Posted on

Some Medical Clinics Are Hiring Lawyers To Improve Patients’ Health

MM Curator summary

 
 

More states are providing lawyers to help members sue to get more 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.

 
 

 
 

In her 19 years of living with cerebral palsy, scoliosis and other ailments, Cynthia Enriquez De Santiago has endured about 60 surgeries and her heart has flatlined at least four times.

But the most unusual doctor’s referral of her life came last year: Go see an attorney.

Enriquez De Santiago sought help at a Commerce City, Colo., health clinic that takes a novel approach to improving the health of its patients: It incorporates legal assistance into its medical practice for patients facing eviction or deportation proceedings, among other legal woes. And the state’s Medicaid program helps fund the initiative.

Although Medicaid traditionally doesn’t fund clinics to supply legal assistance, Colorado is one of several states that have been given permission to use some of their Medicaid money to help pay for such programs. Every day in Commerce City, four lawyers join the physicians, psychiatrists and social workers at Salud Family Health Centers’ clinic in this suburb north of Denver, as part of Salud’s philosophy that mending legal ills is as important for health as diet and exercise.

The goal: Reduce dangerous levels of stress and keep families intact, on the premise that it will serve their health for years to come, says Marc Scanlon, the attorney who directs the program.

Mostly, that has meant helping people with unemployment benefit claims and Social Security Disability Insurance denials. But it also regularly entails helping patients — many of whom speak only Spanish after having arrived here from Mexico or Central America — with immigration hearings.

Based in health clinics, but only rarely using Medicaid dollars

The program is among at least 450 existing medical-legal partnerships across the nation that typically serve impoverished people and migrants. The vast majority don’t rely on Medicaid dollars, which are only used in fewer than 10 states, according to the National Center for Medical-Legal Partnership.

The role of these sorts of medical-legal partnerships has grown over the past year as millions of people in the U.S. have faced lost income and the threat of losing their homes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Some partnerships have helped patients secure unemployment checks, while others have fought some of the evictions that weren’t already barred by state or federal moratoriums.

“All the issues that people are struggling with in the pandemic are the same issues that medical-legal partnerships have been trying to work with forever,” says Vicki Girard, a law professor and co-director of the Georgetown University Health Justice Alliance in Washington, D.C.

In Montana, Kallie Dale-Ramos helped persuade a primary care association, the state’s legal aid organization and six community health centers operating in cities across Montana to pool $20,000 to help hire an attorney, who can split time among the clinics to help patients affected by the pandemic.

Since the start of 2020, that investment has helped more than 130 patients seek unemployment claims — and potentially stave off financial ruin.

One woman had been waiting for unemployment assistance since applying in March 2020, and only recently received her first check, says Dale-Ramos. Without legal help along the way, the woman “would have just been like, ‘I can’t do this anymore,’ ” Del-Ramos says.

This sort of legal-medical partnership is centered on the notion that doctors can do only so much to keep their patients healthy.

Advocates for such programs cite the example of a child suffering from asthma caused by mold in a dilapidated apartment. While a doctor couldn’t force a landlord to clean up the property or allow a tenant to break their lease, a letter from a lawyer might be persuasive, says Dr. Tillman Farley, Salud’s chief medical officer.

Proponents see lasting impact

“Some of these impacts carry out for decades,” Farley says. “And once you get into effects like that, then you’re really talking generational changes in health outcomes.”

Beyond common sense, evidence from emerging research suggests the approach can work. Patients at Veterans Affairs clinics in Connecticut and New York, for example, saw their mental health improve significantly within three months of consulting a clinic attorney, according to a 2017 study in Health Affairs.

And at Colorado’s partnership, a survey of patients from 2015 to 2020 found statistically significant drops in stress and poor physical health, as well as fewer missed medical appointments among its 69 respondents, says Dr. Angela Sauaia, a professor at the Colorado School of Public Health who led the research.

The possible reasons for missing fewer doctor appointments after getting the legal help, Sauaia says, included patients having more income, being less depressed and having an improved immigration status that made them less fearful to venture into public.

Medical-legal partnerships should be considered part of health care, Sauaia believes. “You should be referring to them the same way a provider would be referring a patient to a specialty, such as endocrinology or surgery.”

The biggest challenge for these programs is securing stable funding. Many are funded with a small amount of seed money, or by grants that run only a year or two.

Medicaid, established in 1965, is a nationwide health care program for people who have low incomes or are disabled. It’s jointly funded by the federal government and each state, and traditionally has covered medical costs such as physician visits and hospital stays.

In recent years, though, some states have increasingly sought to use Medicaid dollars to fund initiatives such as using social workers or offering legal assistance to address the social determinants of health. That includes North Carolina, which is using a federal waiver and hundreds of millions of dollars in a highly scrutinized effort to transform its Medicaid program. Among its strategies is more legal aid for patients.

Some critics see overreach by Medicaid plans

The nationwide shift has prompted some health policy experts to question whether Medicaid is beginning to run too far afield of its purpose.

“Everybody agrees that social factors play a very large role in health outcomes; the question is what to do about it,” says James Capretta, a resident fellow of the American Enterprise Institute who was an associate director of the Office of Management and Budget during the George W. Bush administration.

“Medicaid is already an immense program with lots of financial challenges,” Capretta notes. “The program was not built for Medicaid to pay for too many services beyond the more direct services that are related to a medical condition or a disability.”

The small-scale use of waivers and supplemental Medicaid dollars to fund programs aimed at the social factors of poor health — such as housing for people with severe mental illness — works in some places, says Matt Salo, executive director of the National Association of Medicaid Directors. But for Medicaid to provide widespread funding for such social service programs would be unsustainable, and shouldn’t happen, he says.

“It is not — and should not be — Medicaid’s responsibility to figure out how to pay for it,” he says.

Some advocates for legal assistance programs and health policy experts worry about a potential backlash based on misperceptions about how the little-known medical-legal partnerships use Medicaid. For one, the programs generally aren’t reimbursed for services in the same way traditional Medicaid programs are, notes Sara Rosenbaum, a health law and policy professor at George Washington University.

A 2019 Manatt Health Strategies report on funding for medical-legal partnerships said “the time is ripe” for these partnerships to explore the little-used avenues available in Medicaid.

The states that administer the Medicaid programs and the managed care organizations that contract with them have some discretion to fund non-clinical services that improve access or outcomes for social determinants of health, according to the report.

States also can write the medical-leaderships programs into a larger federal waiver application for experimental, pilot or demonstration projects that promote Medicaid’s objectives.

“The dollars are minimal,” says Ellen Lawton, former director of the National Center for Medical-Legal Partnership, and a senior fellow at HealthBegins, a consulting firm. “And I think what we’re seeing is that — appropriately — the Medicaid programs are pacing themselves. They’re looking to see what works — what works in our state, what works in our region, what works with the populations that we’re focused on.”

States have been creative in funding these sorts of legal assistance programs. Colorado officials say they amended their Medicaid spending plan to provide grants to two such partnerships. Other states have sought federal waivers allowing them to support those programs. The Department of Veterans Affairs also has funded medical-legal partnerships at clinics.

Scanlon, the attorney at the Salud clinic, is part of a nonprofit organization called Medical Legal Partnership Colorado that operates under a joint agreement with the clinic. Colorado’s Medicaid program approved a $300,000 grant to the partnership that was renewed this year to pay for three attorneys’ salaries.

Authorizing the funding took little convincing, says Michelle Miller, chief nursing officer for the state’s Medicaid program. “When we were asked to approve funding for this, I jumped at it,” Miller says.

One woman’s story

For Cynthia Enriquez De Santiago, the 19-year-old patient from Salud’s Commerce City clinic, legal advice made all the difference to her medical care.

In addition to her cerebral palsy, the teen is blind and has difficult speaking; she needs round-the-clock care, including help eating and using the bathroom. Her doctor at the clinic put Rafaela De Santiago, Cynthia’s mother, in touch with an attorney who could help her continue to be her daughter’s legal guardian after the teen turned 18 last year.

The timing of that legal help proved critical: Several months after seeing the attorney, Cynthia was rushed to a hospital. For no obvious reason, she’d became hypothermic; her blood pressure dropped and her blood-oxygen levels cratered.

“The doctors were telling me I had to be ready for the worst,” says the teen’s mother through an Spanish-to-English interpreter.

Because she was Cynthia’s legal guardian, her mother was able to sign off on follow-up tests after that emergency to quickly get to the root of the medical problem and help prevent it from happening again.

Without guardianship, “it would have been really, really hard, because I wouldn’t know where to begin the process,” Rafaela De Santiago says.

 
 

Clipped from: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/08/31/1030717388/some-medical-clinics-are-hiring-lawyers-to-improve-patients-health

Posted on

Overdose Risk More Than Tripled in 5 Years for NJ Medicaid Users

MM Curator summary

 
 

Despite efforts to control opioids access, NJ overdoses for heroin and fental skyrocketed from 2014-2019.

 
 

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.

 
 

Megan Schumann,

Community Contributor

 
 

A rise in heroin and fentanyl in New Jersey between 2014-2019 led to the tripling of medically treated opioid overdoses despite the state’s strict limiting of prescription opioids for pain and substantial state initiatives to expand access to treatment for opioid use disorder, according to a Rutgers-led study.

Researchers say the increased risk for overdose, primarily caused by heroin and synthetic opioids, was associated with co-occurring alcohol and other drug disorders, depression and hepatitis C. Those suffering with alcoholism, benzodiazepine addiction, major depression, hepatitis C, heart failure and pneumonia had overdose rates at least 1.5 times higher than those without these conditions.

“New Jersey was among the earliest states to see a rise in heroin mixed with fentanyl, which has rapidly taken over in our state’s illicit drug markets,” said Stephen Crystal, director of the Rutgers Center for Health Services Research at the Institute for Health, Distinguished Research Professor at the School of Social Work and lead author of a study appearing in the Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. “National policies in a changing opioid environment need to consider that along with sharply expanded medication treatment for opioid use disorder, comprehensive care strategies should address the complex mental health, substance use and medical conditions that characterize those who survive overdoses.”

Find out what’s happening in New Brunswick with free, real-time updates from Patch.

Researchers used New Jersey Medicaid claims from 2014 to 2019 for enrollees ages 12-64 to examine the demographic and clinical profiles of people who overdosed on opioids. The study found the overdose rate continued to rise even as opioid prescription rates among Medicaid beneficiaries decreased from 23 percent in 2015 to 13 percent in 2019. During this same period, fentanyl—a manufactured opioid more potent than heroin—found in samples seized by police increased from 2 percent to 80 percent, making it a significant driver of overdose rates.

New Jersey saw an increase in other diseases like diabetes—from 21 percent to 30 percent—between 2014-2019 among those who had medically treated overdoses in the Medicaid population. The proportion of overdose sufferers who also suffered from depression increased from 29 percent to 51 percent during the same time period.

Find out what’s happening in New Brunswick with free, real-time updates from Patch.

During the five year period, the rate of overdose increased even faster for Black than white enrollees, a reason the researchers suggest increasing outreach efforts to combat the problem in communities of color.

“The advent of the COVID-19 pandemic made meeting the needs of this vulnerable population more complex, with its burden of co-existing conditions that likely increase risk of overdose because of infectious diseases and substance abuse,” Crystal said.

The researchers called for more integration and coordination of services that not only treat opioid use, but also alcoholism, diabetes, heart failure, HIV, pulmonary disease and mental health conditions such as depression, bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. If left untreated, Crystal says, the conditions that coincide with opioid use disorder make a person’s situation more dire.

Other Rutgers researchers included Molly A. Nowels of the Rutgers Center for Health Services Research and School of Public Health; Hillary Samples of Rutgers Center for Health Services Research and School of Public Health; Peter Treitler of Center for Health Services Research and School of Social Work; as well as researchers from the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University, and Columbia University Medical Center.

 
 

Clipped from: https://patch.com/new-jersey/newbrunswick/overdose-risk-more-tripled-5-years-nj-medicaid-users

Posted on

Study: Carving Out Hepatitis C Therapies from Medicaid Managed Care Increases Use

MM Curator summary

 
 

Removing managed care as a control mechanism for utilization led to increased authorization of Hep-C drugs.

 
 

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.

 
 

Greater uptake of hepatitis C medication may help improve the health of Medicaid enrollees and reduce the economic burden of untreated hepatitis C on the U.S. healthcare system, the authors said.

Carve-out benefits of antiviral hepatitis C medications from Medicaid managed care prescription drug coverage can increase access and reduce economic burden of untreated hepatitis C infections, according to a recent study published in JAMA Health Forum.

A growing number of states have begun to carve out, or provide a separate coverage, for direct-acting antiviral hepatitis C medications, according to investigators. Instead of being covered by Medicaid managed care plans, these therapies are financed in some states through fee-for-service state Medicaid programs.

This study examined changes in prescriptions for Medicaid-covered direct-acting antiviral hepatitis C medications in four states (Indiana, Michigan, New Hampshire, and West Virginia) that carved out these drugs from Medicaid managed care between 2015 and 2017.

A synthetic control approach was used to compare changes in prescriptions between states that did and did not carve out these medications from January 2015 to June 2020.

State Medicaid programs often limit access to hepatitis C medications because of their high cost, with list prices ranging from $25 000 to $95 000 for a single course of treatment. Historically, access was limited through prior authorization requirements.

Investigators found that in the four states that implemented a fee-for-service coverage of hepatitis C medications, there was a mean quarterly increase of 22.1 prescriptions per 100,000 Medicaid enrollees, a relative increase of 86.3% compared with synthetic control states.

Prescriptions increased from 35.7% (Indiana) to 256.2% (New Hampshire) compared with their respective synthetic control states. Differences in medication use between treated states and synthetic control states also appeared to narrow over time. The authors speculate this may reflect pent-up demand for treatment for hepatitis C.

“Carve outs of high-cost medications may thus represent an important strategy for states to increase access to these medications, especially when combined with other approaches,” the authors wrote. “Under a capitated payment model, Medicaid MCOs face financial risk in delivering coverage of health care for their enrollees and have a limited set of strategies to mitigate this risk.”

An estimated 2.4 million people in the United States were living with hepatitis C during 2013–2016, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Of every 100 people infected with hepatitis C about five to 25 will develop cirrhosis within 10 years to 20 years. Patients who develop cirrhosis have a 1% to 4% annual risk of developing hepatocellular carcinoma and a 3% to 6% annual risk of hepatic decompensation, which is defined as acute deterioration in liver function and is characterized by jaundice, ascites, hepatic encephalopathy, hepatorenal syndrome or variceal hemorrhage.

 
 

Clipped from: https://www.managedhealthcareexecutive.com/view/study-carving-out-hepatitis-c-therapies-from-medicaid-managed-care-increases-use

Posted on

Medicaid Vaccination Rates Founder as States Struggle to Immunize Their Poorest Residents

MM Curator summary

 
 

Vax rates for Medicaid members are far lower than non-Medicaid members in multiple states and even for the same counties.

 
 

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 deserted walk-in covid-19 mass vaccination site at the Convention Center in downtown Washington, D.C., on June 1. (Anita Beattie / AFP via Getty Images)

Medicaid enrollees are getting vaccinated against covid-19 at far lower rates than the general population as states search for the best strategies to improve access to the shots and persuade those who remain hesitant.

Efforts by state Medicaid agencies and the private health plans that most states pay to cover their low-income residents has been scattershot and hampered by a lack of access to state data about which members are immunized. The problems reflect the decentralized nature of the health program, funded largely by the federal government but managed by the states.

It also points to the difficulty in getting the message to Medicaid populations about the importance of the covid vaccines and challenges they face getting care.

“These are some of the hardest-to-reach populations and those often last in line for medical care,” said Craig Kennedy, CEO of Medicaid Health Plans of America, a trade group. Medicaid enrollees often face hurdles accessing vaccines, including worries about taking time off work or finding transportation, he said.

Email Sign-Up


Subscribe to KHN’s free Weekly Edition.

In California, 49% of enrollees age 12 and older in Medi-Cal (the name of Medicaid in California) are at least partly vaccinated, compared with 74% for Californians overall.

Unlike some other large states, such as Texas and Pennsylvania, California provides its Medicaid plans with information from vaccine registries, which can help them target unvaccinated enrollees. But still, the rate of immunizations lags far behind that of the general population.

According to detailed reports showing vaccination rates by county and by health plan, rates around the state vary dramatically. In Silicon Valley’s Santa Clara County, 63% of Medi-Cal members have been vaccinated, versus 38% in neighboring Stanislaus County. California health plans are working with community groups to knock on doors in neighborhoods with low vaccination rates and providing shots on the spot.

This fall, California — which has the nation’s largest Medicaid program, with nearly 14 million people — will offer its Medi-Cal health plans $250 million in incentives to vaccinate members. The state is also putting up $100 million for gift cards limited to $50 for each enrollee.

In other states — such as Kentucky and Ohio — health plans are giving $100 gift cards to members when they get vaccinated.

While more than 202 million Americans are at least partly vaccinated against covid, nearly 30% of people 12 and older remain unvaccinated. Surveys show poor people are less likely to get a shot.

More than two-thirds of Medicaid beneficiaries across the country are covered by a private health plan. States pay a monthly fee to the plan for each member to handle medical needs and preventive care.

Nationally, about 70% of Medicaid enrollees are at least 12 years old and eligible for the vaccines, according to a KFF analysis.

State Medicaid programs that can track their progress show modest results:

  • In Florida, 34% of Medicaid recipients are at least partly vaccinated, compared with 67% for all residents 12 and older.
  • In Utah, 43% of Medicaid recipients are at least partly vaccinated, compared with 68% statewide.
  • In Louisiana, 26% of Medicaid enrollees are at least partly vaccinated, compared with 59% for the state population.
  • In Washington, D.C., 41% of Medicaid enrollees are at least partly vaccinated, compared with 76% of all residents.

We know how we are doing, and it’s not great,” said Dr. Pamela Riley, medical director of the D.C. Department of Health Care Finance, which oversees Medicaid.

Hemi Tewarson, executive director of the National Academy for State Health Policy, said she “had hoped there would not be this much of a disparity, but clearly there is.”

Medicaid agencies in several states, including Pennsylvania, Missouri, New Jersey and Texas, said they lack complete data on vaccination rates and don’t have access to state registries showing who has been immunized. Health experts say that, without that data, the Medicaid vaccine campaigns are virtually flying blind.

“Having data is step one in knowing who to reach out to and who to call and who to have doctors and pediatricians help out with,” said Julia Raifman, assistant professor of health law, policy and management at Boston University.

For years, Medicaid programs have worked with providers to improve vaccination rates among children and adults. But now, Medicaid officials need more direction from the federal government to set up “a more clear and focused and effective approach” to control covid, Raifman said.

Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, the administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, said the federal government is giving extra funding to state Medicaid programs to encourage covid vaccinations. We’re also encouraging states to remind people enrolled in their state Medicaid plans that vaccines are free, safe, and effective,” she said in a statement to KHN. Kennedy, of Medicaid Health Plans of America, said the job of getting shots to Medicaid enrollees is harder when states don’t share immunization data.

“We need access to the state immunization registries so we can make informed decisions to get those unvaccinated people vaccinated and identify those doing a great job, but it all starts with data sharing,” he said.

Medicaid agencies’ claims data doesn’t account for the many enrollees who get vaccinated at federal immunization sites and other places that don’t require insurance information.

California Medicaid officials said they can track enrollee vaccination by linking to the state Department of Public Health’s immunization registry, which captures residents’ inoculations regardless of where they occur in the state.

Data as of Aug. 8 shows rural Lassen County in northeastern California with the lowest vaccination rate among Medi-Cal enrollees, at 21%, and San Francisco with the highest, at 67%.

Medicaid enrollees’ vaccination rates fall short even compared with those of other people in the same county. In San Diego County, for example, 91% of residents are at least partially vaccinated, compared with 51% of Medicaid recipients.

Jana Eubank, executive director of the Texas Association of Community Health Centers, said her clinics would be grateful to know which Medicaid recipients are vaccinated to better target immunization campaigns. Having the data would also help providers make sure people get an additional dose, often called a booster, being recommended this fall.

“We have a pretty good sense, but it would be great to have more detail, as that would allow us to be more focused with our finite resources,” Eubank said.

Pennsylvania’s Department of Human Services, which oversees Medicaid, said it requested vaccine registry data from the state health department in the spring but hasn’t received it. A health department spokesperson said her agency was working through legal issues to safeguard the registry’s personal health data.

“Getting accurate, comprehensive vaccination data for our Medicaid recipients is a priority, but we cannot do so based off claims and ad hoc data alone,” said Ali Fogarty, a Pennsylvania Medicaid spokesperson.

Dr. David Kelley, chief medical officer of the state’s Medicaid program, said the lack of immunization data hasn’t slowed the agency’s vaccination work: “We are continuing full steam ahead to get folks immunized.”

AmeriHealth Caritas, which operates Medicaid health plans in Pennsylvania, Florida and six other states and the District of Columbia, has about 25% of its Medicaid enrollees vaccinated, said Dr. Andrea Gelzer, senior vice president of medical affairs.

AmeriHealth is working with its doctors and community organizations to support vaccine clinics. It has offered free transportation and made vaccines available to homebound enrollees.

In Louisiana, the Medicaid program has offered bonuses to five health plans to spur vaccines. But so far only one, Aetna, has qualified.

Louisiana Medicaid is paying Aetna $286,000 for improving its vaccination rates by 20 percentage points from May to August, state and health plan officials said. Aetna had at least partly vaccinated 36% of its enrollees as of Aug. 16.

John Baackes, CEO of L.A. Care Health Plan, said he remains skeptical about paying people to get their shots and said it could upset enrollees who already have been vaccinated and won’t qualify for cash or a gift card. “We don’t think gift cards are going to move the needle very much,” he said.

As part of its strategy to increase vaccinations, the health plan has called members at high risk of covid complications to get them into walk-up or drive-thru immunization sites and helped homebound members get shots where they live. About half the plan’s eligible enrollees have received at least one dose.

Richard Sanchez, CEO of CalOptima, the Medicaid health plan in Orange County, California, said offering $25 Subway gift cards helped increase vaccinations among members living at homeless shelters.

As of mid-August, about 56% of its eligible enrollees were at least partly vaccinated. “We are not where we should be, and the nation is not where it should be,” Sanchez said.

 
 

Clipped from: https://khn.org/news/article/medicaid-vaccination-rates-founder-as-states-struggle-to-immunize-their-poorest-residents/

 
 

Posted on

Pa. DHS wants to move Medicaid assessments to Maximus, angering legislators

MM Curator summary

 
 

PA wants to take away the assessments from AAAs, who have a conflict of interest because they also provide the services driven by the assessments.

 
 

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 change is part of a long-term effort to eliminate conflicts of interest in determining who is eligible for Medicaid benefits.

 
 

Meg Snead is the Acting Secretary of Human Services. The agency plans to change who does physical assessments for Medicaid eligibility in Pennsylvania. In West Philadelphia in June, she spoke on the safety and health precautions for families and their children this summer.Read moreTYGER WILLIAMS / Staff Photographer

Democrats and Republicans in Harrisburg don’t agree on much, but this week at a joint hearing held by four committees, they were united in their dismay over a Wolf administration effort to change who conducts physical assessments of elderly and disabled Pennsylvania residents when they apply for at-home services under Medicaid.

County agencies on aging such as the Philadelphia Corporation for Aging now provide those assessments by the thousands, while Maximus Inc., a publicly traded company based in Reston, Va., collects financial information from individuals and enrolls them in Medicaid if they qualify. The company is getting paid $36 million this year for those services.

Now, the Human Services department, which administers Medicaid, wants to take the contract for physical assessments for home and community-based services away from the local agencies and give it to Maximus, as well. Department officials declined to say how much additional money Maximus would receive under the proposed new contract.

The change, which also would take business away from agencies that serve disabled people, doesn’t sit well with consumer advocates and elected officials, who say they already hear regular complaints about Maximus in its current role. Kansas dropped Maximus from its Medicaid program at the end of the last year. The company has also come under fire in New York and other states.

 

We’ve spent millions of dollars on a company that has time and time again fallen short on meeting the individual needs of our loved ones,” State Sen. Michele Brooks, a Republican from Northwestern Pennsylvania who chairs the Health and Human Services Committee, said during opening remarks.

The three other panels were the Senate Aging & Youth Committee, the House Aging & Older Adult Services Committee, and the House Human Services Committee. Republicans control the state legislature.

“The fact that we have never had a joint hearing this large before and with so many members in agreement about the impact this decision could have for our communities underscores our collective resolve to see our commonwealth’s government do better by our constituents,” said State Sen. Maria Collett, a Democrat who represents parts of Montgomery and Bucks Counties and is minority chair of the Aging & Youth Committee.

Neither the human services department nor Maximus, which says on its website that it already conducts similar assessments in 14 other states, testified at the hearing Monday because the department’s award of the assessments contract is under protest by the Pennsylvania Association of Area Agencies on Aging.

After the hearing, officials at the department and at Maximus, which had $3.5 billion in revenue and $214 million in net income in the year ended Sept. 30, 2020, said they could not comment. The stock is up about 15% year-to-date and closed Thursday at $84.60.

Maximus’ performance improved last year, state records show. The company completed processing for 73,611 applications, and 94% of them were done within the expected 90-day window, up from 84% in 2019, according to the state data.

The Human Services department did not act in a vacuum when it hired Maximus five years ago as an independent Medicaid enrollment broker. Federal regulators had urged the agency to separate the enrollment function from the provision of services to Medicaid beneficiaries. The fear was that the local agencies had a conflict of interest because they were doing both at the time.

Financially, the stakes are still significant for the aging agencies. Statewide, the 52 local agencies received nearly $34 million for assessment services. The Philadelphia Corporation for Aging alone was paid $11 million for assessment services in the year ending June 30. Najja Orr, the agency’s chief executive, testified that the nonprofit had $87 million in revenue last year.

JR Reed, executive director of the Lehigh County Office of Aging and Adult Services, testified that losing the revenue from the assessments would cost his agency six case workers — about a quarter of the total — and one supervisor.

The contract, technically a grant agreement, for physical assessments is currently held by the Pennsylvania Association of Area Agencies on Aging Inc., though the work is done by local agencies.

It is common for losing bidders to formally protest contract decisions by the Human Services and other state departments, as the Pennsylvania Association of Area Agencies on Aging did in this case. Since 2015, the Human Services department has been trying to award new contracts for insurers to manage Medicaid benefits that cover physical health, but has been stymied by protests and court losses.

Following protests, the state Department of Health at least temporarily abandoned its plan to award contracts to new local agencies to manage the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, commonly known as WIC, Spotlight Pa. reported Wednesday.

Elected officials at Monday’s hearing heard the excruciating account of Tammy Schwab’s 11-month — and counting — struggle with Maximus to secure home care for her 20-year-old daughter, Teneille, who has physical and intellectual disabilities. The Mercer County woman said the only person she could count on for help was a representative of the Mercer County Area Agency on Aging.

Directors of four area agencies on aging and one county commissioner testified about the problems — delays, lost paperwork, unreturned phone calls — seniors already have with Maximus, even before the company takes on the additional responsibility of physical assessments.

Diane Marseglia, a Bucks County commissioner and social worker by training, said that in addition to performing 3,300 assessments last year, her county’s Area Agency on Aging fielded 842 calls from people asking for help dealing with Maximus.

Reed, from Lehigh County, said at the hearing that a hospice case worker complained that it took six months for one client to get through Maximus and become eligible for hospice care at home.

“Their clients don’t have this amount of time to be without services,” he said.

 
 

Clipped from: https://www.inquirer.com/business/health/pennsylvania-medicaid-home-community-services-agencies-elderly-disabled-20210827.html

 
 

Posted on

State funds for Oklahoma Medicaid expansion remain untouched

MM Curator summary

 
 

OK now has $164M in a savings account it had planned on using for expansion but doesn’t need to because of enhanced COVID funding from CMS.

 
 

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.

v

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — The $164 million appropriated by the Oklahoma Legislature to pay for the state’s share of Medicaid expansion remains untouched in a state agency savings account, state legislators learned Monday.

Oklahoma Health Care Authority CEO Kevin Corbett told House and Senate members that the agency has used savings generated from the Medicaid expansion, along with enhanced federal COVID-19 relief funds for states, to pay for the expansion so far.

The savings were generated by shifting about 65,000 Oklahomans whose health care costs were previously funded through the state’s Insure Oklahoma plan or other sources to the expanded Medicaid population, where the federal government covers 90% of the costs.

 
 

Corbett told lawmakers an estimated 700 to 800 Oklahomans are qualifying each day for health coverage under Medicaid expansion, although he expects that number to slow down in the coming months. As of Monday, Corbett said about 170,000 people have qualified for Medicaid under the expansion. The Health Care Authority has projected about about 215,000 residents would qualify for expanded Medicaid, and Corbett says those projections are likely still accurate.

After a decade of Republican resistance to expansion in Oklahoma, voters narrowly approved a constitutional amendment last year to expand eligibility for benefits. Now, an individual who earns up to $17,796 annually, or $36,588 for a family of four, qualifies for Medicaid health care coverage. By contrast, the median income limit for parents in states that didn’t expand their program is about $8,905 for a family of three, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

 
 

Clipped from: https://www.westport-news.com/news/article/State-funds-for-Oklahoma-Medicaid-expansion-16423508.php

 
 

 
 

Posted on

Akron Children’s creates new company to care for 100,000 Medicaid patients

MM Curator summary

 
 

A children’s hospital is starting a Medicaid ACO for children.

 
 

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.

 
 

Akron Children’s Hospital is creating a new subsidiary to help coordinate and improve overall care of 100,000 Medicaid patients in a 13-county region. 

The new company called the Akron Children’s Health Collaborative will be what’s called an accountable care organization or ACO.

An ACO is a “partnership between doctors, hospital and other health care providers that work together to offer high quality care at a lower cost and directly with insurers,” said Kris Grayem, Akron Children’s vice president of population health. 

 
 

The first contract for the new company is with CareSource, the largest insurer of Medicaid-covered children in the state. The collaboration will begin Oct. 1. 

Akron Children’s is in negotiations with the other Medicaid managed-care insurers for children in its 35-county coverage area to create similar collaborations, hopefully within the next six months to a year, said Shawn Lyden, Akron Children’s chief strategy officer. 

This will be Children’s first foray into an ACO.

Instead of getting paid every time a child covered by CareSource is seen at the hospital or at Children’s physician offices,  Children’s will receive a set amount of money per CareSource enrollee per month, according to Grace Wakulchik, Children’s Hospital president and CEO. 

With those funds, the company is “entrusted to use to care for these group of Medicaid children,” Wakulchik said. “The thought being with our excellent clinical coordination systems, we can coordinate that care better so that those kids get better front-end care. So we manage their health better so there aren’t those adverse expensive hospitalizations. 

“We want to intervene early. We want to coordinate your care. We want to have the best possible outcome and so that’s the risk we are taking by accepting this per member per month amount that we will be able to manage that care better for those families,” she said. 

Akron Children’s officials declined to share financial details of the contract. 

How does the Akron Children’s Health Collaborative work?

Currently, the hospital loses money on each Medicaid patient, Wakulchik said.  

“We’re hoping by managing kids getting preventive care, dental care and other care, we’ll be able to manage their care when it costs less not only to us but to keep the kids healthier,” she said. “In the long run, I don’t know this will be as profitable per se, but hopefully we won’t lose as much money.” 

About 42% of the 100,000 children who will be part of this new care model are currently Akron Children’s patients and already get some of the holistic care through the hospital’s population health efforts, which started in 2017, Lyden said.  

For instance, Children’s already has been helping with other social barriers to health care —such as transportation needs, food insecurity and housing needs — for its existing Medicaid patients, said Grayem. 

But 58% of children covered in the new collaborative have primary care physicians who are independent practitioners or aren’t affiliated with Children’s. The monthly money Children’s collaborative will get can be used for some of those same social barriers for all covered children in the plan, according to Lyden and Wakulchik. 

Part of the model will be partnering with those providers to engage them in the proactive care of the children. Those independent practitioners still have their contract with CareSource and also will receive an incentive from Children’s ACO company to work together. 

An example, Wakulchik said, is “say we have a pathway that helps asthmatics stay out of the hospital. We’re not just going to use that for patients we serve in Akron Children’s. We want to work with our community partners and they will use them in their practice to help keep them healthier.” 

Medicaid is Akron Children’s single largest payor, accounting for 53% of total charge, Lyden said. 

“This is a ripe area for us to get involved in this accountable care population health,” he said. 

Akron Children’s has been working with a network of independent physicians and federally qualified health centers to set up the collaborative and also will have five members on the collaborative board, Wakulchik said. 

In a statement, CareSource Ohio Market President Steve Ringel said “CareSource’s history is built on breaking down the barriers of health care to increase access to seamless high-quality cost-effective care. 

“Our partnership with Akron Children’s Hospital will continue to support our youngest members and their families in northeast Ohio.” 

13 counties covered

The collaborative’s CareSource contract will cover 13 counties: Summit, Stark, Portage, Wayne, Medina, Ashland, Carroll, Holmes, Tuscarawas, Trumbull, Mahoning, Columbiana and Huron. 

There are still another 120,000 Medicaid-covered children in the 13 counties with other insurers that are not yet covered under this new model, Lyden said.  

Akron Children’s currently has a 35-county service area and will consider opportunities to expand the collaborative in future years, he aid. 

The new model is not a “patient-steering mechanism” to try to get more patients to Akron Children’s facilities, Wakulchik said. While she would like it if working with more community partners would involve better access to Akron Children’s facilities, the collaborative would be responsible for children’s care in the program anywhere they go. 

“They can go anywhere they want,” Lyden added. “They could go to Columbus and it’s still on our nickel. It still comes out on our fixed payment.” 

Said Grayem: “The main thing is we want to improve the health of kids by focusing on quality and improving health equity for better outcomes.” 

 Beacon Journal staff reporter Betty Lin-Fisher can be reached at 330-996-3724 or blinfisher@thebeaconjournal.com. Follow her @blinfisherABJ on Twitter or www.facebook.com/BettyLinFisherABJ To see her most recent stories and columns, go to www.tinyurl.com/bettylinfisher

 
 

Clipped from: https://www.indeonline.com/story/news/2021/08/31/akron-childrens-creates-new-company-care-100-000-medicaid-patients/5622988001/

Posted on

D.C. plans to rebid its troubled Medicaid contracts, as risk of patients losing access to MedStar doctors looms

MM Curator summary

 
 

One hospital-based health plan lost its DC contract and has threatened to not see Medicaid patients- and that has triggered a new MCO procurement.

 
 

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.

 
 

As a crisis roils D.C.’s Medicaid system, city leaders said on Friday that they will issue an entirely new procurement for insurance companies to manage poor patients’ care — an attempt that may or may not prevent MedStar from revoking access to its doctors for hundreds of thousands of poor patients.

The city’s Medicaid troubles reached a boiling point last week when Deputy Mayor Wayne Turnage said that MedStar, the hospital system that most often cares for D.C.’s beneficiaries, had announced its intention to stop providing routine care for most Medicaid patients in the coming months.

The new plan to rebid the contracts might represent one step toward resolving the impasse with MedStar, though a new procurement does not necessarily mean that low-income patients won’t face the loss of their current insurance plan or their access to some doctors this fall.

 
 

D.C. Medicaid patients could lose access to MedStar, the health system that most often treats the city’s poor and sick

 
 

The situation developed after a judge last year ruled that the city had improperly awarded the contracts, collectively worth about $1.5 billion, to three insurance companies to manage the care of 250,000 Medicaid beneficiaries and participants in the Alliance program for other low-income patients. The judge said MedStar, which operates both a hospital system and an insurance plan, had not followed procurement rules and shouldn’t have been awarded one of the contracts.

Under the ruling, MedStar is set to lose its contract at the end of September. With that date approaching, according to Turnage, MedStar told the other two insurers — who under the ruling were set to keep their contracts — that starting later this fall, it will no longer treat their Medicaid patients at its hospitals and doctors offices, except for emergency room visits, unless the insurers start paying much higher rates.

 
 

That set off a scramble last week by D.C. officials to prevent hundreds of thousands of patients from losing access to MedStar doctors. Friday’s announcement was the first step.

 
 

D.C. Council won’t take action that could allow MedStar to keep its Medicaid contract

 
 

Turnage said that the Department of Health Care Finance, which he heads, decided to now require Medicaid managed care plans to cover intensive inpatient mental health and substance abuse treatment programs that are currently paid for directly by the District, not by the insurance plans. This change in the managed care program will require the city to rebid the contracts, Turnage contends. That would have the secondary effect of eventually allowing MedStar another chance to win the contract, after the department issues its new request for proposals in November.

 
 

All three insurers who currently hold the contracts have either declined to comment or not responded to inquiries from The Washington Post. They would all need to bid again to stay in the program.

Turnage’s action Friday could give the appearance that the city found an excuse to redo the procurement just so that it could give MedStar a contract again — and thus satisfy the company so that it won’t revoke access to its doctors in the meantime. As the mayor and council have fought over the Medicaid situation for months, accusations of “contract steering” have flown back and forth. Council members have voted down Mayor Muriel E. Bowser and Turnage’s proposals that they viewed as unfairly crafted to make room for MedStar in the program, and Turnage said council members who tried to require the city to abide by the judge’s order were assisting Amerigroup, which could have replaced MedStar as the third insurer.

 
 

Turnage said he was not promising any business to MedStar, but acknowledged the timing of the decision could potentially help the District out of its current quandary. “Obviously if we have a chance to both modify the program to bring in new benefits and also take some actions to ensure there’s no disruptions, we take advantage of that propitious timing,” he said. “This is going to be a competitive procurement. There will be many comers, and nobody’s going to be guaranteed a spot.”

 
 

In the meantime, two major disruptions loom: First, when MedStar’s contract as an insurer ends in a month, the nearly 60,000 patients covered by the plan would be reassigned to either CareFirst or AmeriHealth. The three insurers all have contracts with the city’s major hospitals and clinics, but the change could still be a headache for some patients.

 
 

Turnage said that Bowser is studying that issue. Unless Bowser takes action to stop MedStar’s contract from ending — a power she may have under her coronavirus pandemic emergency authority — notifications are scheduled to go out to those patients about their new insurance coverage starting Wednesday.

 
 

And second, long before the new procurement is complete, CareFirst and AmeriHealth patients will lose access to MedStar doctors unless the insurers can broker some sort of agreement.

 
 

That’s what scares one Ward 7 resident, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to keep her health conditions private. The resident, a 50-year-old woman, is a longtime Medicaid patient who has lost access to her primary care provider in the past due to the fluctuating agreements between hospital systems and Medicaid managed care providers.

 
 

That time, it took her two years to find another primary care doctor, she said. The asthma that her old doctor had helped her control worsened, and she became prediabetic before she found a nonprofit clinic where she could get medical care.

 
 

Now, she is enrolled in AmeriHealth’s managed care plan and is seeing a cardiologist and a pulmonologist at MedStar. She fears she’ll lose access to her doctors once again.

 
 

“We don’t get to say anything. Because we’re poor, we don’t get no say, and it’s not fair,” she said. “They’re always talking about health disparities. How can we address them if we aren’t going to the doctor?”

 
 

Clipped from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2021/08/27/dc-to-rebid-medicaid-contracts/

Posted on

Montana’s plan to end continuous Medicaid coverage sparks objections

MM Curator summary

 
 

MT lawmakers want to increase the frequency of eligibility determinations to reduce spending on ineligible members, but some advocates say the disruption to care is not worth it.

 
 

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.

 
 

HELENA — Some Montana Medicaid recipients are pushing back against plans to end 12-month continuous coverage for certain people enrolled in public health insurance programs as the state’s public comment period on the new policy draws to a close. If successful, the change would likely alter two Medicaid programs in Montana in significant ways, both for enrollees who rely on the state for health care coverage and for officials tasked with operating the new system.

The state will stop accepting public comment on its proposals on Aug. 31.

While the state Department of Public Health and Human Services estimates that ending continuous eligibility, or a year of uninterrupted health care coverage, will save the federal and state governments roughly $22 million a year in the cost of benefits, critics say the change could result in temporary lapses in coverage for more than 20,000 people in a given year. 

Inherent to opponents’ concerns is the prospect of Montanans losing coverage because of paperwork, communication and bureaucratic errors rather than true income ineligibility, an outcome DPHHS has said it would make every effort to avoid. 

“I’m still unclear as to what the outcome is that the department hopes to seek. But I am pretty sure that, whether intended or not, the outcome will be a reduction in the rolls.”

Rep. Mary Caferro, D-Helena

The department contends that checking eligibility on a more frequent basis will help ensure that people who don’t qualify for the public program won’t remain on the rolls, saving the state money in the process.

But vagueness about what might replace the state’s current system has sparked anxiety among some residents insured by the impacted programs, including single adults with incomes below 138% of the federal poverty level and people diagnosed with a serious disabling mental illness (SDMI). 

“I depend on Medicaid for my mental health problems, and when I have my medicine I feel normal. Please don’t make me worry about going without my medicine,” said one man in a written comment submitted to the department through the nonprofit Montana Women Vote. “Do not end continuous eligibility.”

Montana Free Press is not publishing the names of quoted commenters, who did not respond to interview requests, in order to protect personal medical information. Montana Women Vote estimated it has helped submit roughly 175 comments from individuals in the past month.

Another woman wrote to the department out of concern for her goddaughter, saying it would be “unfair and cruel to end continuous eligibility,” and that the change would make it “difficult or impossible” for her goddaughter to maintain health care coverage.

One recipient told state health officials he depended on Medicaid for “life saving” medicine for diabetes, and urged them not to alter the program’s verification process.

“Please don’t do this to the people that depend on this,” he wrote.

‘UNDER THE DIRECTION’ OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE

Montana and New York are currently the only states that permit continuous eligibility through an agreement with the federal government agency that administers Medicaid and Medicare. Ending continuous eligibility would happen through a waiver submitted to those federal officials, who may accept or reject the proposal. 

The draft waiver changes developed by DPHHS contain no details about what would replace Montana’s current process of vetting eligibility and income once a year. Department staff said deliberations about program logistics will likely continue between federal and state officials after the waivers are submitted.

“We are implementing this waiver change under the direction of the Montana state Legislature. The funding to pay for continuous eligibility was removed from our budget and there was clear language in directing us to pursue this policy.”

Marie Matthews, DPHHS

The department’s move comes in the wake of a legislative session in which lawmakers failed to pass a complex bill, Senate Bill 100, that would have ended continuous eligibility and made several other changes to how Montana verifies Medicaid eligibility.

Late in the session, lawmakers then passed a budget amendment authorizing DPHHS to end continuous eligibility for adults who are covered through the 2015 Medicaid expansion program. That group includes single adults whose income is up to 138% of the federal poverty level. Nearly 10% of Montana’s total population, or 101,484 enrollees, were covered by Medicaid expansion as of this July.

“We are implementing this waiver change under the direction of the Montana state Legislature,” DPHHS Medicaid and Health Services branch manager Marie Matthews said in an August hearing before lawmakers. “The funding to pay for continuous eligibility was removed from our budget and there was clear language in directing us to pursue this policy.”

Though not instructed to do so by the state Legislature, DPHHS has said it will also submit a waiver amendment to the federal government to end continuous eligibility for roughly 20,000 Montanans covered by the WASP (Waiver for Additional Services and Populations) program, which insures low-income families and caretakers as well as people 18 and older who are diagnosed with a serious disabling mental illness (SDMI). The department has said its reason for doing so is to avoid “significant additional administrative burden” if the state continues 12-month continuous eligibility in one program and not the other.

During the August meeting, department officials stressed that a person would be removed from the program only after verification that their permanent monthly income level has exceeded the eligible amount.

“If somebody makes enough income that they’re no longer eligible for Medicaid coverage, then the next tier is the subsidized [Affordable Care Act] plans on the exchange,” said DPHHS Director Adam Meier, who added that he would expect some residents’ health outcomes to eventually improve after leaving Medicaid, based on a presumption that they will have a larger income.  

“I would think that as people improve their economic situations, as they’re making more income, that would then be their impetus for no longer qualifying [for Medicaid], then we may see a corresponding increase or improvement in health outcomes,” Meier said.

THE ‘HUMAN ELEMENT’ TO POLICY CHANGE

None of the members of the public who testified before lawmakers in August voiced support for the proposed DPHHS waivers. 

Asked how many public comments the department had received so far, and whether those comments supported or opposed the proposals, a DPHHS spokesperson told MTFP that information will be available after public comment closes on Aug. 31 and the department has submitted its proposals to the federal government. 

Democratic lawmakers on the Children, Families, Health, and Human Services Interim Committee in August repeatedly asked members of the department to explain what they consider the benefits of discontinuing continuous eligibility, and how many people would likely be impacted by the change. 

“There’s lots of research that basically shows that by providing people more stable coverage, they end up being healthier. They are able to get primary and preventive care so that they don’t have a diabetic coma, so that if they have asthma, they don’t end up in the emergency room.”

Dr. Leighton Ku, Director of the Center for Health Policy Research at George Washington University

“I’m still unclear as to what the outcome is that the department hopes to seek,” said Rep. Mary Caferro, D-Helena. “But I am pretty sure that, whether intended or not, the outcome will be a reduction in the rolls.”

The department, citing a 2013 study conducted by researchers from George Washington University, estimated that ending continuous eligibility would reduce months of coverage by 2.6%. Caferro said that calculation seems to use “sterile language” to avoid accounting for the impact on real Montanans.

“You know, when you say 2.6% of whatever, we’re talking about people,” she said. “WASP, for example, covers people who are seriously mentally ill and also the families who live in extreme poverty … we are talking about people’s health care and people’s lives.”

Pinpointing the number of people affected by the waiver change is difficult, said Dr. Leighton Ku of George Washington University, one of the researchers whose work DPHHS cited in its estimate of reduced coverage. 

In a written comment submitted to the department and in a later phone interview, Ku said a reduction of 2.6% covered months would likely be distributed across enrollees who would temporarily lose coverage for a short amount of time within a year. If enrollees had their coverage discontinued for roughly two months before they could re-enter the program, Ku said, the number of affected residents could reach as high as 15.6%, or roughly 21,500 people.

Ku said that “churn,” the process of people exiting public programs only to re-apply a short time later, can also create administrative strain on public health departments, on top of the increased vetting and communication demands on state employees. In its proposed waiver changes, DPHHS does not estimate the anticipated costs of running the program with more frequent eligibility checks.

If people fall through the cracks because of miscommunication with DPHHS about their income and eligibility, Ku said, their health care may also be more expensive when they come back to a public health insurance program. More importantly, he said, interrupted health care could have serious repercussions for some individuals.

“If you have diabetes, for example, that means that actually you want your insulin and your medications all year round,” Ku said. “You don’t want to say, OK, insulin for 10 months, two months I’ll go without. That’s how you end up having problems. Like you go into diabetic coma.”

Nationally, health care researchers have encouraged states to enact continuous eligibility policies for particularly vulnerable people with public insurance, such as children, because of improved long-term health outcomes. Ku said he and others are suggesting that states apply that perspective to their Medicaid policies for adults as well. 

“There’s lots of research that basically shows that by providing people more stable coverage, they end up being healthier. They are able to get primary and preventive care so that they don’t have a diabetic coma, so that if they have asthma, they don’t end up in the emergency room,” Ku said. “If there is someone who has, you know, a mental health problem, that they don’t go off their medications, they can still get counseling, so they don’t have a psychotic attack.”

After the close of public comment next Tuesday, DPHHS has until Sept. 3 to apply changes to the proposed waivers and submit them to the federal government. Before any waivers are approved, federal officials will open another 30-day public comment period and could enter negotiations with state officials on the details of proposed plans.

One other logistical reality hangs over Montana and other states looking to change their enrollment and eligibility processes for Medicaid. Given the federally declared public health emergency in place because of the COVID-19 pandemic, states must keep continuous eligibility in place or risk losing an enhanced federal match rate for Medicaid. 

In its presentations on the topic, DPHHS has said it will continue to follow the federal pandemic guideline so as not to sacrifice that boosted rate. The department has said the federal emergency declaration is expected to continue until Dec. 31, and could possibly be extended further, likely pushing the implementation of any changes to Montana’s Medicaid programs into 2022.

by Eric Dietrich 08.23.202108.23.2021

 
 

Clipped from: https://montanafreepress.org/2021/08/25/montana-plan-end-continuous-medicaid-coverage/

 
 

Posted on

NY- DiNapoli: Medicaid Billing Errors Cost State More Than $1.5 Billion

MM Curator summary

 
 

The latest report shows the state pays claims without required provider ids.

 
 

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.

 
 

Patients Potentially Put at Risk by Dept. of Health’s Failure to Ensure Health Care Providers Were Properly Qualified

The state Department of Health (DOH) allowed more than $1.5 billion in improper Medicaid payments over the course of several years due to errors in its billing system and may have exposed patients to unqualified and uncredentialed health care providers, according to three reports released today by State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli.

“Troubling errors like the ones routinely identified by my auditors are extremely costly. They can also put patients at risk,” DiNapoli said. “By not fixing problems with the Department of Health’s eMedNY system and other issues, hundreds of millions of dollars more in taxpayer dollars could be misspent and unqualified providers could continue to treat Medicaid patients. The department must act on our recommendations and address these shortfalls, so Medicaid recipients receive the level of care they deserve, and taxpayers’ dollars are spent effectively.”

For the state fiscal year that ended March 31, 2020, New York’s Medicaid program had approximately 7.3 million recipients and Medicaid claim costs totaled $69.8 billion.

The Affordable Care Act and federal regulations mandate that state Medicaid agencies require all ordering and referring physicians and other professionals providing services through the Medicaid fee-for-service program to be enrolled as participating providers and their National Provider Identifiers (NPIs) to be included on Medicaid claims. This screening and provider enrollment process improves the efficiency of the health care system and helps to reduce fraud and abuse. It also helps to ensure the quality of services and protects public health by validating that providers have the appropriate credentials to provide services and are not prohibited from participating in the Medicaid program by the federal government.

In the first report, DiNapoli’s auditors found that a significant number of claims were paid even though they did not have a proper NPI to ensure the ordering, prescribing, referring, or attending provider was properly qualified or credentialed, creating a risk for patients. Processing weaknesses in eMedNY, the Medicaid claims processing and payment system, allowed $1.5 billion in payments for Medicaid clinic and professional claims without an appropriate NPI.

For example, some claims contained NPIs of providers who were not enrolled in Medicaid, while other claims did not contain an NPI at all.

Auditors also found $57.3 million in payments for pharmacy claims that did not contain an appropriate prescriber NPI and $19.4 million in payments for claims that contained an NPI but, according to regulations, should not be included on Medicaid claims or that should be further reviewed by DOH due to past misconduct.

Auditors recommended DOH:

  • Review the Medicaid payments for claims not containing an appropriate NPI identified by the audit and determine an appropriate course of action.
  • Enhance system controls to prevent improper Medicaid payments for claims not containing an appropriate NPI.

The department’s full response to the findings and recommendations is included in the audit.

A second report found that from Jan. 1, 2015 through Dec. 31, 2019, claims totaling $28.5 million were paid for Medicaid recipients who were reported as discharged from a hospital, but then admitted to a different hospital less than 24 hours later. These claims raise the possibility that the first hospital wrongly recorded a patient’s transfer as a discharge, which is a red flag that the claims are at a high risk of overpayment.

In fact, auditors found nearly half of the claims that they sampled (15 of 31) were incorrectly coded as discharges in the eMedNY system. The result of those errors was overpayment of $252,107, or 55% of the total value of the 31 sampled claims. This high error rate raised concerns about the extent of overpayment in the $28 million of high-risk claims. Auditors also found that DOH has no process to identify and recover such improper Medicaid payments.

Auditors recommended DOH:

  • Develop a process to identify and recover Medicaid overpayments for fee-for-service inpatient claims that have a high risk of incorrect patient status codes such as those identified by the audit.
  • Review the $252,107 in overpayments and recover as appropriate.
  • Review the remaining 2,017 high-risk claims totaling $28 million and recover overpayments as appropriate. Ensure prompt attention is paid to those providers that received the highest amounts of payments.

In their response, department officials agreed with the audit recommendations and said actions will and have been taken. Their response is included in the report.

An audit released in July 2019 identified more than $102.1 million in improper managed care premium payments on behalf of 65,961 recipients who had multiple identification numbers in the eMedNY system. In a follow-up report released today, auditors found DOH made progress addressing the problems identified in the initial audit report and the Office of the Medicaid Inspector General recovered $50.8 million of the $102.1 million identified. Another $51.3 million still needs to be recovered.

Since the 2019 audit, auditors identified another $14.3 million in managed care premium payments for 14,293 potentially inappropriate identification numbers for the period July 1, 2018, to Aug. 31, 2020. According to department officials, many of these cases have been resolved or are currently being reviewed.

Audits

Improper Medicaid Payments for Claims Not in Compliance With Ordering, Prescribing, Referring, and Attending Requirements (2019-S-2)

Improper Medicaid Payments for Misclassified Patient Discharges (2020-S-8)

Improper Managed Care Premium Payments for Recipients With Duplicate Client Identification Numbers (2020-F-22)

 
 

Clipped from: https://www.perugazette.com/2021/08/24/dinapoli-medicaid-billing-errors-cost-state-more-than-1-5-billion/