Category Archives: Medicaid Contracts
Medicaid Reform in a House Divided and MCO, ACO…Who Cares?
We are living in the most polarized society in recent American history. A recent study shows that the feeling of political partisanship has more than doubled over the past 2 decades. So since 1995, politically, America has parted the Red Sea with voters increasingly ebbing away from the middle.
Even more interesting is that, according to the same 2014 study, political animosity is at an all-time, recent high. I say “recent” because I cannot fathom a more polarized society than the society in the 1850s-1860s leading up to the Civil War. So, when I say “recent,” I mean post-invention of the telephone.
According to the Pew Research Center, “[i]n each party, the share with a highly negative view of the opposing party has more than doubled since 1994. Most of these intense partisans believe the opposing party’s policies “are so misguided that they threaten the nation’s well-being.””
If BOTH parties express this identical sentiment, someone is wrong.
So, now, here, in this extremely polarized society, our NC General Assembly is tackling one of our most important and most divisive issues…Medicaid Reform.
But, you say, “Knicole, our General Assembly is an overwhelming Republican majority. Our Governor is Republican. How can this vast and deep political polarization prevent NC from creating a new, better, non-broken Medicaid system?”
In NC, even the Republicans are polarized, at least as to the issue of Medicaid reform. The two differing opinions as to Medicaid reform can be found in our separate houses: the Senate and the House of Representatives (House). As for our executive branch, Governor McCrory sides with the House.
The houses are divided by acronyms: ACOs (House) versus MCOs (Senate).
The House plan for Medicaid reform involves accountable care organizations (ACOs). The ACO plan includes physicians, hospitals and other health care providers collaborating to serve Medicaid recipients and assuming the monetary risks. For example, one ACO may be liable for 6000 Medicaid recipients. The ACO would be given X dollars per Medicaid recipient to cover the person’s overall health care. Say the ACO, via its health professionals, conducts a preventative breast exam on a woman and discovers a lump. The ACO would pay to remove the lump and, hopefully, the woman is ok. If the ACO fails to practice preventative medicine and the woman is diagnosed with breast cancer, then the ACO must finance the more expensive surgery and chemotherapy required. The ACO’s incentive would be to provide the best, proactive health care because, regardless, the ACO will be liable for that individual’s care. With ACOs, there is a financial incentive to keep people healthy and the profit is shared with the state.
The Senate plan for Medicaid reform involves managed care organizations (MCOs). Unlike ACOs, MCOs will not be comprised of health care providers. The MCOs will be large companies that will be charged with managing Medicaid by contracting with a network of providers. Many Medicaid services require prior authorization, which would be in the hands of the utilization review team employed by the MCO. Similar to the ACO, the MCO would be given an amount of money based on the number of Medicaid recipients within its network. The profit for the MCO is the money remaining at the end of the fiscal quarter that was not spent on services for Medicaid recipients.
What is better? Does better mean the most cost-savings? Does better mean the best quality of care for Medicaid recipients?
In order to determine whether the MCO-model or ACO-model is better and what exactly “better” means, you have to follow the money. For both models, you have to ask, “If the actual medical services provided cost double the anticipated amount, who bears the burden?” And, conversely, “If the actual medical services provided cost half the anticipated amount, who pockets the profit?”
There are numerous ways for an insurer to be paid. At one end of the spectrum, you have capitation; while at the other end of the spectrum you have a more typical financial relationship in which the insurer simply pays the health care provider its reasonable and usual amount.
Capitation is how we currently have our MCOs set up for behavioral health care in North Carolina. As we currently use capitation for our MCOs, I would assume that the Senate-model MCOs would also be capitated. Capitation places the risk on the MCO because the MCO receives a fixed amount regardless of actual cost. However, there is concern (or should be) that the MCOs will provide patients less care than needed in order to pocket a profit.
On the other hand, ACOs typically do not rely on full capitation. The ACOs may share the risk, and, therefore, the profit, with the state.
Another HUGE difference between ACOs and MCOs is that, with MCOs, the insurer in effect dictates what a health care provider is allowed to do. For example, say a dentist believes that a person is in need of dentures. Maybe 4-5 teeth have already fallen out and the remaining teeth are suffering more mild rot. The dentist requests prior authorization from the MCO to extract teeth, create a mold of the mouth, and order dentures to be custom-created. The MCO denies the requests saying, for example, not enough teeth have fallen out or not enough rot is present in the remaining teeth. The dentist’s hands are tied to the decision of the MCO, unless the patient can fork over the cost of care that the MCO refuses to authorize. And, BTW, the person who denied the request may have graduated from college with a BA in History . . . or in any event something else other than a field of medical or dental care
An ACO, on the other hand, is run by physicians, hospitals, and other health care providers. Theoretically, the decisions to authorize services would be made by those same people who swore the Hippocratic Oath.
With regard to healing the sick, I will devise and order for them the best diet, according to my judgment and means; and I will take care that they suffer no hurt or damage.
(I doubt a History major ever swore to heal the sick).
There has also been contemplation as to whether the General Assembly should remove the responsibility of managing Medicaid from the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) completely. Obviously, this suggestion is extreme and would require a Waiver from the federal government to transfer the “single state agency” requirement from DHHS to another entity.
Regardless of what decisions are made…whether the GA requires a private Medicaid panel to usurp Medicaid responsibilities from DHHS….whether NC adopts an MCO-model or an ACO-model for Medicaid reform….as it currently stands, our houses are divided. No bills pass a divided legislature.
The Senate and House both indicate that Medicaid reform is a forefront issue during this long session, but, so far, there has been no indication of a Great Compromise.
OIG Report: MCOs Cause Limited Access to Primary Care for Medicaid Enrollees!
With flu season well under way, access to care to primary care physicians for Medicaid recipients is (as it is always) extremely important. During flu season, in particular, emergency rooms (ERs) are full of people suffering from flu-like systems. Many of those in the ER are uninsured, but many of those in the ER have a valid Medicaid card in their wallet.
So why would a Medicaid recipient present themself to the ER instead of contacting a primary care physician? In many instances, the Medicaid recipients do not have access to primary care. Many physicians simply refuse to accept Medicaid. Some managed care organizations (MCOs) refuse to contract with a number of physicians sufficient to address the needs of its catchment area.
A December 2014 audit conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) found that access to primary care for Medicaid recipients is in serious question…especially with the onslaught of states moving Medicaid to managed care systems.
32 states contract with 221 MCOs. From each of the 32 states, OIG requested a list of all providers participating in Medicaid managed care plans. Remember that, here in NC, our MCOs only manage behavioral health care. We have not yet moved to managed care for our physical health care. However, this may change in the not so distant future…
Our Senate and House are attempting to pass Medicaid reform. The House is pushing for accountable care organizations (ACOs), which would be run by physicians, hospitals, and other health care organizations. The Senate, on the other hand, is pushing for MCOs. I urge the Senate to review this OIG report before mutating our health care system to managed care.
Federal regulations require MCOs to maintain a network of providers sufficient to provide adequate access to care for Medicaid recipients based on population, need, locations of providers, and expected services to be utilized.
However, as we have seen in NC, the MCOs are not properly supervised and have financial incentives to terminate provider contacts (or refuse to contract with providers). In NC, this has resulted in hundreds, perhaps thousands, of behavioral health care providers going out of business. See MCOs Terminating Providers and Restricting the Freedom of Choice of Providers for Medicaid Recipients: Going Too Far? and NC MCOs: The Judge, Jury, and Executioner.
The consequences of MCOs picking and choosing to contract with a select few are twofold: (1) the non-selected providers go out of business; and (2) Medicaid recipients lose access to care and choice of providers.
Because of #2, OIG conducted this audit, which, sadly, confirms the veracity of #2.
To conduct the audit, OIG contacted 1800 primary care physicians and specialists and attempted to make an appointment. OIG wanted to determine (1) whether they accepted Medicaid; (2) whether they were taking new Medicaid patients; and (3) the wait time for an appointment. OIG only contacted physicians who were listed on the states’ Medicaid plans as a participating provider, because Medicaid recipients rely on the states’ lists of participating providers in locating a physician.
Yet, the results of the OIG audit are disturbing, to say the least.
51% of the providers could not offer appointments to enrollees, which raises serious questions as to the adequacy of the MCO networks.
- 45% did not accept Medicaid
- 35%: could not be found at the location listed by the plan,
- 8% were at the location but said that they were not participating in the plan.
- 8% were not accepting new patients.
The average wait time was 2 weeks for those physicians accepting Medicaid. Over 25% had wait times of more than 1 month, and 10 percent had wait times longer than 2 months.
I guess they can always go to the ER.
NCTracks developer CSC faces health care fraud lawsuit in NY
Jason DeBruyn of the Triangle Business Journal wrote:
Computer Sciences Corporation, the company that designed, developed and is operating the Medicaid claims payment system in North Carolina, is facing a health care fraud lawsuit brought by the U.S. attorney’s office in New York.
That lawsuit has no immediate impact in North Carolina, though Computer Sciences Corp. (CSC) built the system in this state – called NCTracks – using 32 percent of the code used in New York City. Initially, CSC had hoped to duplicate as much as 73 percent of the New York City code in North Carolina.
NCTracks has been the target of several attacks from health care providers who say they have not been paid on time. The N.C. Department of Health and Human Services, where NCTracks is housed, faces a lawsuit that could incorporate 70,000 health care providers and end up with damages exceeding $100 million. NCTracks has been the target of at least three searing audits.
The New York lawsuit, brought by Preet Bharara, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, alleges billing fraud schemes that used computer programs to automatically alter billing data, including the use of a defaulting program to systematically falsify diagnosis codes submitted to Medicaid.
“As alleged, CSC and the City created computer programs that systematically, and fraudulently, altered billing data in order to get paid by Medicaid as quickly as possible and as much as possible,” Bharara said through a statement. “Billing frauds like those alleged undermine the integrity of public healthcare programs like Medicaid.”
Although this lawsuit makes no mention of activity in North Carolina, Knicole Emanuel, an attorney with Williams Mullen in Raleigh who represents providers in the lawsuit against DHHS, says it “will almost certainly cause the federal government to peer a bit closer at all CSC’s billing software systems in other states (including North Carolina).”
Representatives from DHHS did not immediately comment on the New York lawsuit.
Williams Mullen Hosts Its First Annual Healthcare Panel Discussion: Summary Below
I am currently sitting in a hotel in New Mexico. I testified this morning before the New Mexico Behavioral Health Care Subcommittee regarding due process for health care providers upon “credible allegations of fraud.”
This past Sunday I ran and finished my very first half marathon. And, yes, I am sore. I signed up for the Bull City 1/2 marathon in Durham because it was being held in October and I thought the temperature would be cool. But I failed to contemplate Durham’s hills…ouch!
Despite my jet lag and sore muscles, I wanted to blog about the health care panel discussion this past Thursday night hosted by Williams Mullen. Representative Nelson Dollar, Barbara Morales Burke, Blue Cross Blue Shield of NC, Stephen Keene, General Counsel for the NC Medical Society, and I presented as the healthcare panel. As you can see below, we sat in the above-referenced order.
Below, I have outlined the questions presented and my personal recollection of each answer. These answers were not recorded, so, if, by chance, I misquote someone, it is my own personal recollection’s fault, and I apologize.
Our Williams Mullen associate Robert Shaw, acted as the moderator and asked the following questions:
To Rep. Dollar:
Most of us have heard about the discussion in the General Assembly about moving North Carolina’s Medicaid program towards a more fully implemented managed care model or to one using accountable care organizations. Where do the House and Senate currently stand with respect to these models, and what are the prospects for passing Medicaid reform in next year’s long session of the General Assembly?
Summary: The House and the Senate are not in agreement. The House put forth a Bill 1181 last session that encompasses the House’s ideas for Medicaid reform. It was a bipartisan bill. It was passed unanimously. Medicaid reform should not be a bipartisan matter. Our Bill did not fare well in the Senate, but the House believes Bill 1181 is the best we have so far.
To which Keene interjected: It is important that Bill 1181 was unanimous. The Medical Society endorses the bill.
To Barbara Morales Burke:
As we head into open enrollment season under the Affordable Care Act, what are the biggest challenges you see from the insurer’s perspective in complying with Affordable Care Act requirements and meeting the needs of the marketplace?
Summary: BCBS, as all other insurance companies, faced unique times last year during the open enrollment and this year will be even more important because we will find out who will re-new the policies. While BCBS was not perfect during last year’s open enrollment, we have learned from the mistakes and are ready for the upcoming enrollment.
To Steve Keene:
What concerns are you seeing from members of the North Carolina Medical Society regarding patients’ access to providers of their choice and your members’ participation in the major health insurance networks?
Summary: This has always an issue since he came to NC. He actually wrote a memo regarding the access to provider issue back in the 1990s. The insurance need to come up with a known a published standard. BCBS actually has better relationships with providers than, say, for example, a United Healthcare. If the insurance company decides to only use X number of ob/gyns, then it should be clear why the insurance company is only contracting with x number ob/gyns.
To Knicole Emanuel:
Under the Affordable Care Act, the standard for withholding payments in the event of a credible allegation of fraud has changed. What is the standard for a credible allegation of fraud and how does such an allegation affect Medicaid reimbursements?
Summary: The ACA was intended to be self-funding. In drafting the ACA, 42 CFR 455.23 was amended from allowing states to choose whether to suspend Medicaid reimbursements upon credible allegations of fraud to mandating the states to suspend payments. The basis for a suspension is credible allegations of fraud and only requires an indicia of reliability. This indicia of reliability is an extremely low standard and, thus, adversely impacts health care providers who are accused of fraud without a basis, such as a disgruntled employee or anonymous and unfounded complaint.
For more information on suspension of Medicaid payments, please see my blogs: “How the ACA Has Redefined the Threshold for “Credible Allegations of Fraud” and Does It Violate Due Process?” or “NC Medicaid Providers: “Credible Allegations of Fraud?” YOU ARE GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT!”
To Keene and Burke: (ACA topic)
One of the concerns, or perhaps benefits depending on one’s perspective, about the implementation of the Affordable Care Act is the possible transition from our country’s employer-based health insurance model. Are you seeing any trends away from the employer-based health insurance model, or do you expect such a trend in the future?
Summary: (From Keene) He sees the employer-based health insurance model as a tax issue. Employer-based health insurance is not going anywhere unless the related tax break is eliminated. Keene does not have an opinion as to whether the employer-based health insurance model is good or bad; he just believes that it is not going anywhere. On a side note, Keene mentioned that, with employer-based health insurance, the employee has a much smaller voice when it comes to negotiating any terms of the health insurance. The employee is basically at the whim of the employer and health insurance company.
Dollar and Emanuel: (Medicaid reform)
Who are the major contributors to the legislative discussion on Medicaid funding and reimbursement rates? What stakeholders do legislators want or need to hear from more to make sound policy decisions about funding decisions?
Summary: (From Dollar) It is without question that the legislators are surrounded by lobbyists regarding the discussion as to Medicaid funding and reimbursement rates. I stated that the reimbursement rates are too low and are a direct correlation as to quality of care. Rep. Dollar stated that he is open to hearing from all. Furthermore, Rep. Dollar believes that the Senate Bill on Medicaid reform is a good start for Medicaid reform. The Bill implements the Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs), and is supported by the NC Medical Society.
Summary: (From me) I support Medicaid reform that eliminates the MCOs in behavioral health care. These MCOs are prepaid and have all the financial incentive to deny services and terminate providers.
Burke: (ACO)
How is Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina working with providers to take advantage of the new Medicare Shared Savings Program? (E.g., partnership signed with WakeMed Key Community Care (an accountable care organization) in July.)
Summary: BCBS works very hard to maintain solid relationships with providers. To which Keene agreed and stated that other private insurance does not.
The health care panel was great. We hope to host a State of the State on Health Care panel discussion annually.
NC State Auditor’s Findings May Cause Overzealous Oversight
Ok, so it took me a couple of days to free up some time to discuss the most recent Performance Audit by our State Auditor. This time of year is CRAZY! We had to get our daughter ready for the 4th grade, which entails buying an absurd amount of school supplies. Thank goodness we don’t have to do “back to school” clothes shopping, because she wears uniforms. Yesterday was her first day of school and, apparently, everything went well.
Now, I want to discuss the recent Performance Audit published by Beth Wood, our NC State Auditor, regarding provider eligibility. Prior to going any further, let me voice my opinion that Beth Wood as our State Auditor rocks. She is smart, courageous, and a force of nature. Any comment that may be negative in nature as to the most recent audit is NOT negative as to the audit itself, but to the possible consequences of such an audit. In other words, I do not believe that the Performance Audit as to Medicaid Provider Eligibility is incorrect; I am only concerned as to the possible consequences of such an audit on the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and health care providers.
The Medicaid Provider Eligibility Performance Audit found that “deficiencies in the enrollment process increase the risk of unqualified providers participating in the Medicaid Program.”
And DHHS’ “enrollment review procedures do not provide reasonable assurance that only qualified providers are approved to participate in the NC Medicaid program.”
And “quality assurance reviews were not conducted or were ineffective.”
Basically, the Performance Audit (in layman’s terms) says that DHHS, again, has little to no oversight, lacks supervision over providers, has program deficiencies, and lacks the ability to manage Medicaid provider eligibility requirements adequately. Considering that DHHS is the single agency charged with managing Medicaid in North Carolina, the Performance Audit is yet another blow to the ability of DHHS to do its job.
Gov. McCrory appointed Sec. Aldona Wos as the head of DHHS, effective January 5, 2013. With Sec. Wos at its helm, DHHS has been riddled by the media with stories of management difficulties, high-level resignations, and mismanaged tax dollars. With the amount of media attention shining on DHHS, it is amazing that Sec. Wos has only been there almost a year and a half. Oh, how time flies.
While, again, I do not discount the accuracy of the Medicaid Provider Eligibility Performance Audit, I am fearful that it will spur DHHS to almost another “Salem witch hunt” extravaganza by pushing the already far-swung pendulum of attacks on providers, in the direction of more attacks. DHHS, through its contractors, agents and vendors, has increased its regulatory audits and heightened its standards to be compliant as a provider for a number of reasons:
1. The U. S. Supreme Court’s Olmstead case;
2. The DOJ settlement as to ACTT providers;
3. More oversight by CMS;
4. The ACA’s push for recovery audit contractors (RACs);
5. General need to decrease the Medicaid budget;
6. Increased fraud, waste, and abuse detection standards in the ACA;
7. Monetary incentives on managed care organizations (MCOs) to decrease the number of providers;
8. Etc.
Imagine a pendulum swinging…or, better yet, imagine a child swinging on a swing. Before the child reaches the highest point of the swing, an adult runs behind the child and pushes the child even higher, in order to get a little more “umphf” on the swing. And the child goes even higher and squeals even more in excitement. But that’s not always a great idea. Sometimes the child goes flying off.
I am afraid that the Performance Audit will be that adult pushing the child on the swing. The extra little push…the extra little “umphf” to make the pendulum swing even higher.
As with any Performance Audit, DHHS is allowed to respond to Ms. Wood’s findings. One response is as follows:
“In September 2013, DMA established and implemented Management Monitoring Quality Controls (Monitoring Plan) for reviewing approval and denial decisions related to provider applications referred to it by the Contractor due to a potential concern. The Monitoring Plan established standardized policies and procedures and ensures that staff adheres to them in making enrollment determinations.”
In other words, recently DHHS has put forth a more aggressive oversight program as to health care providers and it will only get more aggressive.
In the last year or so, we have seen more aggressive oversight measures on health care provider that accept Medicaid. More audits, more desk reviews, more fraud investigation…and most (that I have seen) are overzealous and incorrect.
Believe me, I would be fine with increased oversight on health care providers, if the increased oversight was conducted correctly and in compliance with federal and state rules and regulations. But the audits and oversight to which I have been privy are over-bearing on providers, incorrect in the findings, and lacking much of due process for, much less respect to the providers.
I am concerned that the extra little “umphf” by this Performance Audit will impact health care providers’ decisions to accept or not to accept Medicaid patients. See my past blogs on the shortage of health care providers accepting Medicaid. “Shortage of Dentists Who Accept Medicaid: The Shortage Continues.” “Provider Shortage for Medicaid Recipients.” And “Prisons and Emergency Rooms: Our New Medicaid Mental Health Care Providers.”
Instead of increasing overzealous audits on health care providers, maybe we should require DHHS, through its contractors, agents, and vendors, to conduct compliant, considerate, and constitutionally-correct audits and oversight. Maybe the “umphf” should be applied more toward DHHS.
Our Medicaid Budget Does More Than Allocate Money; It Places the Burden of Proof on Medicaid Providers!!!
Are you a health care provider in NC? Are you wonderful enough to help Medicaid patients but accept low Medicaid reimbursements? Are you dedicated to helping our most needy? Well, guess what???? YOU now have the burden of proof if you disagree with an adverse determination by the State.
That’s right. The newly-enacted state budget quietly changes the statutes and shifts the burden of proof from the Department to YOU. I am reminded of my Grandpa Carson. Whenever he couldn’t believe what he just heard, he would bellow, “Wooooo weee.” Growing up in the south, we have certain sayings, such as “Bless your heart,” “Y’all come back now, ya hear?” and “That food is so good I could slap my momma.” My Grandpa Carson, God rest his soul, was as southern as southern can get. If he were here and heard about the burden shift onto the providers, he would say, “Wooo weeeee.”
Last week while I was on my first week-long vacation in 2 years, the North Carolina state budget, known as Session Law 2014-100, was signed into law by Governor McCrory. (Which is why I missed a week of blogging…my vacation, not McCrory’s signature). Since I was at my family reunion started by my Grandpa, I am dedicating this blog to my grandpa, Nat Carson, who created a family tradition that has lasted for over 40 years. Our (huge) extended family vacation together once a year at Emerald Isle for a family reunion. FOUR generations attend!
Going back to the budget…
An “adverse determination” in this case includes decisions by North Carolina’s Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) under the Medicaid program such as the Department’s termination of a contract with the provider, a Managed Care Organization’s (MCO) termination of a provider contract, or the Department or one its many vendors determines that the providers owes an overpayment back to the state.
Not only does the state budget shift the burden of proof onto providers when they contest an adverse determination by the State, which we will discuss more below, but it also takes a lot of DHHS decision-making power away. It is apparent that the General Assembly does NOT think DHHS can do its job of managing Medicaid and creating Medicaid reform competently. The General Assembly (GA) has decided that, for whatever reason, it will be more hands-on regarding Medicaid decisions in the future.
Here are a few examples of the GA’s hands-on attitude found in the Session Law 2014-100 (with some emphasis I have made by putting some words in bold-faced type)
- “Until the General Assembly enacts legislation authorizing a plan to reform Medicaid, the Department of Health and Human Services (i) shall continue to consult with stakeholder groups, study, and recommend options for Medicaid reform that will provide greater budget predictability for the Medicaid program and (ii) shall not commit the State to any particular course on Medicaid reform and shall not submit any reform-related State plan amendments, waivers, or grant applications nor enter into any contracts related to implementing Medicaid reform.”
- “The Department may submit drafts of the waiver to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to solicit feedback but shall not submit the waiver for CMS approval until authorized by the General Assembly.”
- “The Department of Health and Human Services shall make payments to the contractor hired by the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee on Health and Human Services from funds appropriated elsewhere in this budget for this contract…”
- “The Department of Health and Human Services shall not make any other modifications to the portion of the Medicaid State Plan referenced in this section, except as provided herein.”
- “The Department may submit drafts of the waivers to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to solicit feedback but shall not submit the waivers for CMS approval until authorized by the General Assembly.”
- “[T]he Division of Medical Assistance shall ensure that any Medicaid-related or NC Health Choice-related State contract entered into after the effective date of this section contains a clause that allows the Department or the Division to terminate the contract without cause upon 30 days’ notice.”
- “No fewer than 10 days prior to submitting an amendment to the State Plan to the federal government, the Department shall post the amendment on its Web site and notify the members of the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee on Health and Human Services and the Fiscal Research Division that the amendment has been posted.”
Basically, the GA has estopped DHHS from reforming Medicaid without the consent of the General Assembly.
Then, stuck in the middle of the state budget is the amendment to N.C. Gen. Stat. 108C…. “Woooo weeee!”
MODIFY MEDICAID APPEALS SECTION 12H.27.
(a) G.S. 108C-12(d) reads as rewritten: “(d) Burden of Proof. – The Department petitioner shall have the burden of proof in appeals of Medicaid providers or applicants concerning an adverse determination.”
Does anyone else understand what this teeny, tiny clause within Session Law 2014-100 means????
What is the importance of burden of proof? Enormous! And this clause changes the playing field for Medicaid providers. It may not have been a level field prior to Session Law 2014-100, but now it’s even more slanted.
The easiest way to explain “burden of proof” is that when a petitioning Medicaid provider challenges some adverse determination by DHHS, for example, the Department’s termination of a contract with the provider, the “burden of proof” decides which party must persuade the reviewing tribunal that the party’s assertions are correct. Up until this amendment of G.S.108C-12(d), the Department has had the burden to present evidence showing that its adverse determination was correct. The petitioner could then respond to that evidence, to try to show the contrary, but the burden of proving the correctness of the adverse determination still rested on the Department in cases filed by Medicaid providers under Chapter 108C.
In court, one of the first questions a judge will ask is, “Who carries the burden of proof?” Because the legal burden of proof is just that…a burden…that must be satisfactorily carried in order to win.
Health care providers who accept Medicaid have notoriously been given the short-end of the stick, i.e., low reimbursement rates, undergoing burdensome audits, but, at least, in NC, historically, the Department has had to prove the correctness of its allegations, whether it be an alleged overpayment, a termination of a Medicaid contract, or other allegations.
But now? DHHS’ allegations against a health care provider are true…unless the provider can prove DHHS wrong. The uphill fight of a provider seeking to correct a DHHS adverse determination, just became much steeper, and it was done with little or no fanfare.
“Woooooooo weeeeeee!”
So can you do? Only options as far as I see it:
- Call and email your state representatives.
- Hire a lobbyist.
- Bring a lawsuit to change it.
- Do nothing.
Per L. Warren’s comment, I am adding #5.
5. Stop taking Medicaid clients.
NC Medicaid Providers: Do Not Be a Cockey Lockey! Know Your Due Process Rights to Defend Against Administrative Penalties
An acorn falls on Chicken Little’s head. His first immediate thought is, “The sky is falling. The sky is falling.” So Chicken Little begins his travels to tell the king that the sky is falling. Along the way he meets Cockey Lockey, Ducky Lucky, Drakey Lakey and Goosey Loosey, to name a few of his well-feathered friends. Each new waterfowl asks Chicken Little where he is going. To which Chicken Little replies, “The sky is falling. The sky is falling. We have to tell the king.” And the fowl join Chicken Little in his travel to the king.
None of the characters question Chicken Little’s assertion that the sky is falling. They simply accept the fact that the sky is falling.
All too often, people, like Cockey Lockey and Goosey Loosey, accept what they are told without questioning the source.
Over and over I talk to health care providers who are told:
• by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Division of Medical Assistance (DMA) that they owe DMA hundreds of thousands of dollars for Medicaid overpayments;
• by the managed care organization (MCO) that the provider’s Medicaid contract is terminated;
• by a contracted entity that the provider is out of compliance with rules and regulations;
• by Program Integrity (PI) that there is a complaint filed against the provider; or
• by an MCO that its network is closed.
And some providers just accept the overpayment, the contract termination, the penalty, or the refusal to contract.
Don’t be a Cockey Lockey!
You do have rights! You deserve due process!
Let’s talk about the possible penalties allowed by Medicaid regulations and your right to defend against such penalties and the procedural safeguards enacted to protect you.
10A NCAC 22F .0602 governs “Administrative Sanctions and Remedial Measures,” and it enumerates the following possible sanctions for provider abuse:
• Warning letters for those instances of abuse that can be satisfactorily settled by issuing a warning to cease the specific abuse. The letter will state that any further violations will result in administrative or legal action initiated by the Medicaid Agency.
• Suspension of a provider from further participation in the Medicaid Program for a specified period of time, provided the appropriate findings have been made and provided that this action does not deprive recipients of access to reasonable service of adequate quality.
• Termination of a provider from further participation in the Medicaid Program, provided the appropriate findings have been made and provided that this action does not deprive recipients of access to reasonable services of adequate quality.
• Probation whereby a provider’s participation is closely monitored for a specified period of time not to exceed one year. At the termination of the probation period, the Medicaid Agency will conduct a follow-up review of the provider’s Medicaid practice to ensure compliance with the Medicaid rules.
Remedial Measures are to include:
• placing the provider on “flag” status whereby his claims are remanded for manual review;
• establishing a monitoring program not to exceed one year whereby the provider must comply with pre-established conditions of participation to allow review and evaluation of his Medicaid practice, i.e., quality of care.
Furthermore, certain factors must be considered prior to the levy of a sanction, including:
• seriousness of the offense;
• extent of violations found;
• history or prior violations;
• prior imposition of sanctions;
• period of time provider practiced violations;
• provider willingness to obey program rules;
• recommendations by the investigative staff or Peer Review Committees; and
• effect on health care delivery in the area
All of this information is found in 10A NCAC 22F, et al, which is an administrative code. The code also defines provider fraud and abuse. The penalties enumerated above are penalties allowed for instances of provider abuse, but, only after proper investigation, proper notice to the provider, and proper consideration of lesser penalties. In other words, due process.
For example, 10A NCAC 22F.0302 states that “[a]busive practices shall be investigated according to the provisions of Rule .0202 of this Subchapter.”
Rule .0202 requires a preliminary investigation prior to a full investigation. Additionally, Rule .0302 requires the investigative unit to prepare a “Provider Summary Report,” furnishing the full investigative findings of fact, conclusions, and recommendations. Then the Department is to review the Provider Summary Report and make a “tentative” recommendation as to the penalty, and that tentative recommendation is reviewable under Rule .0400, which allows a reconsideration review. The provider will receive the results of the reconsideration review within 5 business days following the date of the review.
If a provider is unhappy with the results of a reconsideration review, then the provider can appeal to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) within 60 days.
All of the above-mentioned administrative procedures exist in order to protect a provider from unfair, arbitrary, capricious, erroneous actions by DMA and any of its contracted entities. That means Public Consulting Group (PCG), Carolinas Center for Medical Excellence (CCME), all the MCOs, HMS, and any other state contractor must also follow these administrative procedures.
So next time you are told that you owe hundreds of thousands of dollars to the state, that your Medicaid contract has been terminated, or your Medicaid reimbursements are being withheld, do not take these penalties at face value! Know you rights!
Do not be a Cockey Lockey!!
The NC MCOs: Jurisdiction Issues and Possible Unenforceable Contract Clauses with Medicaid Providers
According to NC Superior Court, OAH (and I) has (have) been right all along…OAH does have jurisdiction over the MCOs. And you cannot contract away protections allowable by statute.
Before I went to law school, I do not recall ever thinking about the word “jurisdiction.” Maybe in an episode of Law and Order I would hear the word thrown around, but I certainly was not well-versed in its meaning. While I was in law school, the word “jurisdiction” cropped up incessantly.
“Jurisdiction” is extremely important to North Carolina Medicaid providers. Jurisdiction, in the most basic terms, means in which court to bring the lawsuit or appeal of an adverse determination.
In this blog, I am mostly referring to terminations/refusals to contract with providers by the managed care organizations (MCOs), which manage behavioral health, developmental disability, and substance abuse services for North Carolina. Recently, there have been a slew of providers terminated or told that they would not receive a renewed contract to provide Medicaid services. The MCOs tell the providers that, per contract, the providers have no rights to continued participation in the Medicaid system.
The MCOs also tell the providers that the providers cannot appeal at OAH… That the providers have no recourse… That the providers’ contracts are terminable at will (at the MCO’s will)…. I have been arguing all along that this is simply not true. And now a Superior Court decision sides with me.
The MCO have been arguing in every case that OAH does not have jurisdiction over the actions of the MCOs. The MCOs have pointed to NC Gen. Stat. 108D and Session Law 2013-397, which amends NC Gen. Stat. 150B-23 to read:
“Solely and only for the purposes of contested cases commenced as Medicaid managed care enrollee appeals under Chapter 108D of the General Statutes, a LME/MCO is considered an agency as defined in G.S. 150B-2(1a). The LME/MCO shall not be considered an agency for any other purpose.”
A termination or denial to participate in the Medicaid program is an adverse determination. Adverse determination is defined in NC Gen. Stat. 108C-2 as, “A final decision by the Department to deny, terminate, suspend, reduce, or recoup a Medicaid payment or to deny, terminate, or suspend a provider’s or applicant’s participation in the Medical Assistance Program.”
The Department is defined as, “The North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, its legally authorized agents, contractors, or vendors who acting within the scope of their authorized activities, assess, authorize, manage, review, audit, monitor, or provide services pursuant to Title XIX or XXI of the Social Security Act, the North Carolina State Plan of Medical Assistance, the North Carolina State Plan of the Health Insurance Program for Children, or any waivers of the federal Medicaid Act granted by the United States Department of Health and Human Services.”
Obviously, per statute, any entity that is acting on behalf of DHHS would be considered the “Department.” Any adverse act by any entity acting on behalf of DHHS, including terminating a provider’s participation in the Medical Assistance Program is considered an adverse determination.
The MCOs have been arguing that the above-referenced amendment to 150B means that the MCOs are not agents of the state; therefore, OAH has no jurisdiction over them.
Until March 7, 2014, these issues have been argued within OAH and no Superior Court judge had ruled on the issue. Most of the Administrative Law Judges (ALJ), even without Superior Court’s guidance, has, in my opinion, correctly concluded that OAH does have jurisdiction over the MCOs. A couple of the ALJs vacillate, but without clear guidance, it is to be expected.
On or about March 7, 2014, the Honorable Donald W. Stephens, Senior Resident Superior Court Judge ruled that OAH does have jurisdiction over the MCOs. Yelverton’s Enrichment Services, Inc. v. PBH, as legally authorized contractor of and agent for NC Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).
If these MCOs are acting on DHHS’ behalf in managing the behavioral health Medicaid services, it would be illogical for OAH to NOT have jurisdiction over the MCOs.
In the Yelverton Order, Judge Stephens writes, “OAH did not err or exceed its statutory authority in determining that it had jurisdiction over Yelverton’s contested case.”
The Order also states that the MCO, in this case, PBH (now Cardinal Innovations), agreed that only DHHS had the authority to terminate provider enrollment. The MCO argued that, while only DHHS can terminate provider enrollment, the MCOs do have the authority “to terminate the participation of the provider in the Medical Assistance Program.”
Talk about splitting hairs! DHHS can terminate the enrollment, but the MCO can terminate the participation? If you cannot participate, what is the point of your enrollment?
Judge Stephens did not buy the MCO’s argument.
On March 7, 2014, Judge Stephens upheld ALJ Donald Overby’s Decision that OAH has jurisdiction over the MCOs for terminating provider contracts.
I anticipate that the MCOs will argue in future cases that the Yelverton case was filed prior to Session Law 2013-397, so Yelverton does not apply to post-Session Law 2013-397 fillings. However, I find this argument also without merit. The Yelverton Order expressly contemplates NC Gen. Stat. 108D and House Bill 320.
House Bill 320 was the bill contemplated by the General Assembly in the last legislative session that expressly stated that OAH does not have jurisdiction over the MCOs. It did not pass.
In Yelverton, the MCO argued that the MCO contracts with the providers allow the MCO to terminate without cause and without providing a reason.
Judge Stephens notes that the General Assembly did not pass House Bill 320. The Yelverton Order further states that no matter what the contracts between the providers and the MCOs states, “[c]ontract provisions cannot override or negate the protections provided under North Carolina law, specifically appeal rights set forth in NC Gen. Stat. 108C.”
Will the MCO appeal? That is the million dollar question…
