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
When will the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) provide standardized contract language reflecting the requirements of this provision as mentioned during the All-State Call on November 8th?
CMS will be working collaboratively with the National Association of Medicaid Directors (NAMD) to develop the contract elements necessary to reflect the requirements of this rule. In recognition of the State Medicaid Agency's role in the contracting practice, CMS will describe the suggested content areas rather than issue standardized contractual language. These elements will be described in further detail in a future (Question and Answer) Q&A document.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:91421
SHARE URLHow will states with Medicaid managed care programs comply with the requirement to report provider participation levels specified in 42 CFR 447.400(d)(1)?
At this time, the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is not defining the form of information required under 42 CFR 447.400(d)(1), but we do suggest that states with Medicaid managed care programs conduct a baseline assessment of primary care access before the provision goes into effect. This baseline assessment will ensure that Congress, CMS, and researchers have comparative data to evaluate this provision.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:91426
SHARE URLThe Final Rule at section 438.2 defines a rating period as the 12 month period for which actuarially sound capitation rates are set, but there may be legitimate reasons why a state may want to set capitation rates for a time period that is less than or greater than 12 months. Will states have any flexibility in this area?
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
SHARE URLA rating period is defined in section 438.2 as the 12 month period for which actuarially sound capitation rates are set. The Final Rule ties implementation and compliance deadlines for some provisions to the rating period for contracts starting on or after a specific date. Non-risk prepaid inpatient health plans (PIHPs) and non-risk prepaid ambulatory health plans (PAHPs), PCCMs, and PCCM entities do not have a rating period as defined in section 438.2 because such arrangements are not subject to actuarial
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
SHARE URLDoes the May 6, 2016 effective date for the change in FFP for EQR-related activities apply based on the date of approval of the EQRO contract, the date the activity was performed, or the date of expenditure for the EQR activity?
Regardless of whether an EQRO contract is approved before or after May 6, 2016, the change in FFP for EQR-related activities was effective May 6, 2016 for expenditures incurred by the state on or after May 6, 2016. Per general CMS-64 claiming principles, a state incurs an expenditure that may be claimed on the CMS-64 on the date the state pays the EQRO for the completed performance of the contracted EQR-associated activity.
The change to the FFP match rate for expenditure reporting takes effect in the middle of a quarter, which means that states must ensure that claims for expenditures for EQR activities affected by the change in FFP which were paid before May 6th and claims for expenditures which were paid on or after May 6th are reported separately. For only the quarter ending June 30, 2016, the CMS-64 EQRO Line 17 will allow states to report state expenditures associated with PIHP EQRO activities paid prior to May 6, 2016 and claim the enhanced 75 percent match. State expenditures associated with PIHP EQRO activities paid on or after May 6th must be claimed at the 50 percent matching rate.
Supplemental Links:
- This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 185.26 KB)
FAQ ID:94651
SHARE URLUnder what circumstances can states claim the enhanced 75 percent match for EQR activities?
Under section 438.370, the enhanced match of 75 percent is available for the EQR-related activities described in section 438.358 if all of the following conditions are met:
- The EQR activity is performed on a managed care organization (MCO) by an entity meeting the requirements of a qualified EQRO in section 438.354 or its subcontractor;
- The activity is performed pursuant to a contract approved by CMS; and
- The activity is performed in accordance with a protocol issued by CMS.
FFP at the 50 percent matching rate is available for mandatory and optional EQR-related activities for PIHPs, PAHPs, and affected PCCM entities, regardless of whether the activities were conducted by an EQRO or another entity. FFP at the 50 percent matching rate is also available for EQR and related activities performed for MCOs that are conducted by an entity that is not a qualified EQRO. This is a change from previous regulations, under which the enhanced match was available for EQR of PIHPs to the same extent as MCOs. This provision took effect May 6, 2016.
Supplemental Links:
- This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 185.26 KB)
FAQ ID:94646
SHARE URLWill states need to modify already approved contracts to add the final capitation rates to the contract to comply with section 438.3(c), which requires that the payment term be included in the contract?
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
SHARE URLWhere can I find general information on the change in matching rates for External Quality Review (EQR)?
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
SHARE URLCan CMS please clarify if only audited financial statements that are done on a formal Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) basis can be used to meet the requirements in section 438.3(m)? Audits can also be done following statutory accounting principles or government auditing standards and it is not clear if states and managed care plans have flexibility in which standard to apply.
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
SHARE URLMy state is planning for our upcoming EQRO contracting. When does CMS plan to publish a protocol for the new activity relating to the validation of network adequacy?
CMS expects to first issue revised protocols for the current mandatory and optional EQR-related activities in the Fall of 2017. We expect to issue the protocol for the new mandatory EQR activity relating to the validation of network adequacy later in 2017 or early 2018. States will have up to one year from the publication of the protocol to implement the new mandatory EQR activity.
Supplemental Links:
- This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 185.26 KB)
FAQ ID:94656
SHARE URL