Frequently Asked Questions

A state may report adjustments by using the following variables: Adjustments to Medicare Per Diem #1 - Variable 212.1 and Adjustments to Medicare Per Diem #2 - Variable 212.2 for the Medicare Per Diem and Adjustment to Medicaid Per Diem #1 - Variable 314.1 and Adjustment to Medicaid Per Diem #2 - Variable 314.2 for the Medicaid Per Diem. A state may report more than one adjustment under a single variable. For example, if the state has three adjustments to their Medicaid per diem, one of these adjustments can be reported in variable 314.1 and the other two adjustments can be added together and reported in variable 314.2. When reporting any adjustment, the state must provide a detailed description of the adjustment(s) in the notes tab.

FAQ ID:92296

Variable 408 (Adjustment to the UPL Gap) is intended to allow states to report adjustments to their UPL gap, to the extent that these adjustments are not accounted for in other variables. Here, states could report broad-based increases or reductions in payment, such as a Medicaid volume adjustment for managed care expansion. The source of values input into variable 408 may differ by state. Whenever a state reports data in variable 408 it must include a comprehensive note describing the adjustment.

FAQ ID:92301

Where inflation is not applied to property costs, please separate out this cost from the Medicare UPL by reporting these amounts in variable 402 - Adjustment to the Medicare UPL.

FAQ ID:92361

The cost of the tax should be reported in Variable 401 - MCD Provider Tax Cost. A state may separately report the Medicaid portion of the cost of a provider assessment/tax only when it is using a cost based methodology to calculate the UPL. A state may not include this cost when calculating a DRG or Payment based UPL demonstration.

FAQ ID:92366

No, the template does not include variables to report clinical diagnostic laboratory services.

FAQ ID:92371

The Notes tab should include any and all information to fully support the state's UPL demonstration. CMS expects states to provide clarifying information in the Notes tab. For example, this information would provide details for the adjustments to Medicare as input in variables 212.1 and 212.2, various supplemental payments in variables 313.1, 313.2, and 313.3, and adjustments to Medicaid in variables 314.1 and 314.2. In addition to reporting through the notes tab, the state also has the option of using the guidance document or narrative to fully support its UPL demonstration.

FAQ ID:92376

No, facilities that are licensed, covered, and paid under the Medicaid state plan as inpatient hospital or nursing facilities should be included in the UPL calculated for those services. There is no regulatory requirement to conduct separate calculations for designated facility "types" within each of the applicable service categories. States do not need to provide separate UPL demonstrations for IMDs covered under the inpatient hospital or nursing facility services benefit.

FAQ ID:92381

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