Frequently Asked Questions

Effective January 1, 2014, MAGI eligibility rules will be used to determine eligibility for nonelderly, nondisabled eligibility groups. The transition to MAGI also involves converting current net income eligibility standards to MAGI standards. MAGI rules apply regardless of whether a state adopts the new adult eligibility group. The December 28, 2012 Modified Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI) conversion guidance sets out options for a state to use a standardized MAGI conversion methodology (using Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) data or with state data) or to propose an alternative methodology for converting to MAGI.

There are two potential ways of using the standardized MAGI conversion methodology:

• States may choose to have CMS calculate the converted income levels for eligibility groups requiring conversion using state-adjusted data from the Census Bureau's SIPP; or
• States may choose to use their own data as the source for applying the standardized conversion methodology.

For each eligibility group income level that needs to be converted, under the standardized MAGI conversion methodology, individuals whose net income is within 25 percentage points of the FPL below the current income standards will be selected (for example, if the current standard is 80 percent of the FPL, the analysis will include people with incomes between 55 and 80 percent FPL). The next step is to calculate disregards as a percent of FPL for each selected individual. The resulting average disregard amount as a percent of FPL is added to the current net income standard to get the converted standard.

For example, if the average disregard is 8 percent FPL, the converted standard would be 88 percent FPL. This basic process is the same regardless of whether SIPP data or state data is used.

Alternatively, states have the option to propose their own method, subject to approval by CMS. States are asked to provide a statement of intent by February 15, 2013 and must submit their MAGI conversion plans by April 30.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set.

Factors that states might want to consider in choosing an income conversion method and data source include whether the state currently maintains or can easily access the data that are needed to do the conversions, as well as the quality and completeness of the state's data. In addition, states will want to consider whether they have the analytical resources needed to do the conversions with their own data, how long it would take them to run the conversions and how much it would cost to pay a contractor to do the analysis. Finally, states should also consider preferences about using state-adjusted SIPP or state data.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set.

Detailed information on how to use state data to apply the standardized conversion methodology is forthcoming, but in general states will need 1) information on net income of each person and the size of the Medicaid eligibility unit to establish which enrollees fall within the 25 percentage point band below the current net income standard; and 2) data on the total amount of disregards for each individual within the 25 percentage point band - if this is not stored as a data element in the state's system, this can be calculated by adding up individual disregards, or as the difference between gross income and net income.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set.

Technical assistance for states thinking through their MAGI conversion options is available through the State Health Access Data Assistance Center (SHADAC) at the University of Minnesota. SHADAC is available to help states understand the income conversion methods, the data sources that can be used (SIPP or state data), and factors for states to consider in choosing a methodology. CMS will do conversions for all states using the standardized conversion methodology with SIPP data. States that choose to use state data or that propose a different methodology will need to do the conversions themselves, and SHADAC is available to provide consultation with states as they work through the process. This help is available at no cost to states. States can contact SHADAC for help with income conversion at (612) 486-2439 or by emailing their questions to fmaphelp@shadac.org.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set.

To produce reliable state-level results, income conversions using SIPP data will be based on the entire national sample that has been re-weighted to account for state demographic characteristics. The purpose of the reweighting is to ensure that the analysis is done using a population whose characteristics are similar to each state's actual population. The variables used in reweighting include age, parent status, gender, race/ethnicity, total household income as a percent of FPL, types of unearned income (whether the household has any unearned income and whether it includes child support), and whether or not an individual has child care expenses. The re-weighting will be done separately for each state and will ensure that the distribution of these characteristics (and combinations of these characteristics) matches state totals from the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey. In some states, a few of these categories will need to be combined due to small sample size. CMS will be releasing a brief on SIPP and the re-weighting adjustments.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set.

If these practices and health systems maintain the types of documentation described in the previous answer, FAQ45736, with respect to managed care organizations, attestation by the group or system would be acceptable. As previously noted, a physician actually must be practicing as an internist, pediatrician or family physician in order to be eligible for higher payment. Board certification does not always equate to practice characteristics. Therefore, attestation on the basis of information on board certification alone would not suffice.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set.

No. The attestation and eligibility are physician-specific. If a physician provides services both in a fee-for-service and managed care environment, they need only complete the process of attestation once in order to receive higher payment for all eligible services they provide. CMS expects all information on self-attestation to be fully available to the state, regardless of which party collected this information.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set.

States have the flexibility to count eligible services provided by a physician in neighboring states in meeting the 60 percent threshold, but are not required to do so.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set.

These services would not be subject to the minimum payment standard set in the rule because there are no RVUs and there is no conversion factor associated with them. Therefore, a Medicare-like rate cannot be developed. The state may continue to reimburse them at the current Medicaid rate but enhanced federal financial participation (FFP) will not be available for those services.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set.

No. Verification of current board certification is sufficient.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set.