Category Archives: Managed Care

Termination Underway for Virginia Medicaid Behavioral Health Care Providers!

As Virginia Medicaid behavioral health care providers are being terminated, the question remains, is it legal?

Virginia behavioral health care providers that accept Medicaid are under statewide blanket fire.

Without warning or provocation, the Managed Care Organizations (MCOs) recently began a mass firing, terminating all Medicaid behavioral health care providers “without cause.” Since the terminations involved multiple MCOs that were not ostensibly connected by business organization, involving providers across the state, it became immediately clear that the MCOs may have planned the terminations together.

Why are the MCOs doing this, you might ask? If you were charged with managing a firehose of Medicaid dollars, would you rather deal with 100 small providers or two large providers? This appears to be discrimination based on size.

Thankfully, for the behavioral healthcare providers of Virginia, they had an association, which is run by a tenacious woman with energy like the Energizer Bunny and passion like a tsunami. Caliber Virginia is the association heading the defense.

This is not my first rodeo with large-scale litigation regarding Medicare or Medicaid. I represented four behavioral healthcare providers in the New Mexico debacle through the administrative process. I have brought class-action lawsuits based on the computer software program implemented by the state to manage Medicaid funds. I have been successful in federal courts in obtaining federal injunctions staying terminations of Medicaid provider contracts.

Since I was contacted by Caliber Virginia, I have reviewed multiple contracts between providers and MCOs, termination letters, and federal and state law, listened to the stories of the providers that are facing imminent closure, and brainstormed legal theories to protect the providers.

I came up with this – these MCOs cannot terminate these providers “without cause.” In fact, these MCOs cannot terminate these providers without good reason.

Under numerous Supreme Court holdings, most notably the Court’s holding in Board of Regents v. Roth, the right to due process under the law only arises when a person has a property or liberty interest at stake.

In determining whether a property interest exists, a Court must first determine that there is an entitlement to that property. Unlike liberty interests, property interests and entitlements are not created by the Constitution. Instead, property interests are created by federal or state law, and can arise from statute, administrative regulations, or contract.

Specifically, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that North Carolina Medicaid providers have a property interest in continued provider status. In Bowens v. N.C. Dept. of Human Res., the Fourth Circuit recognized that the North Carolina provider appeals process created a due-process property interest in a Medicaid provider’s continued provision of services, and could not be terminated “at the will of the state.” The Court determined that these due process safeguards, which included a hearing and standards for review, indicated that the provider’s participation was not “terminable at will.” The Court held that these safeguards created an entitlement for the provider, because it limits the grounds for termination, only for cause, and that such cause was reviewable. The Fourth Circuit reached the same result in Ram v. Heckler two years later. I foresee the same results in other appellate jurisdictions, but definitely again within the Fourth Circuit.

Since Ram, North Carolina Medicaid providers’ rights to continued participation has been strengthened through the passage of Chapter 108C. Chapter 108C expressly creates a right for existing Medicaid providers to challenge a decision to terminate participation in the Medicaid program in the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). It also makes such reviews subject to the standards of Article 3 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Therefore, North Carolina law now contains a statutory process that confers an entitlement to Medicaid providers. Chapter 108C sets forth the procedure and substantive standards for which OAH is to operate, and gives rise to the property right recognized in Bowens and Ram. Similarly, the Virginia law provides an appeal process for providers to follow in accordance with the Virginia Administrative Process Act.  See VA Code § 32.1-325 and 12 VAC 30-121-230.

In another particular case, a Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) terminated a provider’s ability to deliver four CPT® codes, which comprised of over 80 percent of the provider’s bailiwick, severely decreasing the provider’s funding source, not to mention costing Medicare recipients’ access to care and choice of provider.

The MAC’s contention was that the provider was not really terminated, since they could still participate in the network in ways. But the company was being terminated from providing certain services.

The Court found that the MAC’s contention that providers have no right to challenge a termination was without merit. And, rightfully so, the Court stated that if the MAC’s position were correct, the appeals process provided by law would be meaningless. This was certainly not the case.

The MAC’s contention that it operates a “closed network” and thus can terminate a provider at its sole discretion was also not supported by the law. No MAC or MCO can cite to any statute, regulation, or contract provision that gives it such authority. The statutory definition of “closed network” simply delineates those providers that have contracted with the Local Management Entity (LME) MCOs to furnish services to Medicaid enrollees. The MAC was relying on its own definition of “closed network” to exercise complete and sole control and discretion, which is without foundation and/or any merit. Nothing in the definition of “closed network” indicates that MACs or MCOs have absolute discretion to determine which existing providers can remain in the closed network.

It is well-settled law that there is a single state agency responsible for Medicare and Medicaid: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). Case law dictates that the responsibility cannot be delegated away. A supervisory role, at the very least, must be maintained.

On the Medicaid level, 42 CFR § 438.214, titled “Provider Selection,” requires the state to ensure, through a contract, that each MCO PIHP (Prepaid Inpatient Health Plan) “implements written policies and procedures for selection and retention of providers.”) A plain reading of the law makes clear that MCOs that operate a PIHP are required to have written policies and procedures for retention of providers. Requiring policies and procedures would be pointless if they are not followed.

The Medicare Provider Manual and any the provisions of a request for proposal (RFP) must be adhered to, pursuant to the federal regulation and the state contracts. To the extent that Alliance’s policy states that it can decide not to retain a provider for any reason at its sole discretion, such a policy does not conform with federal law or the state requirements.

On the Medicare level, 42 U.S.C. § 405(h) spells out the judicial review available to providers, which is made applicable to Medicare by 42 U.S.C. § 1395ii. Section 405(h) aims to lay out the sole means by which a court may review decisions to terminate a provider agreement in compliance with the process available in § 405(g). Section 405(g) lays out the sole process of judicial review available in this type of dispute. The Supreme Court has endorsed the process, for nearly two decades, since its decision in Shalala v. Illinois Council on Long Term Care, Inc., holding that providers are required to abide by the provisions of § 405(g) providing for judicial review only after the administrative appeal process is complete.

The MACs and the MCOs cannot circumvent federal law and state requirements regarding provider retention by creating a policy that allows them to make the determination for any reason in its sole discretion. Such a provision is tantamount to having no policies and procedures at all.

If you or someone you know is being terminated in Virginia, please contact me – kemanuel@potomasclaw.com, or Caliber Virginia – calibervaed@gmail.com.

Caliber Virginia, formerly known as the Association for Community-Based Service Providers (ACBP), was established in 2006 to provide support, resources, and information with a united, well-informed and engaged voice among the community-based behavioral and mental health service providers of the Commonwealth. Caliber Virginia represents organizations that provide health and human services and supports for children, adults, and families in the areas of mental health, substance use disorders, developmental disabilities, child and family health and well-being, and other related issue areas.  Its member providers deliver quality health and human services to over 500,000 of Virginia’s residents each year. Caliber Virginia promotes equal opportunity, economic empowerment, independent living, and political participation for people with disabilities, including mental health diagnoses.

Programming Note:

Listen to Knicole Emanuel’s live reporting on this story Monday, Sept. 23, 2019, on Monitor Monday, 10-10:30 a.m. EST.

First published on RACMonitor

Your Medicare Reimbursements Are Your Property Rights

As a Medicare/caid health care provider, you have a property right to your reimbursements for services rendered that were medically necessary.

Why does it matter if your Medicare/caid reimbursements constitute property rights? If you have a property right to something it cannot be taken from you without due process of law. Due process equals a fair hearing and notice. If you have a property right in something then it cannot be usurped from you. For example, since I own my house, you cannot come to my house and claim ownership, even as a squatter. I am afforded due process for my right to my property. Similarly, when you provide Medicare services that are medically necessary and properly completed, your reimbursements for such services cannot be withheld without due process. This means that many rules and regulations across the nation may be unconstitutional.

One of the questionable laws comes into light under many managed care catchment area’s (MCOs) closed network system, which comprises the majority of managed care in America, as well as Medicare Administrative Companies (MACs). MCOs and MACs act as if it are the judge, jury, and executioner when it comes to payments. But, according to the constitution and property rights, Medicare/caid reimbursements are not based on a subjective review by a government contractor.

The ultimate victims in unfair, premature, or erroneous terminations from Medicare or Medicaid programs are the recipients. Often there are too few providers who accept Medicare and Medicaid in certain areas. The other victims in a wrongful termination is the provider and its staff. While the adverse consequences of an unjust termination has minimal to no unfavorable results to the government.

Under numerous Supreme Court holdings, most notably the Court’s holding in Board of Regents v. Roth the right to due process under the law only arises when a person has a property or liberty interest at stake. See also Bowens v. N.C. Dept. of Human Res.

In determining whether a property interest exists a Court must first determine that there is an entitlement to that property. Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill. Unlike liberty interests, property interests and entitlements are not created by the Constitution. Instead, property interests are created by federal or state law and can arise from statute, administrative regulations, or contract. Bowens.

Specifically, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that North Carolina Medicaid providers have a property interest in continued provider status. Bowens, 710 F.2d 1018. In Bowens, the Fourth Circuit recognized that North Carolina provider appeals process created a due process property interest in a Medicaid provider’s continued provision of services and could not be terminated “at the will of the state.” The Court determined that these due process safeguards, which included a hearing and standards for review, indicated that the provider’s participation was not “terminable at will.” The Court held that these safeguards created an entitlement for the provider, because it limits the grounds for his/her termination such that the contract was not terminable “at will” but only for cause, and that such cause was reviewable. The Fourth Circuit reached the same result in Ram v. Heckler, two years later. I foresee the same results in other Court of Appeals’ jurisdiction.

Since Ram, North Carolina Medicaid provider’s right to continued participation has been strengthened through the passage of Chapter 108C. Chapter 108C expressly creates a right for existing Medicaid providers to challenge a decision to terminate participation in the Medicaid program in the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). It also makes such reviews subject to the standards of Article 3 of the APA. Therefore, North Carolina law now contains a statutory process that confers an entitlement to Medicaid providers. Chapter 108C sets forth the procedure and substantive standards for which OAH is to operate and gives rise to the property right recognized in Bowens and Ram.

In another particular case, a MAC terminated a provider’s ability to deliver four CPT codes, which comprised of over 80% of the provider’s bailiwick and severely decreased the provider’s financial income, not to mention Medicare recipients lost their access to care and choice of provider.

The MAC’s contention was that the provider was not really terminated since they could still participate in the network in ways. But the company was being terminated from providing certain services.

The Court found that the MAC’s contention that providers have no right to challenge a termination was without merit. And, rightfully so, the Court stated that if the MAC’s position were correct, the appeals process provided by law would be meaningless. This was certainly not the case.

The MAC’s contention that it operates a “closed network” and thus can terminate a provider at its sole discretion was also not supported by the law. No MAC or MCO can cite to any statute, regulation or contract provision that gives it such authority. The statutory definition of “closed network” simply delineates those providers that have contracted with the LME-MCOs to furnish services to Medicaid enrollees. The MAC was relying on its own definition of “closed network” to exercise complete and sole control and discretion which is without foundation and/or any merit. Nothing in the definition of “closed network” indicates that MACs or MCOs have absolute discretion to determine which existing providers can remain in the closed network.

It is well settled law that there is a single state agency responsible for Medicare and Medicaid, which equals the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Case law dictates that the responsibility cannot be delegated away. A supervisory role, at the very least, must be maintained.

On the Medicaid level, 42 CFR § 438.214 entitled “Provider Selection” requires the State to ensure, through a contract, that each MCO/PIHP “implements written policies and procedures for selection and retention of providers.”). A plain reading of the law makes clear that MCOs that operate a PIHP are required to have written policies and procedures for retention of providers. Requiring policies and procedures would be pointless if they are not followed.

To the extent that a MAC or MCO’s policy states that it can decide not to retain a provider for any reason at its sole discretion, such a policy does not conform with Federal law and the State requirements.

On the Medicare level, 42 U.S.C. § 405(h) spells out the judicial review available to providers, which is made applicable to Medicare by 42 U.S.C. § 1395ii. Section 405(h) aims to lay out the sole means by which a court may review decisions to terminate a provider agreement in compliance with the process available in § 405(g). Section 405(g) lays out the sole process of judicial review available in this type of dispute. The Supreme Court has endorsed the process, for nearly two decades, since its decision in Shalala v. Illinois Council on Long Term Care, Inc., holding that providers are required to abide by the provisions of § 405(g) providing for judicial review only after the administrative appeal process is complete.

The MACs and the MCOs cannot circumvent federal law and State requirements regarding provider retention by creating a policy that allows it to make the determination for any reason in its sole discretion. Such a provision is tantamount to having no policies and procedures at all.

United Behavioral Health SLAMMED by Judge for Improperly Denying Behavioral Health Care Services

We have had parity laws between mental and physical health care services on the books for years. Regardless of the black letter law, mental health health care services have been treated with stigma, embarrassment, and of lesser importance than physical health care services. A broken leg is easily proven by an X-Ray; whereas a broken mind is less obvious.

In an unprecedented Decision ripe with scathing remarks against Optum/United Behavioral Health’s (UBH) actions, a Court recently ruled that UBH improperly denied mental health services to insureds and that those improper denials were financially-driven. A slap-on-the-wrist, this Decision was not. More of a public whipping.

In a 106-page opinion, the US District Court, Northern District of California, slammed UBH in a blistering decision finding that UBH purposely and improperly denied behavioral health care benefits to thousands of mentally ill insureds by utilizing overly restrictive guidelines. This is a HUGE win for the mental health community, which often does not receive the parity of services (of physical health) that it is legally is entitled. U.S. Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero spared no political correctness in his mordacious written opinion, which is rarity in today’s vitriolic world.

2019- Spero

The Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), saying the insurer denied benefits in violation of the terms of their insurance plans and state law. The Plaintiffs consisted of participants in UBH health care plans and who were denied mental health care services.

Judge Spero found United Behavioral’s guidelines were influenced by financial incentives concerning fully-funded and self-funded ERISA plans:

“While the incentives related to fully insured and self-funded plans are not identical, with respect to both types of plan UBH has a financial interest in keeping benefit expense down … [A]ny resulting shortcomings in its Guideline development process taints its decision-making as to both categories of plan because UBH maintains a uniform set of Guidelines for fully insured and self-funded plans … Instead of insulating its Guideline developers from these financial pressures, UBH has placed representatives of its Finance and Affordability Departments in key roles in the Guidelines development process throughout the class period.”

Surprisingly, this decision came out of California, which is notoriously socially-driven. Attorneys generally avert their eyes when opinions come from the 9th District.

Judge Spero found that UBH violated “generally accepted standards of care” to administer requests for benefits.

The Court found that “many mental health and substance use disorders are long-term and chronic.” It also found that, in questionable instances, the insurance company should err on the caution of placing the patient in a higher level of care. The Court basically cited the old adage – “Better safe than sorry,” which seems a pretty darn good idea when you are talking about mental health. Just ask Ted Bundy.

Even though the Wit Decision involved private pay insurance, the Court repeatedly cited to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ (CMS) Manual. For example, the Court stated that “the CMS Manual explains, [f]or many . . . psychiatric patients, particularly those with long-term, chronic conditions, control of symptoms and maintenance of a functional level to avoid further deterioration or hospitalization is an acceptable expectation of improvement.” It also quoted ASAM criteria as generally accepted standards, as well as LOCUS, which tells me that the law interprets the CMS Manual, ASAM criteria, and LOCUS as “generally accepted standards,” and not UBH’s or any other private pay insurance’s arbitrary standards. In fact, the Court actually stated that its decision was influenced by the fact that UBH’s adopted many portions of CMS’ Manual, but drafted the language in a more narrow way to ensure more denials of mental health benefits.

The Court emphasized the importance of ongoing care instead of acute care that ceases upon the end of the acute crisis. The denial of ongoing care was categorized as a financial decision. The Court found that UBH’s health care policy “drove members to lower levels of care even when treatment of the member’s overall and/or co-occurring conditions would have been more effective at the higher level of care.”

The Wit decision will impact us in so many ways. For one, if a State Medicaid program limits mental health services beyond what the CMS Manual, ASAM criteria, or LOCUS determines, then providers (and beneficiaries) have a strong legal argument that the State Medicaid criteria do not meet generally accepted standards. Even more importantly, if the State Medicaid policies do NOT limit mental health care services beyond what the CMS Manual, ASAM criteria, and LOCUS defines, but an agent of the State Medicaid Division; i.e, a managed care organization (MCO) deny mental health care services that would be considered appropriate under the generally accepted standards, then, again, both providers and beneficiaries would have strong legal arguments overturning those denials.

I, for one, hope this is a slippery slope…in the right direction.

 

Another NCTracks Debacle? Enter NC HealthConnex – A Whole New Computer System To Potentially Screw Up

North Carolina is mandating that health care providers link with all other health care providers. HIPAA be damned! Just another hoop to jump through in order to get paid by Medicaid – as if it isn’t hard enough!

If you do not comply and link your health care practice to NC HealthConnex by June 1, 2019, you could lose your Medicaid contract.

“As North Carolina moves into data-driven, value-based health care, the NC HIEA is working to modernize the state-designated health information exchange, now called NC HealthConnex.” About NC HealthConnex website.

NC HIEA = NC Health Information Exchange Authority (NC HIEA) and created by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-414.7. “North Carolina Health Information Exchange Authority.”

North Carolina state law mandates that all health care providers who receive any State funds, which would include Medicaid, HealthChoice and the State Health Plan, must connect and submit patient demographic and clinical data to NC HealthConnex by June 1, 2019. The process could take 12 to 18 months. So you better get going. Move it or lose it, literally. If you do not comply, you can lose your license to participate in state-funded programs, including Medicaid.

If you go to the NC Health Information Exchange Authority (NC HIEA) website article, entitled, “NC HealthConnex Participant Base Continues to Grow,” you will see the following:

Screen Shot 2018-11-29 at 3.21.53 PM

I highlighted the Session Law that, according to the above, requires that health care providers who receive state funds must connect to NC HealthConnex. See above. However, when you actually read Session Law 2017-57, it is untrue that Session Law 2017-57 mandates that health care providers who receive state funds must connect to NC HealthConnex.

If you follow the citation by NC HIEA (above), you will see that buried in Session Law 2017-57, the 2017 Appropriations Bill, is a clause that states:

“SECTION 11A.8.(e)  Of the funds appropriated in this act to the Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Central Management and Support, Office of Rural Health, for the Community Health Grant Program, the sum of up to one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000) in recurring funds for each fiscal year of the 2017‑2019 fiscal biennium shall be used to match federal funds to provide to safety net providers eligible to participate in the Community Health Grant Program, through the Rural Health Technology Team, ongoing training and technical assistance with respect to health information technology, the adoption of electronic health records, and the establishment of connectivity to the State’s health information exchange network known as NC HealthConnex.”

As you can plainly read, this clause only allots funds to provide training and assistance to providers eligible to participate in the Community Health Grant Program. The above clause certainly does not mandate that Healthcare providers who receive state funds connect to NC HealthConnex.

Session Law 2017-57, only mandates $150,000 for training and assistance for HealthConnex.

So what is the legal statute that mandates health care providers who receive state funds must connect to NC HealthConnex?

Ok, bear with me. Here’s where it gets complex.

A law was passed in 2015, which created the North Carolina Health Information Exchange Authority (NC HIEA). NC HIEA is a sub agency of the North Carolina Department of Information Technology (NC DIT) Government Data Analytic Center. NC HIEA operates the NC HealthConnex. The State CIO maintains the responsibility if the NC HealthConnex.

Supposedly, that 2015 law mandates that health care providers who receive state funds must connect to NC HealthConnex…

I read it. You can click on the link here. This subsection is the only section that I would deem apropos to health care providers accepting State funding:

“In consultation with the Advisory Board, develop a strategic plan for achieving statewide participation in the HIE Network by all hospitals and health care providers licensed in this State.”

What part of the above clause states that health care providers are MANDATED to participate? So, please, if any of my readers actually know which law mandates provider participation, please forward to me. Because my question is – Is participation REALLY mandated? Will providers seriously lose their reimbursement rights for services rendered for failing to participate in NC HealthConnex?? Because I see multiple violations of federal law with this requirement, including HIPAA and due process.

HealthConnex can link your practice to it if you use the following EHR programs:

  • Ace Health Solutions
  • Allscripts
  • Amazing Charts/Harris Healthcare Company
  • Aprima
  • Athena Health
  • AYM Technologies
  • Casehandler
  • Centricity
  • Cerner
  • CureMD
  • DAS Health/Aprima
  • eClinicalWorks
  • eMD
  • eMed Solutions, LLC
  • EPIC
  • Evident- Thrive
  • Greenway
  • ICANotes Behavioral Health EHR
  • ICAN Solutions, Inc
  • Integrity/Checkpoint
  • Kaleidacare
  • Lauris Online
  • McKesson Practice Partners
  • Medical Transcription Billing Corporation
  • Medinformatix
  • Meditab Software, Inc.
  • Meditech
  • Mediware-Alphaflex
  • MTBC
  • MicroMD
  • Netsmart
  • NextGen
  • Office Ally
  • Office Practicum
  • Oncelogix Sharenote
  • Patagonia Health
  • Physician’s Computer Company (PCC)
  • PIMSY
  • Practice Fusion Cloud
  • Praxis
  • PrognoCIS
  • PsyTech Solutions, Inc.
  • Qualifacts – Carelogic
  • Radysans
  • Reli Med Solutions
  • SET-Works
  • SRS
  • The Echo Group
  • Therap
  • Trimed Tech
  • Valant
  • Waiting Room Solutions

The law also requires:

  • Hospitals as defined by G.S. 131E-176(13), physicians licensed to practice under Article 1 of Chapter 90 of the General Statutes, physician assistants as defined in 21 NCAC 32S .0201, and nurse practitioners as defined in 21 NCAC 36 .0801 who provide Medicaid services and who have an electronic health record system shall connect by June 1, 2018.
  • All other providers of Medicaid and state-funded services shall connect by June 1, 2019. See changes in 2018 Session Law below.
  • Prepaid Health Plans (PHPs), as defined in S.L. 2015-245, will be required to connect to the HIE per their contracts with the NC Division of Health Benefits (DHB). Clarifies that PHPs are required to submit encounter and claims data by the commencement of the contract with NC DHB.
  • Clarifies that Local Management Entities/Managed Care Organizations (LMEs/MCOs) are required to submit encounter and claims data by June 1, 2020.

New from the 2018 Legislative Short Session, NCSL 2018-41: 

  • Dentists and ambulatory surgical centers are required to submit clinical and demographic data by June 1, 2021.
  • Pharmacies are required to submit claims data pertaining to State services once per day by June 1, 2021, using pharmacy industry standardized formats.

To meet the state’s mandate, a Medicaid provider is “connected” when its clinical and demographic information pertaining to services paid for by Medicaid and other State-funded health care funds are being sent to NC HealthConnex, at least twice daily—either through a direct connection or via a hub (i.e., a larger system with which it participates, another regional HIE with which it participates or an EHR vendor). Participation agreements signed with the designated entity would need to list all affiliate connections.

Let’s just wait and see how this computer system turns out. Hopefully we don’t have a second rendition of NCTracks. We all know how well that turned out. See blog and blog.

Medicaid participation continues to get more and more complicated. Remember the day when you could write a service note with a pen? That was so much cheaper than investing in computers and software. When did it get so expensive to provide health care to the most needy?

Non-Profit Going For-Profit: Merger Mania Manifests

According to the American Hospital Association, America has 4,840 general hospitals that aren’t run by the federal government: 2,849 are nonprofit, 1,035 are for-profit and 956 are owned by state or local governments.

What is the distinction between a for-profit and not-for-profit hospital… besides the obvious? The obvious difference is that one is “for-profit” and one is “not-for-profit” – but any reader of the English language would be able to tell you that. Unknown to some is that the not-for-profit status does not mean that the hospital will not make money; the status has nothing to do with a hospitals bottom line. Just ask any charity that brings in millions of dollars.

The most significant variation between non-profit and for-profit hospitals is tax status. Not-for-profit hospitals are exempt from state and local taxes. Some say that for-profit hospitals have to be more cost-effective because they have sales taxes and property taxes. I can understand that sentiment. Sales taxes and property taxes are nothing to sneeze at.

The organizational structure and culture also varies at for-profit hospitals rather than not-for-profit hospitals. For-profit hospitals have to answer to shareholders and/or investors. Those that are publicly traded may have a high attrition rate at the top executive level because when poor performance occurs heads tend to roll.

Bargaining power is another big difference between for-profit and non-profit. For-profit has it while non-profit, generally, do not. The imbalance of bargaining power comes into play when the government negotiates its managed care contracts. I also believe that bargaining power is a strong catalyst in the push for mergers. Being a minnow means that you have insect larvae and fish eggs to consume. Being a whale, however, allows you to feed on sea lion, squid, and other larger fish.

Screen Shot 2018-11-28 at 10.24.22 AM

Merger Mania

A report conducted by the Health Research Institute showed 255 healthcare merger and acquisition (M&A) deals in the second quarter of 2018. Just the second quarter! According to the report, deal volume is up 9.4% since last year.

The most active sub-sector in the second quarter of 2018 is long-term care, with 104 announced healthcare M&A deals representing almost 41% of deal volume.

The trend today is that for-profit hospitals are buying up smaller, for-profit hospitals and, any and all, not-for-profit hospitals. The upshot is that hospitals are growing larger, more massive, more “corporate-like,” and less community-based. Is this trend positive or negative? I will have to research whether the prices of services increase at hospitals that are for-profit rather than not-for-profit, but I have a gut feeling that they do. Not that prices are the only variable to determine whether the merger trend is positive or negative. From the hospital’s perspective, I would much rather be the whale, not the minnow. I would feel much more comfortable swimming around.

My opinion is that, as our health care system veers toward value-based reimbursement and this metamorphous places financial pressure on providers, health care providers are struggling for more efficient means of cost control. The logical solution is to merge and buy up the smaller fish until your entity is a whale. Whales have more bargaining power and more budget.

In 2017, 29 for-profit companies bought 18 for-profit hospitals and 11 not-for-profits, according to an analysis for Kaiser Health News.

10 hospital M&A transactions involved health care organizations with net revenues of $1 billion or more in 2017.

Here, in NC, Mission Health, a former, not-for-profit hospital in Asheville, announced in March 2018 that HCA Healthcare, the largest, for-profit, hospital chain would buy it for $1.5 billion. The NC Attorney General had to sign off on the deal since the deal involved a non-profit turning for-profit, and he did ultimately did sign off on it.

Regardless your opinion on the matter, merger mania has manifested. Providers need to determine whether they want to be a whale or a minnow.

NC Medicaid: Waiver v. Non -Waiver Services – What’s the Difference?

There is a 4.9 year waiting list to receive a spot on the Innovations Waiver. The waiting list is unhelpful when you have a child or adult with severe developmental disabilities who needs Waiver services NOW. What services are available for the disabled who qualify for Waiver services, but have not received a spot on the Innovations Waiver yet?

For children (up to age 20), the alternative to the Innovations Waivers is the Community Alternatives Program for Children (CAP/C) 1915(c) Home and Community-Based Services (HCBS) waiver was approved by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). The waiver took effect March 1, 2017.

Here is a breakdown of services offered for the Innovations Waiver versus CAP/C:

Category CAP/C Waiver [1] NC Innovations Waiver [2]
Cost limit under waiver $129,000

(Section 5.7.3)

$135,000

(Attachment F)

Case Management 80 hours (320 units) per calendar year

(Appendix B)

Respite 720 hours/fiscal year

Each day of institutional respite counts as 24 hours towards the annual limit.

(Appendix B)

The cost of respite care for 24 hours cannot exceed the per diem rate for the average community ICF-IID Facility
Pediatric Nurse Aide Type, frequency, tasks and number of hours per day are authorized by the case management entity based on medical necessity.

(Appendix B)

In-Home Aide Type, frequency, tasks and number of hours per day are authorized by the case management entity based on medical necessity.

(Appendix B)

Financial Management Service Consumer-directed initiation fee must be assessed the first month of enrollment and shall not exceed 4 units (1 hour).  Monthly management fees shall be assessed each month and shall not exceed 4 units (1 hour) per month.

(Appendix B)

Financial Support Services are available and provider directed.
Assistive Technology Included in a combined home and vehicle modification budget of $28,000 per beneficiary per the cycle of the CAP, which is renewed every 5 years.

(Appendix B)

Limited to $50,000 (ATES and Home Modifications) over the life of the waiver period, 5 years

(Attachment C)

Community Transition Services To transition CAP beneficiaries from 90-day or more institutional setting;

 

One-time expenses, not to exceed $2,500 over the cycle of the CAP, 5 years.

(Appendix B)

To provide initial set-up expense for adults to facilitate transition from community living;

 

Life of the waiver limit of $5,000 per beneficiary.

(Attachment C)

Home Accessibility and Adaptation/Home Modifications Included in a combined home and vehicle modification budget of $28,000 per beneficiary per the cycle of the CAP, which is renewed every 5 years.

(Appendix B)

Home modifications are limited to expenditures of $50,000 of supports (ATES, Home Modifications) over the duration of the waiver, 5 years.
Goods and Services Not to exceed $800 annually (July-June)

(Appendix B)

Not to exceed $2,000 annually

(Attachment C)

Training, Education, and Consultative Services/Natural Supports Education Limited to $500 per fiscal year (July 1-June30)

(Appendix B)

Reimbursement for class and conferences limited to $1,000 per year

(Attachment C)

Vehicle Modification Included in a combined home and vehicle modification budget of $28,000 per beneficiary per the cycle of the CAP, which is renewed every 5 years.

(Appendix B)

Limited to $20,000 over the life of the waiver

(Attachment C)

Community Living and Support (allowing for a paraprofessional) Subject to limits on sets of services

(Attachment C)

 

For adult beneficiaries who live in a private home[3], no more than 84 hours per week for any combination of community networking, day supports, supported employment, personal care, in-home skill-building and/or Community Living and Supports

(Attachment D)

Community Navigator Provider directed service
Community Networking Payment for attendance at classes and conferences cannot exceed $1,000 per beneficiary per plan year.

(Attachment C)

Crisis Services Crisis Intervention and stabilization Supports may be authorized for periods of up to 14 calendar day increments per event.

 

Out-of-home Crisis services may be authorized in increments of up to 30 calendar days.

(Attachment C)

 

Day Supports (A group, facility-based service that provides assistance to the individual with acquisition, retention or improvement in socialization and daily living skills.)

 

Subject to limits on sets of services

(Attachment C)

 

For adult beneficiaries who live in a private home, no more than 84 hours per week for any combination of community networking, day supports, supported employment, personal care, in-home skill-building and/or Community Living and Supports

(Attachment D)

Residential Supports (for Group Home or Alternative Family Living) Subject to limits on sets of services

(Attachment C)

 

For adult beneficiaries who receive residential supports, no more than 40 hours per week for any combination of community networking, day supports and supported employment services.  For child beneficiaries who receive residential supports, during the school year, no more than 20 hours per week for any combination of community networking, day supports and supported employment services.

(Attachment D)

Supported Employment Services (provide assistance with choosing, acquiring, and maintaining a job for beneficiaries 16 and older) Subject to limits on sets of services

(Attachment C)

 

For adult beneficiaries who live in a private home, no more than 84 hours per week for any combination of community networking, day supports, supported employment, personal care, in-home skill-building and/or Community Living and Supports

(Attachment D)

Supported Living (flexible partnership that enables a person to live in his own home with support from an agency that provides individualized assistance in a home that is under the control and responsibility of the person Subject to limits on sets of services

 

For adult beneficiaries who live in a private home, no more than 84 hours per week for any combination of community networking, day supports, supported employment, personal care, in-home skill-building and/or Community Living and Supports

(Attachment D)

 

Person receiving Supported Living may not also receive Community Living and Supports, Respite Services or Personal Care Services

[1] See NC Division of Medical Assistance, Clinical Coverage Policy No: 3K-1, Amended Date: March 1, 2018.  The CAP/C waiver was renewed by CMS effective March 1, 2017-February 28, 2022.

[2] See NC Division of Medical Assistance, Clinical Coverage Policy No: 8-P, Amended Date: November 1, 2016.

Medicaid Reform: As Addictive as Fortnite

Do you have a kid addicted to Fortnite? The numbers are rising…

For those of you who have been living under a rock for the past year, this is how Fortnite is explained on the internet:

“In short, it’s a mass online brawl where 100 players leap out of a plane on to a small island and then fight each other until only one is left. Hidden around the island are weapons and items, including rifles, traps and grenade launchers, and players must arm themselves while exploring the landscape and buildings. It’s also possible to collect resources that allow you to build structures where you can hide or defend yourself. As the match progresses, the playable area of land is continually reduced, so participants are forced closer and closer together. The last survivor is the winner.”

More than 40 million people play Fortnite. According to the May 2018 Medicaid Enrollment Report, 73,633,050 Americans are enrolled in Medicaid or CHIP, so government-assisted health insurance definitely trumps Fortnite on participation.

Recently, the General Assembly passed and the Governor signed two Bills into law pertaining to Medicaid reform: (1) HB 403 (Session Law 2018-48); and (2) HB 156 (Session Law 2018-49). Notice that the Session Laws are one digit separate from each other. That is because Governor Cooper signed these two bills consecutively and on the same day. But did he read them? I do not know the answer, but I do know this: Medicaid reform in NC has become a Fortnite. The MCOs, provider-led entities, ACOs, auditors, DHHS…everyone is vying for a piece of the very large Medicaid budget, approximately $3.6 billion – or 16% of NC’s total budget. It is literally a firehose of money if you can manage to be a player in the Medicaid Fortnite – a fight to eliminate everyone but you. Unlike Fortnite, the pay-off for winning Medicaid Fortnite is financially lucrative. But it is a fight with few winners.

Session Law 2018-48 is entitled, “An Act to Modify the Medicaid Transformation Legislation.”

Session Law 2018-49 is entitled, “An Act to Require Medicaid Prepaid Health Plans to Obtain a License from the Department of Insurance and to Make Other Changes Pertaining to Medicaid Transformation and the Department of Insurance.”

Don’t you like how the House decided to use the term “transformation” instead of “reform?” The term “reform” had been over-utilized.

Recently, the North Carolina Medical Society announced that it is throwing its metaphoric hat in the ring to become “Carolina Complete Health,” a provider-led patient-care center.

The New Laws

Session Law 2018-48

Session Law 2018-48 defines provider-led entity (PLE) as an entity that meets the following criteria: (1) A majority of the entity’s ownership is held by an individual or entity that has its primary business purpose the operation of a capitated contract for Medicaid; (2) A majority of the entity’s governing body is composed of licensed physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, or psychologist and have experience treating Medicaid beneficiaries; (3) Holds a PHP license issued by the Department of Insurance (see Session Law 2018-49).

Services covered by PHP’s will include physical health services, prescription drugs, long-term services and supports, and behavioral health care services for North Carolina Health Choice recipients. The PHP’s will not cover services currently covered by the managed care organizations (MCOs).

Session Law 2018-48 allows for 4 contracts with PHPs to provide services for Medicaid and NC Health Choice (statewide contracts). Plus, it allows up to 12 regional contracts.

What is the future of behavioral health and the MCO system?

For now, they will still exist. The double negative wording of the new Session Law makes it seem like the MCOs will have less authority, but the MCOs will continue to cover for services described in subdivisions a, d, e, f, g, j, k, and l of this subdivision.

Session Law 2018-48 also creates new entities called BH IDD Tailored Plans. Session Law 2018-48 carves out developmentally disabled services (or IDD). It mandates that DHHS create a detailed plan for implementation of a new IDD program under the 1115 Waiver. Services provided by the new Tailored Plans shall pay for and manage services currently offered under the 1915(b)(c) Waiver.

Here’s the catch for providers: “Entities operating BH IDD Tailored Plans shall maintain closed provider networks for behavioral health, intellectual and developmental disability, and traumatic brain injury services and shall ensure network adequacy.” (emphasis added). Fortnite continues with providers jockeying to be included in the networks.

For the next four years only an MCO may operate a BH IDD Tailored Plan. This tells me that the MCOs have sufficiently lawyered up with lobbyists. After the term of the initial contracts, the Tailored Plans will be the result of RFPs issued by DHHS and the submission of competitive bids from nonprofit PHPs.

DHHS was to report to the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee with a plan for the implementation of the Tailored Plans by June 22, 2018. – Sure would’ve loved to be a fly on that wall.

Starting August 31, 2018, DHHS is authorized to take any actions necessary to implement the BH IDD Tailored Plans in accordance with all the requirements in this Act.

Session Law 2018-49

A provider-led entity must meet all the following criteria: (1) A majority of the entity’s ownership is held by an individual or entity that has as its primary business purpose operating a capitated contract with with Medicaid providers; and (2) A majority of the governing body is composed of individuals who are licensed as physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, or psychologists and all of whom have experienced treating Medicaid beneficiaries.

Session Law 2018-49 requires that all PHPs apply for a license with the Commissioner of Insurance. With the application, all entities would need to provide proof of financial stability and other corporate documents. This new law definitely increases the authority of the Commissioner of Insurance (Mike Causey).

The remaining portion of the law pertains to protection against insolvency, continuation of healthcare services in case of insolvency, suspension or revocation of licenses, administrative procedures, penalties and enforcement, confidentiality of information, and that sort.

Session Law 2018-49 also applies to the current opioid crisis. It allows a “lock-in programs” for those consumers who use multiple pharmacies and multiple doctors to “lock them in” to one pharmacy and one doctor.

Besides the “lock-in” program, Session Law 2018-49 is basically a law that brings the Department of Insurance into the Medicaid arena.

Let Fortnite begin!

Former Cardinal CEO files countersuit to retain severance

Here are our tax dollars continuing to be used for such great purposes!!! I completely understand Cardinal’s desire to recoup our tax dollars that went into Topping’s pocket – noble, indeed. But I am stumped as how, supposedly, Topping had the executive authority to unilaterally name his salary?? Did he have such authority – or, like many companies, was Topping’s exorbitant salary a Board decision? And – if Topping’s salary were a Board decision – is Cardinal suing itself for past poor decisions???? Curiouser and curiouser.

Regardless, let’s give a “hat’s off” and a “thank you” to Richard Craver staying on top of this important and upsetting issue. #icantwaituntilwererich (see below for context).

By Richard Craver Winston-Salem Journal

The fired chief executive of Cardinal Innovations, Richard Topping Jr., filed Tuesday his countersuit to thwart the agency’s attempt to recover $1.68 million in paid severance.

A reconstituted board of directors for Cardinal, the state’s largest behavioral health managed care organization, has alleged that Topping used his post to enrich himself and three other executives. That board filed its lawsuit March 29.

Both lawsuits were filed in Mecklenburg Superior Court.

The agency oversees providers of mental, substance abuse and development disabilities services for 20 counties, including Forsyth County. It has responsibility for more than 850,000 Medicaid recipients and more than $675 million in federal and state Medicaid funding.

According to an investigation done by former federal prosecutor Kurt Meyers at the new board’s request, Topping convinced the former board leadership to pay him the severance before he was removed by state health Secretary Mandy Cohen on Nov. 27 as part of a N.C. Department of Health and Human Services takeover of Cardinal.

The current Cardinal board not only wants to recoup $3.8 million in overall executive severance, but also at least $125,000 in damages. The complaint called Topping’s severance “excessive and unlawful payments.”

Topping faces seven claims in the Cardinal lawsuit: breach of contract; breach of fiduciary duties; breach of implied duty of good faith and fair dealing (in his role as CEO); conversion (deleting data from Cardinal-owned devices and not returning Cardinal electronic property); unjust enrichment; constructive trust (knowingly accepting overpayments in severance); and constructive fraud (taking without permission highly confidential Cardinal financial and operational data).

“He inflated his salary without regard to the reputational, regulatory and legal damages it was going to cause,” Meyers said.

Topping claims his reputation has been “severely damaged” in the healthcare sector by the Cardinal lawsuit and investigation.

Topping called claims made in Meyers’ detailed presentation “misleading and false” even though it contained email and text exchanges between Topping, former Cardinal executives and former board chairwoman Lucy Drake about his post-Cardinal plans.

“Topping took these steps acknowledging he would never get another contract with Cardinal, nor likely with any other North Carolina healthcare provider,” Trey Sutten said March 29. Sutten was named as interim CEO by Cohen on Nov. 27 and full-time CEO on March 29.

The Charlotte Observer said among those named by Topping as defendants were Cardinal general counsel Chuck Hollowell, deputy general counsel Stephen Martin and board vice chairwoman Carmen Hooker Odom. DHHS said Tuesday it had no comment about Topping’s countersuit.

Topping was paid as much as $635,000 in annual salary, about 3½ times the maximum allowed under state law.

Topping has claimed the salary, which was raised twice by the former board during his term, was justified based on an independent market survey of Charlotte-area healthcare executives. The Charlotte Observer said Topping claims he and the other former executives were paid at the 50th percentile of market rates.

According to Meyers’ investigation, Topping pressured the former board not to fire him for several months by saying that if he was terminated, his entire management team would also leave with him. According to Meyers, Topping told the board that if that action occurred, it would “end Cardinal as they knew it.”

Topping claimed he did not create the severance platform in dispute.

“Cardinal Innovations Healthcare, Carmen Hooker Odom, Chuck Hollowell and Stephen Martin deny the false claims and baseless allegations brought by former CEO Richard Topping,” Cardinal spokeswoman Ashley Conger said in a statement.

Texts and emails between Topping and Pete Murphy, former chief information officer, epitomized their self-enrichment thinking, Meyers said.

The former board paid $1.7 million in severance to Topping, along with $740,000 to Murphy; $690,000 to Will Woodell, chief operating officer; and $684,000 to Dr. Ranota Hall, chief medical officer.

One exchange— sent Nov. 17 before Topping was fired by the former board — involved Murphy and Topping discussing Topping’s securing 1.5-gigabytes of highly confidential Cardinal management files, including personnel files, before leaving his post.

Murphy wrote that Topping “was smart to take files now.” Topping ended the text with an emoji with a finger over the lips. Meyers said he interpreted that emoji as saying “Shhh. Be quiet, and don’t tell anyone what I’m doing.”

An email exchange between the former executives took place after Topping’s termination by the former board. The board agreed to allow Topping to remain as CEO through Nov. 30.

The context, according to Meyers, was Topping’s work to secure venture capital or private equity for a private startup business, potentially to compete against Cardinal in the planned Medicaid reform marketplace with Cardinal’s confidential financial and operational information in hand.

“I can’t wait until we’re rich,” Murphy wrote. Topping answered, “I’ve made great progress on that front.” (emphasis added).

Topping’s lawsuit claims he was gathering information to create a healthcare smartphone app.

_________________________________

For background, see blog and blog.

Exclusive: Medicaid: The State of the Union

Here is an article that I wrote as a Medicaid news update, state-by-state, as seen on RACMonitor.

The latest and greatest in Medicaid news, state by state.

While Medicare is a nationwide healthcare insurance program, Medicaid, the government-funded health insurance for the poor and developmentally disabled, is state-specific, generally speaking. The backbone of Medicaid is federal; federal regulations set forth the minimum requirements that states must follow. It is up to the states to decide whether to mandate more stringent or more regulatory oversight than is required by the federal regulations.

Why is it important for you to know the latest up-to-date information on Medicaid issues? First, if you accept Medicaid, you need to know. Secondly, if you are thinking about expanding into different states, you need to be aware of how Medicaid is handled there.

What is happening in your State?

Alabama: Alabama did not expand Medicaid. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) recommended that Alabama improve its Medicaid security program, aligning it with federal requirements. The OIG also stated that Alabama also needs to provide adequate oversight to its contractors and address other vulnerabilities OIG found in its audit. Expect more audits here. In particular, the Medicaid Maternity Program is under the microscope. Apparently, healthcare providers that provide medically necessary services to women on the Maternity Program have been duped before, as some of the women enrolled had already given birth. Recoupment!
Alaska: Alaska expanded Medicaid in 2015. Currently, lawmakers in the legislature here have introduced bills that would require the state to seek 20-hour work requirements for those enrolled in Medicaid.
Arizona: Arizona expanded Medicaid, but with an approved section 1115 waiver. Arizona has failed to collect up to $36.7 million in rebates from prescription drug manufacturers since 2010 and may need to pay the federal government a portion of that amount, according to a new federal audit, which means more audits to reconcile the payback. Arizona State Rep. Kelli Butler wants to allow uninsured individuals to buy into the state’s Medicaid program. Butler is expected to introduce legislation to authorize a buy-in or direct state officials to study the proposal. The buy-in option would require consumers to pay the full cost of their insurance coverage.
Arkansas: Arkansas expanded Medicaid, but with an approved section 1115 waiver. On March 5, 2018, it became the third state to win the Trump administration’s permission to compel Medicaid recipients to work or prepare for a job. The state’s program integrity is focusing its upcoming audits on home health, long-term care facilities, and inpatient hospital stays.
California: California expanded Medicaid. The state’s Medicaid agency has posted draft language of a new state plan amendment (SPA) that would make major changes to Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) and Rural Health Clinic (RHC) reimbursement. If approved, the SPA would be retroactive to Jan. 1, 2018, so expect audits and recoupments. The proposed SPA would implement multiple new requirements for FQHC and RHCS. For example, the proposed productivity standard requires physicians to document 3,200 visits per year and applicable allied health professionals such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners to document 2,600 visits per year. In January 2018, Aetna received approval to participate in California’s Medicaid program as “Aetna Better Health of California.”
Colorado: Colorado expanded Medicaid. Not unexpectedly, the state has one of the more lenient regulatory environments. For example, Colorado’s permissive approach to regulating more than 700 licensed residential and outpatient drug treatment centers got the attention of a congressional subcommittee investigating the drug rehab industry last year. Also, Colorado’s governor announced that he is not opposed to work requirements for Medicaid beneficiaries.
Connecticut: Connecticut expanded Medicaid. The Connecticut Health Policy Project data shows that net pharmacy spending minus rebates from Connecticut’s Medicaid program tripled from 2000 to 2017. After rebates, Medicaid’s pharmacy costs decreased from $542 million in 2015 to $465 million in 2017, a drop of over 14 percent. Interestingly, on March 21, 2018, the state’s General Assembly increased Connecticut’s 8,500 home care workers’ wages, and adding worker’s compensation, even those workers are being compensated by Medicaid. The increased wage will rise to $16.25 per hour by 2020 and will cost the state, after federal Medicaid reimbursement, $725,790 in 2018, almost $7 million in 2019, and over $9.3 million in 2020. If you have a home health agency here, you better make sure that lawmakers are smart enough to increase the reimbursement rates; otherwise, a lot of home health agencies will go out of business.
Delaware: Delaware expanded Medicaid, but since it is so small in size and population, the expansion only added approximately 10,000 Medicaid recipients. This year, after two years of increasing Medicaid spending by approximately $70 million, Delaware’s Medicaid costs are expected to decrease a small amount, even with the expansion. Beginning this year, Delaware gives additional weight to value-based care when determining payment. Rather than paying solely for volume of care – hospital stays, tests and procedures, regardless of outcomes – the state will pay for achieving optimal health for its Medicaid recipients.
Florida: Florida did not expand Medicaid. Lawmakers are considering opioid prescription limits for Medicaid recipients. The proposals would limit prescriptions for opioids to three-day supplies, but also allow for up to seven-day supplies if physicians deem it medically necessary. If passed, I question whether lawsuits will be filed claiming that such a move violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, because it violates parity between Medicaid recipients and the private-pay insured. And what about the people suffering with chronic, long-term pain? (especially considering the state’s demographics). In other news, Gov. Rick Scott has proposed to transition the state’s Children’s Medical Services program to a private managed care organization, beginning in 2019.
Georgia: Georgia did not expand Medicaid. Recently, the Georgia Department of Community Health mistakenly issued multiple Medicaid ID numbers to hundreds of patients. Those mistakes led the state and federal governments to make duplicate payments for care of some Medicaid patients. Now, Georgia is being asked to refund the federal government’s share of the duplicate payments — more than $665,000. Expect more audits to fund the repayment.
Hawaii: Hawaii expanded Medicaid. But the state is cracking down on its providers. In an effort to improve fraud prevention, Hawaii is performing more comprehensive screening, credentialing, and enrollment for all Medicaid providers. Those of you who are already credentialed here, expect tougher standards for re-credentialing.
Idaho: Idaho did not expand Medicaid, but it did expand dental coverage. On March 12, 2018, the state’s Senate passed a bill that restores Medicaid non-emergency dental coverage. The coverage was cut in 2011 during the recession. The bill, HB 465, already passed the House and now moves to Gov. Butch Otter. It is expected to cost $38 a year per patient.
Illinois: Illinois expanded Medicaid. On Jan. 12, 2018, five nursing home operators filed a federal lawsuit against the state, arguing that low Medicaid payment rates and the claims backlog are jeopardizing patient care. The lawsuit was filed by Generations Health Care Network, Carlyle Healthcare Center, St. Vincent’s Home, Clinton Manor Living Center, and Extended Care Clinical, which operate 100 skilled nursing facilities throughout the state. Because of Section 30(A) of the Social Security Act (SSA), which mandates that reimbursement rates allow for quality of care, why aren’t more health care providers filing lawsuits to increase Medicaid reimbursement rates?
Indiana: Indiana expanded Medicaid, but with an approved section 1115 waiver, which includes work requirements and adds premium penalties for tobacco users. The state also plans to use an enrollment block on members who fail to meet work requirements. Indiana focuses its audits on outliers: in other words, a provider that provides significantly more services than like-specialties.
Iowa: Iowa expanded Medicaid, but with an approved section 1115 waiver. The state’s Department of Human Services announced on March 12, 2018 that Iowa is in the process of searching for additional managed care organizations for the current program. So if you have the capacity to act as an Managed Care Organization (MCO), throw your name in the ring. Because of pressure from the federal government, Iowa has implemented more prepayment reviews. Specifically, auditors are reviewing hospital discharge records for any sign of noncompliance.
Kansas: Kansas did not expand Medicaid. On Feb. 15, 2018, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a federal class-action lawsuit arguing that the state’s Medicaid program is improperly denying Hepatitis C medication to members until they are severely ill. The suit names Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) Secretary Jeff Andersen and KDHE Division of Health Care Finance Director Jon Hamdorf. Medicaid managed care plans in the state either require “severe liver damage” before covering the drugs or allow some coverage before that point. If you have a Kansas Medicaid contract, on Feb. 18, 2018, Maximus instituted a compliance plan and announced that it is committed to reaching a June 1 deadline to deal with state concerns over the company’s processing of Medicaid applications. Maximus is required to reach certain performance standards or face fines and the potential loss of its contract.
Kentucky: Kentucky expanded Medicaid, but with an approved section 1115 waiver. In January, Kentucky’s waiver was approved by the federal government to implement work requirements for Medicaid recipients. Implementation will start in April 2018, with full implementation by July 2018. The waiver was approved for five years, through Sept. 30, 2023. In state audit news, non-emergency medical transportation (NEMT) providers are on the chopping block.
Louisiana: Louisiana expanded Medicaid, but now the state may remove 46,000 elderly and disabled individuals from Medicaid as part of a series of healthcare-related budget cuts proposed by Gov. John Bel Edwards for 2019. The proposal would cut $657 million in state healthcare funding and as much as $2.4 billion, including federal matching funds, in total. The proposal would also cut funding to safety net hospitals and eliminate mental health services for adults who don’t otherwise qualify for Medicaid.
Maine: Maine expanded Medicaid. The state adopted the Medicaid expansion through a ballot initiative in November 2017; the measure required submission of the state plan amendment within 90 days and implementation of expansion within 180 days of the effective date. In Maine audit news, a behavioral healthcare provider accused of fraud has put behavioral healthcare providers on the front line.
Maryland: Maryland expanded Medicaid. Maryland’s system of pushing hospitals to achieving lower admissions has added up to hundreds of millions of dollars in savings, a new report shows. Since 2014, the state caps hospitals’ revenue each year, letting them keep the difference if they reduce inpatient and outpatient treatment while maintaining care quality. Per capita hospital spending by all insurers has grown by less than 2 percent a year in Maryland, below the economic growth rate, defined four years ago as 3.58 percent annually, a key goal for the program.
Massachusetts: Massachusetts expanded Medicaid. The state has begun to roll out new Accountable Care Organization (ACO) networks. Members assigned to an ACO have until May 31 to switch before they are locked in for nine months. The changes are expected to impact more than 800,000 Medicaid recipients and are designed to better manage patient care, reimburse providers based on quality, and address social determinants of health. There is expected confusion with this change among Medicaid patients and providers.
Michigan: Michigan expanded Medicaid, but with an improved section 1115 waiver. On Feb. 18, 2018, Michigan announced that it would consider a proposal to transition the state’s $2.8 billion Medicaid nursing home and long-term care services programs into managed care. An initial review by the state Department of Health and Human Services is expected to begin by July 1.
Minnesota: Minnesota expanded Medicaid. MN has a proposed Medicaid waiver bill, which requests permission from the federal government to implement an 80-hour-per-month requirement that would mandate Medicaid beneficiaries who are able-bodied adults and not the sole caretaker of a child to work, actively seek employment, participate in educational or training programs, or volunteer.
Mississippi: Mississippi did not expand Medicaid. The five-year waiver request from Gov. Phil Bryant seeks to require nondisabled adults, including low-income parents and caretakers, to participate in at least 20 hours per week of “workforce training.” To be eligible, Medicaid beneficiaries must work, be self-employed, volunteer, or be in a drug treatment program, among other approved activities. If people don’t comply, they’ll be kicked off Medicaid.
Missouri: Missouri did not expand Medicaid. The Missouri Hospital Association has won a lawsuit against the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) over a rule that deducts Medicare and commercial insurance reimbursements from total disproportionate-share hospital (DSH) allotments. U.S. District Judge Brian Wimes ruled that the agency exceeded its authority. State hospitals would have had to pay back $96 million for 2011 and 2012 alone. Expect more scrutiny on hospitals in light of this decision.
Montana: Montana expanded Medicaid, but with an approved 1115 waiver. Montana is one of many states that have proposed budget cuts to Medicaid. A new proposed rule, which would take effect April 1, would move the state’s addiction counseling from a needs-based system to a cap of 12 individual sessions. The rule may be retroactive, so expect audits to recoup if the rule passes.
Nebraska: Nebraska did not expand Medicaid. On March 7, 2018, advocates for Medicaid expansion launched a petition drive, “Insure the Good Life,” to place the expansion issue on the November 2018 general election ballot. State lawmakers have rejected the expansion measure the past five legislative attempts. Nebraska has paid millions to the federal government in the past few years for noncompliance. Many think it will owe millions more. Audits on providers will increase in Nebraska to compensate for money paid to the federal government – in all service types.
Nevada: Nevada did expand Medicaid. It paid the federal government roughly $4.1 million in 2017 to use HealthCare.gov. CMS also asked for 1.5 percent of the premium payments that were collected through its exchange last year, a percentage that will double in 2019. Nevada plans to cut its IT costs by replacing its use of HealthCare.gov with a new health insurance exchange in 2019. Pain management providers and pharmacies are the target of Medicaid audits here.
New Hampshire: New Hampshire expanded Medicaid, but with an approved section 1115 waiver. On March 9, 2018, the New Hampshire Senate passed a bill to continue the state’s Medicaid expansion program. The legislation, which now heads to the House, would impose work requirements on members and utilize 5 percent of liquor revenues to cover the cost of expansion. The Senate voted to reauthorize the Medicaid program for five years and transition to managed care in 2019. The current expansion program, the New Hampshire Health Protection Program, covers about 50,000 individuals.
New Jersey: New Jersey expanded Medicaid. On March 13, 2018, Gov. Phil Murphy delivered his first budget address, unveiling a $37.4 billion budget with a projected surplus of $743 million. 2019 revenues are projected to grow by 5.7 percent from last year. Among the healthcare provisions are: a) close to $4.4 billion in state funds to provide healthcare to almost 1.8 million residents through New Jersey’s Medicaid program, NJ FamilyCare; b) $8.5 million to implement autism spectrum disorder services for Medicaid-eligible children and teens to help 10,000+ families with behavioral and physical supports; c) $11 million in state and federal funds to expand family planning services under NJ FamilyCare to residents at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty level; d) $252 million to fund the hospital Charity Care program; and e) $100 million to fund addiction initiatives (list not exhaustive).
New Mexico: New Mexico expanded Medicaid. The 15 behavioral healthcare providers that were put out of business in 2013 have filed lawsuits against the state. Speculation has it that after the election this year – likely taking Gov. Susana Martinez out of office – the providers may get compensated. New Mexico auditors are focused on the delivery of babies and services to the elderly.
New York: New York expanded Medicaid. Recently, the state’s Assembly released its one-house budget bill. The plan restores $135 million in reductions to the Medicaid program. The big news in the Big Apple regarding Medicaid is in home health. The New York Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, has agreed to hear a case regarding wages for home care workers. A state Appellate Court ruled in September 2017 that home care agencies must pay live-in home health aides for 24 hours per day, not the 13 hours that is the industry standard, assuming that they are allowed eight hours of sleep and three hours for meals. The New York Department of Labor has issued an emergency regulation that maintains the policy of allowing employers to pay home care workers for 13 hours of a 24-hour shift. If the decision stands, it means that agencies must pay for an additional 11 hours of care per day, almost doubling the cost of care. It is estimated that it will increase costs for home care in New York’s Medicaid program by tens of millions of dollars. Any of you who have home health care agencies in New York, which are dependent on Medicaid, beware that the reimbursement rates are not increasing to accommodate for the increased wages. Many home health companies will go out of business if the decision stands.
North Carolina: North Carolina did not expand Medicaid. The state is seeking to transition its Medicaid program from a fee-for-service model to a managed care model for all services. The transition of beneficiaries with a serious mental illness, a serious emotional disturbance, a substance use disorder, or an intellectual/developmental disability (IDD) will be delayed until the launch of behavioral health and IDD tailored plans. The state estimates that 2.1 million individuals will be eligible for managed care. This is a huge overhaul of the Medicaid system.
North Dakota: North Dakota expanded Medicaid. The state received substantial funds from a settlement designed to compensate states, in part, for the billions of dollars in healthcare costs associated with treating tobacco-related diseases under state Medicaid programs. To date, states have received more than $50 billion in settlement payments. North Dakota is also one of the “test” states to allow Medicare Advantage Value-Based Insurance Design to waive many requirements of federal regulation.
Ohio: Ohio expanded Medicaid. On March 13, 2018, it was announced that the Ohio Pharmacists Association alleged that CVS Caremark overcharges Medicaid managed care plans for medications while often reimbursing pharmacists less than the cost of the drugs. CVS denied accusations of overcharging in an attempt to drive out retail competition and reported that there are strict firewalls between their retail business and their pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) business, CVS Caremark. Beginning in July, Medicaid MCOs will be required to report to state regulators how much PBMs are paying pharmacies.
Oklahoma: Oklahoma did not expand Medicaid. On March 6, 2018, Gov. Mary Fallin issued an executive order to develop Medicaid work requirements. On March 13, 2018, the OK Senate approved legislation to tighten the income threshold for Medicaid eligibility among parents and caretakers to 20 percent of the federal poverty level, down from 40 percent under current state law. The move could impact nearly 44,000 of the 107,000 parents and caretakers on Medicaid in the state. The legislation now moves to the House.
Oregon: Oregon expanded Medicaid. But how it will be funded makes state hospitals angry. Voters approved taxes on hospitals and health plans to continue to fund the state’s Medicaid expansion. The taxes, which were approved in a ballot measure, are expected to generate $210 million to $320 million over two years by imposing a 0.7 percent tax on some hospitals and a 1.5 percent tax on gross health insurance premiums and on managed care organizations. Unions and large, self-insured employers are exempt.
Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania expanded Medicaid. On March 8, 2018, the state’s Department of Human Services discussed HB 59, a bill that would require able-bodied Medicaid recipients to prove they are looking for work. The bill was passed last year by the General Assembly, but vetoed by Gov. Wolf. Acting Human Services Secretary Teresa Miller said implementing the requirements would be expensive, estimating that the project could run up to $600 million in the first year.
Rhode Island: Rhode Island expanded Medicaid. On Feb. 14, 2018, it was announced that the number of recently released inmates in Rhode Island who died from an opioid overdose decreased between 2016 and 2017. The study attributed the decrease to the availability of medication-assisted treatment in correctional facilities starting in 2016. Rhode Island was the first state to offer inmates methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone.
South Carolina: South Carolina did not expand Medicaid. The state is overhauling its Medicaid Management Information System. Cognosante was awarded the contract, effective March 6, 2018 through March 5, 2023.
South Dakota: South Dakota did not expand Medicaid. Furthermore, the state is seeking permission from the Trump administration to implement Medicaid work requirements, a move that would affect 4,500 beneficiaries. In South Dakota audit news, Program Integrity has ramped up the number of audits and prepayment reviews, especially on behavioral healthcare, dental care, hospital care, and home health.
Tennessee: Tennessee did not expand Medicaid. In February, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services approved a proposal to launch a two-year pilot designed to improve prescription drug adherence and effectiveness for Medicaid beneficiaries. As part of the pilot, pharmacists will work with Medicaid beneficiaries enrolled in patient-centered medical homes to ensure that medications are appropriate, safe, and taken as directed. As many as 300,000 enrollees may be affected by the pilot. This initiative will affect pharmacies based within hospitals.
Texas: Texas did not expand Medicaid. The state’s Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) announced contract awards for the state’s Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) in rural areas. The six awardees are Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas (Central Region), Driscoll Children’s Health Plan (Hidalgo Region), Molina Healthcare of Texas, Inc. (Central, Hidalgo, Northeast, and West Regions), Superior Health Plan, Inc./Centene (West Region), and TX Children’s Health Plan, Inc. (Northeast Region). Contracts are slated to begin on Sept. 1, 2018. This is a big change to Texas Medicaid.
Utah: Utah did not expand Medicaid. On March 9, 2018, Utah legislators passed a limited Medicaid expansion bill. The legislation would cover approximately 70,000 individuals who earn under 100 percent of the federal poverty level and impose a work requirement and spending cap for enrollees.
Vermont: Vermont expanded Medicaid. One hospital here recently paid $1.6 million to resolve allegations that it violated the False Claims Act (FCA). According to the government, between January 2012 and September 2014, Brattleboro Memorial knowingly submitted a number of outpatient laboratory claims that lacked proper documentation. On another note, Vermont only has 188 beds in its mental health system, and patients are placed on waiting lists or forced to rely on hospital ERs. This is an ongoing problem for patients and hospitals.
Virginia: Virginia did not expand Medicaid. On March 2, 2018, Gov. Ralph Northam told state budget legislators to include Medicaid expansion spending plans or he would add the expansion as a budget amendment. In state audit news, Program Integrity’s spotlight is shining on long-term care facilities, durable medical equipment, transportation, and hospitals.
Washington: Washington expanded Medicaid. On Feb. 20, 2018, the state announced that it approved all nine Accountable Communities of Health (ACH) Medicaid Transformation Project Plans. The Medicaid Transformation Project is the state’s Section 1115 waiver, approved by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) in 2017. Under the waiver, the first initiative involves transforming Medicaid delivery in each regional service area through ACHs. The newly approved project plans will look to improve the overall health of Medicaid beneficiaries by tackling the opioid crisis and integrating behavioral health, among other aims.
West Virginia: West Virginia expanded Medicaid. On March 6, 2018, it was announced that Medicaid funding could be at risk after Gov. James Justice signed a bill increasing state workers’ and teachers’ pay by 5 percent following a statewide teachers’ strike. According to West Virginia Senate Finance Chairman Craig Blair, the pay raises could be funded through cuts to Medicaid, among other areas; however, the Governor stated that the Medicaid budget would not be cut. The strike was in response to low pay and rising health insurance costs. The raises are expected to cost the state treasury approximately $110 million a year.
Wisconsin: Wisconsin did not expand Medicaid. The state covers adults up to 100 percent of the federal poverty line in Medicaid, but it did not adopt the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) expansion. Still, managed care will soon be mandatory. The state’s Department of Health Services reported that through June 2018, it will roll out mandatory enrollment for many Supplemental Security Income (SSI) beneficiaries in Medicaid managed care. Approximately 28,000 beneficiaries may be impacted. The change impacts members who live an SSI managed care service area, are age 19 or older, and have a Medicaid SSI or SSI-related disability. Previously, SSI beneficiaries could opt out of managed care after two months. Up to two-thirds of eligible beneficiaries typically opt out of managed care.
Wyoming: Wyoming did not expand Medicaid. A bill that would have required able-bodied Medicaid recipients in Wyoming to work at a job, go to school, or do volunteer work died this month in a House committee. The state’s Department of Health is partnering with Medicity to develop a new health information exchange for the state. The Wyoming Frontier Information Exchange will be a centralized repository of clinical data for participating patients, powered in part by Medicity’s data aggregation and interoperability technology.

 

$1.68 million. That’s what company controlling millions in taxpayer dollars wants back from fired CEO

Article in the Winston Salem Journal today:

Cardinal Innovations filed a lawsuit Monday in Mecklenburg Superior Court against fired chief executive Richard Topping.

The state’s largest managed care organization – which controls hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars – is suing to recoup $1.68 million in severance from Topping, as well as prevent him from collecting any further payments approved by the former board that was disbanded Nov. 27.

The lawsuit says Topping’s severance represents “excessive and unlawful payments.”

Cardinal oversees providers of services for mental health, developmental disabilities and substance abuse for more than 850,000 Medicaid enrollees in 20 counties, including Forsyth and five others in the Triad. It handles more than $675 million in annual federal and state Medicaid money.

shhhhtoppings

An investigation by McGuireWoods LLP was requested by a reconstituted board, formed in January and approved by state health Secretary Mandy Cohen, along with interim chief executive Trey Sutten. It was conducted by McGuireWoods partner Kurt Meyers, a former federal prosecutor.

The lawsuit represents a new action by Cardinal, and is not in response to the previous board’s lawsuit against the state to allow for executive salaries, including for Topping, that exceeded those permitted by state law.

However, it does represent a follow-up on the temporary restraining order and then preliminary injunction won against Topping and the former board filed in the same court.

The injunction prevents Topping and the former board from interfering with N.C. Department of Health and Human Services’ regulatory actions versus Cardinal that began when Cohen ordered the takeover of the organization on Nov. 27.

The former board took action against Topping’s employment at its Nov. 17 meeting by terminating his contract without cause. The board, at Topping’s request, would have been allowed to stay on through Dec. 1.

Cardinal said in the lawsuit that “Topping’s motive in asking the board to allow him to remain CEO was so that he could use his position as CEO to ensure that Cardinal Innovations paid him the lump-sum severance before his departure.”

_______________________________________________________________________________

Now to my opinion:

Disclosure: I have not read the Complaint and would love someone to send it to me. But, on the face of this article, my experience in the legal world, and my limited knowledge about the whole Topping debacle:

While we can all agree that Topping’s salary, plus bonuses and perks, was absolutely repugnant and offensive to taxpayers (like me), Topping did not get there all by himself. The Board of Directors met, discussed Topping’s salary, and voted to give him that salary. The Board of Directors, essentially, is the heart and the brain of Cardinal Innovations.

Is Cardinal Innovations going to sue itself for bestowing such an outrageous salary, plus benefits, to Topping?

Because if I am Topping and I get sued for having a high salary, I am going to point at the Board of Directors and say, “I couldn’t have gotten paid without your votes, Board. So have fun and sue yourself.”

BTW: Isn’t this lawsuit a conflict of interest?? It was only last year that Cardinal filed a lawsuit asking the court to ALLOW TOPPING TO CONTINUE TO RECEIVE SUCH OUTRAGEOUS SALARY THAT NOW – SAME COMPANY – IS SUING BECAUSE IT GAVE THIS SALARY TO IT CEO…which is it, Cardinal? Or is it just a matter of following the wind of public opinion? 

Not to mention – HOW IS CARDINAL FUNDING THE LAWSUIT (ATTORNEYS’ FEES) – WITH OUR TAX DOLLARS!!!!!!! I mean, good for Womble Carlyle, the law firm hired with our tax dollars to spend more money on a losing case (my opinion) because Cardinal mismanaged our tax dollars! Winner, winner, chicken dinner! Last year it got paid to file a lawsuit to keep Topping’s salary and perks. Five months later it’s hired to sue for giving Topping’s salary and perks. See blog.

Does anyone else not see how screwed up this is?????