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
Is a state required to cover all of the primary care service billing codes specified in the CMS 2370-F regulation and then reimburse all qualified providers at the Medicare rate in calendar years (CYs) 2013 and 2014?
A state is not required to cover all of the primary care service billing codes if it did not previously do so. Rather, to the extent that it reimburses physicians using any of the billing codes specified in the final rule, the state must pay at the Medicare rate in the calendar years (CYs) 2013 and 2014.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:91346
SHARE URLWill a state receive 100 percent federal matching funds for new codes added to the fee schedule in CYs 2013 and 2014 under CMS 2370-F?
A state may not add any of the eligible service codes solely for the purpose of obtaining enhanced federal matching funds. For example, a state may not eliminate a code currently in use and attempt to substitute it with another Evaluation and Management (E&M) code. However, we recognize that a handful of codes have been added to the E&M code set since 2009. States which added those codes to their fee schedules will receive higher match for those services.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:91351
SHARE URLThe notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) provided that states were required to pay the lesser of the provider's charges or the applicable Medicare rate. The final rule under CMS 2370-F no longer specifies this. Can a state continue to pay at the lower of the two amounts?
Under Medicare and Medicaid principles, payment is to be made at the lower of provider charges or the rate, which in this case is the applicable Medicare rate. This language was inadvertently omitted from the final rule. The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is processing a technical correction to the regulatory text at 42 CFR 447.405 to restore this language.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:91356
SHARE URLDoes higher payment apply to CHIP under CMS 2370-F?
The primary care provider rate increase does apply to the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Medicaid expansions but not separate (stand-alone) CHIPs. Qualified physicians who render the primary care services and vaccine administration services specified in the regulation will receive the benefit of higher payment for services provided to these Medicaid beneficiaries.
The State will receive 100 percent federal matching funds for the difference between the rate in effect 7/1/09 and the rate in calendar years (CYs) 2013 and 2014. The remainder of the payment will be funded at the CHIP matching rate, through the CHIP allotment. Services provided under separate (standalone) CHIPs are not eligible for higher payment.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:91361
SHARE URLThe rule under CMS 2370-F indicates that all limitations, conditions and policies that applied to the code prior to January 1, 2013 can be applied to the code after that date. If a state sets a reduced rate for a Level III emergency service (99283) if it is a triage service (based on criteria described in the state plan) can it continue to do so or must it pay 100 percent of the Medicare rate? If it can continue to reduce the rate, must it develop a "Medicare triage rate", or can it continue to use the Medicaid triage fee?
This rule does not affect the state's ability to define and operate its coding system, and a state could distinguish claims submitted from those otherwise identified with code 99283. For those claims, the state should develop a rate that it believes Medicare would pay if Medicare made a similar distinction for emergency services limited to triage services, and would then pay that rate. For claims that were not limited to triage services, the state would pay based on the established Medicare rate for code 99283.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:91366
SHARE URLWhat federal matching rate will apply for services for which a higher payment is made under CMS 2370-F if the services also qualify for a higher FMAP under the provisions of section 4106 of the Affordable Care Act?
In qualifying states, certain United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) grade A or B preventive services and vaccine administration codes are eligible for a one percent FMAP increase under section 4106 of the Affordable Care Act (which amended sections 1902(a)(13) and 1905(b) of the Act). Some of these services may also qualify as a primary care services eligible for an increase in the payment rates under section 1202 of the Affordable Care Act. For these services the federal matching rate is 100 percent for the difference between the Medicaid rate as of July 1, 2009 and the payment made pursuant to section 1202 (the increase). The federal matching payment for the portion of the rate related to the July 1, 2009 base payment would be the regular Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) rate, except that this rate would be increased by one percent if the provisions of section 4106 of the Affordable Care Act are applicable.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:91376
SHARE URLHow should states account for the cost of the Health Insurance Providers Fee in their actuarially sound capitation rates?
States and their actuaries have flexibility in incorporating the Health Insurance Providers Fee into the state's managed care capitation rates. This fee is not unlike other taxes and fees that actuaries regularly reflect in developing capitation rates as part of the nonbenefit portion of the rate. CMS believes that the Health Insurance Providers Fee is therefore a reasonable business cost to health plans that is appropriate for consideration as part of the non-benefit component of the rate, just as are other taxes and fees.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:91126
SHARE URLWhat methodologies are acceptable to account for the Health Insurance Providers Fee in capitation rates? Can states make retroactive adjustments to the capitation rates once the actual assessments on the health plans are known?
States have the flexibility to account for the Health Insurance Providers Fee on a prospective or retroactive basis. In the event that a prospective calculation results in a capitation rate that is too high or too low, the capitation rate may be adjusted after the actual tax assessment is known. States may also account for the fee prospectively by withholding such amounts until the health plan's actual fee is known. The capitation payment, net the amount of the withhold, must remain actuarially sound and the state can only claim Federal Financial Participation (FFP) on the actual expenditures paid from the withhold to reimburse the health plans for the fee.
States may account for the Health Insurance Providers Fee as an aggregated retroactive adjustment to the rates for the contract year once a health plan's liability is known. CMS anticipates that states would move to a prospective calculation as states and health plans obtain more experience with the fee.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:91141
SHARE URLCan the Health Insurance Providers Fee be paid to health plans as a separate payment after the plans' fee liability is known?
No. There is no Federal Financial Participation (FFP) available for Health Insurance Providers Fee payments made outside of actuarially sound capitation rates, per the requirements of section 1903(m)(2)(A(iii) of the Social Security Act and implementing regulations at 42 CFR 438.6(c)(2). Therefore, any payment for the fee-whether on a prospective or retrospective basis-must be incorporated in the health plan capitation rates and reflected in the payment term under the contract.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:91151
SHARE URLAre there any limitations around the use of the data year (e.g., 2013) or the fee year (e.g., 2014) as the base for any adjustment to the capitation rates to account for the Health Insurance Providers Fee?
There are reasonable ways to account for the Health Insurance Providers Fee as an adjustment to the states' capitation rates under either approach. In either approach, the amount of the fee should be incorporated as an adjustment to the capitation rates and the resulting payments should be consistent with the actual or estimated amount of the fee.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:91161
SHARE URL
Results per page