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, may states continue to use discounted reimbursement rates for out-of-state or out-of-network eligible primary care providers, which may be less than the Medicare rate, for calendar years (CYs) 2013 and 2014?
CMS acknowledges the customary practice of reimbursing out-of-state or out-of-network providers at a base rate minus a defined percentage. The applicable Medicare rate effectively becomes the ‘floor’ for payments to eligible providers for eligible services rendered in CYs 2013 and 2014. Health plans may pay above that rate but not below.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:92131
SHARE URLAre federal matching funds available for services provided during a PE period when the individual is subsequently found to not be eligible after the completion of a full Medicaid application?
Yes, services covered under the state plan rendered during the PE period will qualify for federal match regardless of the ultimate Medicaid eligibility decision. The standards that states can set for hospitals and the findings from reviews of hospital performance relative to those standards are intended to ensure that hospitals are making appropriate PE determinations and following state hospital PE procedures. When problems are identified, states should take corrective action to ensure future compliance with state policies and procedures.
Supplemental Links:
- This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 151.09 KB)
FAQ ID:92111
SHARE URLUnder CMS 2370-F, CMS has indicated that the CMS-64 will be modified for states to report the expenditures that will receive the 100 percent federal medical assistance percentage (FMAP) for the increased expenditures for primary care services. Will the CMS-21 also be modified to report these expenditures for the CHIP Medicaid Expansion population?
No. The only expenditures that count against the CHIP allotment and must be reported on the CMS-21 are those related to the Medicaid rate in effect on July 1, 2009. The difference between those rates and the 2013 and 2014 Medicare rates eligible for 100 percent FMAP are Medicaid expenditures and are reported on the CMS 64.9.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:92116
SHARE URLOur state uses multiple cost centers (routine and ancillary) in the calculation of our inpatient hospital Upper Payment Limit (UPL). Do the templates permit the use of multiple cost centers?
Yes, the templates allow the use of multiple cost centers. For example, if the state uses a cost methodology for ancillary services and a per-diem methodology for routine services, the state will complete one cost template and one per-diem template in order to account for these two cost centers. Every hospital would be featured in each of the two templates; however, to differentiate their provider information, the state would append the Medicare Certification Number (Medicare ID) (variable 112) with a letter, such as an -A or a -B. For example, if the Medicare ID was 123456, it would be depicted in the cost template as 123456-A and in the per diem template as 123456-B. If a Medicare Certification Number is not available then the state should append the Medicaid Provider Number. If there are multiple cost centers under either the cost or per-diem methodology, the state would separate out the cost centers within their respective templates. Each cost center should be associated with only one appended letter and these should be described in the notes tab. When using multiple cost centers, the state should insert a new tab in the templates that summarizes the UPL gap calculations for each of the ownership categories (state government owned, non-state government owned, and private), unless a summary worksheet is already included in the workbook.
FAQ ID:92261
SHARE URLOur state uses multiple cost centers with varying cost-to-charge ratios in our calculation of the inpatient hospital Upper Payment Limit (UPL). Does the template accommodate this?
Yes, the template allows the use of multiple cost centers with multiple cost-to-charge ratios. The state would separately report the costs and payments associated with each of the cost centers in the cost template. To differentiate the cost centers, the state would append the Medicare Certification Number (Medicare ID) (variable 112) with a letter, for example an -A, -B, or -C, that would be used as a unique identifier for each cost center.
FAQ ID:92266
SHARE URLOur state uses multiple methodologies for the three ownership categories in the calculation of our inpatient hospital Upper Payment Limit (UPL). Do the templates permit the use of multiple methodologies?
Yes, the templates allow the use of multiple methodologies. The state would complete the templates associated with the UPL methodologies used. For example, if the state uses a cost-based methodology for state owned hospitals and a payment-based methodology for private hospitals, then the state would complete the cost template for the state owned hospitals and the payment template for the private hospitals. When using multiple methodologies, the state should insert a new tab in the templates that summarizes the UPL gap calculations for each of the ownership categories (state government owned, non-state government owned, and private), unless a summary worksheet is already included in the workbook.
FAQ ID:92271
SHARE URLOur understanding of the CMS 2370-F rule is that advanced practice clinicians are eligible for the increased payment as long as they are working under the personal supervision of an eligible physician; eligible meaning the supervising physician is also eligible for the increased payment.
The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has permitted states flexibility in establishing processes to identify services provided by advanced practiced clinicians (APCs), including advanced practice nurses, being personally supervised by eligible physicians who accept professional responsibility for the services they provide. The state may set up a separate system to document that an Ambulatory Payment Classification (APC) is working under the personal supervision of a particular eligible physician. For example, the eligible physician could identify the APCs to the Medicaid agency, which could flag the claims submitted by those APCs under their own provider numbers through the Medicaid Management Information System (MMIS). There is no requirement that the rendering providers indicate on each claim the name of the supervising eligible physicians, however it is important that there be documentation that the eligible physicians have acknowledged their relationship with the advanced practice clinicians. Providing this type of information on a per claim basis is an effective way to document the state's claim for 100 percent federal funding for the increased portion of the payment.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:92106
SHARE URLThe requirements under 42 CFR 438.804 specify that the states submit two methodologies to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for review and approval to implement the CMS 2370-F rule. How does approval of these methodologies impact the approval process for managed care contracts and rate packages for 2013?
Implementing regulations at 42 CFR 438.804 require states to submit to CMS a methodology for calculating the July 1, 2009, baseline rate for eligible primary care services and a methodology for calculating the rate differential eligible for 100 percent of Federal Financial Participation (FFP) by March 31, 2013. Further, 42 CFR 438.6 (c)(5)(vi) establishes Managed Care Organization (MCO), Prepaid Inpatient Health Plan (PHIP) or Prepaid Ambulatory Health Plan (PAHP) contract requirements to comply with this provision. It is CMS's expectation that as soon as practicable after the State submits the required methodologies in 42 CFR 438.804 and receives CMS approval, the State will:
- Submit revised actuarial certification documents reflecting the Medicare rate for eligible primary care services in their MCO, PIHP or PAHP capitation rates; and
- Submit amendment(s) to this contract to ensure compliance with 42 CFR 438.6 (c)(5)(vi).
After CMS approval of the revised contract and rates, the MCO, PIHP or PAHP must direct the full amount of the enhanced payment to the eligible provider to reflect the enhanced payment effective January 1, 2013. Federal financial participation (FFP) is available at a rate of 100 percent for the portion of capitation rates attributable to these enhanced payments; however, receipt of the enhanced FFP is contingent upon the state's successful completion of this process.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:91266
SHARE URLUnder section 4106 of the Affordable Care Act, is there a modifier to assist providers, payers and states in identifying preventive services?
The American Medical Association created modifier 33 in response to the Affordable Care Act requirements pertaining to preventive services. When the primary purpose of the service is the delivery of an evidence-based service in accordance with a United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) A or B rating in effect and other preventive services identified in preventive services mandates (legislative or regulatory), the service may be identified by appending modifier 33, preventive service, to the service. For separately reported services specifically identified as preventive, the modifier should not be used.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:91991
SHARE URLUnder section 4106 of the Affordable Care Act, if the preventive service is bundled with other services, and the bundled service includes more than one preventive service, may the state allocate the bundled payment among the included services and claim the enhanced match for each of the preventive services? For example, in an annual exam, the physician provides both obesity counseling and alcohol misuse counseling. Can the state submit a claim for both the obesity counseling and the alcohol counseling?
It is up to the state to set up its payment methodologies and procedures. To the extent that the state processes a claim for a United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) grade A or B preventive service consistent with those procedures, it can claim the enhanced match for that claim. If the state elects a payment methodology using bundled services, generally it cannot claim the enhanced match. But there may be some instances in which it might be appropriate to allocate costs for bundled claims among the included components. To the extent that a state is interested in doing so, it must develop a cost allocation plan, and submit that for CMS approval.
Supplemental Links:
FAQ ID:91996
SHARE URL
Results per page