DHHS’ Robotic Certification of MCOs…So Stepford-ish!
Senate Bill 208, Session Law 2013-85, requires the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to conduct certifications to ensure the effectiveness of the managed care organizations (MCOs), and the first certification was to be before August 1, 2013. N.C. Gen. Stat. 122C-124.2 was added as a new section by Session Law 2013-85 and states:
“In order to ensure accurate evaluation of administrative, operational, actuarial and financial components, and overall performance of the LME/MCO, the Secretary’s certification shall be based upon an internal and external assessment made by an independent external review agency in accordance with applicable federal and State laws and regulations.”
In order to comply with the statute, Secretary Wos conducted the first certification and published the findings July 31, 2013. Well, actually Carol Steckel signed the certification and sent it to Sec. Wos (technically Wos did not conduct the certification, but she certified the content).
Steckel’s certification states that “DMA is attesting that all ten [MCOs] are appropriate for certification.”
Attest means to provide or service as clear evidence of. See Google. Clear evidence? That the MCOs are compliant?
One of the areas that was certified was that the MCOs are timely paying providers, that the MCOs are accurately processing claims, and that the MCOs are financially accurate (whatever that means).
Here is the chart depicting those results:
Wow. Who would have guessed that East Carolina Behavioral Healthcare (ECBH) is 100% compliant as to timely payments to providers, 100% compliant as to accuracy of claim processing, and 100% compliant as to financial accuracy. ONE HUNDRED PERCENT!! As in, zero noncompliance!!
I mean…Wow! Wow! Wow! Wow! Wow!
Have you ever read “The Stepford Wives?” The book was published in 1972 by Ira Levine.
Basically, the main character, Joanna Eberhart and her husband move to Stepford, Connecticut (a fictional place). Upon arrival, Joanna and spouse (I can’t remember his name, so we will call him Ed) notice that all the woman are gorgeous, the homes are immaculate, and the woman are all perfectly submissive to their husbands (how boring would that be??). As time passes, Joanna becomes suspicious of the zombie-like actions of all the wives.
She and her friend Bobbie (until Bobbie turns zombie-like) research the past of the Stepford citizens and discover that most of the wives were past, successful business women and feminists, yet become zombie-like. At one point, they even write to the EPA inquiring as to possible contamination in Stepford.
After Bobbie turns zombie-like, Joanna fears that the women are changed into robots. She decides to flee Stepford, but is caught and is changed into a robot. The books concludes with Joanna happily and submissively walking the grocery store with a large smile and robotic movements, and another wife moving into Stepford.
That book coined the word “Stepford” to mean someone acting as a robot, submissive, or blissfully following orders.
I am not saying that the DMA certification was conducted as a Stepword wife…I am merely explaining that I was reminded of “The Stepford Wives” when I read the certification. Maybe there is no analogy to be made…you decide.
Upon quick review of the certification, a number of questions arise in my mind. Such as…didn’t anyone proofread this??? Under each graph, it states “Data is based on a statistical sample of Medicaid claims processed between February and May of 2013 for each LME-MCO.” Data is???
Hello!…It is data ARE, not data is!! Data are; datum is.
Besides the obvious grammar issue, I am concerned with the actual substance of the certification.
Nothing is defined. (Not surprising for an entity that doesn’t know data are plural). Except “compliant” is defined on the last page as “A finding of “compliant” means that HMS found that the LME-MCO was compliant with the requirements set forth in SB 208.” That is like saying, “Beautiful is hereby defined as whatever I say is beautiful.” That is not a definition.
And HMS? HMS, as in, the company North Carolina hired as a Medicaid recovery audit contractor (RAC)? I do not know if HMS the RAC and HMS the credentialing company is the same company…but the names sure are similar.
Speaking of RACs, going back to the basis of the data…”a statistical sample?” (Which is not defined?) What is a statistical sample? Is this a statistical sample like Public Consulting Group’s (PCG) in extrapolation audits? From where does the sample come?
Looking at the timeliness of provider payments, the lowest percentage is CoastalCare. At 93.06%. But what does that mean? That CoastalCare takes longer than 30 days to pay providers in 6.94% of cases? And what is noncompliance? 80%? 20%? Because where I went to school, a 93% is a ‘B.’ Yet 93%, here, is “compliant.” Does “compliant” mean not failing?
What is “claims processing accuracy?” Does that mean that ECBH was 100% correct in processing (or not processing) claims based on medical necessity (or failure to meet medical necessity)? or, merely, that the process by which ECBH processes claims (regardless of whether the process abides by clinical policy), does not deviate; therefore ECBH is 100% compliant?
How does one determine 100% compliance? Does this certification mean that between February and May 2013, Sandhills paid 100% providers timely. That for 4 months, Sandhills was not late for even one provider? Because Sandhills had 100% in relation to timely provider payments. (Personally, I would be extremely hesitant to attest for any entity achieving 100% compliance. How easy would that be to disprove?? A journalist finds one mistake and the certification loses all credibility).
The next chart demonstrates the MCO’s solvency.
I have to admit…this chart makes very little sense to me. The only information we get is that greater than 1.0 equals compliance. If you ask me, being greater than 1 seems like a very low bar.
But, if greater than 1 equals compliance, then, applying Logic 101, the higher the number the more solvent. I could be wrong, but this makes sense to me.
Using that logic, in February MeckLINK was N/A (not “live” yet). March: 1.32. April: 1.54. May: 1.80. Tell if I’m wrong, folks, but it appears to me that MeckLINK, according to HMS and unknown data, that MeckLINK is becoming more solvent as the months pass.
And this is the same MCO that WFAE cited was using accounting tricks to remain in the black????
And the same MCO that, come March 1, 2014, must be acquired by another MCO? And then there were 9…
Under the chart demonstrating the “Solvency Review,” it states, “Data is (sic) base don financial information…” Duh!! I thought we’d review employee personnel records to determine solvency!! (Although…that could be helpful because we could see employee salaries…I’m just saying…).
What the certification does not say is financial information from whom? The MCOs?Secretary Wos: “Hey, Alliance, are you solvent?” Alliance: “Yes, Secretary.” Secretary Wos: “Oh, thank goodness! I wouldn’t know what to do if you were not!!”
Going back to the finding of compliance means HMS determined compliance…Does that mean that HMS compiled all the data? What about the intradepartmental monitoring team? Does the intradepartmental monitoring team just authorize whatever HMS says it finds? Almost…Stepford-like.
The letter from Steckel showing DMA’s attestation of all 10 MCOs being appropriate for certification says just that…DMA is attesting that all 10 MCOs are appropriate for certification. No analysis. No individual thinking. Almost…Stepford-like.
Then the letter from Sec. Wos to Louis Pate, Nelson Dollar, and Justin Burr (legislatures) regurgitates Steckel’s letter. Except Wos’ letter says “I hereby certify that the following LME-MCOs are in compliance with the requirements of NC Gen. Stat 122C-124.2(b).”
Again, no analysis. No independent thinking. Steckel’s letter is dated July 31, 2013; Sec. Wos’ letter is dated July 31, 2013. Wos did not even take ONE DAY to verify Steckel’s letter.
What good is a statute requiring DHHS to certify the MCOs every 6 months if each certification is attested to by a Stepford??
Posted on October 28, 2013, in Accountability, Alliance, Behavioral health, CenterPoint, Certification of MCOs, Division of Medical Assistance, EastPointe, ECBH, Extrapolations, General Assembly, Health Care Providers and Services, HMS, Legislation, Local Management Entity, MCO, MeckLINK, Medicaid, Medicaid Audits, Medicaid Contracts, Medicaid Costs, Medicaid Funds, Medicaid Reimbursements, Medicaid Services, Medical Necessity, N.C. Gen. Stat. 122C-124.2, NC, NC DHHS, NC Medicaid Director, North Carolina, Provider Medicaid Contracts, Public Consulting Group, RAC, RAC Audits, Regulatory Audits, Sandhills, Smokey Mountain Center, Transparency and tagged Aldona Wos, Alliance, Behavioral health, Carol Steckel, CoastalCare, Division of Medical Assistance, DMA, East Carolina Behavioral Health, ECBH, Extrapolations, Health care, Health care provider, HMS, Managed Care Organizations, MCO, MCO Solvency, MeckLINK, Medicaid, N.C. Gen. Stat. 122C-124.2, NC DHHS, North Carolina, PCG, Public Consulting Group, RAC, Recovery Audit Contractor, Sandhills, Secretary Wos, Secretary's certification, Senate Bill 208, Session Law 2013-85, Timely Medicaid Payments. Bookmark the permalink. 4 Comments.
Hi Knicole. Love your blog. I mean, a blog on Medicaid? How could that not be awesome!
Anyway, just a couple of points. First, the solvency chart is showing the ratio of assets to liabilities. Insurers and MCOs are required to maintain a ratio above a certain amount (either a certain percentage over, like 105%, or 100% plus some fixed amount like $1.5M). I couldn’t find anything illuminating in NC, but here’s a Maryland report (http://www.mdinsurance.state.md.us/sa/docs/documents/home/reports/mco-miainterimreport-final11-16-09.pdf) explaining it at a 30,000 foot level. And yes, the actual calculation where you come up with asset and liability numbers is enormously complicated, especially in the MCO context (it’s a good bit easier in, say, the life insurance context). But the chart you are looking at it is just expressing that ratio in a non-percentage format (i.e., 1.05=105%).
Second, treating “data” as a singular noun is generally accepted these days where it’s used as a synonym for “information.” (See http://www.forbes.com/sites/naomirobbins/2012/07/25/is-the-word-data-singular-or-plural/). I think that covers DHHS’s use, though I’m not 100% on that.
Appreciate the comments and the explanation as to the solvency chart! We will agree to disagree as to data. I understand that most proper English isn’t still used today, but, as an English major in undergrad, I am saddened by the lack of proper English. To me, data are, and always will be, plural. 🙂
Knicole: I support your fight on data/datum, as well as the butchery of alumni, agenda, et al, when they are used as singular nouns (I also object to ‘dialog’ instead of ‘dialogue’, et al), but I’m a bit of a pedant.
The blind approvals of the MCOs sound a lot like an organization that would approve the roll-out of a major software change, simply accepting the word of the vendor that it would work great (in spite of an independent auditor having noted significant problems therein).
Pingback: NC Medicaid: Are MCOs Bias? | medicaidlaw-nc