Frequently Asked Questions

Person-centered planning is at the core of all promising practices. That said, there are staff, activity, and environmental design approaches, as described below, which could be part of an individual's person-centered plan in response to unsafe wandering and exit-seeking. These promising practices have been compiled from industry and governmental sources and are offered as suggestions as they do not constitute requirements for HCBS services or providers.

Staffing:

• Ensure that staff have adequate training in person-centered planning and unsafe wandering or exit-seeking, including how to effectively engage and participate with individuals in both planned and spontaneous activities as well as strategies for addressing the underlying needs and preferences that may motivate wandering or exit seeking.
• Support individuals to move about freely with staff who help individuals walk or leave the room safely (e.g., providing a walking companion).
• Ensure adequate staffing for activities outside the facility.
• Ensure staff regularly escorts individuals to locations and activities outside of the setting as outlined in the person-centered services plan.
• Provide flexible supervision to assure adequate support from resident to resident and from time to time for the same resident dependent upon need.

Activities:

• Prevent under-stimulation by offering activities that engage the beneficiary's interest. Activities could include music, art, physical exercise, mental stimulation, therapeutic touch, pets, or gardening.
• Provide a wellness program to help people exercise, have a healthy diet, manage stress, improve balance and gait, and stimulate cognition.
• Support mobility through engaging activities, such as dog walking, gardening, yoga, and dance.
• Develop daily meaningful activities and minimize passive entertainment, such as television watching.
• Make available easily accessible activities, such as playing cards, reading books and magazines.
• Encourage interaction with others.
• Ensure that family and friends have unrestricted access to the individual if she or he wants this, and to the setting itself.

Environmental design:

• Eliminate overstimulation, such as visible doors that people use frequently; noise; and clutter.
• Create pictures on walls that can be sensory in nature to give individuals a place to stop and experience through sight or touch.
• Manage shift changes so that individuals do not see significant numbers of staff coming and going through the exit/entrance door at the same time.
• Use signage to orient the individual to the environment, such as indicating where toilets and bedrooms are, and assuring that there are places for individuals to sit and rest in large spaces within a setting that allow for safe wandering.
• Disguise exit doors using murals or covering door handles as safety codes permit.
• Use unobtrusive technological solutions, such as installing electronic coding lock systems on all building exits, or having individuals who wander or exit-seek unsafely wear electronic accessories that monitor their location.
• Include lockable doors on each individual's room unless the resident's person-centered plan documents that such an arrangement is unsafe, following the requirements of the rule on individual modifications. Alternative features designed for safety, such as doors on living units that are not lockable or secure exits, should be used only when they are part of the resident's person-centered plan, after less intrusive methods have been tried and did not work, as provided in the rule.
• Ensure unrestricted access to secured outdoor spaces and a safe, uncluttered path for people to wander, which has points of interest and places to rest.
• Identify quiet, public spaces for individuals to sit, observe and rest while simultaneously being part of the community, and may include items that are used to soften the senses or help with removing sensory stimulation.
• Enable people to leave the premises when they are not at risk of doing so unsafely. For example, wearable technologies can give people the ability to leave the setting or can limit the unsafe exiting of residents whose person-centered plans document that they are at risk of doing so.
• Using tools and technology to monitor an individual's activities to promote optimal independence and personal autonomy, but assuring that such resources are not used in place of adequate supervision.
• Ensure that Medicaid beneficiaries who may wander or exit-seek unsafely carry identification with their name and the service provider's location and contact information,
• Create a back-up plan or lost-person plan that describes roles and responsibilities when an individual has exited in an unsafe manner.
• Evaluate each lost-person incident to make revisions to person-centered care plans or to environmental design as necessary.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 144.19 KB)

FAQ ID:94981

All settings must facilitate and optimize Medicaid beneficiaries to live according to their daily routines and rituals, pursue their interests, and maximize opportunities for their engagement with the broader community in a self-determined manner, as outlined in the individual's person-centered service plan. The plan must reflect clinical and support needs as identified through an assessment of functional need, and document the individual's preferences for community integration and how these preferences will be addressed in the setting they have chosen.

Settings can support community integration, in accordance with each individual's person-centered plan by strategies and practices such as:

• Finding out during initial assessments what individuals desire in terms of community engagement and educate them about how the setting's capabilities will meet the individual's needs and preferences. This should be done before the individual makes a decision about services and settings to allow the best fit between the person and place.
• Documenting the factors the person identifies as important in a community such as proximity to and involvement of family, connections to communities of faith, specific cultural resources and activities, and others.
• Recording individual preferences for community integration in the person-centered plan and how the setting will support those preferences (e.g., participating in their faith community, attending a favorite club, Sunday breakfast at the local diner, interests in volunteering or in working, etc.) as well as the transportation needed to achieve desired outcomes, recognizing that many of these activities are leveraged through natural supports and thus would not require Medicaid-funded resources.
• Providing individuals with opportunities to engage others in their settings through activities, outings, and socialization opportunities.
• Providing sufficient staff and transportation to enable individuals' participation in their activities of choice in the broader community. These could include opportunities for work, cultural enjoyment, worship, or volunteering. The person-centered service plan may also include provider-facilitated opportunities to engage in desired activities in the broader community.
• Ensuring that visitors are not restricted, and individuals can connect to their virtual communities of choice through social media noting that this alone does not substitute for community activities and integration.
• Ensuring that individuals have opportunities to visit with and go out with family members and friends, when they want this. Providing an inviting environment and flexible schedules and service times (e.g., meals, medication administration) can encourage family and friends' participation in the life of the residential setting and support their efforts to maintain individuals' connections to the external community.
• Reviewing at least annually whether any parts of the person-centered plan need change. It is important to note that the modifications requirement within the regulations defining home and community-based settings also applies to anyone in a residential or nonresidential setting, and thus the person-centered plan needs to document what services and supports should be made available to allow people to live where they want and do what they want during the day to assure maximum integration with the broader community. For more information on the HCBS rule requirements on person-centered planning, please refer to CMS' previous FAQs on this topic.

All settings, including those in rural communities and those in low density suburban areas, are encouraged to provide adequate transportation opportunities to meet beneficiaries' desires for meaningful community engagement and participation in typical community activities.

Note that visits by community members have value but do not substitute for community access for Medicaid beneficiaries receiving services in residential and adult day settings.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 144.19 KB)

FAQ ID:94986

Yes. CMS acknowledges that states may have legitimate reasons to set capitation rates for a time period that differs from 12 months and will take unusual circumstances into account when reviewing compliance with the rating period duration requirements. CMS will approve a rating period other than of 12 months when a state transitions the contract term and rating period from a calendar year to a state fiscal year basis and setting capitation rates for a 6 month or 18 month period would facilitate that transition. There may be other reasonable justifications for such variations in the rating period that CMS would be open to considering. The rationale for a rating period that differs from 12 months as defined in the regulation in section 438.2 should be specified in the rate certification required in section 438.7 for such consideration.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 185.26 KB)

FAQ ID:93456

The implementation date for non-risk PIHPs and PAHPs, PCCMs, and PCCM entities for provisions tied to a rating period is the earliest date that a risk-based MCO, PIHP, or PAHP would need to comply. For example, the provisions in subpart F relating to appeals and grievances have an implementation date for risk-based contracts of the rating period for contracts starting on or after July 1, 2017. Non-risk PIHPs and PAHPs would need to implement those provisions by July 1, 2017.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 185.26 KB)

FAQ ID:93461

Regardless of whether an EQRO contract is approved before or after May 6, 2016, the change in FFP for EQR-related activities was effective May 6, 2016 for expenditures incurred by the state on or after May 6, 2016. Per general CMS-64 claiming principles, a state incurs an expenditure that may be claimed on the CMS-64 on the date the state pays the EQRO for the completed performance of the contracted EQR-associated activity.

The change to the FFP match rate for expenditure reporting takes effect in the middle of a quarter, which means that states must ensure that claims for expenditures for EQR activities affected by the change in FFP which were paid before May 6th and claims for expenditures which were paid on or after May 6th are reported separately. For only the quarter ending June 30, 2016, the CMS-64 EQRO Line 17 will allow states to report state expenditures associated with PIHP EQRO activities paid prior to May 6, 2016 and claim the enhanced 75 percent match. State expenditures associated with PIHP EQRO activities paid on or after May 6th must be claimed at the 50 percent matching rate.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 185.26 KB)

FAQ ID:94651

Under section 438.370, the enhanced match of 75 percent is available for the EQR-related activities described in section 438.358 if all of the following conditions are met:

• The EQR activity is performed on a managed care organization (MCO) by an entity meeting the requirements of a qualified EQRO in section 438.354 or its subcontractor;
• The activity is performed pursuant to a contract approved by CMS; and
• The activity is performed in accordance with a protocol issued by CMS.

FFP at the 50 percent matching rate is available for mandatory and optional EQR-related activities for PIHPs, PAHPs, and affected PCCM entities, regardless of whether the activities were conducted by an EQRO or another entity. FFP at the 50 percent matching rate is also available for EQR and related activities performed for MCOs that are conducted by an entity that is not a qualified EQRO. This is a change from previous regulations, under which the enhanced match was available for EQR of PIHPs to the same extent as MCOs. This provision took effect May 6, 2016.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 185.26 KB)

FAQ ID:94646

Yes. We remind states that the requirement that the final capitation rate be specified in the contract is not a new requirement, see section 438.6(c)(2)(ii) of the 2002 final rule. The amount of payment for performance-in this context, the final capitation rate-is a primary component of any contract and must be included for purposes of verifying claims for Federal Financial Participation (FFP) on the CMS-64. In the Final Rule at page 27595, in the context of risk adjustment, CMS suggested that the payment terms under the contract could be identified in an appendix, or additional supporting documentation, to the contract for ease of updating the information when risk adjustment is applied. The state must submit a formal contract amendment when the final capitation rates differ from the payment terms in an approved contract.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 185.26 KB)

FAQ ID:93171

CMS released an Informational Bulletin (CIB) discussing the change in federal financial participation (FFP) for EQR that was effective May 6, 2016. The CIB includes revised claiming instructions for the CMS-64 and a sample form. It is available at Medicaid.gov on the EQR webpage, under Technical Assistance Documents, and available at https://www.medicaid.gov/federal-policy-guidance/downloads/cib061016.pdf (PDF, 279.08 KB).

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 185.26 KB)

FAQ ID:93471

The regulation at section 438.3(m) has a general reference to "generally accepted accounting principles" and "generally accepted auditing principles." This means that states have the flexibility to specify the applicable generally accepted accounting and auditing principles for the audited financial reports in the managed care plan contracts. The federal regulation does not endorse a particular standard.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 185.26 KB)

FAQ ID:93466

CMS expects to first issue revised protocols for the current mandatory and optional EQR-related activities in the Fall of 2017. We expect to issue the protocol for the new mandatory EQR activity relating to the validation of network adequacy later in 2017 or early 2018. States will have up to one year from the publication of the protocol to implement the new mandatory EQR activity.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 185.26 KB)

FAQ ID:94656