Frequently Asked Questions

The following measures assess institutional rebalancing and utilization:

• LTSS Admission to an Institution from the Community
• LTSS Minimizing Institutional Length of Stay
• LTSS Successful Transition after Long-Term Institutional Stay

FAQ ID:91101

Yes. Value sets are the complete set of procedure and codes used to identify a service or condition included in a measure. All three of the rebalancing measures—LTSS Admission to an Institution from the Community, LTSS Minimizing Institutional Length of Stay, and LTSS Successful Transition after Long-Term Institutional Stay—use the "Institutional Facility"value set (XLSX, 2.88 MB). See Table 2 in the "LTSS Value Sets to Codes" tab. Table 1 in the "LTSS Measures to Value Sets" tab shows each value set needed for each measure.

FAQ ID:91106

No, include paid claims only (days denied for any reason should not be included) for all three of the rebalancing measures—LTSS Admission to an Institution from the Community, LTSS Minimizing Institutional Length of Stay, and LTSS Successful Transition after Long-Term Institutional Stay.

FAQ ID:91111

The Precertification Pilot was an experiment conducted from October 2017-March 2018 designed to streamline certification and attract new vendors. Unfortunately, the pilot was found to be unscalable across Medicaid. However, key learnings from the pilot will be incorporated into current processes and future experiments around vendor engagement, certification, scalability, and sustainability. The goals the Centers from Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) identified at the beginning of the Precertification Pilot process remain the same: reduce the level of effort of certification; shorten the certification timeline; promote modularity and interoperability; reduce risk of system failure; and attract new vendors to the Medicaid IT market. Contact CMS with your ideas for experiments to achieve those goals at MES@cms.hhs.gov.

FAQ ID:95151

The new AAC requirements were designed to more accurately reflect the pharmacy providers' actual prices paid to acquire drugs and the professional services required to fill a prescription. We agree that each state is able to establish rates that satisfy (or are consistent with) AAC and may be based on a variety of data sources, which may include FSS prices, and other pricing benchmarks.

FAQ ID:95111

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