Blog Archives

Darkness Surrounds MCO Mergers: Are Closed Meetings for MCOs Legal?

Recently, Eastpointe Human Services’ board voted unanimously to consolidate with Cardinal Innovations Healthcare, which would make the merged entity the managed care organization (MCO) overseeing 1/3 of NC’s Medicaid, behavioral health services – 32 counties, in all.

The Board’s decision is subject to the approval of the Secretary, but Eastpointe hopes to consolidate by July 1st.

Whether a consolidation between Eastpointe and Cardinal is good for Medicaid recipients and/or our community, I have no opinion.

But the reason that I have no opinion is because the negotiations, which all deal with public funds, have occurred behind closed doors.

Generally, it is our public policy that public bodies’ actions are to be conducted openly. This is why you can stroll on over to our courthouse and watch, virtually, any case be conducted.  There are rare cases in which the court will “seal” or close the record, such as to protect privileged health information or the identity of children.  Our public policy that strongly encourages open sessions for public entities exists for good reason.  As tax payers, we expect full disclosure and transparency as to how our tax dollars are being used.  In a way, all tax paying NC residents are shareholders of NC.  Those who spend our tax dollars owe us a fiduciary duty to manage our tax dollars in a reasonable and responsible manner, and we should be able to attend all board meetings and review all meeting minutes. The MCOs are the agents of the single state entity, Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), charged with managing behavioral health care for the Medicaid and state-funded population suffering with mental health/developmentally disabled /substance abuse (MR/DD/SA) issues.  As an agent of the state, MCOs are public entities.

But, as I am researching the internet in search of Eastpointe and Cardinal board meeting minutes, I realize that the MCOs are initiating closed meetings and quoting N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-318.11, ” Closed sessions” as the  basis for being able to conduct closed sessions.  And the number of closed sessions that I notice is not a small number.

The deliberations of a merger between two MCOs are highly important to the public. The public needs to know whether the board members are concerned about improving quality and quantity of care. Whether the deliberations surround a more inclusive provider network and providing more services to those in need. Whether the deliberations consider using public funds to create playgrounds or to fund more services for the developmentally disabled. Or are the board members more concerned with which executives will remain employed and what salaried are to be compensated?

You’ve heard of the saying, “Give him an inch and he’ll take a mile?”  This is what is going through my mind as I review the statute allowing public bodies to hold closed sessions.  Is the statute too open-ended? Is the closed session statute a legal mishandling that unintentionally, and against public policy, allows public meetings to act privately? Or are the MCOs misusing the closed session statute?

So I ask myself the following:

1. Is N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-318.11 applicable to MCOs, or, in other words, can the MCOs conduct closed sessions? and, if the answer to #1 is yes, then

2. Are the MCOs overusing or misusing its ability to hold closed sessions? If the answer to #3 is yes, then

3. What can be done?

These are the three questions I will address in this blog.

Number one:

Is N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-318.11 applicable to MCOs, or, in other words, can the MCOs conduct closed sessions?

According to the statute, “”public body” means any elected or appointed authority, board, commission, committee, council, or other body of the State, or of one or more counties, cities, school administrative units, constituent institutions of The University of North Carolina, or other political subdivisions or public corporations in the State that (i) is composed of two or more members and (ii) exercises or is authorized to exercise a legislative, policy-making, quasi-judicial, administrative, or advisory function.”

The MCOs are bodies or agents of the state that are composed of more than 2 members and exercises or is authorized to exercise administrative or advisory functions to the extent allowed by the Waivers.

I determine that, in my opinion, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-318.11 is applicable to the MCOs, so I move on to my next question…

Number two:

 Are the MCOs overusing or misusing its ability to hold closed sessions?

As public policy dictates that public bodies act openly, there are enumerated, statutory reasons that a public body may hold a closed session.

A public body may hold a closed session only when a closed session is required:

  1. “To prevent the disclosure of information that is privileged or confidential pursuant to the law of this State or of the United States, or not considered a public record within the meaning of Chapter 132 of the General Statutes.
  2. To prevent the premature disclosure of an honorary degree, scholarship, prize, or similar award.
  3. To consult with an attorney employed or retained by the public body in order to preserve the attorney-client privilege between the attorney and the public body, which privilege is hereby acknowledged. General policy matters may not be discussed in a closed session and nothing herein shall be construed to permit a public body to close a meeting that otherwise would be open merely because an attorney employed or retained by the public body is a participant. The public body may consider and give instructions to an attorney concerning the handling or settlement of a claim, judicial action, mediation, arbitration, or administrative procedure. If the public body has approved or considered a settlement, other than a malpractice settlement by or on behalf of a hospital, in closed session, the terms of that settlement shall be reported to the public body and entered into its minutes as soon as possible within a reasonable time after the settlement is concluded.
  4. To discuss matters relating to the location or expansion of industries or other businesses in the area served by the public body, including agreement on a tentative list of economic development incentives that may be offered by the public body in negotiations, or to discuss matters relating to military installation closure or realignment. Any action approving the signing of an economic development contract or commitment, or the action authorizing the payment of economic development expenditures, shall be taken in an open session.
  5. To establish, or to instruct the public body’s staff or negotiating agents concerning the position to be taken by or on behalf of the public body in negotiating (i) the price and other material terms of a contract or proposed contract for the acquisition of real property by purchase, option, exchange, or lease; or (ii) the amount of compensation and other material terms of an employment contract or proposed employment contract.
  6. To consider the qualifications, competence, performance, character, fitness, conditions of appointment, or conditions of initial employment of an individual public officer or employee or prospective public officer or employee; or to hear or investigate a complaint, charge, or grievance by or against an individual public officer or employee. General personnel policy issues may not be considered in a closed session. A public body may not consider the qualifications, competence, performance, character, fitness, appointment, or removal of a member of the public body or another body and may not consider or fill a vacancy among its own membership except in an open meeting. Final action making an appointment or discharge or removal by a public body having final authority for the appointment or discharge or removal shall be taken in an open meeting.
  7. To plan, conduct, or hear reports concerning investigations of alleged criminal misconduct.
  8. To formulate plans by a local board of education relating to emergency response to incidents of school violence or to formulate and adopt the school safety components of school improvement plans by a local board of education or a school improvement team.
  9. To discuss and take action regarding plans to protect public safety as it relates to existing or potential terrorist activity and to receive briefings by staff members, legal counsel, or law enforcement or emergency service officials concerning actions taken or to be taken to respond to such activity.”

Option 1 clearly applies, in part, to privileged health information (PHI) and such.  So I would not expect that little Jimmy’s Medicaid ID would be part of the board meeting issues, and, thus, not included in the minutes, unless his Medicaid ID was discussed in a closed session.

I cannot fathom that Option 2 would ever be applicable, but who knows?  Maybe Alliance will start giving out prizes…

I would assume that Option 3 is used most frequently.  But notice:

“General policy matters may not be discussed in a closed session and nothing herein shall be construed to permit a public body to close a meeting that otherwise would be open merely because an attorney employed or retained by the public body is a participant.”

Which means that: (1) the closed session may only be used to talk about specific legal strategies and not general policies.  For example, arguably, an MCO could hold a closed session to consult with its attorney whether to appeal a specific case, but not to discuss whether, generally, the MCO intends to appeal all unsuccessful cases.

and

(2) the MCO cannot call for a closed session “on the fly” and only because its attorney happens to be participating in the board meeting.

As I am rifling through random board meeting minutes, I notice the MCO’s attorney is always present.  Now, I say “always,” but did not review all MCO meeting minutes. There may very well be board meetings at which  the attorneys don’t attend. However, the attorney is present for the minutes that I reviewed.

Which begs the question…Are the MCOs properly using the closed sessions?

Then I look at Options 4, and 5, and 6, and 7, and 8, and 9…and I realize, Geez, according to one’s interpretation, the statute may or may not allow almost everything behind closed doors. (Well, maybe not 9).  But, seriously, depending on the way in which each Option is interpreted, there is an argument that almost anything can be a closed session.

Want to hold a closed session to discuss why the CEO should receive a salary of $400,000? N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-318.11(5)(ii).

Want hold a closed session to discuss the anonymous tip claim that provider X is committing Medicaid fraud? N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-318.11(7).

Want to hold a closed session to discuss how an MCO can position itself to take over the world? N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-318.11(4).

In an atmosphere in which there is little to no supervision of the actions of the MCOs, who is monitoring whether the MCOs are overusing or misusing closed sessions?

Number three:

What can you do if you think that an MCO is holding closed sessions over and above what is allowed by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-318.11?

According to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-318.16A, “[a]ny person may institute a suit in the superior court requesting the entry of a judgment declaring that any action of a public body was taken, considered, discussed, or deliberated in violation of this Article. Upon such a finding, the court may declare any such action null and void. Any person may seek such a declaratory judgment, and the plaintiff need not allege or prove special damage different from that suffered by the public at large.”

Plus, according to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-318.16A, “[w]hen an action is brought pursuant to G.S. 143-318.16 or G.S. 143-318.16A, the court may make written findings specifying the prevailing party or parties, and may award the prevailing party or parties a reasonable attorney’s fee, to be taxed against the losing party or parties as part of the costs. The court may order that all or any portion of any fee as assessed be paid personally by any individual member or members of the public body found by the court to have knowingly or intentionally committed the violation; provided, that no order against any individual member shall issue in any case where the public body or that individual member seeks the advice of an attorney, and such advice is followed.”

 In sum, if you believe that an MCO is conducting a closed session for a reason not enumerated above, then you can institute a lawsuit and request attorneys’ fees if you are successful in showing that the MCO knowingly or intentionally committed the violation.

We should also appeal to the General Assembly to revise, statutorily, more narrowly drafted closed session exceptions.

Managed Care – Eight Reasons Why MCOs Smell Like Pre-Minced Garlic

When it comes to the managed care organizations (MCOs) in NC, something smells rancid, like pre-minced garlic. When I first met my husband, Scott, I cooked with pre-minced garlic that comes in a jar. I figured it was easier than buying fresh garlic and dicing it myself. Scott bought fresh garlic and diced it. Then he asked me to smell the fresh garlic versus the pre-minced garlic. There was no contest. Next to the fresh garlic, the pre-minced garlic smelled rancid. That is the same odor I smell when I read information about the MCOs – pre-minced garlic in a jar.

garlic minced-garlic

In NC, MCOs are charged with managing Medicaid funds for behavioral health care, developmentally disabled, and substance abuse services. When the MCOs were initially created, we had 13. These are geographically situated, so providers and recipients have no choice with which MCO to interact. If you live in Sandhills’ catchment area, then you must go through Sandhills. If you provide services in Cardinal’s catchment area, then you must contract with Cardinal – even though you already have a provider participation agreement with the State of NC to provide Medicaid services in the State of NC.

Over the years, there has been consolidation, and now we have 7 MCOs.

newestmco

From left to right: Smoky Mountain (Duke blue); Partners Behavioral Health (Wake Forest gold); Cardinal Innovations Healthcare (ECU purple); Sandhills (UNCC green); Alliance Behavioral Healthcare (mint green); Eastpointe (Gap Khaki); and Trillium (highlighter yellow/green).

Recently, Cardinal (ECU purple) and Eastpointe (Gap khaki) announced they will consolidate, pending authorization from the Secretary of DHHS. The 20-county Cardinal will morph into a 32-county, MCO giant.

Here is the source of the rancid, pre-minced, garlic smell (in my opinion):

One – MCOs are not private entities. MCOs are prepaid with our tax dollars. Therefore, unlike Blue Cross Blue Shield, the MCOs must answer to NC taxpayers. The MCOs owe a duty of financial responsibility to taxpayers, just like the state government, cities, and towns.

Two – Cardinal CEO, Richard Topping, is paid $635,000, plus he has a 0 to 30 percent bonus potential which could be roughly another $250,000, plus he has some sort of annuity or long-term package of $412,000 (with our tax dollars).

Three – Cardinal is selling or has sold the 26 properties it owns or owned (with our tax dollars) to lease office space in the NASCAR Plaza office tower in uptown Charlotte for $300 to $400 per square foot plus employee parking (with our tax dollars).

Four – Cardinal charges 8% of public funds for its administrative costs. (Does that include Topping’s salary and bonuses?) How many employees are salaried by Cardinal? (with our tax dollars).

Five – The MCOs are prepaid. Once the MCOs receive the funds, the funds are public funds and subject to fiscal scrutiny. However, the MCOs keep whatever funds that it has at the end of the fiscal year. In other words, the MCOs pocket any money that was NOT used to reimburse a provider for a service rendered to a Medicaid recipient. Cardinal – alone – handles around $2.8 billion in Medicaid funding per year for behavioral health services. The financial incentive for MCOs? Terminate providers and reduce/deny services.

Six – MCOs are terminating providers and limiting access to care. In my law practice, I am constantly defending behavioral health care providers that are terminated from an MCO catchment area without cause or with erroneous cause. For example, an agency was terminated from their MCO because the agency had switched administrative offices without telling the MCO. The agency continued to provide quality services to those in need. But, because of a technicality, not informing the MCO that the agency moved administrative offices, the MCO terminated the contract. Which,in turn, puts more money in the MCO’s pocket; one less provider to pay.  Is a change of address really a material breach of a contract? Regardless – it is an excuse.

Seven – Medicaid recipients are not receiving medically necessary services. Either the catchment areas do not have enough providers, the MCOs are denying and reducing medically necessary services, or both. Cardinal cut 11 of its state-funded services. Parents of disabled, adult children write to me, complaining that their services from their MCO have been slashed for no reason….But the MCOs are saving NC money!

Eight – The MCOs ended 2015 with a collective $842 million in the bank. Wonder how much money the MCOs have now…(with our tax dollars).

Rancid, I say. Rancid!

The Merger of the MCOs!

Breaking News: From DHHS

Raleigh, NC

State health officials announced today that the state- and Medicaid-funded Local Management Entities/Managed Care Organizations providing mental health, intellectual and developmental disability and substance use services to North Carolina citizens will be consolidating into four service regions across the state.

Further consolidation will improve quality of services, accessibility, accountability and long-term sustainability.

“I’m a strong believer in LME/MCOs,” said Rick Brajer, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. “These populations deserve dedicated management.”

The newly consolidated service areas are:

  • North Central Region: CenterPoint Human Services and Cardinal Innovations Healthcare Solutions will be merging
  • South Central Region: Sandhills Center and Alliance Behavioral Healthcare will be merging
  • Eastern Region: Eastpointe and Trillium Health Resources will be merging
  • Western Region: Partners Behavioral Health Management and Smoky Mountain LME/MCO will be merging

newmco

NC MCOs and Consolidation: “When the Music Stops? Nobody Knows!”

Our General Assembly is pushing for the managed care organizations (MCOs) to consolidate and/or morph.  Consolidating the MCOs makes fiscal sense for our state, but if I were executive management at an MCO, I would be be anxiously awaiting direction from our General Assembly.  A metaphoric 3-4 chair game of”Musical Chairs” is proceeding with 9 (now 8) players.  Five to six players will have no chairs when the music stops.

What are MCOs?  See blog and blog.

Multiple bills have been proposed.

Senate Bill 703 proposes 3 statewide MCOs. Senate Bill 574 seems to incorporate provider-led capitated health plans, but is unclear as to the exact model. Senate Bill 696 seems to create a symphony of provider-led and nonprovider-led, risk-based entities. Senate Bill 568 contemplates licensed commercial health insurers offering health care plans.

No one really knows how many MCOs will remain in the end…if any. Regardless, what the number of existing MCOs in the future will be, there is little dispute that the number will be fewer than the number of MCOs that exist now.

In an atmosphere where there is supposition that there are too many people or companies and that only a few will remain, competition brews. People/companies are forced to strategize if they want to survive.

Think about the childhood game, “Musical Chairs.” You start with a large group of people, but with one less chair than the number of people. The music plays and the players meander around at a relatively slow pace, around and around, until the music stops. And what happens when the music stops? The people scramble for a chair.  The person left standing is “out” and must sit on the sideline.

We have 9, soon to be 8, MCOs in NC right now. And the music is playing. But which MCOs will be left standing when the music stops?

Here is a map of our current MCOs:

2014 mco

 

As of July 1, CoastalCare and East Carolina Behavioral Healthcare (ECBH) will be merged. We will be down to 8 MCOs. Which means that the light blue on the bottom right hand side of the map will merge with the bright yellow on top right hand side of the map.

Mecklenburg county, which houses most of the Charlotte area, was not always light purple. It recently merged with Cardinal Innovations.

Partners (light yellow) and Smokey Mountain (dark blue) had serious discussions of a merger until, recently, when both walked away from negotiations of merger.

Why should it matter which MCOs are in existence or how many? Theoretically, it shouldn’t. These MCOs are created in order to manage behavioral health care (Medicaid services for those suffering from substance abuse, mental illness, and developmentally disabled), not to make a profit, right? The only issue of importance should be that medically necessary behavioral health care services are rendered to Medicaid recipients in the most efficient and most effective manner.

Yet competing interests come into play.

Think about it…each MCO employs hundreds of people. Each MCO has a CEO, who is not working for free. Generally, unless other arrangements have been negotiated, there can only be one CEO per MCO. When there are 2+ MCOs merging with 2 CEOs and only 1 “chair” for 1 CEO, it can seem like “Musical Chairs.” Multiple people are vying for one “chair.”

The money at issue for behavioral health care in NC is not a small amount. It is likened to a fire hose spouting money. We have a Medicaid budget in NC of approximately 14 billion dollars. To put it in perspective, with $14 billion dollars, you could purchase the LA Lakers 14 times. This is how much money we spend on Medicaid every year. It is really quite staggering when you think about it.

As every North Carolinian learns in the 6th grade, North Carolina is composed of 100 counties. The estimated Medicaid budget of $14 billion is allocated across 100 counties and among approximately 1.9 million Medicaid recipients.

When it was decided to implement the MCOs across the state, about 2012-ish (we actually obtained permission from CMS for the waiver years prior to 2012, but we began with a pilot and did not implement the MCOs statewide until 2012-13), we found ourselves, initially, with eleven MCOs, and now we have 9…soon to be 8.

The newly merged entity of CoastalCare and ECBH (CC+ECBH) will manage state funds and Medicaid dollars for behavioral health services across 24 counties in eastern North Carolina. In other words almost ¼ of the Medicaid budget will be handed to CC+ECBH, leaving approximately ¾ of the Medicaid budget for 7 other MCOs (the budget is determined by number of recipients, so I am assuming, for the purpose of this blog, that more counties mean more people).

The amount of counties controlled by the remaining 7 MCOs are as follows:

Smokey: 23
Partners: 8
Centerpointe: 4
Cardinal: 16
Sandhills: 9
Eastpointe: 12
Alliance: 4

chart for mcos

Looking at the chart above, it would appear that Smoky and CC+ECBH will manage almost 1/2 the state’s behavioral health care for Medicaid.

Prior to the 1915 b/c Waiver allowing the MCOs to manage behavioral services for Medicaid recipients in NC, DHHS managed it. (Obviously ValueOptions and other vendors had a part in it, but not with actual management).  As the single state agency for Medicaid, DHHS cannot delegate administrative duties to contracted parties without a “Waiver,” or permission for an exception from the federal government, or, more specifically, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).

Prior to the 1915 b/c Waiver, we did not have 9 companies with hundreds of employees managing behavioral health care for Medicaid recipients. We had DHHS, which employs approximately 18,000 employees.  To my knowledge DHHS did not terminate those employees who were in charge of behavioral health care issues in order to compensate the creation of new companies/employees.  In other words, say 1000 people at DHHS devoted their time to issues arising our of behavioral health care. Once we had an additional 9 (well, 11, at first), those 1000 employees were not asked to join the MCOs. Maybe some did, but, to my knowledge, there was no suggestion or incentive or requirement to leave DHHS and go to an MCO (to shift the administrative burden).

When we created an additional 9 (well, 11 at first) companies to, essentially, take over behavioral health care…

We created more administrative costs, in order to lift the risk of overspending the Medicaid budget off the state.  It is estimated that America wastes $190 billion in excess administrative costs per year.

Waste in health care

In theory, consolidating the MCOs would decrease administrative costs by having fewer paid employees, not dissimilar to why MCOs want a closed network.  See blog. Again, in theory, having fewer MCOs may create a more consistent statewide manner in managing behavioral health care.

Assume for the purpose of this blog that each MCO employs 100 people (which is a very low number) and each employee is paid $50,000, then the administrative cost associated with delegating behavioral health care to MCOs equals $500,000, counting only employee salaries. Multiple that number by 9 (number of current MCOs) and you get an increased administrative cost of approximately $4.5 million dollars per year, not counting the additional overhead each MCO bears (rent/mortgage, equipment, salary benefits, health care benefits, etc.). Plus you have to include the top management’s salaries, because you know the executives are receiving more than $50,000/year.

What motivated us to implement a MCOs system? With an MCO system, the General Assembly is able to allocate funds for Medicaid and place the risk of going over the budget on the MCOs, not the state. This is a completely understandable and reasonable objective. It is without question that the Medicaid budget is swelling to the point of unsustainability.

However, are we trading “control/supervision” for “knowability?” Are we also trading “risk” for “higher administrative costs,” which, in turn, equals less Medicaid dollars for providers and Medicaid recipients? Every dollar paid to an MCO employee is a dollar not going to a health care provider to reimburse for services.

For these reasons, the government’s push for consolidation of the MCOs is astute. Fewer MCOs = less administrative costs. Fewer MCOs = easier supervision by DHHS.

Less administrative costs = more Medicaid dollars going to providers…to serve our most needy. Because, at the end of the day, the most important issue when it comes to Medicaid is providing quality care for recipients.

It is no matter which entity controls/manages behavioral health care for Medicaid, because regardless the entity, that entity should be managing our tax dollars in the most efficient way that provides the best quality to services to those in need.

“Around and around we go, when we stop? Nobody knows…”  But we do know this…when the music stops, there will be scrambling!

A Dose of Truth: If an MCO Decides Not to Contract With You, YOU DO HAVE RIGHTS!

It has come to my attention that the managed care organizations (MCOs) are spreading non-truths.  As to appeal rights and rights, in general, of a Medicaid provider.  You may not hear the truth elsewhere, but you will hear the truth here.

Supposedly, the truth shall set you free. If this is true, then why do so many people lie? I believe that people’s desire for money, power, status, greed and/or others to look at them with respect are the some of the catalysts of many lies.

Of course, our old friend Aesop told many tales of the virtue of honesty.  My favorite is the “Mercury and the Woodman.”

A Woodman was felling a tree on the bank of a river, when his axe,
glancing off the trunk, flew out of his hands and fell into the water.
As he stood by the water’s edge lamenting his loss, Mercury appeared
and asked him the reason for his grief. On learning what had happened,
out of pity for his distress, Mercury dived into the river and,
bringing up a golden axe, asked him if that was the one he had lost.
The Woodman replied that it was not, and Mercury then dived a second
time, and, bringing up a silver axe, asked if that was his. “No,
that is not mine either,” said the Woodman. Once more Mercury dived
into the river, and brought up the missing axe. The Woodman was
overjoyed at recovering his property, and thanked his benefactor
warmly; and the latter was so pleased with his honesty that he made
him a present of the other two axes. When the Woodman told the story
to his companions, one of these was filled with envy of his good
fortune and determined to try his luck for himself. So he went and
began to fell a tree at the edge of the river, and presently contrived
to let his axe drop into the water. Mercury appeared as before, and,
on learning that his axe had fallen in, he dived and brought up a
golden axe, as he had done on the previous occasion. Without waiting
to be asked whether it was his or not, the fellow cried, “That’s mine,
that’s mine,” and stretched out his hand eagerly for the prize: but
Mercury was so disgusted at his dishonesty that he not only declined
to give him the golden axe, but also refused to recover for him the
one he had let fall into the stream.

The moral of the story is “Honesty is the best policy.”

But is it?  In our world, we do not have fairies, Roman gods, good witches, fairy godmothers, wood sprites, or wizards to hold us accountable for our lies.  If George Washington never admitted that he chopped down the cherry tree, no wood nymph would have appeared, angered by his lie, only to throw his ax into the Potomac.

So who holds us accountable for lies?

As a Christian, I believe that I will be held accountable in my afterlife.  But, without getting too profound and soapbox-ish, I mean who…NOW…presently…in our lives…holds us accountable for lies?

Obviously, when we were children, our parents held us accountable.  Oh boy…the worst thing for me to hear growing up was for my father to say, “I am so disappointed in you.” 

What about the MCOs? Who or what holds the MCOs accountable? And what is this non-truth that the MCOs may or may not be telling providers that has spurred me to write this blog?

Recently, many MCOs have (1) terminated contracts with providers; (2) refused to renew contracts with providers; and (3) conducted desk reviews and interviews of providers only to decide to not contract with many providers; thus leaving many small businesses to bankruptcy and closure…not to mention severing the relationships between the Medicaid recipients and their providers.

It has come to my attention that, when the MCO is asked by a provider whether the provider can have a reconsideration review or whether the provider has any appeal rights as to the MCO’s adverse decision, that the MCOs are telling providers, “No.”  As in, you have no appeal rights as to the MCOs decision to not contract with you. 

This is simply not true.

There are so few providers in NC willing to accept Medicaid because of the administrative burden of Medicaid regulations and the already low reimbursement rates.  To then have the audacity to “willy nilly” or at its own whim subjectively decide that it [the MCO] does not want to contract with you and then tell you that its “willy nilly” or subjective whim cannot be challenged legally eats at the heart of this country’s core values.  Do we not applaud small business owners?  Do we not applaud those small business owners dedicated to serving the population’s most needy?  Do we not promote due process?  Do we not promote truth, justice and the American way?

Or are those promotions clouded when it comes to money, power, status, greed, and desire for respect?

So, I say to you [providers who have been denied a Medicaid contract with an MCO despite having a contract with the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to provide Medicaid services throughout the state of North Carolina], YOU HAVE RIGHTS

You do not need to merely accept the decision of the MCO.  You do not need to simply close up shop…fire your staff…and try a new career.  You have a choice to fight…legally.

But you DO need to know a few things.

First, lawyers are expensive. Period and without question.  So whatever law firm you hire, understand that the cost will more than you ever expected.  (Please understand that I am not advocating you to hire my firm.  Parker Poe and Poyner Spruill both have fantastic attorneys in this area.  Just hire someone knowledgable.)  It’s even a good idea to have consultations with more than one firm.  Find an attorney you trust.

Second, call your liability insurance.  There is a chance that your liability insurance will cover all, or a portion of, your attorneys’ fees.  But do not allow your insurance company tell you whom to hire.  Because this area is specialized there are few attorneys well-versed.  Again, go to the firms I mentioned above.

Thirdly, you may not win.  While the success rate is extremely high, there are some clients who are simply not going to win.  For example, if your documentation is so poor.  Or, for example, you really are not a great provider.  Remember, the MCOs do have a point to try to only contract with great providers.  I only disagree with the way in which the MCOs are deciding to not contract with providers.  It seems “willy nilly” and subjectively arbitrary.  But, depending on your exact circumstances, you do have a chance of success.

Fourth, you will have to testify.  I know it is scary, but I can think of very few circumstances during which the provider would not testify.  The judge needs to hear your story….why you should be allowed to continue to provide Medicaid services.

Fifth, the lawsuit will not shield you from future issues with the MCO.  Until DHHS decides to actually supervise the MCOs properly (or maybe even after that), the MCOs seem to wield the power.

So why even fight legally?  You certainly aren’t guaranteed success.  It will certainly cost you a pretty penny. 

Maybe the answer for you is to not fight.  Only you can make that decision.  But I hope someone holds the MCOs accountable for telling providers that the providers have no recourse…no appeal rights…for the MCOs simply not contracting with the provider.

Because if honesty is the best policy, the MCOs’ policies leave much to be desired. Someone needs to throw their axes into the Potomac!

DHHS’ Robotic Certification of MCOs…So Stepford-ish!

Senate Bill 208, Session Law 2013-85, requires the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to conduct certifications to ensure the effectiveness of the managed care organizations (MCOs), and the first certification was to be before August 1, 2013.  N.C. Gen. Stat. 122C-124.2 was added as a new section by Session Law 2013-85 and states:

“In order to ensure accurate evaluation of administrative, operational, actuarial and financial components, and overall performance of the LME/MCO, the Secretary’s certification shall be based upon an internal and external assessment made by an independent external review agency in accordance with applicable federal and State laws and regulations.”

In order to comply with the statute, Secretary Wos conducted the first certification and published the findings July 31, 2013.  Well, actually Carol Steckel signed the certification and sent it to Sec. Wos (technically Wos did not conduct the certification, but she certified the content).

Steckel’s certification states that “DMA is attesting that all ten [MCOs] are appropriate for certification.”

Strong language!

Attest means to provide or service as clear evidence of.  See Google.  Clear evidence?  That the MCOs are compliant?

One of the areas that was certified was that the MCOs are timely paying providers, that the MCOs are accurately processing claims, and that the MCOs are financially accurate (whatever that means).

Here is the chart depicting those results:

Compliance chart2

Wow.  Who would have guessed that East Carolina Behavioral Healthcare (ECBH) is 100% compliant as to timely payments to providers, 100% compliant as to accuracy of claim processing, and 100% compliant as to financial accuracy.  ONE HUNDRED PERCENT!! As in, zero noncompliance!!

I mean…Wow! Wow! Wow! Wow! Wow!

Have you ever read “The Stepford Wives?” The book was published in 1972 by Ira Levine. 

Basically, the main character, Joanna Eberhart and her husband move to Stepford, Connecticut (a fictional place).  Upon arrival, Joanna and spouse (I can’t remember his name, so we will call him Ed) notice that all the woman are gorgeous, the homes are immaculate, and the woman are all perfectly submissive to their husbands (how boring would that be??). As time passes, Joanna becomes suspicious of the zombie-like actions of all the wives.

She and her friend Bobbie (until Bobbie turns zombie-like) research the past of the Stepford citizens and discover that most of the wives were past, successful business women and feminists, yet become zombie-like.  At one point, they even write to the EPA inquiring as to possible contamination in Stepford.

After Bobbie turns zombie-like, Joanna fears that the women are changed into robots.  She decides to flee Stepford, but is caught and is changed into a robot.  The books concludes with Joanna happily and submissively walking the grocery store with a large smile and robotic movements, and another wife moving into Stepford.

That book coined the word “Stepford” to mean someone acting as a robot, submissive, or blissfully following orders.

I am not saying that the DMA certification was conducted as a Stepword wife…I am merely explaining that I was reminded of “The Stepford Wives” when I read the certification.  Maybe there is no analogy to be made…you decide.

Upon quick review of the certification, a number of questions arise in my mind.  Such as…didn’t anyone proofread this??? Under each graph, it states “Data is based on a statistical sample of Medicaid claims processed between February and May of 2013 for each LME-MCO.”  Data is???

Hello!…It is data ARE, not data is!!  Data are; datum is.

Besides the obvious grammar issue, I am concerned with the actual substance of the certification. 

Nothing is defined. (Not surprising for an entity that doesn’t know data are plural).  Except “compliant” is defined on the last page as “A finding of  “compliant” means that HMS found that the LME-MCO was compliant with the requirements set forth in SB 208.”  That is like saying, “Beautiful is hereby defined as whatever I say is beautiful.”  That is not a definition.

And HMS? HMS, as in, the company North Carolina hired as a Medicaid recovery audit contractor (RAC)?  I do not know if HMS the RAC and HMS the credentialing company is the same company…but the names sure are similar.

Speaking of RACs, going back to the basis of the data…”a statistical sample?” (Which is not defined?)  What is a statistical sample?  Is this a statistical sample like Public Consulting Group’s (PCG) in extrapolation audits?  From where does the sample come?

Looking at the timeliness of provider payments, the lowest percentage is CoastalCare.  At 93.06%.  But what does that mean?  That CoastalCare takes longer than 30 days to pay providers in 6.94% of cases?  And what is noncompliance?  80%? 20%?  Because where I went to school, a 93% is a ‘B.’ Yet 93%, here, is “compliant.”  Does “compliant” mean not failing?

What is “claims processing accuracy?”  Does that mean that ECBH was 100% correct in processing (or not processing) claims based on medical necessity (or failure to meet medical necessity)?  or, merely, that the process by which ECBH processes claims (regardless of whether the process abides by clinical policy), does not deviate; therefore ECBH is 100% compliant?

How does one determine 100% compliance?  Does this certification mean that between February and May 2013, Sandhills paid 100% providers timely.  That for 4 months, Sandhills was not late for even one provider?  Because Sandhills had 100% in relation to timely provider payments.  (Personally, I would be extremely hesitant to attest for any entity achieving 100% compliance.  How easy would that be to disprove?? A journalist finds one mistake and the certification loses all credibility).

The next chart demonstrates the MCO’s solvency.

Solvency

I have to admit…this chart makes very little sense to me.  The only information we get is that greater than 1.0 equals compliance.  If you ask me, being greater than 1 seems like a very low bar.

But, if greater than 1 equals compliance, then, applying Logic 101, the higher the number the more solvent.  I could be wrong, but this makes sense to me.

Using that logic, in February MeckLINK was N/A (not “live” yet).  March: 1.32.  April: 1.54. May: 1.80.  Tell if I’m wrong, folks, but it appears to me that MeckLINK, according to HMS and unknown data, that MeckLINK is becoming more solvent as the months pass.

And this is the same MCO that WFAE cited was using accounting tricks to remain in the black????

And the same MCO that, come March 1, 2014, must be acquired by another MCO?  And then there were 9

Under the chart demonstrating the “Solvency Review,” it states, “Data is (sic) base don financial information…”  Duh!! I thought we’d review employee personnel records to determine solvency!! (Although…that could be helpful because we could see employee salaries…I’m just saying…).

What the certification does not say is financial information from whom?  The MCOs? 

Secretary Wos: “Hey, Alliance, are you solvent?”
Alliance: “Yes, Secretary.”
Secretary Wos:  “Oh, thank goodness! I wouldn’t know what to do if you were not!!”

Going back to the finding of compliance means HMS determined compliance…Does that mean that HMS compiled all the data?  What about the intradepartmental monitoring team?  Does the intradepartmental monitoring team just authorize whatever HMS says it finds?  Almost…Stepford-like.

The letter from Steckel showing DMA’s attestation of all 10 MCOs being appropriate for certification says just that…DMA is attesting that all 10 MCOs are appropriate for certification.  No analysis.  No individual thinking.  Almost…Stepford-like.

Then the letter from Sec. Wos to Louis Pate, Nelson Dollar, and Justin Burr (legislatures) regurgitates Steckel’s letter.  Except Wos’ letter says “I hereby certify that the following LME-MCOs are in compliance with the requirements of NC Gen. Stat 122C-124.2(b).”

Again, no analysis.  No independent thinking.  Steckel’s letter is dated July 31, 2013; Sec. Wos’ letter is dated July 31, 2013.  Wos did not even take ONE DAY to verify Steckel’s letter.

Zombie-like.

Stepford-like.

What good is a statute requiring DHHS to certify the MCOs every 6 months if each certification is attested to by a Stepford??

The NC Medicaid Mental Health 10-Ring Circus: How 10 Mini-Jurisdictions Will Be the Downfall of Mental Health

Ever been to a three-ring circus? It is hard to stay focused on one ring because so much is happening in all 3 rings.  Are you supposed to watch the lion-tamer? The trapeze artists? Or the motorcycles jumping through rings of fire? You can’t watch all the acts.  You end up turning your head back and forth like a water sprinkler, only to catch some of each act.

Now imagine a 10-ring circus.

You wouldn’t be able to see much of any act.

This is similar to our NC Medicaid mental health system.  Instead of the one single state entity running our mental health system for Medicaid, we have 10 entities.  And all 10 entities have different rules.  Different Medicaid rates.  (Not to mention this is in violation of the federal “single state agency” mandate).

So what is the effect of these 10 mini-jurisdictions with different rules on our Medicaid mental health system?

Providers are going out of business.  Medicaid recipients are not receiving medically necessary, mental health services.

While the dancing bears, the fire-eaters and the acrobats are all performing, the ringmaster loses control.

Yesterday a psychologist-friend (We will call her Dr. Liz) told me that a mother called her asking whether Dr. Liz could see her child.  Dr. Liz soon learned that the mother and the child were on Medicaid.  Dr. Liz agreed to assess the child, but sadly informed the mother that it was highly unlikely that Dr. Liz could provide therapy for the child because the child is on Medicaid.

The mother burst into tears.  She explained that she lives in Fayetteville.  (Dr. Liz provides services in Durham).  One and a half hours away.  The mother said that Dr. Liz was the 30th provider she called.

29 providers either refused to see the child or had waiting lists months and months long because the child is on Medicaid.

The mother explained that the psychologist the child had routinely seen went out of business and that she did not understand why there were no psychologists within an hour and a half drive of her that were willing or able to provide services to her child.

She cried, “Why won’t anyone take Medicaid?”

When Dr. Liz told me this story, I was deeply saddened.  Yet this is reality.

Dr. Liz could not provide services to the child because, despite the fact that Dr. Liz has a Medicaid contract with the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to provide Medicaid services throughout North Carolina, one managed care organization (MCO), Alliance Behavioral Health (Alliance), has decided that Dr. Liz cannot provide services in Durham County (where Dr. Liz is located).

We have 11 MCOs across North Carolina.

MCO map

Although after September 30, 2013, we will have 10 MCOs.  After Sept. 30, Western Highlands will be consolidated with Smoky Mountain, and Smoky Mountain will oversee management of mental health services for 23 western North Carolina counties.

So I will use 10 MCOs in this blog as there will be 10 within a few weeks.  BTW: There is also a lot of talk that MeckLINK will soon be the next MCO to disappear, but we shall see.

So how are these 10 MCO creating mini-jurisdictions? And why are these mini-jurisdictions causing the downfall of NC Medicaid mental health?

Let me explain:

Dr. Liz lives and works in Durham county.  Alliance is the MCO.  Alliance has refused to provide Dr. Liz with a Medicaid contract.  Therefore, Dr. Liz is not allowed to provide Medicaid services in Wake, Durham, Cumberland, or Johnston counties, because Alliance is in charge of those counties.

However, if Dr. Liz drives over to Fuquay Varina (Harnett county), Dr. Liz CAN provide Medicaid services there because Sandhills, the MCO for Harnett county, contracted with Dr. Liz.

Do you see the issue?

In essence, by Alliance not contracting with Dr. Liz, Alliance has taken Dr. Liz’s Medicaid contract with DHHS and torn a chunk out of it.  Dr. Liz’s contract with DHHS states she can provide services statewide.  But Alliance removed Dr. Liz’s ability to provide services in 4 counties, Wake, Cumberland, Durham and Johnston.  Since Dr. Liz could, theoretically, provide services in 96 other counties, Alliance removed a small chunk of Dr. Liz’s contract with DHHS…but still a chunk nonetheless.

If Dr. Liz ONLY provided services within Alliance’s catchment, then Alliance, by refusing to contract with Dr. Liz, would have either (1) put Dr. Liz out of business; (2) caused Dr. Liz to no longer accept Medicaid; or (3) forced Dr. Liz to relocate.

As all 10 MCOs are managing Medicaid differently, one provider could be allowed to provide Medicaid services in half the state, but not the other half.

While, theoretically, on paper, it may seem easy to tell Dr. Liz to just relocate her practice to Fuquay Varina, in reality, this is much more difficult.

Dr. Liz signed a 5-year lease for her building in Durham, and she is only in her first year (she just renewed it) of the lease.  She also has a daughter who attends school nearby her office.  Were Dr. Liz to move her office, she would no longer be able to transport her daughter to school.  Her clients cannot drive to Fuquay.  Most of her Medicaid clients lack transportation or the funds to pay for gas to drive 30 minutes further.  She has no clients in Fuquay.  She has no staff in Fuquay.  Her staff will not follow her to Fuquay; they all live in Durham. 

Dr. Liz does not have monetary ability to go lease another building in Fuquay.  But she is unable to perform her work where she is located now in Durham.

So what happens?

More times than not…the provider’s company goes bankrupt.  Which is why the mother cannot find services for her child in Fayetteville.  Many providers in Fayetteville and across NC have gone belly up.  The few remaining providers are either limiting the number of Medicaid patients they will accept or have long waiting lists.

Not only do the MCOs determine the providers with whom to contract differently, the MCOs even reimburse certain Medicaid services differently.

Assertive Community Treatment Team (ACTT) is a 24-hour service for the severely mentally ill.  All 10 MCOs must provide ACTT services, but the MCOs do not have to reimburse uniformly.

Therefore, if Dr. Liz were to provide ACTT services in the western part of the state, Dr. Liz may receive $295.32 per unit.  But if Dr. Liz provided the services in southern NC, she may have been reimbursed $323.98 per unit.

This Medicaid reimbursement rate changing depending on which MCO is paying would be like a Chatham county DMV charging $25 to renew your license, but a Mecklenburg county DMV charging $75.  It is a North Carolina state license!  The price to renew should be statewide.

Just like Medicaid should be uniform across the state. 

But, instead, here in NC, we have created 10 mini-jurisdictions.

In each of the 10 mini-jurisdictions, the MCO dictate the rules.  In each of the 10 MCOs, the rules are different.  Each MCO can choose to contract with a provider (or not) with zero regard as to the effect on the provider, the provider’s company, and the Medicaid recipients.  The MCOs can reimburse the same Medicaid services at different rates.

The dancing bears, the fire-eater, and the acrobats are all charging different entrance fees, depending on which entrance you entered.  (And we all know that a dancing bear should not be in charge of entrance fees!) 

The ringmaster is sleeping.

There is no uniformity in Medicaid mental health in NC. 

It is a 10-ring circus!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Me?

You?

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

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

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

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

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

I do not know.

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

Other legislative entities have done this.

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

NM legislature

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

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

Then…

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

Then…

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

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

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

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

Mecklenburg county

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

See article.

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

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

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

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

DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY!!

Let our elected officials know that:

There is NOT statewide consistency with the MCOs. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sandhills Center Marketing Closed Providers? Where is the Supervision?

A lady telephoned me today.  We will call her Dannae (because her name actually is Dannae, and she gave me permission to use her name).  Dannae used to have a company, Three-D’s Forever, Inc. d/b/a Step Down Group Home. 

Dannae used to manage a group home for mentally ill teens in the Sandhills catchment area.  Sandhills Center is one of our 11 (soon to be 10) MCOs and serves 8 counties: Anson, Harnett, Hoke, Lee, Montgomery, Moore, Randolph and Richmond. The eight county catchment area has a population of approximately 556,000 individuals.

From the time Sandhills Center (Sandhills) went “live” (contract effective date December 1, 2012, and “live” effective date April 1, 2013) until the day her company closed, May 3, 2013, Dannae and Step Down had difficulty dealing with Sandhills.

Throughout January 2013, Sandhills informed Dannae that forms were missing from the application; on or about February 8, 2013, Sandhills conducted a safety, site-visit check.  On or about February 17, 2013, Dannae received a letter from Sandhills saying the site visit was fine.

April 1, 2013, came and went and Step Down still did not have a contract with Sandhills.  She was told by Sandhills that everything had been approved and Step Down was on the list for approval.  Yet, Step Down had consumers in Sandhills catchment area with no Medicaid contract.  Numerous communications went back and forth. 

April 24, 2013, Sandhills contacted Step Down saying that it had been approved and a contract would follow.  But still…no signed contract.

Two check periods passed with no Medicaid reimbursements paid to Step Down.

The last contact from Sandhills was April 24, 2013, saying Step Down was approved.

Step Down was forced to close its doors May 3, 2013.

May.  It is mid-August.

Sadly, Dannae is now unemployed. Prior to May 3, 2013, she contributed to society.  She ran a business.  She helped Medicaid recipients.  Now, because of Sandhills and the bumpy (to say the least) transition to Sandhills, Dannae’s company is nonexistent.

Yet, I googled Sandhills’ Medicaid providers today.  An amazingly, long list of Medicaid providers is on Sandhills’ website as “Current Medicaid…Provider List.”  Here is the page in which I was interested:

Sandhill

I know. The print is small. But click on the picture and you can enlarge it. See Three D’s Forever, Inc d/b/a Step Down?

This is a list of Medicaid providers in the Sandhills catchment area that I pulled from today, August 19, 2013.  Three and 1/2 months after Step Down was forced to close, Sandhills still lists Step Down as a Medicaid provider.

Dannae told me that Medicaid recipients/guardians are still calling her for mental health care appointments because of Sandhills list of “current” providers.

Who is supervising Sandhills’ marketing of closed providers? Who is to say that Three D’s Forever, Inc. d/b.a Step Down is the only closed provider on Sandhill’s list?

Who is ensuring that Medicaid recipients have adequate access to mental health care?

Apparently not Sandhills, which, apparently, does not even know that Step Down is out of business.  Surely, not the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), because after the MCOs went live, DHHS cannot even track mental health services.  DHHS has no idea who is getting or not getting services.  The providers certainly cannot ensure adequate access.  Once the providers go out of business, the owners are concerned about their own monetary situations (and understandably).

This leaves the Medicaid recipients’ guardians, if applicable, who pull up the Sandhills current Medicaid provider list and start calling around.  They call Step Down only to be told Step Down is closed. 

How many other providers on Sandhills’ list are closed? Or no longer accepting Medicaid?

Wasn’t Sandhills contracted to manage behavioral health Medicaid care in 8 counties?

Then how can Sandhills be oblivious to the fact that a provider on its “Current Medicaid…Provider List” is closed?

As for Dannae, whether Sandhills is managing Medicaid behavioral health car within 8 counties adequately enough is a non-issue.  Her company is closed.  

She is just another victim of State non-oversight.