "point of sale" (POS).

Specifically, the state should pass laws which require an insurer to agree not to deny claims submitted by the state on the basis of the date of submission of the claim, the type or format of the claim form, or a failure to present proper documentation of coverage at the POS that is the basis of the claim.

Whether a plan provision affecting payment for an item or service is solely procedural in nature or whether it defines or limits the covered benefits must be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Note that nothing in the DRA negates the state's responsibility to provide proper documentation when submitting claims to the health insurer so that the insurer can determine that a covered service for which the insurer is liable was provided.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 252.32 KB)

FAQ ID:91236

No. States typically do not meet the definition of a covered health care provider under 45 CFR 160.103, and therefore, are not eligible to receive an NPI. If states encounter situations where plans are requiring them to submit an NPI, they can submit a formal complaint to the Office of E-Health Standards and Services (OESS) in CMS by using the online Administrative Simplification Enforcement Tool (ASET). ASET allows individuals or organizations to electronically file a complaint against an entity whose actions they believe violate an Administrative Simplification provision of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA).

States may submit a formal complaint electronically at: https://asett.cms.gov/ASETT_HomePage. ASET users are required to register with OESS and create a user identification name and password. States also may submit a paper complaint. The form is available at: www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Administrative-Simplification/Enforcements/Downloads/HIPAANon-PrivacyComplaintForm.pdf.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 252.32 KB)

FAQ ID:91241

Section 1902(a)(25)(I) of the Social Security Act requires states to have laws in effect that require health insurers to make payment as long as the claim is submitted by the state within three years from the date on which the item or service was furnished.

Some health insurers currently deny claims submitted by Medicaid if they are not filed within a prescribed time limit, which is applied to plan beneficiaries and providers (e.g., a plan might require beneficiaries and providers to submit claims within 30 days from date of service). If the state Medicaid agency is unable to ascertain the existence of the third party coverage and submit a claim within the time limit, the insurer may attempt to avoid liability.

Any action by the state to enforce its rights with respect to such claim must be commenced within six years of the state's submission of such claim. Health insurers also must respond to any inquiry by a state regarding claims submitted within three years from the date on which the item or service was furnished.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 252.32 KB)

FAQ ID:91246

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

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