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
Under CMS 2370-F, there are several codes for which there are relative value units (RVUs), but a rate does not calculate for the non-facility setting. For example, 99217-99221 (observation codes) only have a facility fee. If the state is electing the option of paying the non-facility fee, should it use the facility fee or is there an alternative method for calculation?
When there are RVUs for just one site of service the state should use those RVUs. There is no alternate method for calculation.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:93896
SHARE URLIn our state, the Medicaid agency instructs Rural Health Centers (RHCs) to bill the Medicaid agency for the administration of a Vaccines for Children Program (VFC) immunization by using the provider's individual provider number for each immunization administration and the RHC/Medicaid group number for payment to the RHC for other medical services. Under the CMS 2370-F rule, do RHC's not qualify for enhanced payments on E&M codes billed with the RHC Medicaid facility provider number, but the individual providers do qualify for enhanced payment on VFC administration? Given that my state also requires RHCs to bill for E&M hospital codes such as 99221 or 99223 by using the individual treating provider's number, shouldn't the individual providers be "qualifying" providers for the purpose of enhanced payments for these hospital codes?
Providers such as RHCs and Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) are reimbursed on the basis of an all-inclusive rate under their own Medicaid benefit categories. As specified in the final regulation, only services provided under the physician benefit and billed using a physician fee schedule are eligible for higher payment. In your examples, since the state reimburses the vaccine administration and the hospital codes on a fee-for-service basis and does not pay then all-inclusive rate, those services would be eligible for higher payment if the physician who provides them properly self attests to eligibility. However, services provided by the physician that are reimbursed through the all-inclusive rate would not be eligible.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:93901
SHARE URLUnder CMS 2370-F, we interpret 42 CFR 447.205 to not require public notice of a state's implementation of section 1202 of the ACA because "the change is being made to conform to Medicare methods or levels of reimbursement". Does CMS interpret this regulation differently?
CMS agrees that 42 CFR 447.205(b)(1) excepts states from the public notice requirements when a change is being made to conform to Medicare reimbursement. However, states must still ensure that providers are properly notified of the requirements for self-attestation and higher payment through provider bulletins or other mechanisms.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:93906
SHARE URLUnder CMS 2370-F, are the services of "physician extenders" (defined as physicians who provide services in support of eligible physicians) eligible for higher payment when an eligible primary care specialist bills for their services? Examples of "physician extenders" include neurologists, OB/GYNs, pathologists, anesthesiologists and surgeons who provide services to the patients of eligible physicians.
No. The only services that qualify are those provided directly by physicians (or by non-physician practitioners that they supervise) who self-attest to an eligible primary care designation and whose attestation is supported by evidence of board certification or claims history. Physicians who do not qualify on their own merits cannot receive higher payment by having an eligible physician bill on their behalf. As previously noted, physicians must accept professional responsibility/liability for the services provided by non-physician practitioners under their supervision.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:93911
SHARE URLUnder CMS 2370-F, are eligible E&M and vaccination codes that are covered by managed care health plans but not under the Medicaid state plan eligible for reimbursement at the enhanced Medicare rate?
No. The only codes that are eligible for reimbursement at the Medicare rate as specified under the final rule are those eligible codes that are identified under the Medicaid state plan. Additional E&M or vaccination administration codes that are being “covered” by a health plan but that are not identified in the state plan cannot be reflected in the rates.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:93916
SHARE URLThe CMS 2370-F final rule specified that states will need to recoup the enhanced payments made to non-eligible providers identified through the annual statistically valid sample. Must health plans follow the same procedure for non-eligible providers
States must require health plans to recoup erroneous payments found through the sampled pools of providers, and in some states, this sample will include both fee-for-service (FFS) and managed care providers.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:93921
SHARE URLAs we are working to implement ACA 1202, we found that we have to pay to access the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) website because use of the website for business or certification is strictly prohibited. Is CMS aware of what other states are doing? Is there some other way to access this information without paying?
The state has two options: (1) it may claim this cost as an administrative expense of the Medicaid program; or, (2) it may require physicians to provide this documentation when they self-attest.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:93926
SHARE URLWhat are the new Federal Matching Rates (FMAPs) available under the Affordable Care Act and how do states qualify for them?
Beginning in 2014, the Affordable Care Act authorizes two types of increased federal medical assistance percentages (FMAPs) for state expenditures for low-income individuals in the new adult group (that is, the group described in section 1902(a)(10)(A)(i)(VIII) of the Social Security Act (the Act)) - the newly eligible FMAP and the expansion state FMAP. Under the statute, these two increased federal matching rates are only available to states that adopt the new adult group.
The newly eligible FMAP is available for medical assistance expenditures on behalf of "newly eligible" individuals, who are defined (in section 1905(y)(2) of the Act) as individuals between the ages of 19 and 64 who are enrolled in the new adult group and who would not have been eligible for full benefits, benchmark coverage (described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of section 1937(b)(1) of the Act), or benchmark-equivalent coverage (described in section 1937(b)(2) of the Act) as of December 1, 2009. An individual may also be "newly eligible" if he or she would have been eligible but could not have been enrolled for such benefits or coverage because the applicable Medicaid waiver or demonstration had limited or capped enrollment as of December 1, 2009.
The newly eligible FMAP (described in section 1905(y)(1) of the Act) is 100 percent in calendar years 2014-2016, 95 percent in calendar year 2017, 94 percent in calendar year 2018, 93 percent in calendar year 2019, and 90 percent in calendar years 2020 and beyond. The expansion state FMAP (described in section 1905(z)(2) of the Act) is an alternate increased FMAP available to match the expenditures for certain adults in states that previously expanded Medicaid and, as a result, may not qualify for the newly eligible FMAP. More details about the expansion state FMAP are included in Question 5. In our August 17, 2011 eligibility NPRM, we proposed that methods for assigning the appropriate FMAP would not require that states undertake the process of using their old eligibility rules to determine if someone would have been eligible under December 2009 rules. We have been consulting with states to test different methodologies for accuracy and simplicity.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:94071
SHARE URLFor purposes of determining if the newly eligible FMAP applies, how will CMS decide if benefits offered through a section 1115 demonstration meet a benchmark or benchmark equivalent standard?
As described above, the newly eligible FMAP applies to adults in the new low-income adult eligibility group who would not have been eligible for full benefits, benchmark benefits, or benchmark-equivalent benefits under the state's rules as of December 1, 2009. At the time of approval of the section 1115 demonstrations in effect as of that date, neither CMS nor states explicitly designated the coverage offered under demonstrations as "benchmark" or "benchmark-equivalent" coverage, even though the coverage offered to demonstration beneficiaries may have met such standards. Therefore, CMS is requesting that states that used section 1115 demonstrations to expand coverage to low-income adults as of December 1, 2009 provide CMS with an analysis of the benefit package that was offered so that CMS can determine whether the benefits provided could have met a benchmark or benchmark equivalent standard, as in effect in December 2009. A separate analysis should be undertaken for each demonstration benefit package, if different demonstration populations received different benefits under the demonstration.
In conducting the benefit analysis, it will be important for states to utilize a consistent methodology and provide CMS with sufficient data to substantiate their analyses. States' benchmark-equivalence analyses must be certified by a qualified actuary and must include information on the data, assumptions, and methodology used to calculate actuarial values, in accordance with regulations implementing section 1937 of the Act, which are already in effect at 42 C.F.R. 440.330-340. CMS is working with all affected states (that is, states with demonstrations covering adults in effect on December 1, 2009) and will provide them with guidance about the form and manner in which to provide information about eligibility and benefits in effect as of December 1, 2009. CMS will use the benefit analysis that states provide to determine the appropriate FMAP. If any state has questions about this process, they should contact their State Operations and Technical Assistance (SOTA) team representative.
It is also important to note that if the benefit analysis described above indicates that the newly eligible FMAP is not available for a particular population, states may nevertheless be able to claim the expansion state FMAP for certain non-pregnant adults enrolled in the new adult group (as described in Question 5). CMS will work with each state that expanded coverage to adults prior to the enactment of the Affordable Care Act to address questions and to ensure that the correct FMAP is applied to expenditures for each population.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:94076
SHARE URLWhat is the difference between the expansion state FMAP and the newly eligible FMAP, and which states qualify for the expansion state FMAP?
When Congress enacted the Affordable Care Act, some states had already expanded coverage to adults at higher incomes. The expansion state designation under the statute provides an alternate increased FMAP to states that adopt the new adult group but where some individuals in the new group do not qualify for the newly eligible FMAP because they would have qualified for full benefits, benchmark benefits, or benchmark-equivalent benefits under the state's rules as of December 1, 2009. The expansion state FMAP may be available to qualifying states for expenditures for certain non-pregnant childless adults (those who are enrolled in the new adult group and who the state may require to enroll in benchmark coverage), to the extent that such individuals do not qualify for the newly eligible FMAP.
A qualifying expansion state (described in section 1905(z)(3) of the Act) is a state that, as of March 23, 2010 (the date of enactment of the Affordable Care Act), provided "health benefits coverage" either through Medicaid or a fully state-funded program to parents and nonpregnant childless adults up to at least 100 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL). For purposes of this statutory definition, such health benefits coverage as of March 23, 2010 must have:
- Included inpatient hospital services.
- Not been dependent on access to employer coverage, employer contribution, or employment.
- Not been limited to premium assistance, hospital-only benefits, a high deductible health plan, or a health opportunity account
States seeking to confirm their status as expansion states should provide CMS with an analysis of the scope of coverage provided as of March 23, 2010, citing applicable demonstration special terms and conditions or state-based policies to establish eligibility levels and the coverage provided. As we have explained in a previously released FAQ, if a population covered by a state that qualifies as an expansion state meets the criteria for the newly eligible matching rate, the state will receive the newly eligible matching rate for that population. A state will always receive the more favorable FMAP if two FMAPs might be applicable for a particular population. For example, states that qualify as expansion states may be eligible for the newly eligible FMAP if the expansion offered less than full benefits, benchmark benefits, or benchmark-equivalent benefits, or if the expansion started after December 1, 2009. In such an instance, expenditures for adults in the new adult coverage group will be subject to the newly eligible FMAP. The expansion state FMAP (described in section 1905(z)(2) of the Act) is the regular FMAP rate increased by the number of percentage points equal to a "transition percentage" (which ranges from 50-100 percent) of the gap between the regular Medicaid FMAP and the increased "newly eligible" FMAP. In 2019 and beyond, the expansion state FMAP will be equal to the newly eligible FMAP, which means it will be 93 percent in 2019 and 90 percent in 2020 and thereafter.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:94081
SHARE URL
Results per page