Frequently Asked Questions

States with Medicaid MCPs may have one of two arrangements to pay for school-based services. 

• States may delegate the full scope of services to the MCP, which is then responsible for ensuring that services are available and accessible both in schools and in the community. 
• States may exclude some or all SBSs from the services covered by their MCPs, and instead States are paying schools or LEAs directly via a fee-for-service delivery system, while MCPs pay for community-based services. 

In all cases, the Medicaid MCP must ensure that covered children receive the medically necessary services to which they are entitled under EPSDT. According to 42 CFR § 438.208, MCPs are responsible for coordination and continuity of care. For children who receive services in school, the MCP should coordinate with schools to ensure that any community-based medically necessary services are provided, while avoiding any duplication of services. MCPs should not be categorically or otherwise inappropriately disqualifying or decreasing community-based medically necessary services solely on the basis that the service is also being provided in a school setting. If the MCP is inappropriately disqualifying or decreasing medically necessary services, the State should remind the MCP of its contractual obligations. If the MCP is denying authorization for medically necessary services or decreasing the authorization of these medically necessary services, that would constitute an adverse benefit determination for which appeal rights are granted under Medicaid. 

We also remind states of our expectations related to EPSDT.  When a managed care delivery system is used to deliver some or all services required under the EPSDT benefit, states must identify, define, and specify the amount, duration, and scope of each service that the MCP is required to offer in their managed care plan contract. For example, if a MCP is expected to provide the full range of preventive, screening, diagnostic, and treatment services required, it must be clearly stated and described in the contract between the state and the plan. Alternatively, states may exclude some EPSDT services from a managed care delivery system and retain responsibility for them in an FFS delivery system, or contract with another MCP to provide those services.   Any benefits not provided by the MCP remain the responsibility of the state Medicaid agency, and if a plan excludes benefits over contractually specified limits, the state retains responsibility for medically necessary services above those limits.  Additionally, in accordance with 42 CFR 438.208(b), MCPs are required to implement procedures to deliver care to and coordinate services, including school-based services, with the services the enrollee receives from another managed care plan, in FFS Medicaid and from community and social support providers.

For services provided in schools to Medicaid-covered children on an IEP/IFSP, Medicaid is the “payer of first resort” for Medicaid covered services, as described in 34 C.F.R. Section §300.154 "Methods of ensuring service." Because special education and related services on an IEP must be provided at no cost to the parent, the LEA may not bill Medicaid if doing so would prevent the child from obtaining Medicaid services outside of the school. Therefore, under both IDEA and Medicaid, the SMA must ensure that they and their MCPs work with SEAs and LEAs to ensure that children can access Medicaid services both under the child’s IEP and as medically necessary outside of the school setting.

FAQ ID:166421

Each State’s approach to expanding SBS can vary depending on factors such as which services are being expanded and the source of funding. While there are many different types of managed care arrangements, State Medicaid agencies (SMAs) have flexibility in determining how services are provided. SMAs may elect to deliver some services through managed care plans (MCPs) and other services through an FFS delivery system; in fact, the majority of States do not include SBS in managed care and cover them under an FFS delivery system. If SBS is included in a managed care delivery system, the MCP contract must clearly describe which services and administrative activities are included under the contract, to avoid duplication of payment and performance of assigned responsibilities. This requires enough specificity to avoid confusion about what is included in a covered benefit and whether the MCP is responsible for covering the benefit. Any Medicaid benefits not covered under the MCP contract remain the responsibility of the SMA to cover. We also remind States that State plan administrative activities not related to the plan’s furnishing of services may not be incorporated into the Medicaid managed care capitation rates.

CMS strongly encourages State Medicaid/CHIP agencies to proactively establish and/or strengthen relationships between MCPs, schools/LEAs, and school-based providers. State Medicaid agencies can require MCPs to establish relationships, strengthen partnerships, and coordinate care with school-based providers, including school-based health centers, in their managed care contracts, including through contractual managed care performance standards. Please refer to pages 30-32 of the 2023 Comprehensive Guide to Medicaid Services and Administrative Claiming for more information.
 

FAQ ID:166416

Managed Long Term Services and Supports (MLTSS) plan managers should provide training on proper documentation practices to care managers and other delegated staff. States and MLTSS plans could consider including data field entry options to remind care managers to record all results of the assessment, even if findings are negative, that is, the member does not have a problem or need assistance or services. For example, states and plans could include a question in the member’s record that requires the care manager to document both whether an assessment was performed and whether a problem was identified, along with another required field to include the details of the problem if there was a problem identified.

FAQ ID:89046

CMS understands that many managed care contracts include a general provision that incorporates changes in federal law during the course of the contract term. Amendments to approved contracts, or contracts under CMS review, for the purpose of updating regulatory citations is not necessary. However, the citations will need to be updated for the next contract year. Outdated regulatory citations in contracts without such a general provision will need to be updated for the next contract year.

Supplemental Links:

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

FAQ ID:93426

No. If a state does not have a state law or policy that requires CMS approval of the contract and capitation rates prior to the effective date of the contract, the 90 day timeframe is not applicable. However, as a general matter, states should submit the contracts and rates 90 days prior to the start of the contract term. CMS intends to provide future guidance on the prior approval requirements as a condition of claiming FFP in section 438.806, which are distinct from the requirements at section 438.3(a).

Supplemental Links:

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

FAQ ID:93431

There is a technical error in section 438.210(a)(2) as the cross-reference should have incorporated subpart B of part 441 rather than subpart B of part 440. All Medicaid beneficiaries under age 21 are entitled to EPSDT services, whether they are enrolled in a managed care plan or they are in fee-for-service. Under section 1905(r) of the Social Security Act (the Act), EPSDT services must include ""[s]uch other necessary health care, diagnostic services, treatment, and other measures described in section 1905(a) to correct or ameliorate defects and physical and mental illness and conditions discovered by the screening services, whether or not such services are covered under the State plan."" CMS intends to issue a regulatory correction to address this error. We also want to remind readers that sections 1902(a)(43) and 1905(r)(5) of the Act are applicable to the provision of EPSDT, despite not being expressly incorporated in part 441. Detailed guidance on EPSDT can be found in ""EPSDT"" A Guide for States: Coverage in the Medicaid benefit for Children and Adolescents, June 2014, available at https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/benefits/downloads/epsdt_coverage_guide.pdf (PDF, 613.1 KB).

Supplemental Links:

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

FAQ ID:93436

No. CMS addressed this provision at page 27569 of the Final Rule. Section 438.4(b)(5) does not require there to be different assumptions (such as trend or age, gender, or regional rating) for each rate cell and does not prevent the use of the same assumptions across more than one rate cell. The prohibition on cross-subsidization among rate cells under the contact is to ensure prudent fiscal management and that the capitation rate for each rate cell is independently actuarially sound.

Supplemental Links:

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

FAQ ID:93441

No. For the rating periods for contracts starting on or after July 1, 2017, managed care plans may not maintain more than one level of appeal. Section 438.402(b) requires that MCOs, PIHPs, and PAHPs ""may have only one level of appeal for enrollees."" Note that states may modify managed care contracts to require managed care plans to provide one level of internal appeal in advance of the rating period for contracts starting on or after July 1, 2017, as subpart F in the 2002 final rule permitted states flexibility as to the number of internal appeals. Please see page 27509 of the Final Rule for additional explanatory information.

Supplemental Links:

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

FAQ ID:93446

No, not for the rating period for contracts starting on or after July 1, 2017. Section 438.402(c)(1)(i) requires that the enrollee exhaust the internal level of appeal before requesting a State fair hearing. Note that if the MCO, PIHP, or PAHP fails to adhere to the notice and timing requirements in section 438.408, section 438.402(c)(1)(i)(A) provides that the enrollee is deemed to have exhausted the internal level of appeal and may request a State fair hearing. States may modify managed care contracts to require exhaustion of the internal level of appeal in advance of the rating period for contracts starting on or after July 1, 2017, as subpart F in the 2002 final rule permitted states flexibility to determine whether exhaustion would be required. Please see page 27509 of the Final Rule for additional explanatory information.

Supplemental Links:

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

FAQ ID:93451

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