U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Frequently Asked Questions

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.

Showing 91 to 100 of 111 results

Could you please confirm that manufacturers must use the alternative methodology in their Unit Rebate Amount (URA) calculations for quarters beginning January 1, 2010 for line extension drugs that were on the market as of that date, regardless of the approval date? For manufacturers of such drugs that have been waiting for the final rule before adjusting their rebates back to 1Q 2010, will CMS set up any special process for these retroactive rebate adjustments?

The statutory line extension provisions went into effect on January 1, 2010. It is the manufacturers' responsibility to identify their line extension drugs, calculate rebates, and pay the states consistent with the statute as of this effective date, regardless of the approval date of the drugs.

The line extension provisions that are finalized in the final rule with comment are effective prospectively as of April 1, 2016. CMS will not be setting up any special process for retroactive rebate calculations for line extension drugs; therefore, manufacturers of line extension drugs should ensure that all rebates for line extension drugs are calculated and paid appropriately to states as of January 1, 2010.

Supplemental Links:

FAQ ID:94826

SHARE URL

When calculating the alternative rebate for a line extension drug, must the labeler consider the highest additional rebate ratio ever incurred for an initial drug, or is the highest additional rebate ratio determined by the ratio for the current quarter only?

Effective April 1, 2016, each quarter, the labeler of the line extension drug should determine the initial brand name listed drug for its line extension drug taking into consideration which active initial drug has the highest additional rebate ratio for that quarter. Additionally, the labeler of the line extension drug needs to ensure that the NDC of the initial drug with the highest additional rebate ratio is updated in the Drug Data Reporting for Medicaid (DDR) system, as appropriate, each quarter.

Supplemental Links:

FAQ ID:94831

SHARE URL

Can you confirm that manufacturers of extended release formulations will have to calculate the alternative line extension AMP starting April 1, 2016, since extended release formulations are specifically mentioned in the statutory language that established the alternative line extension formula?

The requirements of the line extension provision of the final rule are effective as of the effective date of the final rule (April 1, 2016).

Supplemental Links:

FAQ ID:94836

SHARE URL

For the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Base Date AMP, does the recalculation only go back to 2Q 2016 or would it go back further due to the length of time it has taken for the Final Rule to be published?

A manufacturer's recalculation of its ACA Base Date AMP value can be reported any time during the four quarters allowable period per the final rule with comment beginning 2Q 2016.

Supplemental Links:

FAQ ID:94841

SHARE URL

When computing monthly AMP, should manufacturers be calculating all the calculation components at the NDC-9 or just the smoothing components?

In accordance with regulations at 42 CFR 447.510(d)(2), monthly AMP is calculated based on a weighted average of prices for all the manufacturer's package sizes (NDC 11) of each covered outpatient drug sold by the manufacturer during a month. It is calculated as the net sales divided by the number of units sold, excluding goods or any other items specifically excluded in statute or regulation. In accordance with the requirements of 42 CFR 447.510(d)(2)(iii) the smoothing of lagged price concessions occurs at the NDC-9 level as part of the monthly AMP calculation.

Supplemental Links:

FAQ ID:94846

SHARE URL

If a manufacturer has a negative monthly AMP, should they use the most recent valid monthly AMP in the quarterly calculation?

CMS has previously provided guidance regarding the reporting of zero or negative AMP in Manufacturer Release #80 (January 5, 2010) in which we specify that if a calculated monthly AMP is zero or negative, we recommend that manufacturers report the most recent prior month's positive AMP. However, the actual calculated monthly AMP should be used to calculate the quarterly AMP. If the quarterly AMP is zero or negative, we recommend that manufacturers report the most recent positive AMP value. Please see Manufacturer Release #80: https://www.medicaid.gov/Medicaid-CHIP-Program-Information/ByTopics/Benefits/Prescription-Drugs/Downloads/Rx-Releases/MFR-Releases/mfr-rel-080.pdf. (PDF, 127.6 KB)

Supplemental Links:

FAQ ID:94851

SHARE URL

If a manufacturer is currently not selling to entities or providers located in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Territories, will they be required to sell covered outpatient drugs to the U.S. Territories going forward (April 2017)?

The final rule does not require that a drug manufacturer sell its drugs to certain purchasers.

Supplemental Links:

FAQ ID:94856

SHARE URL

For smoothing of lagged price concessions and inclusion of sales from the U.S. Territories, should a manufacturer include the sales from the U.S. Territories in the 12 months of data for smoothing as of April 1, 2017 (going back to May 2016), or should they only include it in the smoothing only as of April 1, 2017 and prospectively?

Given the one year delay in the effective date of the definitions of states and United States, manufacturers should begin using sales data in their smoothing process beginning with sales that occur as of April 1, 2017.

Supplemental Links:

FAQ ID:94861

SHARE URL

Regulations at 42 CFR 438.104(b) (1) (IV) prohibit Medicaid managed care plans from seeking to influence enrollment in their plan in conjunction with the sale or offering of "private insurance." Does this prohibit a carrier that offers both a qualified health plan (QHP) and a Medicaid managed care plan from marketing both products?

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:

FAQ ID:94351

SHARE URL

Do the terms of the contract between the State Medicaid agency and a Medicaid managed care plan apply to that organization's qualified health plan (QHP)?

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:

FAQ ID:94371

SHARE URL
Results per page