US · guidance
CMS Pub. 100-16, ch. 9, § 40.2
Offering of 800-series Network Private Fee-For-Service (PFFS) Plans
Exclusive to Employers
(Rev. 111, 05-03-13, Effective: 05-03-13, Implementation: 05-03-13)
In 2006, CMS granted a waiver of the “nexus” test (that requires that an MAO offering an 800-series EGWP also offer an individual market MA plan under the same contract) for non-network
private-fee-for service plans (PFFS) effective CY 2008. The Medicare Improvements for Patients
and Providers Act of 2008 (MIPPA) prohibits non-network employer PFFS plans beginning in
CY 2011; therefore, this waiver is no longer available.
Section 162(a)(2) of MIPPA amended section 1852(d) of the Act by adding a new requirement
for employer/union-sponsored PFFS plans. For plan year 2011 and subsequent plan years,
MIPPA requires that all employer/union- sponsored PFFS plans under section 1857(i) of the Act
meet the access standards described in section 1852(d)(4) of the Act only through entering into
written contracts or agreements in accordance with section 1852(d)(4)(B) of the Act, and not, in
whole or in part, through establishing payment rates meeting the requirements under section
1852(d)(4)(A) of the Act. 42 CFR 422.114(a)(4) describes this requirement. Further detail on
requirements related to PFFS plans can be found in Medicare Managed Care Manual Chapter
16a (Private Fee-for-Service (PFFS) Plans).
History
(Rev. 111, 05-03-13, Effective: 05-03-13, Implementation: 05-03-13)
Provenance
- Source
- cms.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-08-25
- Edition
- iom-2026-08-25
- Content hash
09a98d2afda892d9586a7939962574149d5abd9219817144862f3948df611a55
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.