Frequently Asked Questions

In most cases once they are created, the documents will simply be updated to account for the additional modules being planned or developed. A new document is not necessarily created for each module. If a state calls a document by a different name, the state should inform CMS of the name difference.

FAQ ID:95076

Granting CMS direct access to the state's evidence repository is the preferred method for making evidence available to CMS. If that is not possible, the state may make other secure arrangements with CMS, such as using encrypted File Transfer Protocol (FTP). It is critical to follow all Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) regulations when submitting evidence that contains personal health information (PHI) and personally identifiable information (PII).

FAQ ID:95081

No. Only the checklists pertaining to the modules undergoing review need to be included, and that only for the report created in preparation for a milestone review. However, the IV&V progress report should include risks and recommendations for the entire project--not just those about to undergo a milestone review.

FAQ ID:95086

When streamlining the core checklists (IA, TA and S&C checklists), we found that some criteria fit better in other checklists, so they were moved. To keep traceability simple for the states, we chose to keep the original identifiers for any criteria that were moved. The same holds true for criteria moved to the programmatic tab of the IV&V progress report template.

FAQ ID:95091

No, E&E systems are not subject to certification. Though the Medicaid Eligibility and Enrollment Toolkit (MEET) was based on the MMIS toolkit, the MEET was created as a way to align how CMS reviews Medicaid enterprise systems and is a means for CMS to provide technical assistance to the states.

FAQ ID:95096

Yes. CMS acknowledges that states may have legitimate reasons to set capitation rates for a time period that differs from 12 months and will take unusual circumstances into account when reviewing compliance with the rating period duration requirements. CMS will approve a rating period other than of 12 months when a state transitions the contract term and rating period from a calendar year to a state fiscal year basis and setting capitation rates for a 6 month or 18 month period would facilitate that transition. There may be other reasonable justifications for such variations in the rating period that CMS would be open to considering. The rationale for a rating period that differs from 12 months as defined in the regulation in section 438.2 should be specified in the rate certification required in section 438.7 for such consideration.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 185.26 KB)

FAQ ID:93456

The implementation date for non-risk PIHPs and PAHPs, PCCMs, and PCCM entities for provisions tied to a rating period is the earliest date that a risk-based MCO, PIHP, or PAHP would need to comply. For example, the provisions in subpart F relating to appeals and grievances have an implementation date for risk-based contracts of the rating period for contracts starting on or after July 1, 2017. Non-risk PIHPs and PAHPs would need to implement those provisions by July 1, 2017.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 185.26 KB)

FAQ ID:93461

The regulation at section 438.3(m) has a general reference to "generally accepted accounting principles" and "generally accepted auditing principles." This means that states have the flexibility to specify the applicable generally accepted accounting and auditing principles for the audited financial reports in the managed care plan contracts. The federal regulation does not endorse a particular standard.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 185.26 KB)

FAQ ID:93466

CMS released an Informational Bulletin (CIB) discussing the change in federal financial participation (FFP) for EQR that was effective May 6, 2016. The CIB includes revised claiming instructions for the CMS-64 and a sample form. It is available at Medicaid.gov on the EQR webpage, under Technical Assistance Documents, and available at https://www.medicaid.gov/federal-policy-guidance/downloads/cib061016.pdf (PDF, 279.08 KB).

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 185.26 KB)

FAQ ID:93471

Yes. We remind states that the requirement that the final capitation rate be specified in the contract is not a new requirement, see section 438.6(c)(2)(ii) of the 2002 final rule. The amount of payment for performance-in this context, the final capitation rate-is a primary component of any contract and must be included for purposes of verifying claims for Federal Financial Participation (FFP) on the CMS-64. In the Final Rule at page 27595, in the context of risk adjustment, CMS suggested that the payment terms under the contract could be identified in an appendix, or additional supporting documentation, to the contract for ease of updating the information when risk adjustment is applied. The state must submit a formal contract amendment when the final capitation rates differ from the payment terms in an approved contract.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 185.26 KB)

FAQ ID:93171