Posted on

Las Vegas healthcare company convicted in Medicaid fraud case

MM Curator summary

[MM Curator Summary]: A behavioral health provider was convicted for submitting false claims and ordered to pay $225,000 back to the state.

 
 

The article below has been highlighted and summarized by our research team. It is provided here for member convenience as part of our Curator service.

 
 

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services may now allow for states to pursue Medicaid reimbursements for short-term inpatient treatment in mental health facilities despite a decades-old exclusion, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar announced.

Shutterstock via CNN

LAS VEGAS (FOX5) — Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford announced the conviction of a Las Vegas medical company for Medicaid fraud.

Kimberly Rashone Broussard, 53, and her company Phenomenal Angels, LLC were sentenced Feb. 28 for Medicaid fraud. 

An investigation alleged that billings submitted by Phenomenal Angels to Medicaid between Jan. 2017 and April 2018 exceeded the maximum number of service hours in a 24-hour period. Investigators found at least two provided purportedly employed by Phenomenal Angels took part in the excess billing hours and Broussard didn’t provide proper documentation supporting the claims.

“Healthcare providers must remain cognizant that the privilege of receiving taxpayer funds for providing services comes with the obligation to maintain accurate records and submit truthful billings to Nevada Medicaid,” said AG Ford. “My office will hold health care companies and their owners accountable for failing to abide by their obligations as approved Nevada Medicaid providers.”

Phenomenal Angels was sentenced for submitting false claims and Broussard was sentenced for intentional failure to maintain adequate records. Broussard was given a 364 day suspended jail sentence and placed on probation for a year. Phenomenal Angels was also ordered to pay nearly $225,000 in restitution.

 
 

Clipped from: https://www.fox5vegas.com/news/crime/las-vegas-healthcare-company-convicted-in-medicaid-fraud-case/article_efc36122-98dd-11ec-a524-4b6e618ac93f.html

 
 

Posted on

KY- Bill would let Medicaid to pay certified community health workers

MM Curator summary

[MM Curator Summary]: KY legislators are working to get CHW services billable for Medicaid.

 
 

The article below has been highlighted and summarized by our research team. It is provided here for member convenience as part of our Curator service.

 
 

A bill to require Medicaid reimbursement for certain services provided by certified community health workers, and streamline their certification process, awaits a vote in the full House. 

CHWs aren’t trained medically, but are trained as patient advocates who come from the communities they serve. They help their clients coordinate care, provide access to medical, social and environmental services, work to improve health literacy and deliver education on prevention and disease self-management.

  

Rep. Kim Moser speaking at a Feb. 17 news 
conference about HB 525. (Photo from news release) 

“What makes community health workers unique is not that they are necessarily clinical professionals, rather they are the point guard in helping individuals understand what resources are available,” Rep. Kim Moser, R-Taylor Mill, said at a press conference about the bill in a video from the Kentucky Primary Care Association. 

The federal Bureau of Labor Statistics says Kentucky had 1,350 CHWs in May 2020, with an annual average wage of $37,320.

House Bill 525, sponsored by Moser, would require the Department for Medicaid Services to seek federal approval for a state plan amendment, waiver or alternative payment model, including public-private partnerships, for services delivered by certified CHWs.

Teresa Cooper, director of government affairs for the KPCA, said in an e-mail that CHWs are hired as a staff person by a facility, but their services cannot be billed to Medicaid or private insurance.This legislation would allow the clinic to bill for their services and receive reimbursement or count them in their cost of operations,” she said.

The bill would also require CHWs to be employed and supervised by a Medicaid-participating provider and says as of Jan. 1, 2023,no person shall represent himself or herself as a community health worker unless he or she is certified as such” in accordance with the provisions laid out in the act. 

The bill passed out of the House Health and Family Services Committee, which Moser chairs, on Feb. 24. She pointed to a Kentucky Homeplace study that found between July 2001 and June 2021, community health workers achieved a return on investment of $11.32 saved for every $1 invested in their services. 

“The cost-benefit analysis has shown it to be a very productive use of our taxpayer dollars,” she said, adding that because Kentucky expanded Medicaid under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in 2014, the program serves 1.6 million Kentuckians, about one of every three. 

“We know that it’s time, because of this Medicaid expansion, to really get more targeted with our Medicaid dollars and work on programs that work,” Moser said.

Emily Beauregard, director of Kentucky Voices for Health, said Moser’s bill, if passed, could be a “real game-changer” toward providing a sustainable funding source for community health workers in Kentucky. 

“House Bill 525 creates a very, very important pathway to expand our current network of community health workers,” Beauregard said.


Pamela L. Spradling, a CHW with Big Sandy Health Care, a federally qualified health center in Prestonsburg that covers five counties, said their CHWs are currently  paid as staff or through grant funding. 

 
 

Asked what it would mean for them to be able to bill Medicaid, she said, ” That would be huge for us because it would mean sustainability for our program. . . we wouldn’t have to constantly be worrying about where the money is going to come from to pay our community health workers.She added that the challenge with grant funding is that when the grant money runs out, so does the CHW program. 

 
 

Spradling also spoke to the value of CHWs in changing health outcomes, noting that 62% of their 150 patients with diabetes who have a CHW have seen a 2.5 point reduction in their A1C, and some of them with even higher reductions. An A1C is a blood test for diabetes that measures your average blood sugar levels over the past three months. A normal A1C level is below 5.7%. 

 
 

Tiffany Taul Scruggs, a certified CHW and the patient service outreach coordinator for Sterling Health Care, a federally qualified health center based in Mount Sterling, said the CHWs in her facility are either on staff or paid for by grants. 

 
 

“If we could bill Medicaid, we could probably hire more community health workers just because we have such a big population in our coverage area,” she said. “It would be wonderful if we could bill.” 

 
 

Scruggs noted several services their CHWs provide, including helping their patients obtain medical equipment, medications and food, helping patients navigate the health care system and providing health education. She added that one their greatest needs is transportation to and from medical appointments. 

“I am proud to say our transportation service has provided just shy of 1,300 rides to our most vulnerable population in 2021,” she said in a statement prepared for the House committee. “The team consists of one full-time driver, one part-time driver who was recently hired, two outreach and enrollment specialists, and three community health workers ready to assist our patients when needed.” 

 
 

Tammy Collett, Cumberland River regional director for Mountain Comprehensive Health Corp. in Whitesburg, said in an e-mail that funding for their CHWs is provided through a grant from Marshall UniversityThe University of Chicago and the Merck Foundation. She said the goal of this grant program is to demonstrate the effectiveness of using CHWs to improve health outcomes and quality of life. 

“It is our hope that payers will recognize the benefit of CHWs and consider coverage for their services,” Collett said.

Support local journalism.

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

Subscribe Today

 
 

Clipped from: https://www.sentinel-echo.com/news/bill-would-let-medicaid-to-pay-certified-community-health-workers/article_715516e6-9987-11ec-8e15-279094a12cc1.html

Posted on

MO- Republicans seek new route to impose work requirements on Missouri Medicaid recipients

MM Curator summary

[MM Curator Summary]: Legislators want voters to weigh in on whether able-bodied bennies should have to meet school, volunteer or employment requirements to get benefits.

 
 

The article below has been highlighted and summarized by our research team. It is provided here for member convenience as part of our Curator service.

 
 

Jenna Roberson from Wentzville holds a sign wile listening to speakers at the Rally to Save Missouri Health Care outside the Missouri State Capitol Building in support of Medicaid expansion on Tuesday, April 27, 2021, in Jefferson City.

Photo by Daniel Shular

Daniel Shular

JEFFERSON CITY — Republicans in the Missouri House are charting another path aimed at requiring low-income people to get a job if they want to receive Medicaid health insurance benefits.

A proposed constitutional amendment under consideration in the House would ask voters to remove a prohibition on imposing restrictions on eligibility or enrollment in the state’s MO HealthNet program.

Though the language makes no specific reference to work requirements, it could open the door to them down the road.

“It would just lay the groundwork for allowing work requirements in the future,” said Rep. J. Eggleston, a Maysville Republican who is sponsoring the latest proposal.

 
 

Rep. J. Eggleston, De Kalb, is sworn into the Missouri House during the opening ceremonies of the 99th General Assembly in Jefferson City on Wednesday, Jan. 4, 2017. Photo by David Carson, dcarson@post-dispatch.com

David Carson

Republicans for years have resisted attempts to expand Medicaid under the terms of the 2010 federal health care law signed by former President Barack Obama.

In 2020, advocates bypassed the Legislature and went directly to voters who approved a constitutional amendment expanding access to the program with 53% of the vote.

Previously, Missouri’s health care program did not cover most adults without children, and its income eligibility threshold for parents was one of the lowest in the nation.

Even after voters approved Medicaid expansion, GOP lawmakers have continued to fight it.

Legislators last year refused to front the money needed to pay for health care for the newly eligible population in hopes of blocking the program’s expansion. A judge ruled in August that Republican Gov. Mike Parson’s administration must implement the program anyway, and lawmakers have since budgeted for the program’s expansion.

Under a separate proposal also moving through the House this year, Medicaid recipients older than 19 and younger than 65 would need to spend at least 20 hours a week working, volunteering, going to school or getting substance abuse treatment, among other work-related options. That change would require approval from the federal government in order to be implemented.

Eggleston said he believes work requirements lead to more “self-sufficiency.” He wants voters to weigh in on the idea.

“We’re just offering the suggestion to see what they want,” Eggleston said.

The concept drew support from GOP members of the House Budget Committee.

“My people want this, and I work for them,” said Rep. Hannah Kelly, R-Mountain Grove.

Democrats said the proposal is another effort by Republicans to undermine the will of the voters, who supported Medicaid expansion in an August 2020 statewide referendum.

“I’m very concerned about this,” said Rep. Sarah Unsicker, D-Shrewsbury.

Rep. Doug Richey, R-Excelsior Springs, said the legislation is merely a modification of the Medicaid expansion vote, not an attempt to gut the program.

“I realize this is an emotional issue for people on both sides,” Richey said.

Rep. Ashley Bland Manlove, D-Kansas City, said Republicans should wait and see how the expansion works.

“The whole point of the program is to give people health care so they can go to work,” Bland Manlove said.

Sharon Geuea Jones, a lobbyist for the pro-expansion Missouri Health Care for All group, said the Republican-led Legislature should leave the program alone while it is still in its early stages.

“We haven’t fully implemented it. Why are we going back into it?” Geuea said.

She also said Republicans continually try to alter voter-approved initiatives that they disagree with.

“This body does not trust them and does not care what they think,” Geuea Jones said.

“I think we need to continue to uphold the will of the people,” said Rep. Rasheen Aldridge, D-St. Louis.

The legislation is House Joint Resolution 92.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Originally posted at 9:40 a.m. Tuesday, March 1. 

 
 

Clipped from: https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/republicans-seek-new-route-to-impose-work-requirements-on-missouri-medicaid-recipients/article_40a50821-dd57-5ed5-9445-22669cd1041b.html

 
 

Posted on

WY-Wyoming Medicaid expansion budget amendment ruled unconstitutional

MM Curator summary

[MM Curator Summary]: The move to approve expansion in the legislature has now failed in both the House and the Senate.

 
 

The article below has been highlighted and summarized by our research team. It is provided here for member convenience as part of our Curator service.

 
 

 
 

CHEYENNE — The full Wyoming Senate wasn’t able to vote on a Medicaid expansion amendment to the budget bill Wednesday night after the Rules Committee declared it unconstitutional.

Medicaid expansion has been a long-term effort by advocates such as Better Wyoming and the Healthy Wyoming Coalition, which made arguments in support of passing legislation so 24,000 residents could gain access to medical insurance. The groups said it also would encourage economic growth and help businesses retain employees.

Although there has been considerable support shown across the state, the Senate entertaining the amendment was one of the last opportunities for expansion promoters this year.

House Bill 20, the “Medical treatment opportunity act,” was never introduced in the House of Representatives because House Speaker Eric Barlow, R-Gillette, said there weren’t enough votes for it to meet the two-thirds threshold required for non-budget bills during a budget session.

But Sen. Cale Case, R-Lander, followed through on his intention to bring it to the Senate budget discussions. He is co-chair of the Joint Revenue Interim Committee, which sponsored HB 20.

“This expansion is pro-hospitals,” Case told fellow legislators as he introduced the amendment. “It creates jobs. It supports those very people that we care about, the people that wait on your table or clean your hotel room. These are working people. These aren’t unemployed people.”

As soon as the amendment was introduced, however, Majority Floor Leader Sen. Ogden Driskill, R-Devils Tower, asked Case to withdraw it or adhere to a Senate Rules Committee review.

The proposal was sent to the Rules Committee, where it was deemed unconstitutional by a 3-2 vote, since it wasn’t an ordinary expenditure of the Legislature.

I see nothing in here that has anything to do with appropriations,” Driskill said. “And it is a bill.”

This was one of the last budget amendments in a long line of them considered throughout the day Wednesday, spanning from education cuts to appropriations for suicide prevention.

Sen. Bill Landen, R-Casper, was successful in receiving votes for the first addition to the budget, which was $25,000 for the purpose of hosting a statewide conference on suicide by first responders, and developing a plan to address the issue.

Health care was among other major discussions. An appropriation of $3.2 million was made by the Senate for developmental disability agency providers, as well as requirements laid out for the Department of Health to submit a supplemental budget request for the fiscal year 2024 for the continued operation of the Wyoming home services care program.

 
 

Clipped from: https://www.thesheridanpress.com/news/regional-news/wyoming-medicaid-expansion-budget-amendment-ruled-unconstitutional/article_8c01869c-9594-11ec-a6e8-8fbb38190d7a.html

Posted on

FL- Bills would require Medicaid plans to provide much more data

MM Curator summary

[MM Curator Summary]: As part of legislative efforts to overhaul the state’s Medicaid managed care system, the state would add the Core Set of BH measures and new demographic data reporting requirements to plan scope under a new proposal.

 
 

The article below has been highlighted and summarized by our research team. It is provided here for member convenience as part of our Curator service.

 
 

 
 

Medicaid managed care plans would be required to report more data to the state in the coming years under a bill that cleared the Senate Rules Committee Tuesday morning.

Sponsored by Sen. Shevrin Jones, SB 1258 would require Medicaid managed care plans to collect and annually report HEDIS measures, the federal Core Set of Children’s Health Care Quality measures, and the federal Core Set of Adult Health Care Quality performance measures. Those reports would go to the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA).

Beginning in 2025, the bill requires the plans to report the Adult Core Set Behavioral Health measures. And beginning with the 2026 calendar year, the Medicaid managed care plans must stratify the required reported measures by age, sex, race, ethnicity, primary language and whether there is a disability determination from the Social Security Administration.

The Rules Committee was the third Senate panel to consider the bill, which can now be heard by the full Senate. Its counterpart, HB 855, also has cleared all committees and is awaiting floor debate. Reps. Robin Bartleman and Nick Duran are sponsoring the House bill.

In addition to requiring plans to submit additional health care measures to the state, the bill also makes a technical correction to reflect that HEDIS is an acronym for “Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set.” HEDIS once stood for “Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set,” and the statutes still reflect the old moniker.

 
 

Florida has a Medicaid managed care mandate that requires most enrollees, from cradle to the grave, to join a managed care plan.

To hold down costs, Florida competitively bids its Medicaid program, inking contracts with health plans that submit winning bids in 11 regions across the state. The current law requires contracted Medicaid managed care plans to be accredited by the National Committee for Quality Assurance, the Joint Commission, or another nationally recognized accrediting body, or have initiated the accreditation process, within one year of signing the contract.

AHCA, which houses the state’s Medicaid program, is charged with ensuring the plans meet contractual requirements, and the current law requires the health plans to report HEDIS measures to the state.

AHCA says it currently requires health plans to report 27 HEDIS measures related to medical care and nine measures related to Child and Adult Core Set measures in its contracts with those plans.

A staff analysis of the bill indicates the state will need one additional employee and $79,930 to implement the provisions in the bill.

 
 

This is one of two Medicaid managed care bills Florida lawmakers are considering this Session. The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Health and Human Services will consider the other Medicaid managed care bill, SB 1950 by Sen. Jason Brodeur, Wednesday morning. That measure updates the Medicaid managed care statutes.

Clipped from: https://floridapolitics.com/archives/498073-bills-would-require-medicaid-plans-to-provide-much-more-data/

Posted on

MS-State Medicaid director: Banning Centene contract would be hazardous

MM Curator summary

[MM Curator Summary]: MS Medicaid officials are warning that a legislative removal of the MCO would have very disruptive consequences for members.

 
 

The article below has been highlighted and summarized by our research team. It is provided here for member convenience as part of our Curator service.

 
 

 
 

In this file photo, Drew Snyder, executive director of the Mississippi Division of Medicaid, gives an agency update to members of the House Medicaid Committee at the Capitol in Jackson, Miss. in 2019.

Rogeio V. Solis | AP

JACKSON • The leader of the state’s Medicaid division on Thursday warned a group of senators that banning contracts between the state and health care companies that have settled lawsuits over fraud allegations would lead to chaos.

The House last week voted to functionally end the state’s contract with health care giant Centene, a company that has been investigated by two state agencies for overcharging Mississippi million of dollars, after a state lawmaker offered an amendment to a separate Medicaid bill.

Drew Snyder, director of the Mississippi Division of Medicaid, said the amendment authored by Republican Rep. Becky Currie of Brookhaven would be hazardous and potentially exclude other health care organizations from doing business in the state.

If passed, the amendment would subject 162,328 Medicaid beneficiaries to a hurried reassignment process that would disrupt care services,” Synder said. “It likely would result in litigation against the Division of Medicaid.”

The amendment specifically prohibits the Medicaid division from contracting with any organizations that have settled with the state for more than $50 million over allegations of fraud and misspending. The amendment is clearly targeted toward Centene, though it does not name the company.

As first reported by the Daily Journal, the state attorney general and state auditor investigated Centene and its Mississippi subsidiary, Magnolia Health, for allegedly inflating its bills to the Medicaid division. Centene eventually settled with the state for $55.5 million. Under the agreement, they did not admit fault or wrongdoing.

A communications official from Magnolia Health gave the Daily Journal a list of talking points that its CEO, Aaron Sisk, was expected to deliver to the Senate committee. It’s unclear why representatives from Magnolia Health did not speak at the hearing.

“The final figure of $55 million was the proportion of the national settlement figure agreed upon with plaintiff lawyers and has absolutely no connection to taxpayer money in Mississippi,” the document reads.

Newsletter

The Session

Get weekly recaps during Mississippi’s annual legislative session, plus breaking alerts, from our state politics team.

Please enter a valid email address.

Manage your lists

Centene has also settled with five other states after state agencies accused the company of ripping off taxpayers.

In Mississippi’s Medicaid system, Magnolia Health and two other contractors oversee health insurance benefits for about 485,000 of the state’s most vulnerable citizens. The Division of Medicaid pays the companies a set rate per patient.

Health care organizations can reap millions of dollars in tax dollars for managing benefit programs and often vie to secure a state contract.

Centene has injected thousands of dollars into the campaign coffers of some of Mississippi’s most powerful politicians and paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to prominent lobbyists, according to public documents on the Mississippi Secretary of State’s website.

Mississippi hospital leaders for years have accused managed care organizations of reaping too much money while hospitals in rural communities continue to suffer. Hospital leaders have suggested they could manage the state’s Medicaid benefits at a cheaper cost, offer better quality and keep more money in the state.

At the hearing, Sen. Hob Bryan, D-Amory, said he did not understand why the state had not explored the hospital’s plan and given them an opportunity to prove themselves.

“If the people who are complaining are willing to say we’ll take this on … and we can show you that all these complaints we’re making about (managed care) are right and we’ll do it better, why wouldn’t we want to call their bluff?” Bryan asked.

Clipped from: https://www.djournal.com/news/state-news/state-medicaid-director-banning-centene-contract-would-be-hazardous/article_c0b7fe77-3be3-5dbb-974a-b27aae652be0.html

Posted on

ME- LePage admits Medicaid expansion ‘good for Maine,’ but still wants cuts to program

MM Curator summary

[MM Curator Summary]: The former Governor who famously opposed expansion is running for another term.

 
 

The article below has been highlighted and summarized by our research team. It is provided here for member convenience as part of our Curator service.

 
 

After once being sued for blocking voter-approved Medicaid expansion, former Gov. Paul LePage is now acknowledging that the program that provides 90,000 low-income Mainers with health care is beneficial.

However, the Republican candidate for governor, flanked by a crowd of supporters including former Second District Republican Congressman Bruce Poliquin, said Wednesday he still wants to deny more Mainers access to the health care program. LePage was at the State House submitting petition signatures to formally launch his campaign for governor.

I’m not going to repeal anything that is good for Maine people,” LePage said in response to a question from Beacon about whether he would attempt to repeal Medicaid expansion if reelected. “I will say this, however. I will reinstate work rules. If you’re able-bodied, you need to go to work.”

Medicaid expansion, a popular part of former President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act (ACA) that expanded health care to people within 138% of the federal poverty line, was approved by 59% of Maine voters in a  referendum in 2017.

Before the ballot measure, LePage vetoed five different pieces of legislation that attempted to tap federal ACA funding to expand the state’s Medicaid program, MaineCare.

After expansion won at the ballot box, LePage still refused to file for expansion with the federal government, prompting a lawsuit led by anti-poverty advocacy group Maine Equal Justice.

In a last ditch effort to curtail the expansion, LePage applied for a federal waiver to require non-disabled adults under 65 years old to work or attend a work program for 20 hours per week to be eligible for MaineCare coverage.

Gov. Janet Mills signed Medicaid expansion into law as her first act in office and MaineCare never adopted the work requirements.

‘We should be supporting peoples’ health care, not taking it away’

 
 

Former Gov. Paul LePage walks with supporters to the State House on Wednesday to turn petitions to run for governor. | Beacon

Robyn Merrill, executive director of Maine Equal Justice, said despite LePage’s previous efforts, Medicaid expansion has been a lifeline for thousands of Mainers.

“Thanks to the wisdom of Maine voters and the Mills administration’s commitment to implementing the law, more than 90,000 Mainers have now benefited from Medicaid expansion,” Merrill said.

“The fact that all those people can now see their doctor or fill a prescription, especially during the pandemic, has obviously been a lifeline for Maine people as well as for our economy,” she said. “Mainers have made clear, again and again, that we need more affordable health care, not less. Policies that make it harder for people to access care would take us backwards.” 

It’s not clear if an attempt by LePage to curtail eligibility would be legal. 

The waiver LePage submitted to the federal government in 2017 sought to impose work requirements on anyone who was 19-64 years old, unless they had a certified disability, were caring for someone with a disability, or caring for a child under 6. Those individuals would have to engage in 20 hours or more each week of employment or education, or 24 hours of community service. 

James Myall, a policy analyst with Maine Center for Economic Policy, estimates that roughly 86,000 Mainers currently enrolled in MaineCare would be subject to the requirement if similar mandates were imposed and as many as 55,000 of those people would be at risk of losing their health care — roughly one in seven people currently enrolled.

Myall said that estimate includes individuals who are working but unable to meet the 20-hour weekly requirement. 

However, it’s not clear if LePage, if elected, would have the authority to impose such restrictions. Last year, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services under President Joe Biden began withdrawing permission for states to impose the requirement. Also, work requirements have been successfully challenged in the courts, including the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in a case that has been shelved by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Myall warned that status “could change if we have a change in presidential leadership, and it’s not clear to me what the current Supreme Court would do if this made its way through the courts.” 

He added, “So while LePage’s proposal isn’t realistic right now, it’s still a threat in the future.”

Both Merrill and Myall say the COVID-19 pandemic has underscored how imposing barriers to health care access harm whole communities and economies. 

“When they passed Medicaid expansion, Maine voters knew that it would allow more people to be healthy and be a part of their communities and the workforce,” Merrill said. “Today, the pandemic has made it even more clear that you should not tie access to health care to employment. These kinds of conditions for care don’t work — and if the goal is really to help people to get and keep a job, then we should be supporting peoples’ health care, not taking it away.”

Myall agreed that the pandemic “really drove home how important it is for everyone to have access to affordable health care, and that’s especially true for people who can’t find work, or are only able to work part-time.”

A record of restrictions

LePage’s comments Wednesday targeting “able-bodied” Mainers echoed similar rhetoric the former governor and other Republicans have used against those deemed undeserving of support. 

During his eight years in office, LePage worked to restrict access to health care and other anti-poverty programs like food assistance and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).

In 2012, LePage implemented a 60-month lifetime limit on TANF. The number of children covered by the program fell from 22,425 in 2012 to 7,081 in 2018. 

In 2014, he mandated work requirements for childless adults ages 18 to 49 who used the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as food stamps. SNAP recipients fell from 227,666 in 2014 to 169,638 in 2018 and more Mainers went hungry than the rest of New England and much of the country.

One 2017 survey by the Good Shepherd Food Bank found that over half of the people who were cut off due to work requirements were looking for work but couldn’t find any. More than three-quarters reported increased visits to the food pantry in the year they lost benefits.

Top photo: Former Gov. Paul LePage speaks to the media on Wednesday. | Beacon

 
 

Clipped from: https://mainebeacon.com/lepage-admits-medicaid-expansion-good-for-maine-but-still-wants-to-cut-program/

Posted on

OR- Oregon agrees to sunset limit on benefits for kids on Medicaid – OPB

MM Curator summary

[MM Curator Summary]: Oregon is stopping the use of a list that prioritizes covered Medicaid benefits.

 
 

The article below has been highlighted and summarized by our research team. It is provided here for member convenience as part of our Curator service.

 
 

The Oregon Health Authority is quietly making a major policy change that could give doctors and families more power to negotiate what treatments are covered for children on the Oregon Health Plan.

The state has been taking public comment on its latest five-year proposal for Medicaid and will submit a final draft for federal approval this month.

 
 

Oregon uses a list of treatments and conditions covered for all patients on Medicaid, which includes treatments from vaccines to bone marrow transplants for cancer patients. However, people with rarer conditions that are not on the list say they have been denied treatments.

Oregon Health Authority

The Lund Report first broke the news of the reversal.

In an email earlier this month, two top state officials said that in response to public feedback, Oregon will not seek to renew a waiver in its Medicaid plan that has allowed it to deviate from a federal standard, known as Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic, and Treatment, or EPSDT.

The EPSDT standard requires states to cover all medically necessary treatment for children on Medicaid, regardless of what services states provide to adults.

Oregon has been the only state with federal approval to take a different approach. It limits children’s coverage to a prioritized list of services determined by the legislature and a commission of medical experts appointed by the governor.

The agency is now saying that after a phase-out period, some medical treatments that the state has historically categorized as not prioritized for coverage will be funded on a case-by-case basis.

The new policy will make it easier for children with disabilities and chronic illnesses to access the full range of medical care they need, including less common therapies such as inpatient programs for children with severe autism, advocates say.

“Low-income children who rely on Medicaid are going to be able to get the same medically necessary treatment as their more affluent classmates,” said Meghan Moyer, the public policy director at Disability Rights Oregon.

“It’s a real victory for acknowledging how valuable early treatment is in the lives of people with disabilities and chronic illness.”

Orthodontia for severely misaligned teeth and treatment for chronic ear infections are among the treatments the state doesn’t currently prioritize that will be available going forward to children who can demonstrate a medical need.

The prioritized list

Oregon’s coverage limits for children have been in place for almost three decades.

Since 1994, Oregon has used a ranked list of paired conditions and treatments to determine what services it funds for all patients on Medicaid, including children.

Prior to the passage of the Affordable Care Act, limiting treatments allowed the state to save money, expand the eligible population for Medicaid and extend health coverage to more people.

Many of the treatments that are not covered fall under the rubric of unusual problems that don’t seem important, until it’s your child in the doctor’s office.

For example, until last year, the Oregon Health Plan did not routinely pay for the removal of a crayon lodged in an ear or nose.

The list ranks treatments from most important to least important. A review committee calculates the scores for each condition, paired with a treatment. The scoring system
prioritizes maternity, newborn and reproductive care, preventative care, and chronic disease management.

The level of Medicaid funding set by the legislature determines how many items on the list are funded for Medicaid recipients.

The current list includes 662 lines of medical conditions and their treatments. The Oregon Health Plan currently covers items 1 through 472.

Those covered lines include much of the medical care that most people need, from chickenpox vaccines to cavity treatments to bone marrow transplants for cancer patients.

And, according to OHA, patients who have needed treatments that fall below the priority line have been able to request prior approval through their care providers, or file an appeal.

But the list has drawn criticism, with advocates saying it’s biased or discriminatory, or slow to adapt to changes in medicine.

Treatment for gender dysphoria and outpatient behavioral therapy for autism were not covered until 2013.

And patients with rarer conditions say they have found themselves denied treatments that are either too low on the list to be covered, or left off of it entirely.

In recent months, disability rights advocates, rare disease patient groups, and parents have organized a lobbying campaign to convince OHA — and its federal partners — to end the unique children’s coverage limits in Oregon’s Medicaid plan.

They argued that the state’s use of the prioritized list for children violated the stringent EPSDT standard requiring full benefits for all children on Medicaid.

That standard, first adopted in a law Congress passed in 1967 and strengthened repeatedly over the years, is intended to give all children their best shot at a healthy adulthood.

“Having access to care for a child early can make all the difference in the world in terms of the difference between coping with a long-term disability or thriving,” said Paul Terdal, a parent of children with autism and one of the architects of the advocacy campaign. “We’re not saving any money by harming this kid.”

Advocates argued that adults, not children, are the greatest drivers of cost in the health system.

Organizations representing people with epilepsy, cancer, and disabilities all submitted public testimony urging the state to reconsider its standard for children.

“There are more than 7,000 different rare disorders, many of which are not well studied or understood,” wrote Alyss Patel, a policy manager with the National Association for Rare Disorders.

“There is no way to ensure the state’s list of prioritized services will be sufficient for rare disease patients.”

The advocacy push gained momentum after a story in the Lund Report revealed internal misgivings within OHA over the coverage limits for kids.

OHA has yet to publicly announce the policy change. Instead, the agency shared the news in an email to the advocates and members of the Oregon Health Policy Board.

“OHA has taken this feedback seriously,” wrote Jeremey Vandehey, who directs OHA’s Health Policy and Analytics Division, and Dana Hittle, State Medicaid Director. “In order to achieve OHA’s goal of ending health inequities by 2030, barriers to medically necessary care must be removed for children and adolescents, in accordance with EPSDT.”

Neither the Oregon Health Authority nor the advocates have an estimate of how much the policy change will cost the state’s Medicaid program, or how many children stand to benefit.

Medicaid provides coverage for about half of Oregon children with special health care needs, and one-third of all children in the state, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

 
 

Clipped from: https://www.opb.org/article/2022/02/16/oregon-medicaid-children-kids-health-coverage-early-periodic-screening-diagnostic-treatment-epsdt/

 
 

 
 

Posted on

MS- Mississippi could rethink a Medicaid managed care contract

MM Curator summary

[MM Curator Summary]: Legislators are working to pass a bill that would exclude vendors who settle lawsuits for more than $50M with the state.

 
 

The article below has been highlighted and summarized by our research team. It is provided here for member convenience as part of our Curator service.

 
 

 
 

(Photo: Pieter van de Sande/Unsplash)

The Mississippi House has voted to make the state’s Medicaid program end a contract with health care giant Centene, although that plan could change later as lawmakers continue to debate issues.

Centene settled a lawsuit last year that accused one of its subsidiaries of overcharging the Mississippi Division of Medicaid millions of dollars for pharmacy benefits management. Centene agreed to pay the state $55.5 million but did not admit fault.

It was reported that during discussion of a Medicaid bill Thursday, the House adopted an amendment that would prohibit the Medicaid program from contracting with a company that has paid over $50 million in a settlement agreement with the state.

The amendment to House Bill 658, offered by Republican Rep. Becky Currie of Brookhaven, was aimed at Centene.

“I am for doing away with our business to a company who took $55 million of our money that was supposed to be spent on the poor, the sick, the elderly, the mentally ill, the disabled,” said Currie, who is a nurse.

Currie’s amendment would require the state to contract with a nonprofit entity to manage Medicaid services.

Health plans hire pharmacy benefit managers to try to control costs in prescription programs. Among other duties, the management companies create lists of preferred drugs and negotiate rebates with pharmaceutical companies.

The bill was held for the possibility of more House debate, and it will move to the Senate for more work. A motion to reconsider was filled by principal author and District 35 Representative Joey Hood and District 12 Representative Clay Deweese on February 10.

 
 

Clipped from: https://www.oxfordeagle.com/2022/02/14/mississippi-could-rethink-a-medicaid-managed-care-contract/

Posted on

Planned Medicaid Work Rules’ Impact at Heart of Georgia Lawsuit

MM Curator summary

[MM Curator Summary]: The GA case is different because it only would have added members, not taken away coverage for existing members.

 
 

The article below has been highlighted and summarized by our research team. It is provided here for member convenience as part of our Curator service.

 
 

 
 

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services office stands in Woodlawn, Maryland.

Photographer: Jay Mallin/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Georgia’s lawsuit in defense of its Medicaid work requirements could turn on whether a court concludes the state’s proposal will increase or reduce the number of people in the program.

At issue is the Medicaid agency’s rescission under President Joe Biden of the Trump-era waiver that allowed Georgia to partially expand eligibility to include working age adults earning up to 100% of the federal poverty level, set at $27,750 for a family of four in 2022. Beneficiaries would have to complete 80 hours per month of work, education, volunteer work, or other qualifying activities. Adults earning above 50% of the poverty level would have to pay premiums.

Georgia says its plan would add about 60,000 people to the state’s Medicaid rolls. That prediction “might sound OK,” said Sara Rosenbaum, professor of health law and policy at the George Washington School of Law. “But that’s only when you ignore the fact that hundreds of thousands more would get coverage if the state were to fully expand Medicaid.”

The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia will concern fairly typical administrative law issues: whether the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services had the authority to withdraw approval for Georgia’s plan, and whether the agency had good reasons for its decision—or whether its action was “arbitrary and capricious.”

But inside the administrative-law wrapping is a policy question that hasn’t been tested: whether work requirements in Medicaid are acceptable as part of a proposal to bring new people into the program, even if more people would gain coverage if the work requirements were removed.

“The thing about Georgia is that it’s not like other states that tried to impose work requirements after having expanded Medicaid to adults,” said Sidney Watson, director of the Center for Health Law Studies at the Saint Louis University School of Law and a critic of work requirements. “In those states, the work requirements ended up taking coverage away from people who already had it. But Georgia is saying, that’s not what’s happening here, no one will lose coverage from this plan.”
 

A CMS letter formally withdrawing approval for the Georgia plan came Dec. 23. The state filed its lawsuit over that decision Jan. 21. A response to the lawsuit from the Department of Justice is expected shortly.

Limited Expansion

States are allowed under the Affordable Care Act to expand Medicaid eligibility to include adults earning up to 138% of the federal poverty level. Georgia is one of 12 states that hasn’t expanded.

Around 500,000 working-age Georgia residents would be eligible for Medicaid if the state fully expanded the program, according to the Georgetown University Health Policy Institute.

“This Georgia proposal, if it weren’t so tragic, it would be laughable,” Rosenbaum said. “Here we are, in the middle of a global pandemic in which having as many people covered as possible is a public health imperative, here we have a state that wants to impose work requirements on the people who have been hardest hit by the pandemic, and have been the most dislocated.”

Bait and Switch

The CMS’s goal in withdrawing approval for work requirements and premiums, but not for the entire Georgia proposal, was to leave the option of a broader Medicaid expansion on the table, Watson said.

The work requirement and premium provisions “would not promote the objectives of the Medicaid program,” especially in light of the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, the agency said.

“It’s interesting that the CMS didn’t withdraw the entire demonstration project,” Watson said. “The withdrawal is limited to the work requirement provisions, which allows the rest of the project to go forward.”

That, in turn, would provide coverage for far more people.

But letting the CMS’s partial withdrawal stand would let the agency get away with an “egregious regulatory bait and switch on the core terms of a massive federal-state program,” Georgia said in the lawsuit. Medicaid is a joint federal-state health insurance program for low-income people.

The plan was “carefully negotiated” with federal regulators, and the work requirement provisions can’t be separated from the expansion provisions, the lawsuit said.

“Georgia agreed to expand Medicaid eligibility only if expansion was conditioned on the community engagement and premium requirements,” the lawsuit said. “By selectively withdrawing those parts of the demonstration, CMS is effectively seeking to convert this [plan] into a full expansion of Medicaid coverage in Georgia—which in no way resembles the program that the State agreed to in its exhaustive negotiations with CMS.”

Georgia argues that its plan will lead to an increase in coverage notwithstanding the impact of work requirements, and therefore does promote the objectives of the Medicaid program, said Thomas Barker, co-chair of the health practice at Foley Hoag LLP in Washington, and a former Department of Health and Human Services general counsel.

“Georgia is saying, ‘Here we are making coverage available to low-income people, they just have to jump through an extra hoop,'” Barker said. “Coverage isn’t currently available to these people, and the combined waiver will make it available to them when they wouldn’t have it otherwise. That’s going to be Georgia’s argument.”

Work Requirements

Work requirements for adults in Medicaid were a policy priority under the Trump administration, which approved them for 12 states, including Georgia. Seven other states submitted requests for work requirements, according to the Commonwealth Fund.

Supporters say the must-work requirements encourage self-sufficiency and provide a path to independence for working-age Medicaid recipients. Critics say they reduce health-care coverage for the working poor, impose unmanageable paperwork burdens on beneficiaries, and are ill-suited for the Covid-19 pandemic.

The CMS began rolling back work requirements in the states that had received approval for them shortly after Biden took office, and Georgia paused its plans to implement its proposal in June.

The case is Georgia v. Brooks-LaSure, S.D. Ga., No. 2:21-tc-05000, filed 1/21/22.

 
 

Clipped from: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/health-law-and-business/planned-medicaid-work-rules-impact-at-heart-of-georgia-lawsuit