Frequently Asked Questions

Below are several options states may consider in implementing section 2101(f). Under each, the state may not find such children ineligible for a separate CHIP based on current or recent insurance coverage or other state-specific restrictions on eligibility. The only restrictions on CHIP eligibility that may be applied to the protected children are those described above in response to Question 5: "Do these children automatically meet the definition of a "targeted low-income child" regardless of other CHIP eligibility factors?"

Option #1: Demonstrate that all Medicaid children qualifying for section 2101(f) protection will qualify for the state's existing separate CHIP.

States with an existing separate CHIP may be able to demonstrate that the income standard for the state's separate CHIP (after conversion for MAGI) is sufficiently above the state's converted Medicaid standard for children that all, or virtually all, children losing Medicaid as a result of the loss of disregards under MAGI will be income-eligible for the state's separate CHIP. The state would need to demonstrate that most if not all affected children would be eligible for the state's separate CHIP without any modification of the program. Note that because state Medicaid programs may cover children in different age ranges (under 1, ages 1- 5, and ages 6-18) up to different income standards, this analysis would need to be done separately for each age range.

Under this option, States would also need to develop procedures to ensure that children being transferred from Medicaid to CHIP after a loss of Medicaid eligibility at their 2014 redetermination are not denied CHIP based on eligibility criteria which may not be applied to these children in accordance with section 2101(f) (see Question 5).

Option #2: Enroll all children in a separate CHIP who lose Medicaid due to income at their first renewal applying MAGI methods.

States can elect to enroll all children into CHIP who lose Medicaid eligibility because of excess income after applying MAGI-based income methodologies and the converted MAGIbased income standard under Medicaid. This option will capture more children than strictly defined under this provision (i.e. children losing Medicaid because of families' increased earned income will also be included) but may be the easiest option to implement administratively.

Option #3: Determine an income standard above the converted MAGI Medicaid FPL that will capture all or almost all the children who would have benefited from application of the former disregards.

Option #4: Identify protected children using 2013 data.

If, upon renewal, the state finds a child ineligible for Medicaid but that child's family income has not increased since the child's last determination of Medicaid eligibility in 2013 (i.e., prior to the application of MAGI-based methods in 2014), the state would automatically enroll the child in its separate CHIP. If the family income has increased since the last Medicaid determination in 2013, the state would identify children protected by section 2101(f) by subtracting the value of the allowed disregards the child received during the 2013 determination from the child's household income based on MAGI in 2014. If the adjusted household income (i.e., 2014 MAGI-based household income minus the value of former disregards in 2013) is at or below the income standard in effect in 2013 for the Medicaid eligibility group under which the child was enrolled, the state would enroll the child in the separate CHIP.

CMS will work with states to ensure the selected option is implemented correctly as we recognize that there must be significant collaboration between Medicaid and CHIP agencies to implement 2101 (f). We are also open to considering alternative proposals from states for how to implement this provision. States are strongly encouraged to talk with CMS in advance of submitting their state plan amendments to implement this provision.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 105.59 KB)

FAQ ID:93796

Yes. However, the benefit package and cost-sharing structure must be in compliance with separate CHIP rules.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 105.59 KB)

FAQ ID:93801

Yes, states will need to submit a CHIP SPA for approval to provide coverage to children under this group in accordance with section 457.60. CMS will make available a simplified SPA template on which the state may report how these protected children will be identified and enrolled and information on benefits and cost-sharing.

Because of the flexibility provided states in establishing eligibility for separate CHIP programs, states could establish a group within an existing separate CHIP or as a standalone separate CHIP with eligibility criteria specific to the chosen option. For example, a state could establish a CHIP group with eligibility limited to children losing Medicaid at their 2014 redetermination using MAGI methodology. Coverage provided under this group would sunset when the last child eligible for 2101(f) protection came up for their first annual renewal in CHIP.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 105.59 KB)

FAQ ID:93806

Yes. States will need to conduct a renewal at the end of the 12-month separate CHIP coverage period in accordance with section 457.343 to determine if the child remains eligible for CHIP and, if not, to determine potential eligibility for other insurance affordability programs and transfer the child's account, as appropriate, to the Medicaid agency or the Exchange.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 105.59 KB)

FAQ ID:93811

As noted above, the protection afforded under section 2101(f) extends until the child comes up for his or her first regular renewal for coverage under the separate CHIP program, which would be 12 months from the child's transfer from Medicaid to the separate CHIP. When the last child eligible for protection under section 2101(f) comes up for renewal in the separate CHIP, the state may discontinue this part of its program.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 105.59 KB)

FAQ ID:93816

No. Systems programmed to determine eligibility based on 2013 rules would not properly determine eligibility based on MAGI methodologies and therefore could not be used to identify these children. Children protected by section 2101(f) are children who lose Medicaid eligibility after MAGI rules (including household composition and family income) are applied but would have remained eligible if the former disregards had also been applied.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 105.59 KB)

FAQ ID:93821

No. Section 2101(f) does not apply to children made ineligible for a separate CHIP as a result of the elimination of income disregards. Children losing coverage under a separate CHIP must be screened for eligibility for other insurance affordability programs and their cases electronically transferred per section 457.348.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 105.59 KB)

FAQ ID:93826

Yes. States may claim the enhanced match available under title XXI for children enrolled in a separate CHIP in accordance with section 2101(f).

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 105.59 KB)

FAQ ID:93831

The Medicaid statute provides several options for states to pay premiums for adults and children to purchase coverage through private group health plans, and in some case individual plans; in most cases, the statute conditions such arrangements on a determination that they are "cost effective." Cost effective generally means that Medicaid's premium payment to private plans plus the cost of additional services and cost sharing assistance that would be required would be comparable to what it would otherwise pay for the same services. Similar provisions also apply in the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP).

Under all these arrangements, beneficiaries remain Medicaid beneficiaries and continue to be entitled to all benefits and cost-sharing protections. States must have mechanisms in place to "wrap-around" private coverage to the extent that benefits are less and cost sharing requirements are greater than those in Medicaid. In addition under the statutory options in the individual market beneficiaries must be able to choose an alternative to private insurance to receive Medicaid benefits.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 40.01 KB)

FAQ ID:93841

Some states have expressed interest in section 1115 demonstrations to provide premium assistance for the purchase of QHPs in the Exchange. Under section 1115 of the Social Security Act, the Secretary may approve demonstration projects that she determines promote the objectives of the Medicaid program. HHS will consider approving a limited number of premium assistance demonstrations since their results would inform policy for the State Innovation Waivers that start in 2017. As with all such demonstrations, HHS will evaluate each proposal that is submitted and consider it on a case by case basis relative to this standard.

With regard to premium assistance demonstrations, HHS will consider states' ideas on cost effectiveness that include new factors introduced by the creation of Health Insurance Marketplaces and the expansion of Medicaid. For example, states may quantify savings from reduced churning (people moving between Medicaid and Exchanges as a result of fluctuating incomes) and increased competition in Marketplaces given the additional enrollees due to premium assistance. As with all demonstration proposals, the actuarial, economic, and budget justification (including budget neutrality) would need to be reviewed and, if approved, the program and budgetary impact would need to be carefully monitored and evaluated.

To ensure that the demonstrations further the objectives of the program and provide information in a timely way, HHS will only consider proposals that:

• Provide beneficiaries with a choice of at least two qualified health plans (QHPs).
• Make arrangements with the QHPs to provide any necessary wrap around benefits and cost sharing along with appropriate data; this would be done within the context of premium assistance, for example through a supplemental premium. This ensures that coverage is seamless, that cost sharing reductions are effectively delivered and that there is accountability for the payments made.
• Are limited to individuals whose benefits are closely aligned with the benefits available on the Marketplace, that is, individuals in the new Medicaid adult group who must enroll in benchmark coverage and are not described in SSA 1937(a)(2)(B)(an example of a population that is described in SSA 1937(a)(2)(B) is the medically frail). Marketplace plans were not designed to offer broader benefits and could experience unexpected adverse selection due to enrollment of groups that are described in SSA 1937(a)(2)(B).
• End no later than December 31, 2016. Starting in 2017, State Innovation Waiver authority begins which could allow a range of State-designed initiatives.

In addition, a state may increase the opportunity for a successful demonstration by choosing to target within the new adult group individuals with income between 100 and 133 percent of FPL. Medicaid allows for additional cost-sharing flexibility for populations with incomes above 100 percent of FPL; this population is more likely to be subject to churning and would be eligible for advance premium tax credits and Marketplace coverage if a state did not expand Medicaid to 133 percent of FPL.

Supplemental Links:

• This FAQ was released as part of a larger set. View the full set. (PDF, 40.01 KB)

FAQ ID:93846