Blog Archives

Medicaid Forecast: Cloudy with 100% Chance of Trump

Regardless how you voted, regardless whether you “accept” Trump as your president, and regardless with which party you are affiliated, we have a new President. And with a new President comes a new administration. Republicans have been vocal about repealing Obamacare, and, now, with a Republican majority in Congress and President, changes appear inevitable. But what changes?

What are Trump’s and our legislature’s stance on Medicaid? What could our future health care be? (BTW: if you do not believe that Medicaid funding and costs impact all healthcare, then please read blog – and understand that your hard-working tax dollars are the source of our Medicaid funding).

WHAT IS OUR HEALTHCARE’S FORECAST?

The following are my forecasted amendments for Medicaid:

  1. Medicaid block grants to states

Trump has indicated multiple times that he wants to put a cap on Medicaid expenses flowing from the federal government to the states. I foresee either a block grant (a fixed annual amount per state) or a per capita cap (fixed dollar per beneficiary) being implemented.

What would this mean to Medicaid?

First, remember that Medicaid is an entitlement program, which means that anyone who qualifies for Medicaid has a right to Medicaid. Currently, the federal government pays a percentage of a state’s cost of Medicaid, usually between 60-70%. North Carolina, for example, receives 66.2% of its Medicaid spending from Uncle Sam, which equals $8,922,363,531.

While California receives only 62.5% of its Medicaid spending from the federal government, the amount that it receives far surpasses NC’s share – $53,436,580,402.

The federal funding is open-ended (not a fixed a mount) and can inflate throughout the year, but, in return, the states are required to cover certain health care services for certain demographics; e.g., pregnant women who meet income criteria, children, etc. With a block grant or per capita cap, the states would have authority to decide who qualifies and for what services. In other words, the money would not be entwined with a duty that the state cover certain individuals or services.

Opponents to block grants claim that states may opt to cap Medicaid enrollment, which would cause some eligible Medicaid recipients to not get coverage.

On the other hand, proponents of per capita caps, opine that this could result in more money for a state, depending on the number of Medicaid eligible residents.

2. Medicaid Waivers

The past administration was relatively conservative when it came to Medicaid Waivers through CMS. States that want to contract with private entities to manage Medicaid, such as managed care organizations (MCOs), are required to obtain a Waiver from CMS, which waives the “single state entity” requirement. 42 CFR 431.10. See blog.

This administration has indicated that it is more open to granting Waivers to allow private entities to participate in Medicaid.

There has also been foreshadowing of possible beneficiary work requirements and premiums.Montana has already implemented job training components for Medicaid beneficiaries. However, federal officials from the past administration instructed Montana that the work component could not  be mandatory, so it is voluntary. Montana also expanded its Medicaid in 2015, under a Republican governor. At least for one Medicaid recipient, Ruth McCafferty, 53, the voluntary job training was Godsend. She was unemployed with three children at home. The Medicaid job program paid for her to participate in “a free online training to become a mortgage broker. The State even paid for her 400-mile roundtrip to Helena to take the certification exam. And now they’re paying part of her salary at a local business as part of an apprenticeship to make her easier to hire.” See article.

The current administration may be more apt to allow mandatory work requirements or job training for Medicaid recipients.

3. Disproportionate Share Hospital

When the ACA was implemented, hospitals were at the negotiating table. With promises from the past administration, hospitals agreed to take a cut on DSH payments, which are paid to hospitals to help offset the care of uninsured and Medicaid patients. The ACA’s DSH cut is scheduled to go into effect FY 2018 with a $2 billion reduction. It is scheduled to continue to reduce until FY 2025 with a $8 billion reduction. The reason for this deduction was that the ACA would create health coverage for more people and with Medicaid expansion there would be less uninsured.

If the ACA is repealed, our lawmakers need to remember that DSH payments are scheduled to decrease next year. This could have a dramatic impact on our hospitals. Last year, approximately 1/2 of our hospitals received DSH. In 2014, Medicaid paid approximately $18 billion for DSH payments, so the proposed reductions make up a high percentage of DSH payments.

4. Physician payment predictability

Unlike the hospitals, physicians got the metaphoric shaft when the ACA was implemented. Many doctors were forced to provide services to patients, even when those patients were not covered by a health plan. Many physicians had to  increase the types of insurance they would accept, which increased their administrative costs and the burden.

This go-around, physicians may have the ear of the HHS Secretary-nominee, Tom Price, who is an orthopedic surgeon. Dr. Price has argued for higher reimbursement rates for doctors and more autonomy. Regardless, reimburse rate predictability may stabilize.

CEO of Cardinal Gets a Raise – With Our Tax Dollars!

You could hear the outrage in the voices of some of the NC legislators (finally, for the love of God – our General Assembly has taken the blinders off their eyes regarding the MCOs) at the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee on Medicaid and NC Health Choice on Tuesday, December 6, 2016, when Cardinal Innovations‘, a NC managed care organization (MCO) that manages our Medicaid behavioral health care in its catchment area, CEO, Richard Topping, stated that his salary was raised this year from $400,000 to $635,000with our tax dollars. (Whoa – totally understand if you have to read that sentence multiple times; it was extraordinarily complex).

Senator Tommy Tucker (R-Waxhaw) was especially incensed. He said, “I received minutes from your board, Sept. 16 of 2016, they made that motion, that your 2017 comp package, they raised your salary from $400,000 to $635,000, they gave you a 0 to 30 percent bonus potential which could be roughly another $250,000 and also you have some sort of annuity or long-term package of $412,000,” said Sen. Tommy Tucker.

FINALLY!!! Not the first time that I have blogged about the mismanagement (my word) of our tax dollars. See blog. And blog.

Sen. Tucker was not alone.

Representative Dollar was also concerned. But even more surprising than our legislators stepping up to the plate and holding an MCO accountable (MCOs have expensive lobbyists – with our tax dollars), the State’s Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Secretary Rick Brajer was visibly infuriated. He spoke sharply and interrogated Topping as to his acute income increase, as well as the benefits attached.

As a health care blogger, I receive so many emails from blog readers, including parents of disabled children, who are not receiving the medically necessary Medicaid behavioral health care services for their developmentally disabled children. MCOs are denying medically necessary services. MCOs are terminating qualified health care providers. MCOs are putting access to care at issue. BTW – even if the MCOs only terminated 1 provider and stopped 1 Medicaid recipient from receiving behavioral health care services from their provider of choice, that MCO would be in violation of federal law access to care regulations.  But, MCOs are terminating multiple – maybe hundreds – of health care providers. MCOs are nickeling and diming health care providers. Yet, CEO Topping will reap $635,000+ as a salary.

The MCOs, including Cardinal, do not have assets except for our tax dollars. They are not incorporated. They are not private entities. They are extensions of our “single state agency” DHHS. The MCOs step into the shoes of DHHS. The MCOs are state agencies. The MCOs are paid with our tax dollars. Our tax dollars should be used (and are budgeted) to provide Medicaid behavioral health care services for our most needy and to be paid to those health care providers, who still accept Medicaid and provide services to our most vulnerable population. News alert – These providers who render behavioral health care services to Medicaid recipients do not make $635,000/year, or anywhere even close. The reimbursement rates for Medicaid is paltry, at best. Toppings should be embarrassed for even accepting a $635,000 salary. The money, instead, should go to increasing the reimbursements rates – or maintaining a provider network without terminating providers ad nauseum. Or providing medically necessary services to Medicaid recipients.

Rest assured, Cardinal is not the only MCO lining the pockets of its executives. While both Trillium and Alliance, other MCOs, pay their CEOs under $200,000 (still nothing to sneeze at). Alliance, however, throws its tax dollars at private, legal counsel. No in-house counsel for Alliance! Oh, no! Alliance hires expensive, private counsel to defend its actions. Another way our tax dollars are at work. And – my question – why in the world does Alliance, or any other MCO, need to hire legal counsel? Our State has perfectly competent attorneys at our Attorney General’s office, who are on salary to defend the state, and its agencies, for any issue. The MCOs stand in the shoes of the State when it comes to Medicaid for behavioral health. The MCOs should utilize the attorneys the State already employs – not a high-dollar, private law firm. These are our tax dollars!

There have been few times that I have praised DHHS in my blogs. I will readily admit that I am harsh on DHHS’ actions/nonactions with our tax dollars. And I am now not recanting any of my prior opinions. But, last Tuesday, Sec. Brajer held Toppings feet to the fire. Thank you, Brajer, for realizing the horror of an MCO CEO earning $635,000/year while our most needy population goes under-served, and, sometimes not served at all, with medically necessary behavioral health care services.

What is deeply concerning is that if Sec. Brajer is this troubled by actions by the MCOs, or, at least, Cardinal, why can he not DO SOMETHING?? Where is the supervision of the MCOs by DHHS? I’ve read the contracts between the MCOs and DHHS. DHHS is the supervising entity over the MCOs. Our Waiver to the federal government promises that DHHS will supervise the MCOs.

If the Secretary of DHHS cannot control the MCOs, who can?

Another Win for Gordon & Rees! Judge Finds NM HSD Arbitrary, Capricious, and Not Otherwise in Accordance of Law! And JUSTICE PREVAILS!

For those of you who have followed my blog for a while, you understand the injustices that occurred in New Mexico against 15 behavioral health care providers in 2013. For those of you who do not recall, for background, see blog, and blog and blog. These 15 agencies comprised 87% of NM behavioral health care services. And they were all shut down by immediate suspensions of reimbursements on June 23, 2013, collectively.

My team (Robert Shaw, Special Counsel, and Todd Yoho, Master Paralegal) and I worked our “behinds off” in these two New Mexico administrative hearings that have so far been held. The first was for The Counseling Center (TCC) headed up by Jim Kerlin (seen below). And our decision was finally rendered this past Friday!

jimkerlin

BTW: It is officially Jim Kerlin day in Otero county, NM, on June 11th.

The second hearing, which appeal is still pending, was for Easter Seals El Mirador, headed up by Mark Johnson and Patsy Romero. Both companies are outstanding entities and we have been blessed to work with both. Over the last 20-30 years, both companies have served the New Mexican Medicaid population by providing mental health, developmentally disabled, and substance abuse services to those most in need.

After both companies were accused of committing Medicaid fraud, and, while, subsequently, the Attorney General’s office in NM found no indications of fraud, both companies were told that they owed overpayments to HSD. We filed Petitions for Contested Cases. We disagreed.

NM HSD based its decision that all 15 behavioral health care companies were guilty of credible allegations of fraud based on an audit conducted by Public Consultant Group (PCG). While I have seen the imperfections of PCG’s auditing skills, in this case, PCG found no credible allegations of fraud. HSD, nonetheless, took it upon itself to discard PCG’s audit and find credible allegations of fraud.

These cases were brought in administrative court. For those who do not know, administrative court is a quasi-judicial court, which is specially carved out from our state and federal civil courts. In NC, our Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) is the administrative court in which health care providers and Medicaid recipients seek relief from adverse agency actions. Similarly, NM also has an administrative court system. The administrative court system is actually a part of the executive branch; the Governor of the State appoints the administrative law judges (ALJs).

However, 42 CFR 431.10 mandates that each state designate a single state entity to manage Medicaid. In NM, that single state agency is Human Services Department (HSD); in NC, it is the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) (for now).

42 CFR 431.10 states that if the single state agency delegates authority to another entity, that other entity cannot “have the authority to change or disapprove any administrative decision of that agency, or otherwise substitute their judgment for that of the Medicaid agency with respect to the application of policies, rules, and regulations issued by the Medicaid agency.”

If an ALJ is deciding an issue with Medicaid, then her or she would be substituting his or her judgment for that of the Medicaid agency with respect to the application of policies, rules, and regulations issued by the Medicaid agency.

This is why, in NC, prior to 2013, our ALJs could only make a Recommendation, not an Order or Decision. See blog. In 2013, NC was granted a Waiver to the single state agency mandate allowing ALJs to render decisions on behalf of Medicaid.

In New Mexico, however, there has been no such Waiver. Thus, the ALJ only recommends a decision. In NC, our ALJs are appointed and are independent of DHHS. Juxtapose, in NM, the ALJ answers to the single state entity AND only issues a recommendation, which the agency may accept or reject.

Needless to say, in TCC v. HSD, the ALJ ruled against us. And HSD accepted the recommended decision. We appealed to Superior Court with a Petition for Judicial Review.

Judges in Superior Courts are not employed by their single state agencies. I have found, generally, that Superior Court judges truly try to follow the law. (In my opinion, so do ALJs who do not have to answer to the single state agency, like in NC).

This past Friday, October 23, 2015, Judge Francis Matthew, issued a Decision REVERSING HSD’s decision that TCC owed any money and ordered all funds being withheld to be released. Here are a couple quotes:

arbitrary

reversed

Special Counsel, Robert Shaw, our paralegal, Todd Yoho, our local counsel Bryan Davis, and I are beyond ecstatic with the result. Robert and I worked weeks upon weeks of 12-16 hour days for this case.

I remember the night before the 1st day of trial, local counsel encountered an unexpected printing problem. I had just flown into New Mexico and Robert Shaw was on his way, but his flight was delayed. Robert got to the hotel in Santa Fe at approximately 7 pm New Mexico time, which was 10 pm eastern time.

It’s 7:00 pm the evening before the trial…and we have no exhibits.

Robert went to the nearby Kinko’s and printed off all the exhibits and organized the binders until 2:00 am, 5:00 am eastern time. During which time I was preparing opening statement, direct examinations, and cross examinations (although I went to bed way before 2:00 am).

Regardless, Robert was dressed, clean-shaven, and ready to go the next day at 9:00 am with the exhibits (of which there were approximately 10 bankers’ boxes filled).

The trial lasted all week. Every day we would attend trial 9:00-5:00. After each day concluded, our evenings of preparation for the next day began.

I am not telling you all this for admiration, consternation, or any other reason except to shed some light as to our absolutely unbridled joy when, on Friday, October 23, 2015, Bryan Davis emailed us the Order that says that HSD’s decision “is REVERSED in its entirety…”

See the article in The Santa Fe New Mexican.

We hope this sets good precedent for Easter Seals El Mirador and the other 13 behavioral health care agencies harmed by HSD’s allegations of fraud in 2013.

42 CFR 455.23 mandates a state to suspend reimbursements for a provider upon “credible allegations of fraud.” Obviously, this is an extreme measure that will undoubtedly put that accused provider out of business without due process. BTW: the “credible” allegation can be non-credible. It does not matter. See blog. 42 CFR 455.23 is the modern day guillotine for health care providers.

Which leads me to say…It is my sincere hope, that, going forward, state agencies realize the magnitude of implementing measures mandated by 42 CFR 455.23. Instead of wielding the power willy-nilly, it is imperative to conduct a good faith investigation prior to the accusation.

And, certainly, do not conduct an investigation, discard the results, and accuse 87% of your behavioral health care providers in your state. Think of the recipients!! The employees!! And all the families affected!!

New Mexico Senator Proposes Forefront State Legislation to Provide Due Process to Providers Accused of Fraud (Oh, And Here Are Some NC Election Results)

Whew…the election is over.  No more political ads, emails, and other propaganda… Ok, so we have our new elected officials, now our new elected officials need to pass some new legislation protecting providers when it comes to “noncredible allegations of fraud.”

Due Process…It’s such a fundamental part of our society that we rarely think about due process on a day-to-day basis. Not until due process is violated, do we usually contemplate it.

However, when it comes to credible allegations of fraud against a health care provider who accepts Medicaid or Medicare, the federal government, arguably, dropped the ball. The federal regulations instruct the states to “afford due process,” but fail to instruct how. 42 CFR 455.23. Which leaves the due process component in the states’ hands.

To begin with, the standard for a credible allegation of fraud is excruciatingly low. I mean, LOW. The bar has been set so low that an ant would probably climb over the bar rather than walk beneath it. See my past blogs: “New Mexico Affords No Due Process Based on a PCG Audit.”and   “NC Medicaid Providers: “Credible Allegations of Fraud?” YOU ARE GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT!!”  For example, a disgruntled employee or a competitor can draft an anonymous letter without a signature and without a return address, send it to the single state entity, and all your reimbursements could be suspended without any notice to you.

Senator Mary Kay Papen of New Mexico and her team have drafted a fantastic proposed state bill which would provide safeguards for health care providers’ due process while still allowing the state to investigate Medicaid fraud. I mean, let’s face it, we want to catch Medicaid fraud, but we don’t all live in Florida…or New York. 🙂 Fraud is much more infrequent than people imagine compared to the overreaching ability of the single state agencies to suspend innocent providers’ reimbursements.

I had the privilege of flying out to New Mexico a week or so ago to testify before a subcommittee of the legislature about my opinion of Senator Papen’s proposed bill.

Little known fact about New Mexico: The New Mexico legislature is the only unpaid legislature in the country. I had no idea. To which, I said, which I believed was a logical statement, “why doesn’t the legislature pass a bill that creates salaries for members of the legislature?” I was told that no bill providing salaries to members of legislature would ever be signed by the governor (no specific governor, I believe, but, any governor) because the status of governor is so important/powerful in New Mexico due to the less powerful legislature. In other words, supposedly, no governor would sign a bill instituting salaries for members of legislature because the governor would be fearful to lose power. (I do not know the validity of this conjecture, but I do find it interesting).

Going back to the proposed bill…

For starters, the proposed bill re-defines “credible allegation of fraud.” Instead of the current federal statute, which holds an allegation credible if it is merely uttered aloud, the proposed bill states that a credible allegation of fraud is credible only after the single state entity:

1. Considers the totality of the facts and circumstances;
2. Conducts a careful review of the facts, evidence, and facts; and
3. Determines that sufficient indicia of reliability exist to justify a reason to refer the provider to the Attorney General (AG) for further investigation.

The proposed bill also forbids extrapolation as to alleged overpayments.

Further, the proposed bill forbids the state agency from suspending payments until certain safety procedures are met. For example, all appeals and administrative remedies must be exhausted, and the bill allows the provider to post a bond in order to keep receiving reimbursements.

It also allows a provider to receive injunctive relief against the agency in order to continue receiving reimbursements.

And, my favorite part, states that a judge may award attorney’s fees if it shown that the agency substantially prejudiced the provider’s rights and acted arbitrarily and capriciously. Obviously, the attorneys’ fees are not a given; the provider would need to show that the state, somehow, acted, for example, without enough evidence or failed to provide due process.

Senator Papen’s proposed bill is just that…a proposed bill.  But, it is a start in the right direction.  If, in fact, the federal government placed the burden on the states to implement due process in situations in which there are allegations of fraud, then the states need to act.  Because, right now, when there is noncredible allegation of fraud, the state has the ability, and is using this ability in many states, to completely shut down providers.  In essence, an allegation of fraud becomes the death of a company…no reimbursements, no income, no payroll, terminate staff, cease paying bills, file for bankruptcy.

The End.

I encourage more states to review Senator Papen’s proposed bill and propose similar bills in other states.

And for you politicians…the best part? At least, in New Mexico, the bill appeared to be supported by a non-partisan group.

BTW, in case you are interested, here are the changes to our General Assembly and Congress after Tuesday’s election: (brought to you by Tracy Colvard, Vice President of Government Relations and Public Policy for AHHC).

The Numbers

North Carolina Legislature

  • Republicans in N.C. House (2015-16): 74
  • Number needed for supermajority: 72
  • Democrats in N.C. House (2015-16): 46
  • Change from 2013-2014: +3 DEM
  • New faces in House: 15
  • Incumbents defeated: 4
  • Republicans in N.C. Senate (2015-16): 34
  • Number needed for supermajority: 30
  • Democrats in N.C. Senate (2015-16): 16
  • Change from 2013-2014: +1 GOP
  • New faces in Senate: 6
  • Incumbents defeated: 1

N.C. Congressional Delegation

  • Republicans in U.S. House: 10
  • Democrats in U.S. House: 3
  • Change from 2013-2014: +1 GOP
  • Republicans in U.S. Senate: 2
  • Democrats in U.S. Senate: 0
  • Change from 2013-2014: +1 (GOP)

Thanks, Tracy, for those demographics.

Now, let’s get some due process safeguards for health care providers!!!!

NC: One Head Chef in the Medicaid Kitchen is Enough!

Today the United States Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit opined that “One head chef in the Medicaid kitchen is enough.” (This may be the first time I’ve laughed out loud at a federal court’s decision due to true humor).

The case caption is K.C., a minor child by and through his mother and next friend, Africa H., M.S., a minor child Plaintiff-Intervenor v. Pamela Shipman, in her official capacity as Area Director of Piedmont Behavioral Health Care Mental Health, (and the rest of the caption…) (We will call the case “K.C. v. PBH“).

Let me set the stage:

Plaintiffs-Appellees: a class of Medicaid beneficiaries who suffer from severe developmental disabilities

Defendants-Appellants: PBH, one of 10 MCOs in the State contracted with DMA to manage behavioral health services for Medicaid recipients in certain counties

Issue: Does 42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(5), which requires Medicaid to be managed by a single state entity, prohibit PBH from appealing a district court’s entry of preliminary injunction when DMA did not join the appeal?

In the vernacular: Can PBH appeal any Medicaid issue without its “boss” or principal being a party?

Hmmmmm….maybe that was not as “in the vernacular” as I thought. Let me try again: Can the MCOs decide anything about Medicaid unilaterally without DMA?

I’m trying, people.

Anyway, the short answer is, “No.”

42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(5) requires Medicaid to be managed by a single state entity. The 4th District calls this requirement the “single state agency requirement.”

Why is it SO important that a single state agency manage Medicaid that the federal government dictates the same? “To avoid a lack of accountability for the appropriate operation of the program.” Hillburn v. Maher, 795 F.2d 252, 261 (2nd Cir. 1986).

Lack of accountability???? Hmmmmm…How many of my blogs have been devoted to the lack of accountability of the MCOs?

The Hillburn Court stated that, “a single state entity may not diminish[] or alter[] its Medicaid responsibilities based on the action or inaction of other state offices or agencies.”; i.e., DMA cannot divorce itself from the duties of Medicaid merely by contracting out to a private company….or, i.e., DMA is on the hook for whatever happens in Medicaid regardless the player.

As to accountability of the MCOs, here are some of my favorite quotes from K.C. v. PBH:

  • “that agency cannot evade federal requirements by deferring to the actions of other entities.”
  • “PBH is forbidden to “change or disapprove any administrative decision” made by the NCDHHS pursuant to…”
  • “If important litigation decisions made by a single state agency were not “administrative decisions” protected from challenge by another agency, the resulting inefficiency and turmoil would be profound.”
  • “The result of PBH’s interpretation would be a constant state of confusion in the litigation process in which parties (and judges) must not only attempt to argue (or decide) the merits of each case, but where they must first identify which of multiple state entities is even speaking with the state’s final authority.”
  • The single state entity requirement “prohibits precisely what PBH aims to achieve in this appeal: to place itself in the driver’s seat and call the shots on how the state’s Medicaid is to be administered in the face of a clearly contradicted decision by the NCDHHS.”

Read the last two quotes again.  To me, these quotes sound as if PBH is NOT in the driver seat, that DMA is in the driver seat, and that DMA has complete control over the Medicaid system. Maybe I’m wrong. But that’s what it sounds like to me.

It’s been a long time, but I remember my early college philosophy classes, beginning with Logic 101: PBH is not in the driver seat.  PBH is an MCO.  Thus, no MCO is in the driver seat.

K.C. v. PBH also held, “there is no dispute that PBH is an agent of the NCDHHS due to its contract…”

No dispute? In every case I have right now, the MCO (whichever MCO it is) is arguing that it is an independent contractor, not an agent.  Apparently, there is no dispute…I am right 🙂 .

PBH cannot evade a preliminary injunction that continues to run against NCDHHS.  See pages 15-16 of K.C v. PBH (This is SO not the Bluebook style of quoting sources…Sorry).

Granted this decision came out today, but I am counting the seconds until Monday when OAH opens up, so we can implement the beauty of this decision.

One head chef in the Medicaid kitchen is enough!

Proposed NC Medicaid Bill: Circumventing the State Plan?

Proposed House Bill 320 will be heard in committee on Tuesday, May 14, 2013.

For those of you who do not know what House Bill 320-2013 is, let me explain:

As of now, when a health care provider’s Medicaid contract is terminated or suspended by a Managed Care Organization (MCO), the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), not superior court, has jurisdiction over the grievance.  OAH is the administrative court set up to hear grievances against a state agency. 

When North Carolina ceased DHHS’ issuance of a Final Agency Decision after the OAH decision back toward the end of 2012, North Carolina, in essence, was handing OAH a decision-making role in Medicaid.  The reason that any entity getting a decision-making role in Medicaid is so important is because the federal statutes specifically state that Medicaid must be run by a single state entity.  The fact that OAH had a decision-making role in Medicaid would violate the single state entity requirement.

So what did NC do in order to ensure compliance with the single state entity requirement set forth by the federal government?

NC asked the federal government for a Waiver.  Or, in other words, an exception.  NC asked the federal government, “Can we have permission to allow OAH to have a decision-making role and not be in violation of the single state entity requirement?”

The federal government authorized our request, which can be found as the State Plan, Attachment 1.1D.

Our State Plan, Attachment 1.1B states:

“OAH acknowledges and also agrees that the issue to be determined at final hearings conducted in accordance with this waiver is whether the single state Medicaid agency or one of its contractors or agents exceeded its authority or jurisdiction, acted erroneously, failed to use proper procedure, acted arbitrarily or capriciously, and/or failed to act as required by law or rule; that it will conduct de novo reviews in beneficiary.”

Therefore, according to our State Plan and the federal government’s authorization, OAH hears cases involving DMA and its contractors or agents.

Yet proposed House Bill 320 states, in pertinent part (at 108D-18(d), “Notwithstanding any other law, OAH does not have jurisdiction over any dispute between an LME/MCO and a provider or applicant.”

Obviously the State Plan and the legislature are at odds.  After receiving the authorization to do something by the federal government, can NC legislate around what the feds told us to do? Seems pretty hairy.  Personally, I would go with that whole Supremacy Clause stuff.

Proposed House Bill 320 would take the decision-making role regarding Medicaid away from OAH and simply hand the superior court the authority…with zero authority from the federal government.  This is like a teenage boy asking for permission to go to Billy Bob’s house, but really sneaking out to go see Betty Lou.

Well, Betty Lou, here we come…