insightsArticles

Read this if you are a State Medicaid Director, State Medicaid Chief Information Officer, State Medicaid Project Manager, or State Procurement Officer—or if you work on a State Medicaid Enterprise System (MES) certification or modernization efforts.

You can listen to the companion podcast to this article now:

Over the last two years, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has undertaken an effort to streamline Medicaid Enterprise System (MES) certification. During this time, we have been fortunate enough to have been a trusted partner in several states working to evolve the certification process. Through this collaboration with CMS and state partners, we have been in front of recent certification trends. 

What is outcomes-based certification (OBC)? 

OBC (or streamlined modular certification) is a fascinating evolution in MES certification. OBC represents a fundamental rethinking of certification and how we measure the success of system implementation and modernization efforts. The prior certification approach, as many know it, is centrally focused on technical capability, answering the question, “Can the system perform the required functions?” 

OBC represents a shift away from this technical certification and toward business process improvement, instead answering the question, “How is this new technology enhancing the Medicaid program?” Or, put differently, “Is this new technology helping my Medicaid program achieve its desired outcomes?” 

What are the key differences between the MECT and OBC? 

To understand the differences, we have to first talk about what isn’t changing. Technical criteria still exist, but only so far as CMS is confirming compliance with core regulatory and statutory requirements—including CMS’ Standards and Conditions. That’s about the extent of the similarities. In addition to pivoting to business process improvement, we understand that CMS is looking to generalize certification under this new approach, meaning that we wouldn’t see the same Medicaid Information Technology Architecture (MITA)-tied checklists like Provider Management, or Decision Support Systems. Instead, we might expect more generalized guidance that would allow for a more tailored certification. 

Additionally, OBC introduces outcomes statements which serve as the guiding principles for certification. Everything, including the technical criteria, roll-up into an outcome statement. This type of roll up might actually feel familiar, as we see a similar structure in how Medicaid Enterprise Certification Toolkit (MECT) criteria rolled up into critical success factors. 

The biggest difference, and the one states need to understand above all else, is the use of key performance indicators (KPIs). These KPIs aren’t just point-in-time certification measures, they are expected to be reported against regularly—say, quarterly—in order to maintain enhanced funding. Additionally, it’s likely that each criterion will have an associated KPI, meaning that states will continue to be accountable to these criteria long after the Certification Final Review. 

How are KPIs developed? 

We’ve seen KPIs developed in two ways. For more strategic, high level KPIs, CMS develops a baseline set of KPIs heading into collaborating with a state on an OBC effort. In these instances, CMS has historically sought input on whether those KPIs are reasonable and can be easily reported against. CMS articulates what it wants to measure conceptually, and works with a state to ensure that the KPI achieves that within the scope of a state’s program.  

For KPIs specific to a state’s Medicaid program, CMS engages with states to draft new KPIs. In these instances, we’ve seen CMS partner with states to understand the business need for the new system, how it fits into the Medicaid enterprise, and what the desired outcome of the particular approach is. 

What should states consider as they plan for MES procurements? 

While there might be many considerations pertaining to OBC and procurements, two are integral to success. First—as CMS noted in the virtual MESC session earlier this month—engage CMS at the idea stage of a project. Experience tells us that CMS is ready and willing to collaborate with—and incorporate the needs of—states that engage at this idea stage. That early collaboration will help shape the certification path. 

Second, consider program outcomes when conceptualizing the procurement. Keep these outcomes central to base procurement language, requirements, and service level agreements. We’re likely to see the need for states to incorporate these outcomes into contracts. 

What does this mean for MES modularity and scalability? 

Based on our current understanding of the generalization of certification, states, and subsequently the industry at large, will continue to refine what modularity means based on Medicaid program needs. Scalability represents an interesting question, as we’ve seen OBC scaled horizontally across smaller, discrete business areas like pharmacy or provider management. Now we’re seeing the beginnings of vertical scaling of a more streamlined certification approach to larger components of the enterprise, such as financial management and claims processing. 

The certification landscape is seemingly changing weekly as states wait eagerly for CMS’ next guidance issuances. Please continue to check back for in-depth analyses and OBC success stories. Additionally, if you are considering an OBC effort and have questions, please contact our Medicaid Consulting team. 

Read this is you are a business owner or an advisor to business owners.

With continued uncertainty in the business environment stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic, now may be a good time to utilize trust, gift, and estate strategies in the transfer of privately held business interests. 

As discussed in our May 26, 2020 blog post 2020 estate strategies in times of uncertainty for privately held business owners, there may be opportunity to free up considerable portions of lifetime gift and estate tax exemption amounts through transfers due to suppressed values of privately held businesses, and the uncertainty surrounding the impact of the 2020 presidential election on tax rates and future exemption and exclusion thresholds. 

An element to consider when building on this opportunity is the ability to transfer non-controlling interests in a business. These interests are potentially subject to discounts for lack of control and lack of marketability. This may further reduce the overall value transferred through a given strategy, potentially offloading a larger percentage of ownership in a business while retaining large portions of the gift and estate lifetime exemption. Let’s focus on the discount for lack of control (DLOC).

Discount for lack of control

In the context of a hypothetical willing buyer and willing seller, the buyer may place a greater value on an ownership interest with the ability to make changes at their discretion, compared to an alternative ownership interest lacking control. Simply put, buyers like to be in control, and they will pay less for the investment if the interest lacks these characteristics. 

When valuing non-controlling business interests there is an inherent discount to full value recognized to reflect the fact that the subject interest does not hold a controlling position. As a result of this discount, the value of a non-controlling interest in a company will differ from the pro-rata value per share of the entire company. DLOCs alone commonly reduce the value of the transferred interest by 5% to 15%.

All else being equal, a non-controlling ownership position is less desirable (valuable) than a controlling position. This is because of the majority owner’s right to control any or all of the following activities: managing the assets or selecting agents for this purpose, controlling major business decisions, asset allocation choices, setting salary levels, admitting new investors, acquiring assets, selling the company, and declaring/paying distributions.
 
Market-based evidence of proxies for DLOCs can be found within the following subscription-based databases (including, but not limited to): 

• Control premium studies published in the Mergerstat^® Review series by FactSet Mergerstat/Business Valuation Resources
• Closed-end fund data
• The Partnership Profiles, Inc. Minority Interest Database and Executive Summary Report on Re-Sale Discounts for applicable entity types

In addition to these resources, to fully assess the degree of discount applicable to a subject interest, consider company-specific factors when estimating the DLOC. The degree of control for a subject interest may be impacted by relevant state statutes and the governing documents of the subject company. These factors are analyzed in conjunction with the current operational and financial policies established and implemented in practice by management to establish a comprehensive view on the applicable degree of discount.

Conclusion

Hypothetical business owners are knowledgeable of the facts and circumstances surrounding a business interest. They take a close look at what they are buying before they make an offer. Like most people, they like to be in charge, and are therefore generally not willing to pay the pro-rata value for a minority interest in a business when the interest lacks control. To assess an appropriate discount for lack of control, consider resources such as those referred to above, then ensure the selected discounts are appropriate based on the factors specific to the company and interest being valued. 

Our mission at BerryDunn remains constant in helping each client create, grow, and protect value. If you have questions about your unique situation, or would like more information, please contact the business valuation consulting team.

Read this if you are a home health agency (HHA).

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) proposed rule, CY2021, was published on June 30, 2020. The proposed rule indicates that the Request for Advance Payment (RAP) currently permitted will be eliminated for all 30-day home health periods beginning on or after January 1, 2021. If adopted, this proposed rule will impact the timing of cash flow for HHAs. HHAs will no longer receive an advanced payment, but rather will not be paid until approximately 45-60 days after the period of care has begun. The change in timing of the payment should be considered as part of your HHA’s cash flow forecasting.

Note: Although the RAP payment has been eliminated, HHAs will still be required to submit a zero dollar RAP bill at the beginning of each 30-day period to establish home health services. 

Also included in the proposed rule is a transition from a RAP to a Notice of Admission (NOA) in 2022. This is similar to the Notice of Election under the hospice benefit, since there will no longer be a RAP. It is proposed that HHAs would submit a one-time NOA that establishes care in place of the RAP for the patient until discharged. 

There will be a payment penalty if either the zero dollar RAP in CY2021 or NOA in 2022 is not submitted within five calendar days from the start of care. The penalty is proposed to be a payment reduction of 1/13th to the wage and case-mix adjusted 30-day period of care reimbursement for each day late until submitted, reducing the total reimbursement for patient care. HHAs should be monitoring the timeliness of RAP submissions to be prepared for this proposed change and avoid potential reimbursement reduction if this proposed rule is passed. Read the entire proposed rule.

Please contact a BerryDunn Home Health team member to assist you with evaluating the cash flow impact these proposed changes may have to your organization. 

Read this if you or your government agency may be interested in project management or a project management office.

You may think that PMO stands for Project Management Office, Program Management Office, or Portfolio Management Office, and you would be correct. However, when establishing your PMO priorities, think:
1.    P – Planning and Processes
2.    M – Motivation
3.    O – Operations

Determining where your organization will focus your efforts is fundamental to the successful functioning of the PMO, whether the PMO is well established or just getting started. With multiple competing projects and initiatives, spending some time planning and developing your PMO priorities in the short term will save you time and effort moving forward. 

According to the Project Management Institute’s (PMI’s) research, they reported that "aligning projects and strategic objectives has the greatest potential to add value to an organization.” 

The “value” here must be determined by each organization, but through establishing your PMO priorities early, you promote a culture of project management in order to gain greater experience in project management practices and personnel. This allows for more efficient processes, more focused and flexible project managers, greater scope, schedule, and budgetary control, and ultimately more successful projects implemented.

Planning and processes

The first step in establishing the priorities for your PMO requires planning and evaluating existing processes. Identifying all projects for the upcoming year is an excellent place to start. For each project or initiative, you will want to pull together information that will assist you in the prioritization process. This may include items such as type of project, expected outcomes, aligned strategic objective(s), targeted length of the project, targeted start date, funding sources, types of approvals needed, resource capacity, and risk versus reward analysis. Each organization can make the determination of what kind of information is necessary in this step to make prioritization more streamlined and specific to their current structure and processes.

As new team members enter and exit project work, there is a risk that knowledge transfer of the PMO processes get lost, or deviations in processes begin to occur. PMI notes “high-performing organizations succeed through a strategic focus on people, processes, and outcomes” and 74% of these high-performing organizations are supported by a PMO. Taking the opportunity for continuous process improvement―to review and share the PMO processes and templates with the organization on a reoccurring basis―helps to ensure consistency across programs within the organization. With consistency comes efficiency, allowing your project teams to focus on the work at hand, and not recreate processes. Consistency and efficiency will help streamline administrative activities, improve resource estimates, and increase the likelihood that projects will come in on time and on budget.

Motivation 

The second step in establishing PMO priorities is motivation. Having a working knowledge of your organization will help in this step―knowing what excites or drives them to succeed. Motivating factors may vary for different organizations. For example, if you’re a government entity, the deciding factor in priority may be a legislative mandate. Early identification of your organization’s motivating factors allows you to expedite the prioritization efforts and increase planning time for high-priority projects, including aligning resources sooner. Here are a few ideas to consider when thinking about finding what motivates people in your organization:

• Durations/meeting timeframes
• Legislation/mandates
• Strategic plans and goals
• Recognition
• Policy
• Outcomes/potential impacts
• Level of risk
• Return on Investment (ROI)

Operations

The third step in establishing PMO priorities is operations. By outlining operational aspects of the projects before establishing your PMO priorities, you can see the big picture and organizational strategy. Per PMI, organizations which “align their PMO to strategy report 38% more projects meet the original goals and business intent, while 33% fewer projects are deemed as failures.” This allows you to understand dependencies between projects, identify possible duplication or gaps, and plan for resources earlier. Below are a few examples to consider with this step:

• High-level strategy (will the work be delivered in phases or at the end of the project)
• Approximate Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs) required
• Skill level needed for the resources
• Organizational charts and reporting relationships
• Approximate cost for the project/initiative

Now that you are aware of the three steps―planning and processes, motivation, and operations, you are ready to begin establishing your PMO priorities. Evaluating all three steps helps ensure you’ve considered everything before prioritizing the work, although some items may clearly have more weight than others. There is no magic formula for establishing PMO priorities, and given the same projects, different organizations would have different priorities. One organization may define and identify project work as high, medium, or low, while another PMO may number projects, with number one being the first project to start. Either way is right. 

The important take-away is for your PMO to develop a consistent methodology as you are establishing priorities now and in the future. 

Does your organization need help establishing your PMO processes, prioritizing, or developing strategic plans? Contact our Medicaid Consulting team for more information on how we can help.

Resources cited

Project Management Institute. PMI’s Pulse of the Profession: The High Cost of Low Performance. PMI.org. Accessed July 8, 2020. https://www.pmi.org/-/media/pmi/documents/public/pdf/learning/thought-leadership/pulse/pulse-of-the-profession-2014.pdf?v=eb9b1ac0-8cad-457f-81ec-b09dbb969a38 
Project Management Institute. PMI’s Pulse of the Profession – 9th Global Project Management Survey: Success Rates Rise – Transforming the High Cost of Low Performance. PMI.org. Accessed July 8, 2020. https://www.pmi.org/-/media/pmi/documents/public/pdf/learning/thought-leadership/pulse/pulse-of-the-profession-2017.pdf 

Read this if you are a member of a State Medicaid Agency’s leadership team.

Monday’s NESCSO-hosted conversation was a breath of fresh air in our COVID-19 work-from-home experience. Seeing familiar faces presenting from their home offices reminded me that, yes, we are truly all in this together—working remotely, and focused on how best to foster an efficient and effective Medicaid program for our state clients and members. Over the past several years I have written a “Reflections” blog, summarizing the week-long MESC event while flying home. Today, I am posting my reflections on the first forum NESCSO sponsored in lieu of their August conference that was cancelled this year due to the global pandemic. Following are my major takeaways.

The main speakers were Karen Shields, Deputy Director from the Center for Medicaid and CHIP Services, and Julie Boughn, Director, Data Systems Group also for the Center for Medicaid and CHIP Services. There were several other guests that joined in this two-hour forum, some from the Data Systems Group, and some from the states.

Crisis as a learning tool

Karen Shields reinforced that we will be better and stronger as a result of the crisis that faces us, and encourages us to use the current crisis as a learning tool. She stressed the importance of how we are leveraging our creativity and innovation to keep moving forward. She said to start with the end in mind, be a team player, and keep in mind these three important points of focus for CMS:

1. Share what works, share what doesn’t. Prioritize.
2. Systems development needs to be agile. Partnership is critical. States needs to be “elbow deep” with others. Everyone is allowed to speak. 
3. Re-usability is key! Push back on those who say we cannot reuse.

During the Q&A session, Karen discussed how to maintain consistency by turning to action and using lessons learned. Resist the urge to “fall back.” Let’s keep moving forward. She underscored how they will continue the all-state calls as there are lots of topics and conversations needed to explore deficits of need. 

Support systems and policies

Julie Boughn opened by stressing what an important layer of support systems provide policies. She said COVID is not a system issue—the systems supporting the approach to address the virus are working and a big part of contributing to helping alleviate the issues the pandemic presents. She noted an appropriate quip that “Without systems, policies are just interesting ideas on pieces of paper.”

She underscored that healthcare and all that goes with supporting it is never static. The Medicaid arena is in a world of increasing change, requiring the supporting systems to adapt to make payments correctly and facilitate the provision of benefits to the right people. CMS has been focused on, and continues to bring our focus to outcomes, especially in the IT investments being made. Promote sharing and re-use of those investments.

During the Q&A, Julie reinforced the priority on outcomes and spoke to outcomes-based certification (OBC). There was a question on “What happens to modularity in the context of OBC?” She said that they are completely compatible and naturally modular, and to think about how a house can be built but not be completely done. Build the house in chunks of work, and know what you’re achieving with each “chunk”. Outcomes are behind everything we do.

Engage with your federal partners

In the next presentation, CMS modeled a dialogue that demonstrated how states can engage with their federal partners. CMS wants to continue changing the relationship they have with states. They also reminded the audience of what CMS is looking for; as Ed Dolly, the Director for the Division of State Systems within the Data and Systems Group said during the conversation, “Do you understand the problem trying to be solved?” Define your final outcome, and understand that incremental change drives value. In addition to communicating the problem, focus on speed of delivery (timeliness), and engage in back and forth exchange on what best measures can be used, as well as the abilities to capture the measures to report progress. The bottom line?  “When in doubt, reach out!”

The remainder of the forum featured representatives from the State System Technology Advisory Group (S-TAG), Private Sector Technology Group (PSTG), and Human Services Information Technology IT Advisory Group (HSITAG). They discussed a variety of IT topics.

Technology outlook

The S-TAG had representation from an impressive list of states—West Virginia, Washington, Wyoming, Vermont, and Massachusetts. They spoke to how they envision their technology response to changes in policy now and in the next 12-18 months. There was too much to present here, and I recommend reviewing the recording once NESCSO posts it. Initiatives included: Provider enrollment, electronic asset verification, electronic visit verification, integrated eligibility systems, modularity implementations, migration to the cloud, pharmacy systems, system integrator, certification, strategic planning, electronic data interchange upgrades, payment reform, road map activities, case management, care management, T-MSIS, and HITECH.

HSITAG spoke about the view across the health and human services spectrum—Where are we today? Where will we be tomorrow? COVID has tested our IT infrastructure and policy. Is there an ability to quickly scale up? Weaknesses in interoperability became exposed and while it seemed Medicaid was spared in the headlines, the need to modernize is now much more apparent. Modularity showed its value in more timely implementations. There is concern over an upcoming increase in the Medicaid population. Are we equipped for the short term?

For the long-run, where we will be “tomorrow” in the 12-18 month view, there will be a bigger dependency on the interrelations between all programs. Medicaid Enterprise Systems can and should look at whole systems, focusing on social determinants of health. Data and program integrity will be key, as the increased potential of fraud in the midst of challenging state budgets. We will need to respond quickly with limited resources.

Keep relationships strong

PSTG spoke of how when COVID hit, it caused them, like the rest of us, to modify their goals. They spoke about relationships and the importance of maintaining them with clients and colleagues, questions of productivity, what things that we have learned will we carry into the post-pandemic era, will we remain flexible, and how will we “unwind” all the related changes that will not be carried forward. Looking forward, PSTG wants to support the growing of the outcomes-based culture, evolve the state self-assessment (currently an active workgroup), and how to be less prescriptive to allow for more flexibility on “how” vendors get to solutions.

I was grateful to be able to join this event, and hear that we are in this together—we will get through it and we will keep moving forward. I felt this was a good start to what I hope will be the first of many MESC 2020 forums. The session felt like it ended too quickly even though we covered a lot of ground. I am excited about the thought of hearing about new ideas, improving our understanding of upcoming changes CMS is sponsoring, and engaging in the innovative thought that will keep us moving toward a better tomorrow. Thanks to NESCSO for sponsoring this event and bringing us together.

Please contact our Medicaid Consulting team for more information on if you have any questions.

Read this if you use, manage, or procure public safety and corrections technology.

Recently we discussed the benefits of developing a strong, succinct Request for Proposal (RFP) that attracts Offender Management Systems (OMS) vendors through a competitive solicitation. Conversely, we explored the advantages and disadvantages of leading a non-competitive solicitation. Industry standards and best practices serve as the common thread between competitive and non-competitive solicitations for standard implementations. So, how does an agency prepare to navigate the nuances and avoid the “gotchas” of a non-standard implementation in the corrections realm?

Functional areas in the corrections industry exist in an ever-evolving state. The ongoing functional area refinements serve to overcome potential gaps between standardizing organizations (e.g., CTA, APPA) and your agency’s operations. For example, CTA does not distinguish incidents from disciplines as distinct functional areas. While merging workflows for incidents and disciplines may align with one agency’s practice, your agency may not always correlate the two functions (e.g., disciplinary action might not always result from an incident). Moreover, your agency may not have a need for every functional area, such as community corrections, depending on the scale of your operation.

Your agency should view the industry standards as a guide rather than the source of truth, which helps you cultivate a less parochial approach driven solely by standards and follow instead a more pragmatic plan, comprised of your unique operations and best practices. CTA and APPA specifications alone will result in comprehensive solicitation. For that reason, agencies can enhance an OMS modernization initiative by enhancing solicitation requirements to include jurisdictional specifications resulting from interviews with end-users and policy research. 

Upcoming OMS webinar

On Thursday, November 5, our consulting team will host a webinar on navigating a solicitation for a new OMS. During the webinar, our team will revisit the benefits of an independent third-party on your solicitation and review industry standards, and will discuss:

1. Crafting requirements that address common OMS functions, as well as jurisdiction-specific functions (i.e., those that address the unique statutes of the state). Crafting requirements helps your agency to ensure a replacement system addresses core business functions, provides a modern technical infrastructure, and complies with local, state, and federal regulations.
2. Thriving with a collaborative approach when acquiring and implementing an OMS system, helping to ensure all stakeholders not only participate in the project but also buy into the critical success factors.

If you have questions about your specific situation with OMS implementations, or would like to receive more information about the webinar, please contact one of our public safety consultants.
 

Read this if you are a state Medicaid agency, state managed care office, or managed care organization (MCO). 

The COVID-19 pandemic and resulting economic downturn has led to increased Medicaid member enrollment and has placed a strain on state budgets to support Medicaid and other health and human services programs. It has also impacted traditional Medicaid utilization patterns and has challenged provider reimbursement models, forcing managed care programs and supporting MCOs to:

• rethink the control of program costs, 
• seek MCO program flexibilities to expand coverage such as telehealth, and 
• make operational changes to support their growing member populations.

Managed care opportunities

While COVID-19 has created many challenges, at the same time it has given managed care programs the opportunity to restructure their delivery of services not only during the public health emergency, but for the longer term. Flexibilities sought this year from the Centers of Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) put in place through waivers and state plan amendments have helped expand services in areas such as the delivery of COVID-19 testing, medical supplies, and behavioral health services via telehealth. 

These flexibilities have relieved the administrative burden on Medicaid programs, such as performance and reporting requirements outlined under federal law and 42 CFR §438. Although these flexibilities have helped managed care programs expand services during the pandemic, the benefits are temporary and will require MCOs to make programmatic changes to meet the demands of its population during and after the public health emergency.

A recent study by Families USA cited 38 states reporting 7% growth in member enrollment since February. As the Medicaid population continues to grow in 2020 and beyond, managed care programs have numerous opportunities to consider: 

Managing care coordination and establishing efficiencies with home- and community-based services (HCBS)

The increased risk of adverse health outcomes from COVID-19 due to older age and chronic illness, and the demands on providers and medical supplies, has forced Medicaid programs to seek waiver flexibilities to expand HCBS. As part of HCBS delivery, MCOs may focus on the sickest and most costly of their member populations to control costs and preserve quality. 

MCOs will most likely monitor cost drivers such as chronic conditions, catastrophic health events, and frequent visits to primary care providers and hospitals. MCOs have the opportunity to establish efficiencies and improve transitions across different providers and multiple conditions to better manage the over-utilization of services for members in skilled nursing facilities, and for those who receive HCBS and outpatient services.

Adjusting and monitoring Value-Based Payment (VBP) models

With the continued transition to VBP models, Medicaid programs face the challenge of added costs and adapting plan operations and services to address pandemic-related needs, chronic conditions, and comorbidities. 

Building on the latest guidance to state Medicaid directors from CMS on value-based care, Medicaid programs can look at COVID-19 impacts on provider reimbursement prior to the rollout of VBP models. Medicaid programs can continue establishing payment models that improve health outcomes, quality, and member experience. States can adjust contracts and adherence to local and state public health priorities and national quality measures to advance their VBP strategy. Managed care programs may need to consider a phased rollout of their VBP models to build buy-in from providers transitioning from traditional fee-for-services payment models, and to allow for refinements to current VBP models.

Continued stratification and the assessment of risk

By analyzing COVID-19’s impact on the quality of care and member experience, improved outcomes, and member and program costs, managed care programs can improve their population stratification methodologies factoring as population demographic analysis, social determinants of health, and health status. Adjustments to risk stratification during and after the COVID-19 pandemic will inform the development of provider networks, provider payment models, and services. Taking into account new patterns of utilization across its member population, managed care programs may need to refine their risk adjustment models to determine the sickest and most costly of their populations to project costs and improve the delivery of services and coordination of care for Medicaid members.

Telehealth

As providers transition back to their traditional structures, MCOs can continue to expand telehealth to improve service delivery and to control costs. Part of this expansion will require MCOs to balance the mentioned benefits of the telehealth model with the risk of over-utilization of telehealth services that can lead to inefficiencies and increased managed care program costs. In addition, because of the loosening of federal restrictions on telehealth, managed care programs will most likely want to update program integrity safeguards to reduce the risk of fraud, waste, and abuse in areas such as provider credentialing, personal identifiable information (PII), privacy and security protocols, member consent, patient examinations, and remote prescriptions. 

Continued focus on data improvement and encounter data quality

Encounter data quality and data improvement initiatives will be critical to successfully administer a managed care program. As encounter data drives capitation rates for MCOs, a continued focus on encounter data quality will likely enable Medicaid programs to better leverage actuarial services to establish sound and adequate managed care program rates, better aligning financial incentives and payments to their MCOs. 

States have pursued a number of flexibilities to establish a short-term framework to support their managed care programs during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the current expansion of services and the need for MCOs to rapidly identify additional areas for operational improvements during the pandemic have allowed Medicaid programs to further analyze longer-term needs of the populations they serve. These developments have also helped programs increase their range of services, to expand and manage their provider networks, and to mature their provider payment models. 

If you would like more information or have questions about opportunities for adjustments to your managed care program, please contact MedicaidConsulting@BerryDunn.com. We’re here to help.
 

Read this if you are a solar developer or investor.

One of the most frequent questions we get from solar project developers is: “Will my investors be able to use the tax credits and the depreciation losses?” The answer, as with many things related to taxes, is “it depends.” One of the biggest hurdles is navigating the passive activity loss rules. While this is a fairly complicated topic, and includes a lot more of “it depends,” we’ll hit some of the major highlights here.

Passive or active?

For tax purposes, activities are grouped as either passive or active activities. Income from these activities are generally treated the same, aggregated as part of the taxpayer’s total taxable income and taxed according to the applicable tax bracket. Losses from these activities are treated very differently, though. Losses from active activities can be used to offset all taxable income, whereas losses from passive activities can only offset passive income. If there is not enough passive income in a given year to fully offset passive losses, the losses become suspended and carried forward. The losses carry forward until either there is passive income to offset or the activity is disposed of (sold or otherwise no longer owned), in which case the suspended losses release in full in that year.

Similarly, the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) takes on the attributes of the activity in which it is being generated. So if the solar project is determined to be an active activity for the investor, the ITC would be active and available to offset tax on all sources of income. But if the activity is determined to be passive, the ITC would be limited to use against tax on passive income. For an investor that has not considered this prior to purchasing a stake in a solar project, a limitation on the credit the investor can use could mean a reduction of the expected return on investment, and an unwelcome surprise.

Portfolio income

It is also important to point out here that a third type of income, portfolio income, is a very common type of taxed income comprised of interest, dividends, and gains from investments. This falls into a separate category from the active/passive analysis, which is often misunderstood. A taxpayer with lots of dividend income who thinks it is passive income ends up with a rude awakening as that is actually portfolio income and does not allow for the offset of passive activity losses.

Material participation test

IRS Publication 925 details all of the rules surrounding passive activities and includes a set of seven tests to determine material participation. If the taxpayer satisfies at least one of the material participation tests, the taxpayer’s share of the activity is considered active and not passive. The tests are: 

1. You participated in the activity for more than 500 hours. 
2. Your participation was substantially all the participation in the activity of all individuals for the tax year, including the participation of individuals who didn’t own any interest in the activity.
3. You participated in the activity for more than 100 hours during the tax year, and you participated at least as much as any other individual (including individuals who didn’t own any interest in the activity) for the year.
4. The activity is a significant participation activity, and you participated in all significant participation activities for more than 500 hours. A significant participation activity is any trade or business activity in which you participated for more than 100 hours during the year and in which you didn’t materially participate under any of the material participation tests, other than this test.
5. You materially participated in the activity (other than by meeting this fifth test) for any five (whether or not consecutive) of the 10 immediately preceding tax years.
6. The activity is a personal service activity in which you materially participated for any three (whether or not consecutive) preceding tax years.
7. Based on all the facts and circumstances, you participated in the activity on a regular, continuous, and substantial basis during the year.

Tests one through six are pretty cut and dry, but the totality of the circumstances test presented in number seven is very open to interpretation. While this allows you to make an argument in your favor, it also gives the IRS more latitude to disagree with you, making it the riskiest test to rely on.

The IRS defines “participation” as “[i]n general, any work you do in connection with an activity in which you own an interest.” This does not include work that would be considered work only done by an investor – such as reviewing operations, preparing reports for your own use, or monitoring the finances or operations of the activity. The work in consideration must also not be work that is customarily done by the owner of that type of activity, nor your only reason for doing the work being to avoid treatment of the activity as passive.

While a contemporaneous log is not required to prove material participation, it is always a good idea to keep track of the work and hours you are performing on behalf of the activity in order to substantiate material participation. This is typically the first thing the IRS asks for in the event of an audit. 

As you can see from the seven tests, there is also room to switch between active and passive treatment in any applicable year. So it is important that you take the ITC in the year the project goes in service and the ITC is generated. If you are passive in year one and end up with suspended credits and or losses, a subsequent switch to active status would not change the attributes of those suspended items―they would remain passive.

Lastly, and important to note, this determination is made at the individual taxpayer level. Project investors need to work with their tax advisors and legal counsel to understand their personal tax situation before investing in a project. Depending on the individual situation, an active or a passive treatment may be more beneficial, as everyone’s tax situation is different. The most important thing is knowing ahead of time so that planning can be done and expectations can be set. No one likes a tax surprise!

If you have any questions about your specific situation or would like to know more, please contact the team. We’re here to help. 

Read this if you are a member of a State Medicaid Agency’s leadership team or Program Integrity (PI) unit. 

In March 2020, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) suspended PERM cycle activities in response to Secretary Azar’s public health emergency (PHE) declaration. The suspension of the PERM cycle activities provided states with an opportunity to direct resources to the state’s PHE response. In August 2020, CMS released the suspension of PERM cycle activities to allow CMS and states to complete the PERM cycles that were either in progress or in the process of starting up.

While the PERM cycle suspension was in place, CMS released an updated PERM Manual in May 2020. You can access the updated PERM Manual here. The update primarily consists of the addition of guidelines related to the return of the eligibility reviews to the PERM cycle, as defined in the PERM Final Rule published by CMS in July 2017. The manual updates include adding regulation on the CMS Eligibility Review Contractor (ERC) to perform the eligibility reviews. 

Another topic receiving significant updates in the manual was the sample guidelines. Some of the updates included:

• Sampling units related to Third-Party Liability (TPL)
• CMS and its contractors must be granted systems access for the review process
• Sampling timeframes updated for each cycle

There are more updates in the manual, which states will not want to miss. BerryDunn has prepared a summary of the updates included in CMS’ May 2020 release of the PERM manual. View the summary.

While state resources are busy addressing the current PHE, the states should be tracking and documenting waiver activity, as many of the flexibilities provided by waivers will expire at the end of the PHE or soon after. Provider claims for services rendered during the PHE are eligible for the PERM cycle review, and states will need to give the PERM reviewers the flexibilities honored by the state. 

For questions or to find out more information about the PERM Cycle, contact Dawn Webb.