Frequently Asked Questions

CMS plans to provide technical assistance on transition plans to States through the State Operations and Technical Assistance Team (SOTA) calls and through other calls with the State. We will also be providing additional guidance about the information that should be included in the transition plans. We will consider the transition plans that need to be submitted by the due date as living documents that are open to revision, and will continue to work with States to ensure a seamless transition in 2014 for beneficiaries and States.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 55.99 KB)

FAQ ID:93021

The regulation only prohibits insurance policies that would be sold ""in conjunction with"" enrollment in the Medicaid managed care plan. Section 438.104 alone does not prohibit a Medicaid managed care plan from providing information about a Qualified Health Plans (QHP) to potential enrollees who could enroll in such a plan as an alternative to the Medicaid managed care plan due to a loss of Medicaid eligibility or to potential enrollees who may consider the benefits of selecting an Medicaid managed care plan that has a related QHP in the event of future eligibility changes. However, Medicaid managed care plans should consult their contracts and the State Medicaid agency to ascertain if other provisions exist that may prohibit or limit such activity.

Section 438.104(b)(1)(iv) implements a provision in section 1932(d)(2)(C) of the Social Security Act, titled ""Prohibition of Tie-Ins."" In promulgating regulations implementing this provision, CMS clarified that we interpreted it to preclude tying enrollment in the Medicaid managed care plan with purchasing (or the provision of) other types of private insurance. We do not intend the statutory prohibition of tie-ins to apply to a discussion of a possible alternative to the Medicaid managed care plan, which a QHP could be if the consumer is determined to be not Medicaid eligible or loses Medicaid eligibility.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 138.58 KB)

FAQ ID:94351

States are encouraged to review their managed care contracts to clearly identify the legal entity with which they are contracted for Medicaid coverage since federal Medicaid managed care regulations do not address this aspect of contracting. If the party to the contract is an entity (such as a parent company) that has a contract with a state Medicaid agency to provide benefits as a Medicaid managed care plan and is also a QHP issuer, then some contractual provisions may apply to both. Although the federal Medicaid regulations do not apply to a QHP issuer or QHP, state law, regulation, or contract language may have implications for the QHP issuer. If changes are needed to narrow the scope of the contract to apply only to the Medicaid managed care plan, we encourage states to make those changes so as to ensure consistent understanding and application of the Medicaid contract terms.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 138.58 KB)

FAQ ID:94371

Yes. Responding to direct questions from consumers is not generally a violation of 42 CFR 438.104. Proactive consumer inquiries to a health plan for information about coverage options, benefits, or provider networks is no different than a consumer obtaining information from the health plan's website. So long as the limits on marketing are satisfied and respected (e.g., the information is accurate and does not mislead, confuse or defraud beneficiaries or the state Medicaid agency), responding to direct questions from potential enrollees with accurate information is not prohibited.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 138.58 KB)

FAQ ID:94391

There is no provision in 42 CFR 438.104 specifically addressing a Medicaid managed care plan's outreach to enrollees for eligibility purposes; therefore, it depends on the Medicaid managed care plan's contract with the state Medicaid agency. The federal regulation at 42 CFR 438.104 defines marketing as ""any communication, from an [Medicaid managed care plan] to a Medicaid beneficiary who is not enrolled in that entity, that can reasonably be interpreted as intended to influence the beneficiary to enroll in that particular [Medicaid managed care plan's] Medicaid product, or either to not enroll in, or to disenroll from, another [Medicaid managed care plan's] Medicaid product."" So long as information and outreach about the eligibility renewal process is neither directed to beneficiaries who are not enrolled with that Medicaid managed care plan, nor intended to influence the beneficiary to enroll in that particular Medicaid managed care plan-or to not enroll in, or disenroll from another Medicaid managed care plan-the activity is not within the scope of 42 CFR 438.104. Materials and information that purely educate an enrollee of that Medicaid managed care plan on the importance of completing the State's Medicaid eligibility renewal process in a timely fashion would not meet the federal definition of marketing. However, Medicaid managed care plans should consult their contracts and the state Medicaid agency to ascertain if other provisions exist that may prohibit or limit such activity.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 138.58 KB)

FAQ ID:94396

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:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 159.2 KB)

FAQ ID:91126

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:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 159.2 KB)

FAQ ID:91141

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:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 159.2 KB)

FAQ ID:91151

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:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 159.2 KB)

FAQ ID:91161

No. Since the fee due in 2014 is based on the health plan's 2013 book of business, the adjustment should only apply to the capitation rates for populations that the state covered under the managed care contract in 2013. For example, states that chose to expand Medicaid eligibility starting January 1, 2014, should not adjust the capitation rates for the new adult eligibility group to account for the fee due in 2014, because they were not covered by the managed care plans in 2013. In future years, the Health Insurance Providers Fee will continue to be based on the book of business for the immediately preceding year, so this concept will apply in calculating the fee if any new populations are added to a state's managed care program.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 159.2 KB)

FAQ ID:91181