Frequently Asked Questions

Based on guidance issued in December 2012 (PDF, 177.59 KB), CMS worked with states to set their new standards. Most states used a model that determines the average value of the disregards a state had in place and then added that amount to the old standard to create the new eligibility levels. In the example above, in a state with a net income standard of 100% of the FPL, if the average value of the disregards equaled 6 percentage points of the FPL, that value would be added to the old standard for a new eligibility standard of 106% of the FPL.

FAQ ID:92496

Milestone reviews have proven to reduce risk by having earlier discussions where CMS can identify opportunities for efficiencies, facilitate collaboration with other states, and share other ideas that can save time, money, and effort. Identifying issues and opportunities earlier in the process will allow for a much greater impact than was experienced under the old process.

FAQ ID:93976

CMS encourages the use of COTS solutions where possible, and the milestone review process supports certification of COTS products. The review criteria are intended to be tailorable to support different solutions, including COTS. In this case, the technical criteria in the checklists that do not apply to COTS may be marked ""Not Applicable"" with an explanation as to why they do not apply.

FAQ ID:93986

It depends. We consider various factors. If a state is developing a complete MMIS solution with one release date, then there will be three reviews: Project Initiation Review, Operational Milestone Review, and MMIS Certification Final Review. If a state has multiple release dates with a modular or agile approach, the state would have one set of three certification reviews with CMS for each module the state would like CMS to certify. Each state will start its certification effort by having an initial consultation with CMS to determine how CMS can schedule milestone reviews that fit with the state's plan.

FAQ ID:94011

CMS has developed a milestone review process that is flexible enough to be placed over several development methodologies. CMS wants to ensure that the milestone reviews benefit and do not burden the state. CMS works with each state individually to ensure that the timing of the milestones fit within the state's internal development timeline.

FAQ ID:94001

The Affordable Care Act established an income disregard equal to five percentage points of the FPL disregard "for the purposes of determining income eligibility" for individuals whose eligibility is based on MAGI. In our final rule issued July 15, 2013, we provide that the disregard is applied to the income calculation of individuals only to the extent that the disregard matters for the purposes of determining eligibility for Medicaid or CHIP under MAGI-based rules-that is, those for whom the application of the disregard means the difference between being eligible for Medicaid or CHIP and being ineligible.

The disregard matters for purposes of determining Medicaid or CHIP eligibility only in cases where individuals have MAGI-based income that is above the highest applicable income standard under the program (Medicaid or CHIP), but would be within that income standard if the disregard were applied. This is the case only when the MAGI-based income is no higher than five percent of the FPL higher than that income standard. The disregard would not be applied for a determination of the particular eligibility group in which the individual qualifies, but only for overall eligibility for Medicaid or CHIP. We understand that this policy changes how disregards have been applied in the past, but believe this policy should be administratively simple to apply, for example, by applying the disregard at the point before a decision of ineligibility based on income would otherwise be made. This also ensures that the disregard does not reduce the "newly eligible" population for whom the increased federal matching rate is available.

For example, in a state that extends coverage to the new adult group, if a parent applied and has MAGI-based income within five percentage points of the FPL above the net income standard for the mandatory parent/caretaker relative group, the disregard would not apply because the disregard would not be needed for eligibility. The parent could be made eligible in the adult group instead. In that same state, if a parent applied with MAGI income within five percentage points of the FPL above the net income standard for the adult group (133% FPL), the five percent disregard would be applied to ensure that the parent could obtain eligibility in Medicaid and the parent would be made eligible in the adult group.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 295.71 KB)

FAQ ID:92591

Effective January 1, 2014, MAGI eligibility rules will be used to determine eligibility for nonelderly, nondisabled eligibility groups. The transition to MAGI also involves converting current net income eligibility standards to MAGI standards. MAGI rules apply regardless of whether a state adopts the new adult eligibility group. The December 28, 2012 Modified Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI) conversion guidance (PDF, 177.59 KB) sets out options for a state to use a standardized MAGI conversion methodology (using Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) data or with state data) or to propose an alternative methodology for converting to MAGI.

There are two potential ways of using the standardized MAGI conversion methodology:

• States may choose to have CMS calculate the converted income levels for eligibility groups requiring conversion using state-adjusted data from the Census Bureau's SIPP; or
• States may choose to use their own data as the source for applying the standardized conversion methodology.

For each eligibility group income level that needs to be converted, under the standardized MAGI conversion methodology, individuals whose net income is within 25 percentage points of the FPL below the current income standards will be selected (for example, if the current standard is 80 percent of the FPL, the analysis will include people with incomes between 55 and 80 percent FPL). The next step is to calculate disregards as a percent of FPL for each selected individual. The resulting average disregard amount as a percent of FPL is added to the current net income standard to get the converted standard.

For example, if the average disregard is 8 percent FPL, the converted standard would be 88 percent FPL. This basic process is the same regardless of whether SIPP data or state data is used.

Alternatively, states have the option to propose their own method, subject to approval by CMS. States are asked to provide a statement of intent by February 15, 2013 and must submit their MAGI conversion plans by April 30.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 25.85 KB)

FAQ ID:93931

Factors that states might want to consider in choosing an income conversion method and data source include whether the state currently maintains or can easily access the data that are needed to do the conversions, as well as the quality and completeness of the state's data. In addition, states will want to consider whether they have the analytical resources needed to do the conversions with their own data, how long it would take them to run the conversions and how much it would cost to pay a contractor to do the analysis. Finally, states should also consider preferences about using state-adjusted SIPP or state data.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 25.85 KB)

FAQ ID:93936

Detailed information on how to use state data to apply the standardized conversion methodology is forthcoming, but in general states will need 1) information on net income of each person and the size of the Medicaid eligibility unit to establish which enrollees fall within the 25 percentage point band below the current net income standard; and 2) data on the total amount of disregards for each individual within the 25 percentage point band - if this is not stored as a data element in the state's system, this can be calculated by adding up individual disregards, or as the difference between gross income and net income.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 25.85 KB)

FAQ ID:93941

Technical assistance for states thinking through their MAGI conversion options is available through the State Health Access Data Assistance Center (SHADAC) at the University of Minnesota. SHADAC is available to help states understand the income conversion methods, the data sources that can be used (SIPP or state data), and factors for states to consider in choosing a methodology. CMS will do conversions for all states using the standardized conversion methodology with SIPP data. States that choose to use state data or that propose a different methodology will need to do the conversions themselves, and SHADAC is available to provide consultation with states as they work through the process. This help is available at no cost to states. States can contact SHADAC for help with income conversion at (612) 486-2439 or by emailing their questions to fmaphelp@shadac.org.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 25.85 KB)

FAQ ID:93946