Public Comments Received on GenIC #74
Comment 1: We received one comment from an anonymous commenter. The commenter indicates that requiring the state to check four boxes instead of just one box is redundant. The form requests the state to check a broad “provided” box and then requests that the state check three boxes for compliance with specific sections of the statute: 1905(gg)(1), 1905(gg)(2) and 1905(gg)(3).
CMS Response: CMS believes that requiring the state to attest to the specific provisions of the statute is important to help ensure compliance with the new benefit’s requirements. Acknowledgement of the specific provisions will direct states to what is required of the coverage. CMS has had recent experience with other mandatory benefits where states have not understood the requirements and implemented incorrectly or not at all. Checking three additional check boxes will not take significant time, but it will be a first step in ensuring compliance with the state plan.
Action Taken: None. CMS will be leaving the additional three check boxes in the SPA template.
| File Type | application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document |
| Author | Kirsten Jensen |
| File Modified | 0000-00-00 |
| File Created | 2024-07-23 |