Category Archives: Group Homes
Is this the end of the managed care organizations (MCOs)?
If the Senate’s proposed committee substitute (PCS) to House Bill 403 (HB 403) passes the answer is yes. The Senate’s PCS to House Bill 403 was just favorably reported out of the Senate Health Care Committee on June 15, 2017. The next step for the bill to advance will be approval by the Senate Rules Committee. Click here to watch its progress.
As my readers are well aware, I am not a proponent for the MCOs. I think the MCOs are run by overpaid executives, who pay themselves too high of bonuses, hire charter flights, throw fancy holiday parties, and send themselves and their families on expensive retreats – to the detriment of Medicaid recipients’ services and Medicaid providers’ reimbursement rates. See blog. And blog.
Over the last couple days, my email has been inundated by people abhorred with HB 403 – urging the Senators to retain the original HB 403, instead of the PCS version. As with all legislation, there are good and bad components. I went back and re-read these emails, and I realized multiple authors sat on an MCO Board. Of course MCO Board members will be against HB 403! Instead of hopping up and down “for” or “against” HB 403, I propose a (somewhat) objective review of the proposed legislation in this blog.
While I do not agree with everything found in HB 403, I certainly believe it is a step in the right direction. The MCOs have not been successful. Medically necessary behavioral health care services have been reduced or terminated, quality health care providers have been terminated from catchment areas, and our tax dollars have been misused.
However, I do have concern about how quickly the MCOs would be dissolved and the new PHPs would be put into effect. There is no real transition period, which could provide safety nets to ensure continuity of services. We all remember when NCTracks was implemented in 2013 and MMIS was removed on the same day. There was no overlap – and the results were catastrophic.
The following bullet points are the main issues found in HB 403, as currently written.
- Effective date – MCOs dissolve immediately (This could be dangerous if not done properly)
Past legislation enacted a transition time to dissolve the MCOs. Session Law 2015-245, as amended by Session Law 2016-121, provided that the MCOs would be dissolved in four years, allowing the State to implement a new system slowly instead of yanking the tablecloth from the table with hopes of the plates, glasses, and silverware not tumbling to the ground.
According to HB 403, “on the date when Medicaid capitated contracts with Prepaid Health Plans (PHPs) begin, as required by S.L. 2015-245, all of the following shall occur:…(2) The LME/MCOs shall be dissolved.”
Session Law 2015-245 states the following timeline: “LME/MCOs shall continue to manage the behavioral health services currently covered for their enrollees under all existing waivers, including the 1915(b) and (c) waivers, for four years after the date capitated PHP contracts begin. During this four-year period, the Division of Health Benefits shall continue to negotiate actuarially sound capitation rates directly
with the LME/MCOs in the same manner as currently utilized.”
HB 403 revises Session Law 2015-245’s timeline by the following: “
LME/MCOs shall continue to manage the behavioral health services currently covered for their enrollees under all existing waivers, including the 1915(b) and (c) waivers, for four years after the date capitated PHP contracts begin. During this four-year period, the Division of Health Benefits shall continue to negotiate actuarially sound capitation rates directly with the LME/MCOs in the same manner as currently utilized.”
Instead of a 4-year transition period, the day the PHP contracts are effective, the MCOs no longer exist. Poof!! Maybe Edward Bulwer-Lytton was right when he stated, “The pen is mightier than the sword.”
Again, I am not opposed to dissolving the MCOs for behavioral health care; I just want whatever transition to be reasonable and safe for Medicaid recipients and providers.
With the MCOs erased from existence, what system will be put in place? According to HB 403, PHPs shall manage all behavioral health care now managed by MCOs and all the remaining assets (i.e., all those millions sitting in the savings accounts of the MCOs) will be transferred to DHHS in order to fund the contracts with the PHPs and any liabilities of the MCOs. (And what prevents or does not prevent an MCO simply saying, “Well, now we will act as a PHP?”).
What is a PHP? HB 403 defines PHPs as an entity, which may be a commercial plan or provider-led entity with a PHP license from the Department of Insurance and will operate a capitated contract for the delivery of services. “Services covered by PHP:
- Physical health services
- Prescription drugs
- Long-term care services
- Behavioral health services
The capitated contracts shall not cover:
Behavioral health Dentist services
- The fabrication of eyeglasses…”
It would appear that dentists will also be managed by PHPs. As currently written, HB 403 also sets no less than three and no more than five contracts between DHHS and the PHPs should be implemented.
Don’t we need a Waiver from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)?
Yes. We need a Waiver. 42 CFR 410.10(e) states that “[t]he Medicaid agency may not delegate, to other than its own officials, the authority to supervise the plan or to develop or issue policies, rules, and regulations on program matters.” In order to “Waive” this clause, we must get permission from CMS. We had to get permission from CMS when we created the MCO model. The same is true for a new PHP model.
Technically, HB 403 is mandating DHHS to implement a PHP model before we have permission from the federal government. HB 403 does instruct DHHS to submit a demonstration waiver application. Still, there is always concern and hesitancy surrounding implementation of a Medicaid program without the blessing of CMS.
- The provider network (This is awesome)
HB 403 requires that all contracts between PHPs and DHHS have a clause that requires PHPs to not exclude providers from their networks except for failure to meet objective quality standards or refusal to accept network rates.
- PHPs use of money (Also good)
Clearly, the General Assembly drafted HB 403 out of anger toward the MCOs. HB 403 implements more supervision over the new entities. It also disallows use of money on alcohol, first-class airfare, charter flights, holiday parties or similar social gatherings, and retreats, which, we all know these are precisely the activities that State Auditor Beth Wood found occurring, at least, at Cardinal. See Audit Report.
HB 403 also mandates that the Office of State Human Resources revise and update the job descriptions for the area directors and set limitations on salaries. No more “$1.2 million in CEO salaries paid without proper authorization.”
- Provider contracts with the PHPs (No choice is never good)
It appears that HB 403 will not allow providers to choose which PHP to join. DHHS is to create the regions for the PHPs and every county must be assigned to a PHP. Depending on how these PHPs are created, we could be looking at a similar situation that we have now with the MCOs. If the State is going to force you to contract with a PHP to provide Medicaid services, I would want the ability to choose the PHP.
In conclusion, HB 403 will re-shape our entire Medicaid program, if passed. It will abolish the MCO system, apply to almost all Medicaid services (both physical and mental), open the provider network, limit spending on inappropriate items, and assign counties to a PHP.
Boy, what I would give to be a fly on the wall in all the MCO’s boardrooms (during the closed sessions).
Come one! Come all! Step right up to be one of the first 6 states to test the new Medicare-Medicaid Affordable Care Act (ACO) pilot program.
Let your elderly population be the guinea pigs for the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Let your most needy population be the lab rats for CMS.
On December 15, 2016, CMS announced its intent to create Medicare/caid ACOs. Currently, Medicare ACOs exist, and if your physician has opted to participate in a Medicare ACO, then, most likely, you understand Medicare ACOs. Medicare ACOs are basically groups of physicians – of different service types – who voluntarily decide (but only after intense scrutiny by their lawyers of the ACO contract) to collaborate care with the intent of higher quality and lower cost care. For example, if your primary care physician participates in a Medicare ACO and you suffer intestinal issues, your primary care doctor would coordinate with a GI specialist within the Medicare ACO to get you an appointment. Then the GI specialist and your physician would share medical records, including test results and medication management. The thought is that the coordination of care will decrease duplicative tests, ensure appointments are made and kept, and prevent losing medical records or reviewing older, moot records.
Importantly, the Medicare beneficiary retains all benefits of “normal” Medicare and can choose to see any physician who accepts Medicare. The ACO model is a shift from “fee-for-service” to a risk-based, capitated amount in which quality of care is rewarded.
On the federal level, there have not been ACOs specially created for dual-eligible recipients; i.e., those who qualify for both Medicare and Medicaid…until now.
The CMS is requesting states to volunteer to participate in a pilot program instituting Medicare/Medicaid ACOs. CMS is looking for 6 brave states to participate. States may choose from three options for when the first 12-month performance period for the Medicare-Medicaid ACO Model will begin for ACOs in the state: January 1, 2018; January 1, 2019; or January 1, 2020.
Any state is eligible to apply, including the District of Columbia. But if the state wants to participate in the first round of pilot programs, intended to begin 2018, then that state must submit its letter of intent to participate by tomorrow by 11:59pm. See below.
I tried to research which states have applied, but was unsuccessful. If anyone has the information, I would appreciate it if you could forward it to me.
Participating in an ACO, whether it is only Medicare and Medicare/caid, can create a increase in revenue for your practices. Since you bear some risk, you also reap some benefit if you able to control costs. But, the decision to participate in an ACO should not be taken lightly. Federal law yields harsh penalties for violations of Anti-Kickback and Stark laws (which, on a very general level, prohibits referrals among physicians for any benefit). However, there are safe harbor laws and regulations specific to ACOs that allow exceptions. Regardless, do not ever sign a contract to participate in an ACO without an attorney reviewing it.
Food for thought – CMS’ Medicare/caid ACO Model may exist only “here in this [Obama] world. Here may be the last ever to be seen of [healthcare.gov] and their [employee mandates]. Look for it only in [history] books, for it may be no more than a [Obamacare] remembered, a [health care policy] gone with the wind…”
As, tomorrow (January 20, 2017) is the presidential inauguration. The winds may be a’changing…
All Medicare/Caid Health Care Professionals: Start Contracting with Qualified Translators to Comply with Section 1557 of the ACA!!
Being a health care professional who accepts Medicare and/ or Medicaid can sometimes feel like you are Sisyphus pushing the massive boulder up a hill, only to watch it roll down, over and over, with the same sequence continuing for eternity. Similarly, sometimes it can feel as though the government is the princess sleeping on 20 mattresses and you are the pea that is so small and insignificant, yet so annoying and disruptive to her sleep.
Well, effective immediately – that boulder has enlarged. And the princess has become even more sensitive.
On May 18, 2016, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published a Final Rule to implement Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Section 1557 of the ACA has been on the books since the ACA’s inception in 2010. However, not until 6 years later, did HSD finally implement regulations regarding Section 1557. 81 Fed. Reg. 31376.
The Final Rule became effective July 18, 2016. You are expected to be compliant with the rule’s notice requirements, specifically the posting of a nondiscrimination notice and statement and taglines within 90 days of the Final Rule – October 16, 2016. So you better giddy-up!!
First, what is Section 1557?
Section 1557 of the ACA provides that an individual shall not, on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability, be
- excluded from participation in,
- denied the benefits of, or
- subjected to discrimination under
all health programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance through HHS, including Medicaid, most Medicare, student health plans, Basic Health Program, and CHIP funds; meaningful use payments (which sunset in 2018); the advance premium tax credits; and many other programs.
Section 1557 is extremely broad in scope. Because it is a federal regulation, it applies to all states and health care providers in all specialties, regardless the size of the practice and regardless the percentage of Medicare/caid the agency accepts.
HHS estimates that Section 1557 applies to approximately 900,000 physicians. HHS also estimates that the rule will cover 133,343 facilities, such as hospitals, home health agencies and nursing homes; 445,657 clinical laboratories; 1300 community health centers; 40 health professional training programs; Medicaid agencies in each state; and, at least, 180 insurers that offer qualified health plans.
So now that we understand Section 1557 is already effective and that it applies to almost all health care providers who accept Medicare/caid, what exactly is the burden placed on the providers? Not discriminating does not seem so hard a burden.
Section 1557 requires much more than simply not discriminating against your clients.
Section 1557 mandates that you will provide appropriate aids and services without charge and in a timely manner, including qualified interpreters, for people with disabilities and that you will provide language assistance including translated documents and oral interpretation free of charge and in a timely manner.
In other words, you have to provide written materials to your clients in their spoken language. To ease the burden of translating materials, you can find a sample notice and taglines for 64 languages on HHS’ website. See here. The other requirement is that you provide, for no cost to the client, a translator in a timely manner for your client’s spoken language.
In other words, you must have qualified translators “on call” for the most common 15, non-English languages in your state. You cannot rely on friends, family, or staff. You also cannot allow the child of your client to act as the interpreter. The clients in need of the interpreters are not expected to provide their own translators – the burden is on the provider. The language assistance must be provided in a “timely manner. “Further, these “on call” translators must be “qualified,” as defined by the ACA.
I remember an English teacher in high school telling the class that there were two languages in North Carolina: English and bad English. Even if that were true back in 19XX, it is not true now.
Here is a chart depicting the number of non-English speakers in North Carolina in 1980 versus 2009-2011:
As you can see, North Carolina has become infinitely more diverse in the last three decades.
And translators aren’t free. According to Costhelper Small Business,
It seems likely that telehealth may be the best option for health care providers considering the cost of in-person translations. Of course, you need to calculate the cost of the telehealth equipment and the savings you project over time to determine whether the investment in telehealth equipment is financially smart.
In addition to agencies having access to qualified translators, agencies with over 15 employees must designate a single employee who will be responsible for Section 1557 compliance and to adopt a grievance procedure for clients. Sometimes this may mean hiring a new employee to comply.
The Office of Civil Rights (“OCR”) at HHS is the enforcer of Section 1557. OCR has been enforcing Section 1557 since its inception in 2010 – to an extent.
However, expect a whole new policing of Section 1557 now that we have the Final Rule from HHS.
Have you ever watched athletes compete in the high jump? Each time an athlete is successful in pole vaulting over the bar, the bar gets raised…again…and again…until the athlete can no longer vault over the bar. Similarly, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) continue to raise the bar on health care providers who accept Medicare and Medicaid.
In February, CMS finalized the rule requiring providers to proactively investigate themselves and report any overpayments to CMS for Medicare Part A and B. (The Rule for Medicare Parts C and D were finalized in 2014, and the Rule for Medicaid has not yet been promulgated). The Rule makes it very clear that CMS expects providers and suppliers to enact robust self auditing policies.
We all know that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was intended to be self-funding. Who is funding it? Doctors, psychiatrists, home care agencies, hospitals, long term care facilities, dentists…anyone who accepts Medicare and Medicaid. The self-funding portion of the ACA is strict; it is infallible, and its fraud, waste, and abuse (FWA) detection tools…oh, how wide that net is cast!
Subsection 1128J(d) was added to Section 6402 of the ACA, which requires that providers report overpayments to CMS “by the later of – (A) the date which is 60 days after the date on which the overpayment was identified; or (B) the date any corresponding cost report is due, if applicable.”
Identification of an overpayment is when the person has, or reasonably should have through the exercise of reasonable diligence, determined that the person received an overpayment. Overpayment includes referrals or those referrals that violate the Anti-Kickback statute.
CMS allows providers to extrapolate their findings, but what provider in their right mind would do so?
There is a six-year look back period, so you don’t have to report overpayments for claims older than six years.
You can get an extension of the 60-day deadline if:
• Office of Inspector General (OIG) acknowledges receipt of a submission to the OIG Self-Disclosure Protocol
• OIG acknowledges receipt of a submission to the OIG Voluntary Self-Referral Protocol
• Provider requests an extension under 42 CFR §401.603
My recommendation? Strap on your pole vaulting shoes and get to jumping!
The (Recent) History of PCS Rates and Why There Is Parity of Rates Between Home Health and Long Term Care Facilities
Think of this blog as a history lesson…
As I was preparing my Power Point for speaking at the NC Association of Long Term Care Facilities (NCALTCF), I ran across a number of interesting issues on which I could blog. If you are attending the annual NCALTCF conference September 8-10, this will be a prelude to a portion of my presentation. I will be speaking on September 8th.
I am reviewing the history of personal care services (PCS) rates, and I realize that a few years ago, the parity of PCS rates for home health care providers and long-term care facilities (LTCF) occurred. The issue? Why the parity? I am curious. I remember vividly the parity change in 2012. But, I wonder, why did it occur?
Home health care companies provide PCS to people within their own homes (obviously a much-needed and growing service). Long term care facilities (LTCF) provide PCS within a facility.
But LTCFs have higher overhead due to mortgage/rent, 24-hour staff, monthly bills, more regulatory compliance issues, a cafeteria or kitchen, etc. Whereas, a home health care company does not incur these expenses. Why NOT pay LTCF a higher PCS reimbursement rate?
The answer is…we did, in North Carolina. And the federal government found that we violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Here is the percentage breakdown of people receiving home health, assisted living, nursing homes, hospice, and day service centers, on a national basis in 2013, according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC).
Notice the green, home health section. Home health has grown at a very rapid rate since 2000. But assisted living (blue) is still predominant.
Back before 2010 and in an attempt to help adult care homes that provide assistance with dementia patients, the General Assembly provided an enhanced Medicaid rate for those facilities.
For decades, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) warned us that the ADA requires that Medicaid reimbursements apply equally to all, including those living in institutional facilities and those who live with family. CMS informed us that we were in violation of Olmstead v. L.C., a Supreme Court decision decided in 1999. In Olmstead, the Supreme Court decided mental illness is a form of disability and that institutional isolation of a person with a disability is a form of discrimination under Title II of the ADA. See Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999) (Remember the Prince song?)
In 2010, Disability Rights filed a complaint with the federal government complaining about NC’s disparate PCS rates between LTCF and home health. In 2011, the US Department of Justice investigated and agreed with Disability Rights. NC was violating Olmstead by providing two different reimbursement rates.
The General Assembly (GA) tackled the issue in 2012. The GA decreased the LTCF’s enhanced PCS rate to the home health’s rate in order to comply with federal law. Although there was a limit as to the number of hours of PCS per month, the GA wrote in an extra 50 hours per month for people suffering from dementia.
Disability Rights originally made the 2010 complaint to the federal government with honest, well-meaning intentions. Disability Rights wanted better care for the mentally ill. And Olmstead had wonderful results for the mentally ill. Now people suffering from mental illness can remain in their homes, if desired (although sometimes a legal battle is required).
But the unknown, unintentional consequence of Olmstead for the owners of LTCFs is that the PCS rate became paired with the home health PCS rate, which keeps declining. For example, prior to October 1, 2013, the PCS rate was $15.52 (now it is $13.88).
The federal minimal wage is $7.25. People who are paid minimum wage, generally, are not licensed professionals.
Most members of a LTCF staff are licensed. Many are certified nurse assistants (CNAs). Most are required to attend yearly continuing education classes. Should these CNAs and licensed professionals make only $6.00 more than minimum wage? Are not professional licensees worth more?
Not to mention…let’s talk about what LTCF staff actually does on a day-to-day basis. My Grandma Carson resides in a LTCF. Thankfully, she still lives in her own independent living house on the LTCF grounds because she can maintain her independent living, but many residents of LTCF cannot. LTCF staff assists in activities of daily living (ADLs), such as toileting, eating, ambulating, and grooming. When my great-grandmother could no longer feed herself, the wonderful staff at Glenaire in Cary, NC fed her. Should a person feeding an elderly person (and bathing and helping go to the bathroom) NOT be paid well-over minimum wage?
Well…the reimbursement rate may be $13.88 (a tad over $6.00 above minimum wage), but a PCS worker for a home health agency AND a LTCF does not earn $13.88/hour, they earn less. Companies are created to earn a profit. There is nothing wrong with earning a profit.
In fact, starting January 1, 2014, PCS workers in home health are now eligible for minimum wage. “ARE NOW ELIGIBLE.” As in, last year, PCS workers could have earned LESS than minimal wage.
In the future, I hope that health care providers who provide PCS services are paid more; I also hope that, in the future, the PCS rate increases. Someday, I will be the recipient of a PCS worker.
In the wake of such tragedies such as the Colorado movie theatre last July, the Sikh temple in Wisconsin in August, Minneapolis in September, then the unthinkable massacre at the Connecticut elementary school in December, and, of course, the Boston bombing in April, you would think that mental health would be a top priority.
Instead, politicians across America are advocating gun laws. Without commenting on gun control (as this is a Medicaid blog), mental health seems to be getting placed on the back-burner.
In the North Carolina budget passed by the Senate last week, mental health, in particular, group homes for adults with severe mental illnesses, again, was forgotten. Whether on purpose or by accident, I have no idea. But the fact remains a large part of metal health simply was not contemplated in the budget.
I am sure most of you remember the comedy of errors that occurred at the beginning of the year when the criteria for personal care services (PCS) was revised. Basically in January 2013, the criteria to receive PCS became more stringent.
According to DMA, effective January 1, 2013, PCS “is available to individuals who has a medical condition, disability, or cognitive impairment and demonstrates unmet needs for, at a minimum three of the five qualifying activities of daily living (ADLs) with limited hands-on assistance; two ADLs, one of which requires extensive assistance; or two ADLs, one of which requires assistance at the full dependence level. The five qualifying ADLs are eating, dressing, bathing, toileting, and mobility.”
Prior to January 1, 2013, individuals who qualified for Medicaid special room and board assistance were automatically granted approval to receive PCS funding regardless of need. This applied for both in-home and facility-based services.
Due to the more stringent 2013 criteria, thousands of adults in group homes in NC who depended on Medicaid were no longer eligible. Former Gov. Perdue was forced to shimmy around funds in order to keep these disabled adults from losing their homes. The whole debacle created terror and stress for those disabled adults whose residences were threatened, for the families of the threatened disabled adults, for the group home executives who did not want to evict these disabled adults, and for any mental health advocate or person with empathy toward the mentally ill.
The trainwreck of the adult PCS group homes only occurred 4-ish months ago.
Yet, lawmakers, seemingly, failed to address the recurrent problem of funding for group homes for adults with severe mental illnesses, who are no longer eligible for PCS, in last week’s budget passed by Senate.
Wednesday afternoon (if you work downtown, then you know what I am talking about) a group of protesters rallied outside the General Assembly clad in blue shirts, holding signs saying, “Save Group Homes!” and “Disaster Relief! Save my Home!,” and some simply said, “Help!”
The Senate’s budget failed to provide funds for approximately 1,450 people living in 6-person group homes. Each group home resident currently receives $16.14 a day, or about $6,000 a year, from the state program. The fear is that group homes are so underfunded as it is that any amount, no matter how small, of decreased funds would drive the group homes out of business, forcing residents onto the street.
In general, group homes are not huge money-makers for the owners. The workers at a group home make approximately $9-10/hour. Group homes must be staffed 24/hours/day and 365/days/year. The group homes must use the state-funded money to staff the home, keep up the maintenance of the home, feed all the residents and care for all the residents, plus all overhead (i.e., electricity, heat/air conditioning, any extras for the residents, such as TVs or cable, blankets, etc.). Plus group homes must provide a small, monthly stipend for the residents in order for the residents purchase medicine (co-pays) and personal hygiene products.
Logically there must be SOME profit in group homes in order for anyone to want to run a group home. But the profit is minimal.
Similar to the low Medicaid reimbursement rates to physicians, causing physicians to not accept Medicaid, any sort of cut to group home funding (including the residents not qualifying for PCS due to the new criteria and without special funding to cover the difference), group homes will inevitably close. You simply cannot expect a person to keep a group home open when no profit is made. Just as if you cannot expect a doctor to accept Medicaid patients if no profit is made.
So, is the State of North Carolina saving money by not providing additional funding to those PCS recipients who no longer qualify for PCS? Hey, the Medicaid budget goes down, right? But what happens to those adults with severe mental illnesses when, because of the lack of PCS funds, the group homes either close or turn out those residents who no longer qualify for PCS?
In a perfect world, I guess the families of the adult Medicaid recipients would take them in and all would be fine. But I gather there is a reason that these recipients are in a group home and not with family.
No, since this is not a perfect world, most of these adults with severe mental illnesses, without a group home, would be homeless and, eventually, if not immediately, would be hospitalized at a much higher price that a group home.
So these adult Medicaid recipients are stable in a group home. Well-cared for. Most likely, have relationships with the staff and other residents. But because of the new PCS criteria and the fact that the NC budget does not provide funding for Medicaid residents that no longer qualify for the PCS funding, we will uproot the adults with severe mental illness, send them into the world, expect them to be ok, and, then, later, pay much more money to the hospitals that are forced to take in these Medicaid recipients due to whatever issues caused the hospitalization.
Hmmmm….at least the Medicaid budget is lower.
Many providers continue to accept Medicaid despite the fact that the state is conducting Medicaid audits, the providers feel harassed by the state, the providers are terrified that they have to pay back hundreds of thousands of dollars for health care services actually rendered to Medicaid recipients, the providers are forced to wait months post-services rendered to receive Medicaid reimbursements, and the reimbursements are so much lower than the overhead costs.
Why? Why do health care providers undergo so much emotional and financial strain to provide health care services to Medicaid recipients? I believe that health care providers who dedicate services to Medicaid recipients truly understand and believe that the Medicaid population deserves and needs quality health care. These providers understand that most providers will not undergo the mental and financial stress needed to meet all the Medicaid criteria and documentation. So these providers feel a sense of duty to Medicaid recipients.
And to those health care providers who accept Medicaid in NC: “Thank you.”
I heard a story today of a health care provider who deserves this “Thank you,” and more. When the Personal Care Services (PCS) criteria changed this past January 1, 2013, many of the provider’s clients no longer qualified to receive PCS under Medicaid. Did that stop the provider from providing the needed PCS? No. Is the provider paid for its services? No. But this provider was dedicated to its clientele.
So when 80-year-old Dorothy (obviously, I have changed the names), who suffers from late-stage breast cancer, dementia, and Rheumatoid arthritis was told that she no longer met the PCS criteria, she was terrified. But this provider continues, even today, to provide Dorothy the care she needs.
The provider is not reimbursed for helping Dorothy. But the provider feels a sense of duty. Do you turn your back on someone in need because the General Assembly changed the PCS requirements? Or do you continue to help the person you have cared for for so many years and hope that the government will somehow right the injustice?
Interestingly, this same provider is undergoing two Medicaid audits for a total of approximately half a million in alleged recoupments. The provider was forced to hire an attorney and defend the Medicaid reimbursements it has received for years of providing quality health care service to the Medicaid population. Instead of getting a “Thank you,” the state has audited and claimed that the provider must pay back almost half a million dollars, even though the provider provided all the services for which it billed.
Yet this provider, not only provides all the services for which it bills Medicaid, but when Medicaid drops Dorothy (and thousands of others) from the Medicaid program, this provider goes above and beyond its call of duty and provides services knowing that Medicaid will never reimburse it.
Maybe this provider should not be audited. Maybe the Medicaid system should be audited for all the services for which this provider is not paid. Or maybe this provider, and many others, deserve a simple:”Thank you.”
In 2012, when the Medicaid rules changed (The rules didn’t change in 2012. The rules were determined to change in 2013) as to who could receive PCS, thousands of adults receiving PCS in adult care homes, suddenly, did not meet the criteria for PCS. Thousands of Medicaid recipients would no longer receive PCS; therefore, many group homes would go bankrupt.
Just to show the great breadth of this problem: The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) received 15,000 appeals this month from Medicaid recipients no longer eligible to receive PCS.
Expect to see a bill with a fix to the group home issue in the House Appropriations Committee on Thursday.
Owners Amy and Larry Patton had called the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) previously and informed DHHS that the slow Medicaid reimbursements were going to close down their facility.
There is very little information from the Pattons regarding the reasons the group home had to close, except for their complaints to DHHS regarding slow Medicaid reimbursements. It appears that they removed all valuable items from the Mt. Gilead, North Carolina group home, such as TVs and refrigerators, in the middle of the night. Employees came in the morning to find everything gone.
The residents and families of the residents in the adult care home are outraged, and rightly so. They should be outraged. But are they outraged at the correct people/companies?
As a Medicaid attorney, I see health care providers struggling every day to make payroll. The health care providers depend heavily on Medicaid reimbursements (a) being provided, and (b) being timely. If these Medicaid payments fail to come or fail to come timely, the health care provider, like any other business, is forced to close.
I have no evidence that Pattons were not receiving their Medicaid payment except for the complaint they made to DHHS regarding timeliness. There may have been more complaints. We will probably never know.
But it is a fact that there are health care providers in North Carolina which are not receiving Medicaid payments. In 2011, due to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) NC General Assembly passed Session Law 2011-399, which codified DHHS’ authority for pre-payment reviews. A pre-payment review places the health care provider in a situation that few providers are capable of overcoming. Basically, the Agency stops the medicaid payments to the provider until the provider can prove in 3 consecutive months that the provider can document a 70% accuracy rate based on the Agency’s standards.
According to NC Gen. Stat. 108C-7, the prepayment review can only last up to 12 months, at which time the provider will, most likely, lose its ability to serve Medicaid recipients if it is unable to meet the documentation requirements.
But 12 months without Medicaid payments will wipe out a health care provider.
Surprisingly, NC Gen. Stat 108C-7 does not allow a health care provider to appeal. No due process.
Now I have no evidence that the Pattons were subject to a pre-payment review. I have no evidence that the Pattons were not receiving Medicaid payments. But for a group care home to close its doors when the owners were not new to Medicaid (they also owned two other group homes in Guilford County), unexpectedly and without providing help to its Medicaid recipients is mysterious.
These were people trying to help Medicaid recipients. They owned 3 group homes. I question whether the Pattons, like so many other health care providers, were subject to pre-payment review with no appeal rights.
NC residents who live in Medicaid-funded group homes suffer mental illnesses or developmental disabilities. Group homes allow the residents a home-like atmosphere and 24/7 health care and personal care services, such as help with toileting, bathing, and eating.
The federal government informed NC that the state was using the wrong eligibility criteria for Medicaid recipients receiving personal care. Personal care services (PCS) is a paraprofessional service that covers the services of an aide in the recipient’s private residence or group home to assist with the recipient’s personal care needs that are directly linked to a medical condition.
To fix the eligibility problem pointed out by the feds, the General Assembly set up a $39.7 million fund to pay for adult care homes, but group homes were unintentionally excluded. If the legislators did not use the word “only” in the legislation, most likely, group homes would have been covered. But in “only” covering adult care homes, group homes were excluded.
The result of the General Assembly’s oversight is that approximately 1400 people may be homeless starting January 1, 2013.
Despite an outcry from the General Assembly for Purdue to call a special session, Purdue refused. Instead, last week, Purdue announced that she was moving $1 million dollars within the Department of Health and Human Services to pay for group homes through January 2013. This allows the group home residents one extra month before Medicaid funding is gone.
The General Assembly organizes January 9th, but is not scheduled to conduct business until January 30, 2013….the day Medicaid funding will cease for the group homes.