Category Archives: Prior Authorization
NCTracks’ One-Year Anniversary Is Celebrated with a Newly-Released, NCTracks, Congratulatory, SUCCESS Video! You agree?
Happy Anniversary, NCTracks!!!! Tomorrow is the one-year anniversary of NCTracks going live.
DHHS TV released a video touting the wonderful success of NCTracks, despite its, admittedly, rocky start (The video admits a rocky start). In the video, health care providers gush over how wonderful NCTracks is and its success. I have no comment due to the current pending litigation. Therefore, I am merely reporting the release of the video and asking whether you agree.
Posted in Aldona Wos, CSC, DHHS, DHHS Press Release, Division of Medical Assistance, Health Care Providers and Services, Lawsuit, Medicaid, Medicaid Attorney, Medicaid Bonus, Medicaid Claims Adjudication, Medicaid Providers, Medicaid Reimbursements, Medicare, Medicare Attorney, NC, NCTrack Glitches, NCTracks, NCTracks Billing Issues, North Carolina, Prior Authorization, Tax Dollars, Taxpayers, Timely Payments, Wos
Tags: Aldona Wos, Computer Science Corporation, CSC, DHHS, Division of Medical Assistance, DMA, Health care, Health care provider, Joe Cooper, Medicaid, Medicaid Reimbursments, Medicaid Services, NCTracks, NCTracks Billing Issues, NCTracks Problems, North Carolina, Pat McCrory, Timely Medicaid Payments
“Ring Around the Rosie.” What a fantastic children’s rhyme; it brings back nostalgic memories of my daughter being young. We would sing “Ring Around the Rosie,” while holding hands and running in a circle, and then fall as hard as possible (without hurting ourselves) onto the ground. We would just flop on the ground and my daughter loved it.
Although many people believe that the rhyme describes the time during the Great Plague in England in 1665, which is pretty morbid, it is still a fun children’s game.
But other than “Ring Around the Rosie,” it is no fun to run in circles until you get dizzy and fall to the ground. People usually just don’t spin around and around for fun.
Sometimes going through a Medicaid or Medicare audit can feel like you are running around and around in circles and getting ready to fall. So too, can you feel this way if you are undergoing a prepayment review with the Carolinas Center for Medical Excellence (CCME).
First, what is prepayment review?
N.C. Gen. Stat. 108C-7 allows for prepayment review. See also my blog, “NC Medicaid: CCME’s Comedy of Errors of Prepayment Review.” Or “CCME’s Prepayment Reviews Violate NCGS 108C-7!! Seriously!!“
Prepayment review means that a contracted entity, in this case CCME, reviews your claims BEFORE you get paid for services rendered. While on prepayment review, you do not receive Medicaid reimbursements. This can continue for 12 months or unless you reach 70% accuracy for three consecutive months.
70% doesn’t sound too hard, right? But, what if the auditing entity runs you in circles, gets you dizzy and makes you fall to the floor?
Here’s the story:
A client of mine owns a home health care company. She and her staff provide personal care services (PCS) to those who are eligible. For those who do not know what PCS is, it is basic caregiving services to help people with activities of daily living (ADLs), such as toileting, dressing, and eating.
My client, we will call her Provider Nancy, was undergoing a prepayment review that had been conducted by The Carolinas Center for Medical Excellence (CCME).
We won’t even talk about the fact that by the time Nancy came to me she had been on prepayment review for 17 months, but that the statute, NCGS 108C-7, only allows a provider to be on prepayment review for 12 months.
When she was undergoing prepayment review, CCME gave her low accuracy rates for a number of reasons, some of which were so absurd, you will laugh out loud.
For example, CCME denied claims because the service notes did not denote that the in-home aid put shoes on two of her clients. There were multiple dates of service (DOS) so these two clients contributed heavily to her low accuracy rating. I asked Nancy why the service note did not denote that her staff put shoes on her clients. She told me that these clients are double amputees. They do not have feet. So Nancy was dinged in her audit for not putting on shoes on someone without feet.
Nancy’s story also highlights the confusion at CCME about its own prior authorization records for PCS. CCME repeatedly demanded a copy of the authorization for Nancy to provide PCS. If a provider like Nancy did not have a prior authorization, she would never have received payment in the first place. Nonetheless, CCME told Nancy to that she had not documented the prior authorizations. Oddly enough, in order to produce the authorizations she had obtained, Nancy had to contact CCME, because at the time of her prepayment review audit, CCME was the entity that reviewed independent assessments to determine prior authorization. CCME was saying she had no prior authorization, but it was CCME who gave her the prior authorization!! How can a system operate like this, when an important reviewing entity does not know what is in its own records?
It got worse: Nancy would then ask CCME for CCME’s prior authorization letter, but CCME could not or would not give her a copy. Then CCME reps attended the hearing and stated that Nancy was dinged for not having a prior authorization. Can a system get any more backward??
Ring around the rosie…
Sometimes Nancy’s service notes showed that her in-home aids did extra chores for her clients. Maybe an in-home aide would help a client ambulate because the client had sore muscles that particular day, but, according to the plan of care (POC), the client did not need hands-on assistance to ambulate. CCME would ding Nancy for the service note not being in compliance with the POC. Nancy was getting dinged in the prepayment review for doing MORE GOOD for her clients than what was required. It was not as if Nancy’s in-home aides were foregoing aid to the ADLs on the POC. Oh, no! The in-home aid was going over and above the call of duty for a client. And Nancy would get dinged.
We all fall down!
Needless to say, Nancy did not meet the 70% for three consecutive months in order to be removed from prepayment review. But, remember, Nancy was not paid for 17 months; she came to me 17 months into the prepayment review. She was hurting financially.
Now, because of CCME’s confusing and inaccurate review, Nancy had little money and now had to hire a lawyer. Sure, we got her off prepayment review and got her paid, but she had to shell out thousands of dollars for attorneys’ fees.
If you have to undergo “Ring Around the Rosie” during a prepayment review, I think that the auditing entity, in this case CCME, should have to pay for attorneys’ fees. Give some sort of disincentive for the auditing companies to be sloppy. A penalty.
Now Liberty Mutual, not CCME, authorizes PCS.. But CCME continues to conduct prepayment reviews.
Ring around the rosie
Pocket full of posies
We all fall down!
Posted in Administrative Law Judge, Administrative Remedies, Audits, Carolinas Center for Medical Excellence, CCME, DHHS, Division of Medical Assistance, Health Care Providers and Services, Home Health Aide Services, Home Health Services, In Home Care Services, Lawsuit, Legal Analysis, Legal Remedies for Medicaid Providers, Medicaid, Medicaid Appeals, Medicaid Audits, Medicaid Billing, Medicaid Providers, Medicaid Reimbursements, Medicaid Services, NC, NCGS 108C-7, North Carolina, Office of Administrative Hearings, Personal Care Services, Petitions for Contested Cases, Plan of Care, Prepayment Review, Prior Authorization, Regulatory Audits, Service Notes
Tags: Audit, Carolinas Center for Medical Excellence, CCME, DHHS, Division of Medical Assistance, Health care, Health care provider, In-Home aids, Medicaid, Medicaid Audits, Medicaid Reimbursments, Medicaid Services, NCGS 108C-7, North Carolina, PCS, Personal Care Services, Plan of Care, Prepayment, Prepayment Review, Prior Authorization, Service Notes
How EPSDT Allows Medicaid Recipients Under the Age of 21 To Receive More Services Than Covered By NC State Plan
EPSDT. What in the heck is EPSDT?
EPSDT is an acronym for the “Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment (EPSDT).” It only applies to Medicaid beneficiaries under the age of 21. As in, if you are 21, EPSDT does not apply to you. The point of EPSDT is to allow beneficiaries under the age of 21 to receive medically necessary services not normally allowed by the NC Medicaid State Plan. (These beneficiaries under the age of 21 I will call “children” for the sake of this blog, despite 18+ being a legal adult).
The definition of each part of the acronym is below:
Early:……. Assessing and identifying problems early
Periodic:…… Checking children’s health at periodic, age-appropriate intervals
Screening:…. Providing physical, mental, developmental, dental, hearing, vision, and other screening tests to detect potential problems
Diagnostic:…. Performing diagnostic tests to follow-up when a risk is identified, and
Treatment:…. Control, correct or reduce health problems found.
Federal Medicaid law at 42 U.S.C.§ 1396d(r) [1905(r) of the Social Security Act] requires state Medicaid programs to provide EPSDT for beneficiaries under 21 years of age. Within the scope of EPSDT benefits under the federal Medicaid law, states are required to cover any service that is medically necessary “to correct or ameliorate a defect, physical or mental illness, or a condition identified by screening,” whether or not the service is covered under the North Carolina State Medicaid Plan.
The services covered under EPSDT are limited to those within the scope of the category of services listed in the federal law at 42 U.S.C. § 1396d (a) [1905(a) of the Social Security Act].
For example, EPSDT will not cover, nor is it required to cover, purely cosmetic or experimental treatments.
Again, EPSDT allows for exceptions to Medicaid policies for beneficiaries under the age of 21. For example, if the DMA clinical policy for dental procedures does not cover a certain procedure, if the dentist determines that the procedure is medically necessary for a beneficiary under the age of 21, then the dentist can request prior approval under EPSDT simply by filling out a “non-covered services form” along with the other supporting documentation to establish medical necessity. More likely than not, the “non-covered procedure” would be approved.
Medical necessity is an interesting term. Medical necessity is not defined by statute. The American Medical Association (AMA) defines medical necessity as:
“Health care services or products that a prudent physician would provide to a patient for the purpose of preventing, diagnosing, treating or rehabilitating an illness, injury, disease or its associated symptoms, impairments or functional limitations in a manner that is: (1) in accordance with generally accepted standards of medical practice; (2) clinically appropriate in terms of type, frequency, extent, site and duration; and (3) not primarily for the convenience of the patient, physician, or other health care provider.”
But, legally, the courts have construed medical necessity broadly when it comes to EPSDT. As in, generally speaking, if a doctor will testify that a procedure or service is medically necessary, then, generally speaking, a judge will accept the medical necessity of the procedure or service.
It seems as though I am degrading the intelligence of the judges that take the face value testimony of the doctors. But I am not.
Judges, like I, are not doctors. We do not have the benefit of a medical education. I say benefit because any education is a benefit, in my opinion.
It would be difficult for anyone who is not a doctor to disagree with the testimony of a physician testifying to medical necessity. I mean, unless the person stayed in a Holiday Inn Express the night before. (I know…bad joke).
Some courts, however, have ruled that the decision as to whether a procedure is medically necessary must be a joint effort by the state and the treating physician. Obviously, for courts that follow the “joint decision for medical necessity” holdings, less procedures would be allowed under EPSDT because, more likely than not, the state will disagree with a treating physician (I say this only from my own experience representing the state when the state disagreed with EPSDT treatments despite the treating physician testifying that the procedure was medically necessary).
For example, the 11th Circuit has held that both the state and the treating physician have a role in determining whether a procedure or treatment is medically necessary to correct or ameliorate a medical condition. The 11th circuit disagreed with the Northern District of Georgia’s determination that the state MUST provide the amount of services which the treating physician dreamed necessary. Moore v. Medows, No. 08-13926, 2009 WL 1099133 (11th Cir. Apr. 24, 2009).
Regardless, in practice, EPSDT is interpreted broadly. A long, long time ago, I worked at the Attorneys’ Generals office. A mother requested hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) for her autistic children (and I had to oppose her request because that was my job).
For those of you who do not know what HBOT is (I sure didn’t know what HBOT is prior to this particular case)…
“Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy (HBOT) is the use of high pressure oxygen as a drug to treat basic pathophysiologic processes and their diseases. HBOT has acute and chronic drug effects. Acutely, HBOT has been proven to be the most powerful inhibitor of reperfusion injury, which is the injury that occurs to tissue deprived of blood supply when blood flow is resumed. This is thought to be one of the primary mechanisms of hyperbaric oxygen therapy effects in acute global ischemia, anoxia, and coma. Chronically, HBOT acts as a signal inducer of DNA to effect trophic (growth) tissue changes.” See http://www.hbot.com/hbot.
I went and saw a hyperbaric oxygen treatment chamber in preparation of my case. It’s pretty intimidating. It is a large chamber made of thick metal. It looks like you could get inside, have it submerged under the ocean, and explore. It appears similar to a submarine. And, interestingly, it is most often used for divers who get the bends.
It is highly controversial as to whether HBOT cures, remedies or ameliorates autistic symptoms. I had two experts testifying that HBOT was experimental, and, therefore, not covered by Medicaid, even with EPSDT. (Remember, back then I was at the AG’s office).
Yet, despite the fact that HBOT was still controversial as to whether it ameliorates the symptoms of autism, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) used the EPSDT doctrine to rule that the mother’s children could receive HBOT and Medicaid must pay for the services.
That is the power of EPSDT. HBOT was clearly not covered by Medicaid for the purpose of ameliorating symptoms of autism. But, for the children named in the Petition who were under 21, Medicaid paid nonetheless.
HBOT allows beneficiaries under the age of 21 to receive medically necessary services that would not normally be allowed under the North Carolina Medicaid State Plan.
Importantly, EPSDT provides for private rights of action under 1983. At least all the federal circuit court of appeals have held such.
Oh, and, BTW, NCTracks will soon also be in charge of EPSDT determinations.
Posted in Administrative Law Judge, Clinical Policy 4A, CMS, Denials of Medicaid Services, Dental Medicaid Providers, DHHS, Division of Medical Assistance, DMA Clinical Policies, EPSDT, Federal Law, Health Care Providers and Services, Lawsuit, Legal Analysis, Medicaid, Medicaid Appeals, Medicaid Recipient Appeals, Medicaid Recipients, Medicaid Recipients Under 21, Medical Necessity, NC, NCTrack Glitches, NCTracks, North Carolina, Prior Authorization, State Plan
Tags: Administrative Law Judge, ALJ, EPSDT, Federal law, HBOT, Medicaid, Medicaid recipients, Medical Necessity, NCTracks, Non-Covered Medicaid Services, North Carolina, Prior Authorization, Recipients under 21, Social Security Act, State Plan
Today the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee on Health and Human Services met at noon. Mr. Joe Cooper, DHHS’ Chief Information Officer, spoke on behalf of DHHS. He began by explaining that NCTracks is not NC Fast, which I believe we already knew.
Most interestingly, it was stated that DHHS has assessed approximately a quarter of a million dollars in penalties against CSC since NCTracks going live. These assessments are paid to the state. To which I ask, “Why does CSC pay penalties to the state? Why not pay the people actually damaged by CSC’s ineptness..the unpaid providers?” It makes no sense that, while providers are not getting paid, CSC pays the state. That’s like a robber paying restitution to the insurance company that never covered the losses of the victim.
Another interesting comment was when asked exactly how much has been spent on NCTracks, Mr. Cooper deferred to DHHS’ CFO, Rod Davis who answered that he does not have that information. To which Senator Tarte stated, “That doesn’t make me feel comfortable.”
Mr. Cooper described CSC’s monumental effort to try to get providers paid. According to Mr. Cooper the “backlog” will be nonexistent by the end of the year. But when asked, “What is the number of remaining backlogs?” Mr. Cooper answered, “Senator, I don’t have that number. I can get it to you.”
When asked a follow-up question about whether the number of backlogs was similar to a previous number of approximately 43,000, Mr. Cooper noted that there are two types of backlogs. One backlog addresses prior authorizations, and, according to Mr. Cooper there is no more backlog as to prior authorizations. NCTracks is absolutely current. The non-current backlog is regarding returning calls and responding to emails.
Providers, Is it true? Is NCTracks current as to prior authorizations?
Mr. Cooper further stated that calls to the Call Center are now answered within seconds. Last week CSC implemented a new process for answering phone calls that when providers call the Call Center, CSC estimates when it will call back the providers in order to stop the providers from staying on the phone too long. That’s great, but getting an estimated time for a callback doesn’t really resolve the problem, right?
Mr. Cooper also showed a graph depicting total Medicaid claims payments from State fiscal year 2012 through October 2012 (the graph on the left) and payments from State fiscal year 2013 through October 2013.
Obviously the point of this graph is to demonstrate that CSC is approximately right on track with what HP Enterprises paid last year. And, I agree, when looking at this graph, it appears that both CSC and HP paid out similar amounts for the different years. But the graph does not explain whether the volume of claims increased from 2012 to 2013. One would think that the number of claims increased in 2013, as our population grew. So is the comparability of the graph deceiving?
Senator Nesbitt pointed out that another graph, the graph depicting claims adjudication, does not appear to demonstrate positive progress. He said, “It doesn’t look like we are fixing the problem. We are generating more and more bills that aren’t being paid.”
Here is the chart Senator Nesbitt was talking about:
Senator Nesbitt pointed out that, according to the chart, it looks like claim adjudication is declining. He sais that he heard someone mention that 70% is the goal, but he doesn’t think that 70% is a good goal. Why not 100%?
After Senator Nesbitt made his comments, the meeting adjourned until 2:00. If you want to listen to the committee meeting, click on: http://ncleg.net/Audio/Audio.html. and select “Appropriations Committee Room (Rm 643).”
Posted in Computer Sciences Corporation, CSC, DHHS, Division of Medical Assistance, General Assembly, Health Care Providers and Services, Joint Legislative Oversight Committee on Health and Human Services, Legislation, Media, Medicaid, Medicaid Billing, Medicaid Claims Adjudication, Medicaid Reimbursements, NC, NCTrack Glitches, NCTracks, NCTracks Billing Issues, North Carolina, Prior Authorization, Timely Payments
Tags: Computer Sciences Corporation, CSC, DHHS, Division of Medical Assistance, DMA, Health care provider, Joe Cooper, Joint Legislative Oversight Committee on Health and Human Services, Medicaid, Medicaid recipients, Medicaid Reimbursments, Medicaid Services, Mr. Cooper, NC Legislature, NCTracks, NCTracks Billing Issues, NCTracks Problems, North Carolina, North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, Rod Davis, Senator Nesbitt, Senator Tarte
Attention: All Medicaid Providers Whose Services Require Prior Authorization: A Way to Increase Revenue and Help Medicaid Recipients…Or…Killing Two Birds with One Stone
Attention: All Medicaid Providers Whose Services Require Prior Authorization
A Way to Increase Revenue and Help Medicaid Recipients
Have you heard the cliché: “Killing two birds with one stone….?”
The phrase is thought to have originated in the early 1600s when slingshots were primarily used for bird hunting. (BTW: My husband, who is an expert bird hunter (with guns), I am sure, would be able to hit two birds with one stone…he is that good. In fact, he may have already shot two birds with one bullet). Anyway, Thomas Hobbs, an English political philosopher, is generally given credit for coining the phrase in 1656, although Ovid has a similar expression in Latin over 2000 years prior. Killing two birds with one stone generally means achieving two objectives with one action. (Which, obviously, is a good thing).
For our purposes here, killing two birds with one stone means that by undergoing one action (appealing all Medicaid recipients’ denials, terminations, and reductions for services requiring prior authorization) two positive results are achieved:
1. The Medicaid recipients have their denials, terminations, and reductions appealed (or…people who need services may actually get those necessary services); and
2. Your provider company makes more money.
Not all Medicaid services require prior authorization. But many do. Many prescription drugs require prior approval. Certain services during a pregnancy for a Medicaid pregnant woman require prior authorization. In behavioral health care, almost all services require prior authorizations (although there are some unmanaged visits in outpatient behavioral health (OBT) that do not require prior authorization). Even though other Medicaid services require prior authorization, this blog and NCGS 108D only applies to behavioral health care (because NCGS 108D applies to MCOs and the MCOs only manage behavioral health care). You should appeal all other denied, terminated, or reduced Medicaid services that require prior authorization, but the appeal process in this blog pertains to behavioral health care.
Why care about Medicaid recipient appeals?
It is indisputable that people start companies to make money (except 501(c) companies). You’ve heard all the cliches…”Money makes the world go around…” “The lack of money is the root of all evil…” “Money: power at its most liquid…”
We’ve also heard all the cliches…”Money can’t buy happiness…” “I have no money, no resources, no hope. I am the happiest man alive….” “Money has never made man happy, nor will it, there is nothing in its nature to produce happiness. The more of it one has the more one wants.”
Regardless whether you believe that money is a necessary evil or the key to happiness, it is without question that people need money to get by in life. Therefore, when people create companies, it is, normally, with the intent to make money.
Medicaid providers are no exception.
True, Medicaid reimbursements are crappy. But, despite the crappy/low Medicaid reimbursements, Medicaid providers still hope to make some profit…and do good. (2 birds…1 stone).
We all want to make money and help Medicaid recipients, right? (I know I do).
So with my “handy dandy” tips in this blog, you, too, can kill two birds with stone. You can do both: make more money and help Medicaid recipients.
Wait, I thought providers could not appeal on behalf of our clients? I have heard this incorrect statement over and over from multiple clients. It simply is not true.
NCGS 108D(4)(b) states that “[e]nrollees, or network providers authorized in writing to act on behalf of enrollees, may file requests for grievances and LME/MCO level appeals orally or in writing. However, unless the enrollee or network provider requests an expedited appeal, the oral filing must be followed by a written, signed grievance or appeal.” (emphasis added).
You just need the Medicaid recipient’s consent in writing.
Increased Profit AND Providing Medicaid Services to Recipients: Two Birds…One Stone!
First, how would appealing all terminations, denials and reductions for Medicaid services increase profit for you, as a provider?
For terminations and reductions (not initial authorizations), if you appeal, the Medicaid recipients are required to receive maintenance of service (MOS). This means that, at the very least (even if you lose), if you appeal, you are able to provide services and be reimbursed for services during the appeal process.
For example, you have a developmentally disabled (DD) Medicaid client, who has received 8 hours/day personal care services (PCS) for the last 4 years. You submit your yearly plan of care (POC) requesting 8 hours PCS/day per norm. The managed care organization (MCO) reduces your client’s PCS to 6 hours/day. If you timely appeal the reduction or termination, the MCO will be required to reimburse for 8 hours PCS/day throughout the appeal process.
NCGS 108D-6(c) states: “Continuation of Benefits. – An LME/MCO shall continue the enrollee’s benefits during the pendency of a LME/MCO level appeal to the same extent required under 42 C.F.R. § 438.420.”
42 C.F.R. 438.420 states that:
“Continuation of benefits. The MCO or PIHP must continue the enrollee’s benefits if—
Pay particular attention to subsection (5)…the enrollee must request MOS. Don’t forget to add that little phrase into the form that you have the enrollee sign to consent to appeal.
MOS allows you to be paid during the appeal AND the Medicaid recipient to receive the medically necessary services during the pendency of the appeal.
Two birds…one stone.
For terminations and reductions, there is no need to ask for an expedited hearing (will discuss momentarily), because with MOS, there is no hurry (the recipient is receiving the needed services and you are getting paid).
So, let’s turn to an initial denial for a Medicaid service that requires prior authorization and the appeal process:
If the MCO denies an initial authorization, the Medicaid recipient is not entitled to MOS. However, appealing these initial denials are just as important to (a) the recipients; and (b) your profit as appealing the terminations and denials.
But an appeal can takes months and the recipient (assuming medical necessity truly exists) needs the behavioral health care services in order to not decompensate. So how can the appeal help?
Answer: Request an expedited appeal.
NCGS 108D-7 states:
“When the time limits for completing a standard appeal could seriously jeopardize the enrollee’s life or health or ability to attain, maintain, or regain maximum function, an enrollee, or a network provider authorized in writing to act on behalf of an enrollee, has the right to file a request for an expedited appeal of a managed care action no later than 30 days after the mailing date of the notice of managed care action. For expedited appeal requests made by enrollees, the LME/MCO shall determine if the enrollee qualifies for an expedited appeal. For expedited appeal requests made by network providers on behalf of enrollees, the LME/MCO shall presume an expedited appeal is necessary.”
Important: You still have 30 days to appeal.
Even more important: The MCO is required, by statute, to PRESUME an expedited appeal is necessary.
True the General Assembly really gave mentally ill, developmentally disabled, and substance abuse population the shaft when they passed, and McCrory signed, Senate Bill 553, now Session Law 2013-397, by placing the legal burden of proof on the Medicaid recipient in all circumstances (really??), but the small ray of hope is that, at least as it pertains to expedited appeals, the MCO must presume that an expedited appeal is necessary for the well-being of the recipient.
Going back to expedited appeals, the MCO must make “reasonable efforts” (yes, there is too much wiggle room there) to notify the Medicaid recipient/provider of a denial of an expedited appeal within 2 days. I also believe that is in the best interest of an MCO to authorize expedited appeals, because….could you imagine the implications and legal liability on the MCO if the MCO denies an appeal to be expedited and something horrible happens to the Medicaid recipient as a direct result of the MCO’s refusal to expedite the appeal???? Or, even worse, the recipient harms others as a result of the appeal not being expedited??? WHOOO HOOOO….talk about bad PR!!!
So, two days to determine whether the MCO will accept the request for an expedited appeal. How long for a decision?
According to NCGS 108D-7(d), “[i]f the LME/MCO grants a request for an expedited LME/MCO level appeal, the LME/MCO shall resolve the appeal as expeditiously as the enrollee’s health condition requires, and no later than three working days after receiving the request for an expedited appeal. The LME/MCO shall provide the enrollee and all other affected parties with a written notice of resolution by United States mail within this three-day period.” (emphasis added).
So, basically, if the MCO takes 2 days to decide to accept the expedited appeal, then there is only 1 additional day to determine the results of the appeal. That is fast…I don’t care who you are!!
If the MCO denies the expedited appeal, then the MCO has 45 days to provide a decision.
Very Important: Any adverse decision from an MCO is appealable to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).
Ok, recap: You, as a provider, want to appeal all Medicaid recipient denials, terminations, and reductions for the following two reasons:
1. Increase profitability for your company; and
2. Help the Medicaid recipients by appealing denials, terminations or reductions, and, hopefully, obtaining the medically necessary services for your clients.
2 birds…1 stone.
Posted in Administrative Law Judge, Administrative Remedies, Appeal Deadlines, Behavioral health, Burden of Proof, Denials of Claims, Denials of Medicaid Services, DHHS, Division of Medical Assistance, Expedited Appeal, Gov. Pat McCrory, Health Care Providers and Services, Lawsuit, Legal Analysis, Legal Remedies for Medicaid Providers, Legislation, Maintenance of Service, McCrory, MCO, Medicaid, Medicaid Appeals, Medicaid Recipient Appeals, Medicaid Recipients, Medicaid Reimbursements, Medicaid Services, Medical Necessity, Mental Health, Mental Health Problems, Mental Illness, NC, NCGS 108D, North Carolina, OAH, Office of Administrative Hearings, Plan of Care, Prior Authorization, Reconsideration Reviews, Senate Bill 553, Session Law 2013-397
Tags: Administrative Law Judge, Behavioral health, DHHS, Division of Medical Assistance, DMA, Expedited Appeal, Health care, Health care provider, Maintenance of Service, Managed care, Managed Care Organizations, McCrory, MCO, Medicaid, Medicaid Recipient Appeals, Medicaid Recipient terminations, Medicaid recipients, Medicaid Reimbursments, Medicaid Services, Mental disorder, Mental health, NC Medicaid, NCGS 108D, North Carolina, Pat McCrory, Prior Authorization, reductions and denials