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
Will states be eligible to receive the enhanced CHIP FMAP for children who lose Medicaid eligibility due to the elimination of income disregards as a result of the conversion to MAGI under 2101(f)?
Yes. As stated in the Frequently Asked Questions pertaining to this provision posted on April 25, 2013, states may claim the enhanced match available under title XXI for children who lose Medicaid eligibility due to the elimination of income disregards as a result of the conversion to MAGI. These children now meet the definition of a targeted low-income child and will be enrolled in a separate CHIP in accordance with section 2101(f) of the ACA. If states choose the option to maintain Medicaid eligibility for such children title XIX funds and regular FMAP must be used to provide coverage.
Supplemental Links:
- This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 120.92 KB)
FAQ ID:91886
SHARE URLAre states allowed to claim enhanced FMAP for enrollees whose family income is above 300 percent of the FPL?
Generally, no. Section 2105(c) (8) of the Social Security Act limits enhanced FMAP to the expenditures associated with children whose effective family income is at or below 300 percent FPL. Expenditures for children whose effective family income exceeds 300 percent of the FPL are matched at the regular Medicaid FMAP rate rather than the enhanced FMAP. However, the enhanced matching rate continues to be available for expenditures on populations whose income exceeds 300% FPL in states in which the income standard exceeds 300 percent as a result of MAGI conversion, as well as for states with approved income limits for CHIP above 300% of the FPL prior to the passage of the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (CHIPRA).
Supplemental Links:
- This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 120.92 KB)
FAQ ID:91891
SHARE URLWill states be allowed to continue to cover parents and receive the enhanced CHIP FMAP for those expenditures?
States are no longer allowed to cover parents in CHIP after Sept. 30, 2013 and therefore, are no longer eligible to receive the enhanced CHIP FMAP for expenditures for parents.
Supplemental Links:
- This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 120.92 KB)
FAQ ID:91896
SHARE URLWhat happens if there is a conflict between information in the flat file and information about the same individual that is already in the state's systems?
As applicant information is entered into state systems, there will be some applicants that will be known to the system, such as people who previously applied to or enrolled in Medicaid, family members of current beneficiaries, and possibly beneficiaries of other human services programs. If, based on this information known to the system, the state finds information that indicates the individual is unlikely to be eligible for Medicaid under MAGI rules, then the state may treat such information as an inconsistency. Just as states are not enrolling applicants on the flat file who have an inconsistency in their income or residency information based on FFM verification without further evaluation, states may also not enroll applicants based on the flat-file data for whom there are discrepancies based on state system information. We will work with states that would like to pursue other options for dealing with information found in state systems when entering individuals from the flat file.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:91911
SHARE URLWhat if I encounter an account with a long Application_ID or Member_ID?
This issue has been identified to be resolved but the state can proceed to enroll these accounts. The expanded flat file will contain several other fields giving enough information to effectuate enrollment while this issue is resolved. We will work with states that believe they have a problem proceeding to enroll these applicants.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:91961
SHARE URLUnder CMS 2370-F, may practice managers or billing staff of large group practices and health systems attest on behalf of their physicians on the basis of information on board certification in the records of the practice or health system?
If these practices and health systems maintain the types of documentation described in the previous answer, FAQ45736, with respect to managed care organizations, attestation by the group or system would be acceptable. As previously noted, a physician actually must be practicing as an internist, pediatrician or family physician in order to be eligible for higher payment. Board certification does not always equate to practice characteristics. Therefore, attestation on the basis of information on board certification alone would not suffice.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:93866
SHARE URLUnder CMS 2370-F, if a physician renders services in both the managed care and fee for service environments, must he or she self-attest to eligibility twice?
No. The attestation and eligibility are physician-specific. If a physician provides services both in a fee-for-service and managed care environment, they need only complete the process of attestation once in order to receive higher payment for all eligible services they provide. CMS expects all information on self-attestation to be fully available to the state, regardless of which party collected this information.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:93871
SHARE URLUnder CMS 2370, may physicians who practice in two (or more) states meet the 60 percent threshold based on all services provided in all states, or must they qualify on the basis of the services they provide in each state?
States have the flexibility to count eligible services provided by a physician in neighboring states in meeting the 60 percent threshold, but are not required to do so.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:93876
SHARE URLThere are at least two current procedural terminology (CPT) codes (99429 and 99499) for which there are no relative value units (RVU) and the state manually prices the services for purposes of Medicaid payment. Will CMS develop a Medicare-like rate for these codes under the CMS 2370-F rule?
These services would not be subject to the minimum payment standard set in the rule because there are no RVUs and there is no conversion factor associated with them. Therefore, a Medicare-like rate cannot be developed. The state may continue to reimburse them at the current Medicaid rate but enhanced federal financial participation (FFP) will not be available for those services.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:93881
SHARE URLUnder CMS 2370-F, if a physician self-attests to being a primary care provider and supports that attestation with evidence of appropriate board certification, must we review that physician's practice to verify that they actually practice in that manner?
No. Verification of current board certification is sufficient.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:93886
SHARE URL
Results per page