Blog Archives

Legislative Update For May 10, 2017

I am a member of the Health Law Section’s Legislative Committee, along with attorneys Shawn Parker, and Scott Templeton. Together we drafted summaries of all the potential House and Senate Bills that have passed one house (crossed over) and have potential of becoming laws. We published it on the NC Bar Association Blog. I figured my readers would benefit from the Bill summaries as well. Please see below blog.

On behalf of the North Carolina Bar Association Health Law Section’s Legislative Committee,  we are providing the following 2017 post-crossover legislative update.

The North Carolina General Assembly has been considering a substantial number of bills of potential relevance to health law practitioners this session. The Health Law Section’s Legislative Committee, with the help of NCBA staff, has been monitoring these bills on virtually a daily basis.

The General Assembly’s rules provide for a “crossover date” during the legislative session, which this year was April 27. The importance of that date is essentially that, with certain caveats, unless a bill has passed one chamber (House or Senate) by the crossover date, the bill will no longer be considered by the legislature. The following listing provides brief descriptions of current proposed legislation, in two categories.

The first category includes bills that passed either the House or Senate by the crossover date, and therefore remain in consideration by the legislature. The second category includes bills that did not pass either chamber before the crossover date, but because the bills contain an appropriation or fee provisions, they may continue to be considered pursuant to legislative rules.

In addition to the bills listed below, a number of bills did not make crossover and do not meet an exception to the crossover rule, and are likely “dead” for this legislative session. We recognize, however, that the legislature is capable of “reviving” legislation by various mechanisms. The Legislative Committee continues to monitor legislation during the session, and in addition to this update, we may provide further updates as appropriate, and also anticipate doing a final summary once the legislature has adjourned later this year.

Bills That Passed One Chamber by the Crossover Date.

House Bills 

HB 57: Enact Physical Therapy Licensure Compact

Makes North Carolina a member of the Physical Therapy Licensure Compact, upon the 10th member state to enact the compact. Membership in the compact would allow physical therapists who hold licenses in good standing in any other compact state to practice physical therapy in North Carolina. Likewise, physical therapists holding a valid license in North Carolina would be able to practice physical therapy in any of other the compact member states.

 HB 140: Dental Plans Provider Contracts/Transparency

Provides that insurance companies that offer stand-alone dental insurance are subject to the disclosure and notification provisions of G.S. 58-3-227.

 HB 156: Eyeglasses Exemption from Medicaid Capitation

Adds the fabrication of eyeglasses to the list of services that are not included as part of transitioning the State Medicaid program to a capitated system.

HB 199: Establish Standards for Surgical Technology

Creates standards for surgical technology care in hospitals and ambulatory surgical facilities, specifically prohibiting employing or contracting with a surgical technologist unless that technologist produces one of four enumerated qualifications.

HB 206: N.C. Cancer Treatment Fairness

Requires insurance coverage parity so orally administered anti-cancer drugs are covered on a basis no less favorable than intravenously administered or injected anti-cancer drugs.

 HB 208 : Occupational Therapy Choice of Provider

Adds licensed occupational therapists to the list of providers for whom insurers are required to pay for services rendered, regardless of limitations to access of such providers within the insurance contract.

 HB 243: Strengthen Opioid Misuse Prevention (STOP) Act

Requires, among other things, practitioners to review information in the state-controlled substance reporting system prior to prescribing certain targeted controlled substance and limits the length of supply that a targeted controlled substance may be prescribed for acute pain relief.

HB 258: Amend Medical Malpractice Health Care Provider Definition

Includes paramedics, as defined in G.S. 131E-155, within the definition of health care provider for the purposes of medical malpractice actions.

HB 283: Telehealth Fairness Act

Requires health benefit plans to provide coverage for health care services that are provided via telemedicine as if the service were provided in person.

HB 307: Board Certified Behavioral Analyst/Autism Coverage

Adds board certified behavioral analysts as professionals that qualify for reimbursement for providing adaptive behavioral treatments under North Carolina’s mandatory coverage requirements for autism spectrum disorder.

 HB 403: LME/MCO Claims Reporting/Mental Health Amendments

Requires Local Management Entities/Managed Care Organizations (LME/MCOs) to use a state-designated standardized format for submitting encounter data, clarifies that the data submitted may be used by DHHS to, among other authorized purposes, set capitation rates. Also modifies multiple statutory requirements and references related to LME/MCOs. Limits the LME/MCOs’ use of funds to their functions and responsibilities under Chapter 122C. Also limits the salary of an area director unless certain criteria are met.

HB 425: Improve Utilization of MH Professionals

Allows licensed clinical addiction specialists to own or have ownership interest in a North Carolina professional corporation that provides psychotherapeutic services. Allows licensed professional counselors or licensed marriage and family therapist to conduct initial examinations for involuntary commitment process when requested by the LME and approved by DHHS.

HB 550: Establish New Nurse Licensure Compact

Repeals the current nurse licensure compact codified at G.S. 90-171.80 – 171.94 and codifies a substantially similar compact, which North Carolina will join upon adoption by the 26th state, allowing nurses to have one multi-state license, with the ability to practice in both their home state and other compact states.

HB 631: Reduce Admin. Duplication MH/DD/SAS Providers

Directs DHHS to establish a work group to examine and make recommendations to eliminate administrative duplication of requirements affecting healthcare providers.

Senate Bills 

SB 42: Reduce Cost and Regulatory Burden/Hospital Construction

Directs the N.C. Medical Care Commission to adopt the American Society of Healthcare Engineers Facility Guidelines for physical plant and construction requirements for hospital facilities and to repeal the current set of rules pertaining to such requirements under the current hospital facilities rules within the North Carolina Administrative Code.

SB 161: Conforming Changes LME/MCO Grievances/Appeals

Provides a technical change to North Carolina LME/MCO enrollee grievance statutes by renaming “managed care actions” as “adverse benefit determinations” to conform to changes in federal law.

SB 368: Notice of Medicaid SPA Submissions

Directs DHHS to notify the General Assembly when DHHS submits to the federal government an amendment to the Medicaid State Plan, or decides not to submit a previously published amendment.

 SB 383: Behavioral Health Crisis EMS Transport

Directs DHHS to develop a plan for adding Medicaid coverage for ambulance transports to behavioral health clinics under Medicaid Clinical Coverage Policy 15.

SB 384: The Pharmacy Patient Fair Practices Act

Prohibits pharmacy benefits managers from using contract terms to prevent pharmacies from providing direct delivery services and allows pharmacists to discuss lower-cost alternative drugs with and sell lower-cost alternative drugs to its customers.

SB 630: Revise IVC Laws to Improve Behavioral Health

Makes substantial revisions to Chapter 122C regarding involuntary commitment laws.

Bills That Did Not Pass Either Chamber by the Crossover Date, But Appear to Remain Eligible for Consideration.

House Bills

HB 88: Modernize Nursing Practice Act

Eliminates the requirement of physician supervision for nurse practitioners, certified nurse midwives, clinical nurse specialists and certified registered nurse anesthetists.

HB 185: Legalize Medical Marijuana

Creates the North Carolina Medical Cannabis Act.  Among many other provisions, it provides that physicians would not be subject to arrest, prosecution or penalty for recommending the medical use of cannabis or providing written certification for the medical use of cannabis pursuant to the provision of the newly created article.

HB 270: The Haley Hayes Newborn Screening Bill

Directs additional screening tests to detect Pompe disease, Mucopolysaccharidosis Type I, and X-linked Adrenoleukodystrophy as part of the state’s mandatory newborn screening program.

HB 858: Medicaid Expansion/Healthcare Jobs Initiatives

Repeals the legislative restriction on expanding the state’s Medicaid eligibility and directs DHHS to provide Medicaid coverage to all people under age 65 with incomes equal to or less than 133 percent of the federal poverty guidelines. Appropriates funds and directs the reduction of certain recurring funds to implement the act. Additionally the bill creates and imposes an assessment on each hospital that is not fully exempt from both the current equity and upper payment limit assessments imposed by state law.

HB 887: Health Insurance Mandates Study/Funds

Appropriates $200,000 to fund consultant services to assist the newly established Legislative Research Commission committee on state mandatory health insurance coverage requirements.

HB 902: Enhance Patient Safety in Radiological Imaging.

Creates a new occupational licensure board to regulate the practice of radiologic imaging and radiation therapy procedures by Radiologic Technologists and Radiation Therapists.

Senate Bills

SB 73: Modernize Nursing Practice Act

Eliminates the requirement of physician supervision for nurse practitioners, certified nurse midwives, clinical nurse specialists and certified registered nurse anesthetists.

SB 290: Medicaid Expansion/Healthcare Jobs Initiative

Repeals the legislative restriction on expanding the state’s Medicaid eligibility and directs DHHS to provide Medicaid coverage to all people under age 65 with incomes equal to or less than 133 percent of the federal poverty guidelines. Appropriates funds, directs the reduction of certain recurring funds to implement the Act. Additionally the bill creates and imposes an assessment on each hospital that is not fully exempt from both the current equity and upper payment limit assessments imposed state law.

SB 579: The Catherine A. Zanga Medical Marijuana Bill

Creates the North Carolina Medical Cannabis Act.  Among many other provisions, it provides that physicians would not be subject to arrest, prosecution or penalty for recommending the medical use of cannabis or providing written certification for the medical use of cannabis pursuant to the provision of the newly created article.

SB 648: Legalize Medical Marijuana

Creates the North Carolina Medical Cannabis Act.  Among many other provisions, it provides that physicians would not be subject to arrest, prosecution or penalty for recommending the medical use of cannabis or providing written certification for the medical use of cannabis pursuant to the provision of the newly created article.

Please contact a member of the Health Law Section’s Legislative Committee should you have any questions regarding this report.  The Committee’s members are Knicole Emanuel, Shawn Parker, and Scott Templeton (chair).

Lordy, Lordy, Look Who’s Forty: A Review of Our 40-Year-Old Stalemate in Health Care Reform

40-birthday

Well, folks, it is official.  I am “over the hill.”  Yup.  My birthday is today, January 7, 1975, and I was born 40 years ago.

Instead of moping around, I have decided to embrace my 40s. For starters, let’s take a look at where we were 40 years ago. Obviously, personally, I was in utero. But what about the country? What about health care?

Not surprisingly, even 40 years ago, politicians were discussing the same issues with health care as we are now. Some things never change…or do they???

In my “40 years in review” blog, I want to discuss why we, as a nation, are still arguing about the same health care issues that we were arguing about 40 years ago.  And, perhaps, the reason why we have been in a 40-year-old stalemate in health care reform.

Today, we have a diverged nation when it comes to health care. Democrats want to expand public health insurance (i.e., Medicaid) and tend to favor a higher degree of government oversight of health care to ensure that health care is available to all people.  Republicans, on the other hand, believe that the financial burden of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) on the federal and state level is unsustainable, and people will receive less than adequate health care. Republicans tend to favor privatization of Medicaid, while liberals oppose such ideas.

Health care reform has been a hot topic for over 40 years…with some interesting differences…

Going back to 1975…

Gerald Ford, a Republican, was our nation’s president, and we were in a nationwide recession.

Under Ford, the American Medical Society (AMA) proposed a new plan for health care, an employer mandate proposal.

According to a 1975 Chicago Tribune journalist, the AMA’s new proposal pushed for a broader government role in health care.  See below.

“The new [ ] plan would cover both employees and the unemployed, along with poor people and those considered uninsurable because of medical or mental problems.  It would require employers to subsidize health care for employees and their families and pay at least 65 % of each premium.  It would also require the government to provide partially subsidized health insurance, financed from general revenues, for the poor and the unemployed. It calls for medical insurance benefits covering 365 days of hospital care during any one year, 100 days of nursing home care, and home health, mental, and dental service for children aged 2 and up.  All but the poorest beneficiaries would share premium costs and would pay 20 per cent for the services provided, but no individual would pay more than $1,500 a year and no family more than $2,000 a year for health care.”

Chicago Tribune, “The A.M.A.’s subsidy plan” April 19, 1975 (emphasis added) (no author was cited).

Interestingly, in that same newspaper from April 19, 1975, advertisements show towels for $1.89, pants for teenagers for $4.99, a swivel rocker for $88, and a BBQ grill for $12.88. My how times have changed!

Those prices also indicate how much buying power was involved with the AMA’s proposal, and what it meant to suggest that an individual might have to pay up to $1,500 a year, and a family up to $2,000 a year, for health care – a lot of money back then!

In 1976, Pres. Ford proposed adding catastrophic coverage to Medicare, offset by increased cost sharing.  These are examples of Pres. Ford (a Republican) creating more government involvement in health care and expanding health care to everyone.

After Pres. Ford, came Pres. Jimmy Carter from 1977-1981, a Democrat.

Pres. Carter campaigned on the notion of “universal health care for everyone;” however, once in office he decided instead to rein in costs, and not expand coverage.  In the prior decade (1960), the consumer price index had increased by 79.7%, while hospital costs had risen 237%.  President Carter proposed an across-the-board cap on hospital charges that would limit annual increases to 1.5 times any rise in the consumer price index.

Pres. Carter was also quoted from public speeches saying, “We must clean up the disgraceful Medicaid scandals.”

Pres. Carter’s stance on “universal” health care was: “that such a program would be financed through both the employer and the payroll taxes, as well as general revenue taxes. Patients would still be free to choose their own physician, but the federal government would set doctor’s fees and establish controls to monitor the cost and quality of health care.”

In May 1979, Senator Ted Kennedy, a Democrat, proposed a new universal national health insurance bill—offering a choice of competing federally-regulated private health insurance plans with no cost sharing financed by income-based premiums via an employer mandate and individual mandate, replacement of Medicaid by government payment of premiums to private insurers, and enhancement of Medicare by adding prescription drug coverage and eliminating premiums and cost sharing.

These are examples of Democrats, Pres. Carter, by not expanding health care coverage and reining in costs, and Sen. Kennedy, by proposing privatization of Medicaid, acting in a more conservative nature, or, as a conservative nature would be perceived today.

So when did the parties flip-flop? Why did the parties flip-flop? And the most important question…if we have been struggling with the exact same issues on health care for over 40 years, why has our health care system not been fixed?  There has certainly been enough time, ideas, and proposed bills.

While I do not profess to know the answer, my personal opinion is the severe and debilitating polarizations of the two main political parties have rendered this country into a 40-year-old stalemate when it comes to health care reform and are the reason why the solution has not been adopted and put into practice.

Maybe back in 1979, when Senator Kennedy proposed replacing Medicaid with private insurance, Republicans refused to agree, simply because a Democrat proposed the legislation.

Today when Republican candidates campaign on privatizing Medicaid and the Democrats vehemently oppose such action, maybe the opposition is not to the idea, but to the party making the proposal.

Just a thought…

And here’s to the next 40!!!

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.

OIG chart

  • 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.

NC Medicaid: Freedom of Choice of Providers? Why Bother? Providers Are Fungible!…Right?

I found some interesting language in the 1915(b) Waiver last week (well, interesting to me).

What is the 1915(b) Waiver? In the simplest of terms, with the 1915(b) Waiver, NC has asked the federal government for an exception to certain mandatory statutes.  In order to request the exception or “waiver” of certain federal statutes, NC had to draft our 1915(b) Waiver and promise the federal government that, despite the fact that NC is not following certain federal statutes, that certain things about Medicaid will not change.  Even though we may have waived the federal statute requiring it.

For example, in our 1915(b) Waiver, NC asks to waive Medicaid recipients’ “freedom of choice of provider” provision.  As in, federal statute requires the states to allow a Medicaid recipient to have the freedom to choose whatever or whomever provider that recipient desires.  (Kind of like…”You like your doctor? You can keep your doctor!”)

Well, NC had to waive the freedom of choice of provider because the MCOs in NC are jurisdictional.  For example, if Dr. Norwood provides Medicaid services in Durham, there is no reason that she should have to contract with Smokey Mountain Center (SMC).  And because Dr. Norwood does not contract with SMC, a Medicaid recipient cannot choose to receive services from Dr. Norwood, which, obviously, limits Medicaid recipients’ freedom of choice of provider.

The thinking behind the waiver of Medicaid recipients’ freedom of choice of provider is that (in my opinion), realistically, even if we did not waive the provision mandating the freedom of choice of provider, how likely is it that a Medicaid recipient residing in Asheville would choose to receive services from a Medicaid provider in Durham, NC? Most likely, the Medicaid recipients in Asheville have never heard of the Medicaid providers in Durham.  So…waive the freedom of choice….it’s harmless.

However, in order for the feds to allow this waiver of the freedom of choice of provider, NC had to promise something.

Our promise is found in the 1915(b) Waiver.  The language of our promise reads, ”

1915(b)

Why is this important?

Because it is not true.  Our promise that we made to the federal government in order for the federal government to allow us to implement our managed care system for our mental health, substance abuse, and developmentally disabled population is not true.

“These providers support this initiative and consumers have at least as much choice in individual providers as they had in the pre-reform non-managed care environment.”

If the Waiver were Pinocchio, its nose would be circling the earth.

It reminds me of my grandma.  Grandma is the sweetest, most wonderful grandma in the world.  She and my grandpa lived in a home in Cary, NC for over five decades.  When grandpa passed and grandma’s health began to decline, grandma decided to sell her home and move into an assisted living facility.  Well, grandma’s home was near and dear to all 5 children’s hearts, as well as all 15+ grandchildren’s hearts (I know…I have a huge family).  I, personally, had so many wonderful memories there (fishing in the lake behind the house, playing pool and ping-pong in the basement, climbing up and down the laundry chute acting as if it were a secret passage way, and grandpa’s amazing tomato sandwiches, gumbo and cornbread).

Anyway, the point is that when grandma sold the house, there was a stipulation in the contract.  The buyer promised to not bulldoze the house and build a new home.  You see, this neighborhood was old…one of the oldest in Cary.  So the homes were built in the 70s.  It had become “posh” to buy an older home in this neighborhood because the lots were so large and the location was so great and to simply flatten the old house for a new one.

Well, grandma wouldn’t have it.  There was too much nostalgia in the home for some buyer to bulldoze the home.  So the contract to sell the house stipulated that the buyer would not bulldoze the house.  So grandma sold the home.

And the buyer bulldozed the home.

Of all the low-down, dirty tricks!!! To lie in a contract to my grandma! Needless to say, grandma was very upset.  She felt that a piece of her life vanished, which, obviously, it did.

Well, grandma has a number of attorneys in the family (including me).  So grandma’s kids began to talk about a lawsuit.  But grandma said that even if she sued the buyer that it would not bring back the house.  Money could not replace the memories at grandma’s house.

If I am remembering correctly, this new house was built 5-6 years ago. Maybe more.  I pass the neighborhood all the time.  To date, I still have not driven to see the house that replaced grandma’s house.  I don’t think I could take it.

What is worse than lying to a grandmother about her home?

In my opinion? Lying to the feds about the freedom of choice of Medicaid provider that our Medicaid recipients have here in NC.  Talk about a vulnerable population…our most needy citizens, but add to the vulnerability mental health issues, substance abuse issues, and/or developmentally disablement.  And, now, let’s lie about their freedom of choice.

So where am I getting my allegation that Medicaid recipients do not have “at least enough choice in individual providers as they had in pre-reform non-managed care?”

Normally I only blog as to facts that I can corroborate with some research.  However, this blog may not be corroborated by any independent research.  My allegation is based on my own experience as a Medicaid attorney, conversations with my clients, emails that I have received from providers across the state, memos I have read from the MCOs, and the very real fact that the MCOs are terminating (or not renewing) hundreds of provider contracts across the state.

For the sake of argument, let’s say I am right.  That Medicaid recipients do not have at least the same freedom of choice of provider as pre-MCOs.  What then?

If I am right, this is the situation in which we find ourselves today.  So what is happening today?

As the MCOs determine that fewer providers are needed within a catchment area, the MCOs are refusing to contract with “redundant and unnecessary” providers.  But are these providers really unnecessary?  Really redundant?  Are we to believe that mental health providers are fungible?  Meaning that one provider is just as good as the next…that nothing makes some provider “stick out?”  Are providers fungible like beach balls are fungible?

Let’s test that theory.

Abby is a suicidal teenager.  She has suffered from schizophrenia with auditory hallucinations since she was a child.  For the last six years, Abby has seen Dr. Norwood.  It took some time, but, eventually, Abby began to trust Dr. Norwood.  Dr. Norwood has developed a close relationship with Abby, even telling Abby to call her 24 hours a day, 7 days a week if she is in crisis.  Dr. Norwood resides in Durham, so Alliance Behavioral Healthcare (Alliance) is her MCO, and Dr. Norwood provides Abby with outpatient behavioral therapy (OBT).  But, in addition to the weekly therapy, Dr. Norwood also provides Abby with a sense of security.  Abby knows that, if needed, Dr. Norwood would be there for here under any circumstances.  In addition, Abby trusts Dr. Norwood because she is a female.  Abby has an intense distrust of males.  When Abby was 9, her step-father raped her over and over until child protective services stepped in, but not before Abby suffered 8 broken bones and has lost the ability to reproduce forever.

Then, Alliance held its RFPs a couple of months ago.  It’s “tryout.”

And Dr. Norwood was not awarded a contract with Alliance.  Dr. Norwood has no idea why Alliance did not award her a contract.  Only that, according to Alliance, Alliance has sufficient number of providers providing OBT within its catchment area and Dr. Norwood’s services are no longer needed.

Because mental health care providers are fungible, right?

Who cares whether Abby receives services from Dr. Norwood? She can get the same exact services from a large corporation…we will call it “Triangle Counseling.” (BTW: If a Triangle Counseling really exists, I apologize.  This is a fictitious company made up for my example).  Triangle Counseling employs 25+ psychiatrists and 30+ counselors.  When a Medicaid recipient is referred to Triangle, Triangle assigns a psychiatrist and a counselor to the recipient.  Oh, and if, for some reason, the Medicaid recipients needs crisis help outside business hours, Triangle provides “tele-care” so the Medicaid recipient can speak to a computer screen on which a person can be seen by a counselor.

Abby is now hospitalized.  Dr. Norwood filed bankruptcy, lost her 30 year+ career, and is receiving monetary support from the state.

I ask you, if Alliance (or any other MCO) has terminated even one provider, hasn’t that MCO restricted Medicaid recipients’ freedom of choice of provider beyond what was contemplated by the Waiver?  Is the clause in our Waiver that “freedom of choice of provider will be the same as before the implementation of MCOs?,” truthful?  What if the MCO has terminated 10 provider contracts?  50?  100? 

Yet, in order to implement the MCO system, we promised the federal government in our 1915(b) Waiver that “consumers have at least as much choice in individual providers as they had in the pre-reform non-managed care environment.”

Fact or fiction?

Are providers fungible?  Because my grandma knows from experience, houses sure are not.