Category Archives: KC v. Shipman

There Is Only One Head Chef in the Medicaid Kitchen, Part Deux!

In a groundbreaking decision published today by the Court of Appeals (COA), the Court smacked down Public Consulting Group’s (PCG), as well as any other  contracted entity’s, authority to wield an “adverse decision” against a health care provider. This solidifies my legal argument that I have been arguing on this blog and in court for years!

The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) is the “single state agency” charged with managing Medicaid. Federal law requires that that one agency manage Medicaid with no ability to delegate discretionary decisions. Case law in K.C. v. Shipman upheld the federal law. See blog.

Yet, despite K.C. v. Shipman, decided in 2013, in Court, DHHS continued to argue that it should be dismissed from cases in which a contracted vendor rendered the adverse decision to recoup, terminate, or suspend a health care provider. DHHS would argue that it had no part of the decision to recoup, terminate, or suspend, that K.C. Shipman is irrelevant to health care provider cases, and that K.C. v. Shipman is only pertinent to Medicaid recipient cases, to which I countered until I was “blue in the face” is a pile of horse manure.

DHHS would argue that my interpretation would break down the Medicaid system because DHHS cannot possibly review and discern whether every recoupment, termination, and/or suspension made by a contracted vendor was valid (my words, not theirs). DHHS argued that it simply does not have the manpower, plus if it has the authority to contract with a company, surely that company can determine the amount of an alleged overpayment…WRONG!!

In fact, in DHHS v. Parker Home Care, LLC, the COA delineates the exact process for the State determining an overpayment with its contracted agent PCG.

  1. DHHS may enter into a contract with a company, such as PCG.
  2. A private company, like PCG, may perform preliminary and full investigations to collect facts and data.
  3. PCG must submit its findings to DHHS, and DHHS must exercise its own discretion to reach a tentative decision from six options (enumerated in the NC Administrative Code).
  4. DHHS, after its decision, will notify the provider of its tentative decision.
  5. The health care provider may request a reconsideration of the tentative decision within 15 days.
  6. Failure to do so will transform the tentative decision into a final determination.
  7. Time to appeal to OAH begins upon notification of the final determination by DHHS (60 days).

Another interesting part of this decision is that the provider, Parker Home Care, received the Tentative Notice of Overpayment (TNO) in 2012 and did nothing. The provider did not appeal the TNO.

However, because PCG’s TNO did not constitute a final adverse decision by DHHS (because PCG does not have the authority to render a final adverse decision), the provider did not miss any appeal deadline. The final adverse decision was determined to be DHHS’ action of suspending funds to collect the recoupment, which did not occur until 2014…and THAT action was timely appealed.

The COA’s message to private vendors contracted with DHHS is crystal clear: “There is only one head chef in the Medicaid kitchen.”

Knicole Emanuel to Appear on UNC-TV Tonight! Tune In at 7:30pm!

Heather Burgiss, a UNC-TV journalist, created a 3-part television series called, “Mental Health Services in NC.” Part 1 will air tonight on UNC-TC at 7:30, and I will be discussing the important topic of the current status of our mental health system in NC.  So tune in to watch!!!!

The three-part series is intended to educate North Carolinians on the current state of mental health in NC, as well as discuss the upcoming Medicaid reform consisting of the Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) for physical health services.

P.S. It is intimidating how UNC-TV interviews you, so forgive any bad grammar, etc. 🙂  During the interview, they cut off all the lights and shine a bright light on you.  It creates a strange environment in which you can hear the person asking you questions, but you cannot see him or her.  Plus, the light is super hot.

But, we will see, Heather was very nice in dealing with my novice handling of the interview.

And, BTW, when you see the scene during which I am walking down the hall of my law firm, I had a strange sensation to start doing the MC Hammer.  But I did not succumb.

General Assembly in Full Swing: What Medicaid Bills Are On the Agenda??

It’s that time of year again. The legislators are back in town. Moral Mondays resume. And all eyes are on the General Assembly. But, this is the short session, and the General Statutes limit the powers of legislative law-making in the short session.

For those of you who do not know how our General Assembly (GA) works and the difference between the short and long sessions, let me explain:

In odd-numbered years, the GA meets in January and continues until it adjourns. There is no requirement as to the length of the long session, but it is normally about 6 months. In the long session, everything is fair game. New laws or changes to the existing laws can be proposed in long sessions for all of the subjects on which the GA legislates.

The short session reconvenes every even-numbered year and typically lasts 6 weeks. Last year the long session adjourned July 26, 2013, and the GA reconvened May 14, 2014.

There are limits as to what measures may be considered in the short session. In fact, at the end of the long session, the GA passed Resolution 2013-23, which states exactly what topics/bills may be considered in the short session.

So…the question is: What Medicaid bills may be considered during this short session?

H0674
H0867
H0320

Now there are of course, exceptions. For example, any bill that directly and primarily affects the State Budget can be introduced. Obviously, a Medicaid bill could, arguably, directly and primarily affect the budget.

The bills I enumerated above, however, are the bills that are allowed to be considered in the short session because they constitute a crossover bill, that is, these bills were passed one house and were received in the other during last year’s long session and are considered “still alive” for consideration during the current short session.

So what do these Medicaid bills propose?

House Bill 674 could be a game changer for Medicaid providers. The bill, which passed the House last year with a vote of 116-0, would direct the Program Evaluation Division to study the contested case process in regards to Medicaid providers. There are 3 key components in this study according to the bill:

1. The Division must review the procedures for a contested case hearing under NCGS 150B and determine whether there is a way to streamline the process and decrease backlog.
2. The Division must consider alternative methods of review other than the contested cases.
3. The Division must review NCGS 108C-12 to determine whether any amendments to the law would improve the cost-effectiveness and efficiency of the Medicaid appeal process. (NCGS 108C-12 is the statute that allows providers to appeal adverse decisions to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)).

Whew. The Program Evaluation Division would have its work cut out for it if the bill passes!

House Bill 674 was received by the Senate on May 5, 2013, and it passed its first reading.

House Bill 867 is named “An Act to Allow for the Movement of Certain Medicaid Recipients,” and it purports to allow those recipients with an 1915(c) Innovations Waiver slot to move about the State and for the slots to be recognized uniformly across the State. This way a person with an Innovations Waiver would not need to re-apply in another county if he or she moves there. However, for those served by the managed care organizations (MCOs), residency is determined by the county in which the recipient currently resides.

Then we come to House Bill 320. See my blog,”HB320: The Good News and the Bad News for NC Medicaid Providers.”

House Bill 320 mainly speaks to Medicaid recipient appeals, but imbedded within the language is one tiny proposed change to NCGS 108C-1. Just an itty, bitty change.

NCGS 108C-1 provides the scope of 108C (which applies to providers) and currently reads, “This Chapter applies to providers enrolled in Medicaid or Health Choice.”

If House Bill 320 passes, NCGS 108C-1 will read, “This Chapter applies to providers enrolled in Medicaid or Health Choice. Except as expressly provided by law, this Chapter does not apply to LME/MCOs, enrollees, applicants, providers of emergency services, or network providers subject to Chapter 108D of the General Statutes.”

What????

If House Bill 320 passes, what, may I ask, will be a Medicaid provider’s appeal options if NCGS 108C does not apply to MCOs? And would not the new scope of NCGS 108C-1 violate the State Plan, which explicitly gives OAH the jurisdiction over any contracted entity of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)?  See my blogs on MCOs: “NC MCOs: The Judge, Jury and Executioner,” and “A Dose of Truth: If an MCO Decides Not to Contract With You, YOU DO HAVE RIGHTS!

I also wonder, if House Bill 320 passes, what effect this revision to NCGS 108C-1 will have. Arguably, it could have no effect because of the above-mentioned language in the State Plan, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals case that determined that MCOs are agents of the state, and the fact that the Department is defined in 108C-2 to include any of its legally authorized agents, contractors, or vendors.

On the other hand, in every single lawsuit that I would bring on behalf of a provider against an MCO, I would have another legal obstacle to overcome. The MCO’s attorney would invariably make the argument that OAH does not have jurisdiction over the MCO because the scope of 108C has been changed to exclude the MCOs. They have been arguing already that OAH lacks jurisdiction over the MCOs since NCGS 108D was passed, but to no avail.

Needless to say, the MCO lobbyists will be pushing hard for H 320 to pass. H 320 passed its 3rd reading on May 15, 2013, by a vote of 114-0, and the Senate received it on May 16, 2013.

NC General Assembly: Hold Contracted Companies Accountable in NC Medicaid! (If You Do Not, Who Will?)

Our government is made of checks and balances.  The reason for having checks and balances is to create independent governing bodies with separate powers, thereby preventing any one branch from having more power over another.

The legislative branch (General Assembly), most importantly, passes bills (makes the laws) and has broad taxing and spending power.

The executive branch (Governor), most importantly, makes appointments, may veto bills, but those vetoes may be overridden, and executes the spending allowed by the legislature.

The judicial branch (court system), most importantly, interprets the laws passed by the legislature, exercises injunctions and judicial reviews.

How these checks and balances can play out in real life are endless.  But, without question, if the legislative branch fails to check the executive branch, even if the judicial branch is checking the executive branch, then the executive branch exceeds its power and the legislative branch is failing its intended job.

It has nothing to do with Republicans versus Democrats.  No one cares that the executive branch is conservative or liberal or whether the legislative branch is 60% Republicans or 70% Democrats.  It is a matter of the legislative branch doing its job.  The legislative branch’s job is to check and balance the executive and judicial branch.

Here, in North Carolina, it appears that the legislative branch is not checking the executive branch.  (While all our branches of government have their own shortcomings, I am concentrating on the legislative branch in today’s blog because, recently, I have seen other legislative branches step-up.  Now our state legislative branch needs to step-up.)  It certainly appears that our judicial branch is providing the checks and balances on the executive branch via the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

But where is the legislative branch’s checks and balances? If our legislators do not demand accountability, who will? 

Me?

You?

Recently, I have seen two instances in which legislative branches checked and balanced the executive branch.  These two legislative branches stepped-up to the plate…

Last Tuesday (September 3, 2013), the New Mexico behavioral health subcommittee convened and demanded accountability from Public Consulting Group (PCG).  Coincidentally, last Tuesday, Mecklenburg county commissioners also held a meeting and demanded accountability from MeckLINK, the managed care organization (MCO) in Mecklenburg county, managing Medicaid behavioral health services. (Was it a full moon?)

To see my blog explaining the events in NM leading up to the NM subcommittee meeting, click here.

To see my blog explaining the events in Mecklenburg county leading to the commissioner’s meeting, see all posts on my blog.  Or if you don’t have time to read all posts in my blog over the past 9-10 months, click here.

So why hasn’t the NC General Assembly held a meeting to demand accountability from all MCOs, PCG, and the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Division of Medical Assistance (DMA)? 

I do not know.

Because of our government’s system of checks and balances, the legislative branch has the power over the money, both the taxing and spending power.  So the legislative branch has the authority to have DHHS appear before the General Assembly or a subcommittee and demand accountability for the tax dollars spent…as to all DHHS’ contracted companies…and DHHS’ apparent lack of supervision over these contracted companies.

Other legislative entities have done this.

As I already said, last week, the New Mexico behavioral health subcommittee convened to hold HSD (NM’s DHHS) and PCG accountable.

NM legislature

As you can see, the NM subcommittee formed a “U”-shape.  At the table facing the subcommittee, sat:

(1) Larry Heyek, the HSD Deputy General Counsel (remember, HSD = North Carolina’s DMA), Brent Earnest, Deputy Secretary HSD (representing Secretary Sidonie Squier, who was unable to attend due to eye surgery), and Diana McWilliams, Chief Executive Officer, Interagency Behavioral Health Purchasing Collaborative; Director, Behavioral Health Services Division, HSD.

Then…

(2) Me…to be joined later by Thomas Aldrich, manager at PCG.

Then…

(3) William Boyd Kleefisch, F.A.C.H.E., Executive Director, HealthInsight New Mexico, Margaret A. White, R.N., B.S.N., M.S.H.A., Director, External Quality Review, HealthInsight New Mexico, and Greg Lújan, L.I.S.W., Project Manager, Behavioral Health, HealthInsight New Mexico.

The above-listed people all testified before the NM behavioral health subcommittee because the subcommittee demanded accountability from HSD, PCG and others due to the disastrous state of mental health in NM.

Why hasn’t the North Carolina legislature demanded the same accountability?

Similarly, September 3, 2013, the Mecklenburg county commissioners held a meeting and demanded accountability of MeckLINK. 

Mecklenburg county

Apparently, behavioral health care providers have been complaining to their county commissioners about MeckLINK denying medically necessary services and targeting certain providers.

See article.

So, when NM providers complained to their State legislators, the NM subcommittee for behavioral health held a meeting to investigate the source of these complaints.

When Mecklenburg county providers complained to their county commissioners, the County commissioners held a meeting to investigate the source of these complaints.

Have not enough providers complained about PCG and the actions of the MCOs to our North Carolina legislature?

I find that hard to believe, but, just in case, providers….CONTACT YOUR STATE SENATOR AND REPRESENTATIVE!

DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY!!

Let our elected officials know that:

There is NOT statewide consistency with the MCOs. 

Where 1 MCO denies services, another will authorize.  Where 1 MCO terminates a Medicaid contract of a provider, another does not. Where 1 MCO finds a provider compliant, another does not.

The DMA Clinical Policies and Innovations Waiver are not being applied consistently across the state.  Because of these inconsistencies, the MCOs have created 11 Medicaid jurisdictions. Where is the single state entity?

The MCOs are terminating provider contracts in violation of federal law.

Federal Medicaid law dictates that a “single state entity” manage Medicaid.  In NC, that single state entity is DHHS, DMA.  Yes, DMA may contract with companies.  Yes, DMA may delegate some duties to contracted entities.  BUT, DMA cannot allow a contracted entity substitute its judgment for DMA’s judgment.  See K.C. v. Shipman.  See also my blog: NC Medicaid: One Head Chef in the Kitchen Is Enough!

If DHHS is allowing 11 different companies to decide (use its own judgment) as to whether a provider can provide Medicaid services, the MCOs are substituting their decision-making in place of DHHS.

Also, at times, the MCOs are terminating the providers based on erroneous audits from the Carolinas Center of Medical Excellence.  For more on that…click here.

The MCOs are denying Medicaid recipients medically necessary mental health services.

The MCOs are prepaid, risk-based models.  What does that mean? That the MCOs have monetary incentives to DENY services in lieu of cheaper services.  In an extreme case, one MCO has denied 100% of ACTT services (24-hour, 7/days/week mental health care) in lieu of weekly, one-hour sessions of therapy.  Really?  24-hour care…reduced to weekly therapy????  But authorizing weekly therapy instead of 24-hour care saves the MCO thousands, if not hundreds of thousands.

What happens to the Medicaid recipients denied medically necessary services?  Answer: Imprisonment and hospitalizations.  So, fret not, taxpayers, you are actually paying MORE in taxes when the MCOs deny medically necessary services.  The increase in tax expenditure just will not be funded by the MCO’s Medicaid money.

As an aside, the attorney for the MCO stated that the Medicaid recipients should be the ones to appeal these erroneous denials.  To which I say, “Ha!”  One denied recipient suffered auditory and visual hallucinations (birds, snakes and crocodiles attacking.)  Another attacked his mother with a knife after services were denied.  Another was evicted from her home and, subsequently, jailed.  Another believed Satan spoke to him, telling him to kill himself.  I ask, when should the Medicaid recipients have (a) gotten themselves to a computer; (b) googled the NC Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH); (c) found the form to appeal a Medicaid denial of services; (d) filled-out the legal reasons they disagree with the denial of services; (d) complied with OAH procedure and drafted a prehearing statement, conducted any necessary discovery, and created all legal arguments to demonstrate medical necessity; and (e) attended a hearing in front of a judge…before or after hospitalization?  Before or after the recipient has had his/her conversation with Satan?

PCG’s audits are NOT 95% accurate (not even close).

I’ve heard that PCG’s contract with DHHS places an obligation on PCG that its audits be 95% accurate.  One person questioned whether that was 95% accurate as to PCG must be able to recoup (defend upon appeal) 95% of the audit results.  Obviously, that is not the case, because the inverse is probably closer to true.  95% of PCG’s audits are overturned (obviously, this number is not accurate…I am making a point).  Another person wondered whether the 95% accuracy meant that if 1 PCG auditor comes up with a $1 million overpayment, and the next day another PCG auditor audits the same documentation, that the 2nd auditor would be within 95% accurate of the $1 million the 1st auditor deemed needed to be recouped.  If the latter is the case, I can see why PCG may have 95% accuracy.  If you teach all your staff how to audit a Medicaid provider and all staff are taught to audit incorrectly, then, no matter the staff member auditing, the audit will be incorrect…but consistent.

Regardless, for a multitude of reasons, I have found almost all PCG audits erroneous. 

Yet, these PCG audits are terrifying Medicaid providers, causing them to ramp up attorney fees to defend themselves, and, in some cases, putting providers out of business.  And, in all cases, increasing the provider’s administrative burden and decreasing the time a provider can allot to serving the Medicaid recipients.

Contact your state legislators!   Help our General Assembly provide the checks and balances needed!

Just to help out, here is a link to all NC State Senators’ telephone numbers.

Because, in the absence of the legislative branch properly checking and balancing the executive branch, the legislative branch loses power and the executive branch gains power.

The “Single State Agency” Medicaid Requirement: The Buck Stops With Whom?????

What is THE most important law? I’m sure most people would have a differing opinion.  Maybe you think the most important law is that it is against the law to murder a person. Or to not drive drunk.

Personally, I think the most important law of the United States begins, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”  The Constitution of the United States.

Well, in the Medicaid arena, in my opinion, the most important law is the “single state entity” requirement.

Why is the “single state entity” requirement so important? 

Have any of you tried to read Title XIX of the Social Security Act? Or the 1915(b)(c) Innovations Waiver? The State Plan?

If you have, then you know how difficult Medicaid laws, rules and regulations are to read, much less understand.  It’s a bit like reading Chaucer in its original language, Middle English, in kindergarten…not impossible, you can sound out all the words…but, in the end, you have no idea what it was you just read.  Wife of whom?

What if we allowed 10 different companies, each with different employees, to implement/interpret Medicaid laws, rules, and regulations?

Each of the 10 companies would read the Medicaid laws, rules and regulations differently.

We would not have a statewide consistent Medicaid system.

Medicaid is tough enough, we, at least, need one agency to implement and interpret all of Medicaid.

Another example is if, suddenly, we had no president or federal government.  And all 50 states’ governors tried to run the country, as a country and not 50 independent states.  We would, obviously, have 50 different “leaders” trying to run one country with 50 different ideas as to how the country should be run.  There would be no nationwide uniformity.

Hence, the “single state agency” requirement.  DHHS must implement/administer/interpret all Medicaid decision for the sake of uniformity.

Not only is the “single state agency” requirement logical, it is federal law.

42 U.S.C. 1396 a(a)(5) requires states participating in the Medicaid program to designate a “single state entity” to operate the Medicaid program.  

In North Carolina, that “single state entity” is the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).

Remember the sign on Harry Truman’s desk? “The Buck Stops Here!” Meaning, as a president, President Truman understood that anything that went wrong in any federal department was on his shoulders.  He was the captain of the ship.  He was the big cheese. The buck stopped with Truman.

In NC Medicaid, the buck stops with DHHS.

According to federal law, the “single state entity” may contract with entities, such as Managed Care Organizations (MCOs), Recovery Audit Contractors (RACs), etc. to assist with certain functions of the Medicaid program.  But…that “single state entity” CANNOT delegate its authority to “issue policies, rules, and regulations on program matters.”  42 C.F.R. 431.10.

Moreover, the “single state entity” MUST NOT allow a contracted company to have authority to change or disapprove an administrative decision of the “single state entity.”  42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(5) states that “either provide for the establishment or designation of a single State agency to administer or to supervise the administration of the plan.”

Similarly, in K.C. v. Shipman, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals states that:

“If other State or local agencies or offices perform services for the Medicaid agency, they must not have the authority to change or disapprove any administrative decision of that agency, or otherwise substitute their judgment for that of the Medicaid agency with respect to the application of policies, rules, and regulations issued by the Medicaid agency.  42 C.F.R. § 431.10(e)(3).” (emphasis added).

Ok, pretty clear, right?

Then how can an MCO determine that a provider’s Medicaid contract should be terminated without DHHS’ authorization (which, I believe, is a substitute of judgment in applying policies)? How can an MCO determine that a Medicaid recipient’s services should be reduced (another substitution of judgment in applying policies) without DHHS’ authorization?

If you ask me, the MCOs cannot terminate a provider’s Medicaid contract or reduce services without DHHS’ authorization.  Substituting an MCO’s judgment in applying Medicaid policies is a violation of the “single state entity” requirement.

Yet….the MCOs are doing just that.

Even more scary is the recent MCO Communication Bulletin #55, dated August 2, 2013, which states:

MCO Communication Bulletin #55

Date:                August 2, 2013                                                            

To:                   LME-MCO CEOs

From:               Courtney Cantrell, Assistant Director, Behavioral Health Section

Subject:         Provider Appeals

Currently DMA is reviewing LME-MCO contract terminations and service denials when appealed due to LME-MCO manuals stating that appeals of denials should come to DMA prior to Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).  DMA should not be a part of the LME-MCO appeals process.  We ask that you please correct your manuals by August 7, 2013, and share with your contract managers so that these appeals can be appropriately routed.

Yes, I agree, the author could have written this Communication Bulletin is a way that would have been easier to read. But, maybe that is the point.

I interpret this bulletin to say:

Right now, the MCO manuals instruct MCOs to send DMA all contract terminations and service denials prior to going to the OAH (litigation).  But, DMA does not want to be a part of the appeal process anymore.  Therefore, revise all MCO manuals to reflect that MCOs no longer need to send DMA contract terminations and service denials, even if those denials and terminations are appealed.

I also infer from this language that, since the inception of MCOs, DMA has not reviewed any contract terminations or service denials unless these denials and terminations are appealed.

 DMA does not review prior to the MCO terminating or denying services???? Where is the supervision? Where is the “single state agency?”

And then, even scarier, Bulletin #55 seems to say that DMA wants to be involved even LESS.

In essence, we have 10 MCOs, 10 jurisdictions, 10 interpretations of Medicaid laws, rules and regulations.  And no statewide uniformity.

I guess the buck stops with East Carolina Behavioral Health (ECBH)…and MeckLINK…and Alliance…and Smoky Mountain Center…and Cardinal Innovations…and Centerpoint Human Services…and CoastalCare…and EastPointe…and Partners Behavioral Health Management…and Sandhills…and (at least for a short time) Western Highlands…

That is a lot of bucks.