Skip to Main Content

insightsarticles

Building a Strong Substance Use Disorder (SUD) 1115 waiver demonstration

07.27.18

Is your state Medicaid agency considering a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Section 1115 Waiver to fight the opioid epidemic in your state? States want the waiver because it provides flexibility to test different approaches to finance and deliver Medicaid services. The skyrocketing prevalence of substance use disorders nationwide calls for such flexibility and innovation to expand existing services for treatment and recovery. Although applying for an 1115 waiver can be daunting, here are some guidelines to help you succeed with implementation.

Be pragmatic
Be honest and pragmatic in planning discussions for the essential resources you need to have in place for a successful implementation. Ask yourselves who and how many people you need to involve to develop and execute each stage. Plan enough time to develop policies and agency protocols, make sure you have the right providers for your members, set provider rates, and then train the providers.

Ask hard questions
Once you identify key requirements to address first in your waiver, ask yourself what elements need to be in place to meet these requirements. Here are elements to consider and questions to answer:

  • Fee-for-service and managed care organization (MCO) rates — new services, such as adult residential treatment services aligned with care standards (e.g., American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM®) levels), may require changes to reimbursement rates. What needs to happen to develop new rates? What obstacles do you anticipate and how will you overcome them?
  • Care standards (e.g., ASAM® levels of care) and training your providers — consider what the levels mean given the range of providers in your state and the services your members receive. What is required to move to these standards? How you will work with providers to ensure adherence, including certification and training? What will this cost?
  • Policy changes — your state’s Medicaid agency will need to revamp and create policies to cover the service expansion and other changes. How will you complete all necessary policy and protocol changes early enough to inform MCO and provider actions?
  • MCO provider network adequacy — it’s worth investing the time in your application development to assess whether the MCOs serving Medicaid recipients in your state have the right mix of providers to ensure that you can fully implement the new service structure. How long should you give the MCOs for network expansion or recruitment?
  • MCO care coordination guidelines — each MCO will have its own approach. How are you going to ensure adherence to your waiver’s vision of care coordination?
  • Indicators — how will you evaluate the success of your program? How will you collect and analyze data? The earlier you determine how you will evaluate your program, the easier it will be to report on, and make improvements.

Get started
Applying for and implementing an SUD 1115 waiver is a complex and time-consuming process — but by dedicating the time up front to address the many details of time and resources, you’ll find implementation to be far smoother, and effective treatment and recovery services provided sooner for those who need it most. Our Medicaid team is here to help.

Topics: MESC 2018, Medicaid

Related Industries

The American Public Health Association annual conference’s thematic focus on preventing violence provided an illustration of the extent of the overwhelming demands on state public health agencies right now. Not only do you need to face the daily challenges of responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, you also need to address ongoing, complex issues like violence prevention.

The sheer breadth of sessions available at APHA shows the broad scope of public health’s reach and the need for multi-level, multi-sector interventions, all with a shrinking public health workforce. The conference’s sessions painted clear pictures of the critical public health issues our country currently faces, but did not showcase many solutions, perhaps leaving state health agency leaders wondering how to tackle these taxing demands coming from every direction with no end in sight.

BerryDunn has a suggestion: practice organizational self-care! It might seem antithetical to focus maxed-out resources on strengthening systems and infrastructure right now, but state public health agencies have little choice. You have to be healthy yourself in order to effectively protect the public’s health. Organizational health is driven by high-functioning systems, from disease surveillance and case investigation to performance management, and quality improvement to data-informed decision-making.  

State health agencies can use COVID-19 funding to support organizational self-care, prioritizing three areas: workforce, technology, and processes. Leveraging this funding to build organizational capacity can increase human resources, replace legacy data systems, and purchase equipment and supplies. 

  1. Funding new positions with COVID sources can create upward paths for existing staff as well as expanding the workforce
  2. Assessing the current functioning of public health data systems identifies and clarifies gaps that can be addressed by adopting new technology platforms, which can also be done with COVID funding.
  3. Examining the processes used for major functions like surveillance or case investigation can eliminate unproductive steps and introduce efficiencies. 

So what now? Where to start? BerryDunn brings expertise in process analysis and redesign, an accreditation readiness tool, and an approach to data systems planning and procurement―all of which are paths forward toward organizational self-care. 

  1. Process analysis and redesign can be applied to data systems or other areas of focus to prioritize incremental changes. Conduct process redesign on a broad or narrow scale to improve efficiency and effectiveness of your projects. 

  2. Accreditation readiness provides a lens to examine state health agency operations against best practices to focus development in areas with the most significant gaps. Evaluate gaps in your agency’s readiness for Public Health Accreditation Board (PHAB) review and track every piece of documentation needed to meet PHAB standards.
  3. Data system planning and procurement assistance incorporates process analysis to assess your current system functioning, define your desired future state, and address the gaps, and then find, source, and implement faster, more effective systems. 

Pursuing any of these three paths allows state health agency leaders to engage in organizational self-care in a realistic, productive manner so that the agency can meet the seemingly unceasing demands for public health action now and into the future.

Article
Three paths to organizational self-care for state public health agency survival

Truly effective preventive health interventions require starting early, as evidenced by the large body of research and the growing federal focus on the role of Medicaid in addressing Social Determinants of Health (SDoH) and Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs).

Focusing on early identification of SDoH and ACEs, CMS recently announced its Integrated Care for Kids (InCK) model and will release the related Notice of Funding Opportunity this fall.

CMS describes InCK as a child-centered approach that uses community-based service delivery and alternative payment models (APMs) to improve and expand early identification, prevention, and treatment of priority health concerns, including behavioral health issues. The model’s goals are to improve child health, reduce avoidable inpatient stays and out-of-home placement, and create sustainable APMs. Such APMs would align payment with care quality and support provider/payer accountability for improved child health outcomes by using care coordination, case management, and mobile crisis response and stabilization services.

State Medicaid agencies have many things to consider when evaluating this funding opportunity. Building on current efforts and innovations, building or leveraging strong partnerships with community organizations, incentivizing evidence-based interventions, and creating risk stratification of the target population are critical parts of the InCK model. Here are three additional areas to consider:

1. Data. States will need information for early identification of children in the target population. State agencies?like housing, justice, child welfare, education, and public health have this information?and external organizations—such as childcare, faith-based, and recreation groups—are also good sources of early identification. It is immensely complicated to access data from these disparate sources. State Medicaid agencies will be required to support local implementation by providing population-level data for the targeted geographic service area.

  • Data collection challenges include a lack of standardized measures for SDoH and ACEs, common data field definitions, or consistent approaches to data classification; security and privacy of protected health information; and IT development costs.
  • Data-sharing agreements with internal and external sources will be critical for state Medicaid agencies to develop, while remaining mindful of protected health information regulations.
  • Once data-sharing agreements are in place, these disparate data sources, with differing file structures and nomenclature, will require integration. The integrated data must then be able to identify and risk-stratify the target population.

For any evaluative approach or any APM to be effective, clear quality and outcome measures must be developed and adopted across all relevant partner organizations.

2. Eligibility. Reliable, integrated eligibility and enrollment systems are crucial points of identification and make it easier to connect to needed services.

  • Applicants for one-benefit programs should be screened for eligibility for all programs they may need to achieve positive health outcomes.
  • Any agency at which potential beneficiaries appear should also have enrollment capability, so it is easier to access services.

3. Payment models. State Medicaid agencies may cover case management services and/or targeted case management as well as health homes; leverage Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic, and Treatment (EPSDT) services; and modify managed care organization contract language to encourage, incent, and in some cases, require services related to the InCK model and SDoH. Value-based payment models, already under exploration in numerous states, include four basic approaches:

  • Pay for performance—provider payments are tied directly to specific quality or efficiency indicators, including health outcomes under the provider organization’s control. 
  • Shared savings/risk—some portion of the organization’s compensation depends on the managed care entity achieving cost savings for the targeted patient population, while realizing specific health outcomes or quality improvement.
  • Pay for success—payment is dependent upon achieving desired outcomes rather than underlying services.
  • Capitated or bundled payments—managed care entities pay an upfront per member per month lump sum payment to an organization for community care coordination activities and link that with fee-for-service reimbursement for delivering value-added services.

By focusing on upstream prevention, comprehensive service delivery, and alternative payment models, the InCK model is a promising vehicle to positively impact children’s health. Though its components require significant thought, strategy, coordination, and commitment from state Medicaid agencies and partners, there are early innovators providing helpful examples and entities with vast Section 1115 waiver development and Medicaid innovation experience available to assist.

As state Medicaid agencies develop and implement primary and secondary prevention, cost savings can be achieved while meaningful improvements are made in children’s lives.

Article
Three factors state medicaid agencies should consider when applying for InCK funding

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

Value-based care (VBC) can help stabilize healthcare revenues during times of unexpected challenges and market volatility. Implementing or solidifying value-based payment (VBP) or purchasing arrangements between payers and providers is one pathway to stabilizing provider revenues, especially during the era of COVID-19.

On September 15, 2020, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released a letter to state Medicaid directors (SMDs) on how states can advance VBC across healthcare systems. Earlier in 2020, the CMS Administrator indicated that value-based or capitated payments can help promote provider resiliency, allowing providers to focus on quality of care as opposed to increasing utilization for short-term reimbursement gains. 

Promoting the adoption of VBC in Medicaid managed care is a long-term strategy to create stable and predictable revenues for providers, and potentially critical to successfully react to market disruptions caused by COVID-19. Providers are encouraged or obligated to see patients to drive quality outcomes, receiving VBPs or capitation that shifts revenue streams away from traditional fee-for-service models. VBP arrangements focus on quality of care, and can promote beneficiary health while reducing total costs.

A roadmap to advancing VBP in Medicaid

As healthcare costs continue to increase, states, payers, and providers have started transitioning to VBC to reimburse services based upon particular conditions (e.g., diabetes), Episodes of Care (EOC) (e.g., pregnancy and delivery), or different population healthcare needs (e.g., immunizations and well-child visits). VBP arrangements can incentivize the delivery of healthcare innovations that prioritize care coordination and quality outcomes over volume of services rendered, and help to avoid waste and duplication of services. VBP seeks to incentivize providers based on performance, and can result in shared savings for both providers and healthcare payers.

While many states have made significant progress moving towards VBP arrangements in their Medicaid managed care programs, data from the Health Care Payment Learning and Action Network (HCP-LAN) indicates there is still opportunity for improvement. In 2018, 90% of Medicare payments were made through a VBP arrangement, yet only 34% of Medicaid payments were made through VBP.  

Through its recent guidance, CMS provides a roadmap, strategies, and alternative payment methodology frameworks for states and health plans to implement successful VBP models in collaboration with the provider community. Key considerations for successful VBP implementation include:

  • Defining level and scope of financial risk, and developing associated performance benchmarks
  • Selecting established quality metrics that incentivize provider performance without undue administrative burden
  • Encouraging multi-payer participation (e.g., Medicaid managed care, Medicare, commercial health plans) to align provider incentives across payers and delivery systems
  • Advancing Health Information Technology (HIT) capabilities across providers and delivery systems
  • Assessing health plan and provider/delivery system readiness
  • Promoting stakeholder engagement and transparency
  • Developing VBC programs focusing on sustainability

Regarding HIT and the exchange of data between providers, MCOs, and SMAs, CMS recommends states take advantage of the Advanced Planning Document (APD) process to request 90/10 funding to address technology infrastructure needs associated to help implement a robust VBC program and help ensure delivery system readiness. Facilitating data sharing and promoting real-time and reliable data transactions between payers and providers engaged in VBC is critical to measurement, monitoring, and programmatic success. Additionally, SMAs can leverage VBP arrangements to focus on areas of waste in the healthcare system, including care delivery, and care coordination. 

If you would like more information or have questions about VBC and guidance on assessing, developing or implementing changes to your managed care program, please contact us. We also offer services related to value-based payment, as detailed here. We’re here to help.

Article
Value-based care to increase provider and delivery system resiliency

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

The November 9, 2020 announcement by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) outlines updates to the 2016 Medicaid & Children's Insurance Program (CHIP) Managed Care Final Rule (Final Rule), which present new challenges to state Medicaid and CHIP managed care programs to interpret the latest CMS guidance that attempts to relieve current administrative burdens and federal regulatory barriers.

Although the latest guidance by CMS attempts to provide potential relief to states to administer their managed care programs, states will need to coordinate with federal and state partners to further understand the latest updates to federal regulations that are presented by the updated Final Rule.

By providing relief for current reporting requirements for program costs, provider rates, network adequacy, and encounter data, this latest change by the administration enables state managed care programs to reassess current operations to update and improve their current service delivery. The updated Final Rule continues CMS’ efforts to transition state managed care and CHIP programs from a fee-for-service delivery system, and to urge state Medicaid and CHIP agencies to continue to implement payment models to improve quality, control costs, and promote innovation.  

Impacts on Medicaid managed care operations 

Changes for states to consider that impact their Medicaid managed care operations based on the latest Final Rule include:

  • Coordination of benefits agreements (COBA): States will have the option to leverage different methodologies for crossover claim distribution to managed care plans, and the updated Final Rule indicates that managed care plans do not have to enter into COBA directly with Medicare.
  • Rate setting and ranges, and development practices: CMS provides the option for states to develop and certify a rate range and has provided clarification and different options for rate setting and development practices.
  • Network adequacy: CMS will allow for states to set quantitative network standards, such as provider to enrollee ratios, to account for increases in telehealth providers and to provide flexibilities in rural areas.
  • Provider directory updates: CMS will allow for less than monthly updates to provider directories due to the increased utilization of digital media by enrollees, emphasizing decreased administrative burden and the costs for state managed care plans. This update also indicates that completion of cultural competency training by providers will no longer be required.
  • Provider termination notices: The latest update increases the length of provider termination notice requirements to 30 calendar days (previously 15 calendar days).
  • Member information requirements: The latest update outlines flexibilities for enrollee materials as it relates to font size and formatting.
  • Quality Rating System (QRS): CMS will be developing a QRS framework in which states must align with, but will be able to develop uniquely tailored approaches for their state.
  • External quality review: States that exempt managed care plans from external quality review activities must post this information on their websites for public access on an annual basis.
  • Grievance and appeal clarifications: The latest update provides clarification that the denial of non-clean claims does not require adverse benefit determination notices and procedures; adjustments and clarification to State Fair Hearing enrollee request timeframes to align with recent Medicaid fee-for-service requirements

CHIP to Medicaid regulatory cross-references

CMS clarifies several CHIP to Medicaid regulatory cross-references. These cross-references include the continuation of benefits during State Fair Hearings, changes to encounter data submission requirements, changes to Medicaid Care Advisory Council (MCAC) requirements, grievance and appeals requirements, and program integrity standards.

Changing demand on managed care programs

The November 9 announcement follows a series of efforts by CMS during the past few years to modify the Final Rule in an attempt to help states meet the changing demands on their managed care programs. For the 2016 Final Rule, CMS formed a working group with the National Association of Medicaid Directors (NAMD) and state Medicaid directors to review current managed care regulations. The recommendations from the group led to public comment in November 2018 with state Medicaid and CHIP agencies, advocacy groups, health care providers and associations, health insurers, managed care plans, health care associations, and the general public. As a result of this public comment effort, the latest Final Rule seeks to streamline current managed care regulations.

The new Final Rule announcement comes after a series of efforts by CMS to offer guidance and make changes to their provider payment models, including its recent September 15 letter to state Medicaid directors that further promotes a strategic shift towards value based payments to transform the alignment of quality and cost of care for Medicaid beneficiaries.

The effective date for the new regulations will be 30 days after publication of the new Final Rule in the Federal Register (target date November 13, 2020), except for additions §§ 438.4(c) and 438.6(d)(6) for Medicaid managed care rating setting periods, which are effective July 1, 2021.

If you would like more information or have questions about interpreting the Final Rule for changes to your managed care program, please contact us.

Article
The 2020 Final Rule—Understanding new flexibilities to control costs and deliver care

Read this if your agency is planning to procure a services vendor.

In our previous article, we looked at three primary areas we, or a potential vendor, consider when responding to a request for services. In this follow-up, we look at additional factors that influence the decision-making process on whether a potential vendor decides to respond to a request for services.

  • Relationship with this state/entity―Is this a state or client that we have worked with before? Do we understand their business and their needs?

    A continuing relationship allows us to understand the client’s culture and enables us to perform effectively and efficiently. By establishing a good relationship, we can assure the client that we can perform the services as outlined and at a fair cost.
  • Terms and conditions, performance bonds, or service level agreements―Are any of these items unacceptable? If there are concerns, can we request exceptions or negotiate with the state?

    When we review a request for services our legal and executive teams assess the risk of agreeing to the state’s terms and compare them against our existing contract language. States might consider requesting vendors provide exceptions to terms and conditions in their bid response to open the door for negotiations. Not allowing exceptions can result in vendors assuming that all terms are non-negotiable and may limit the amount of vendor bid responses received or increase the cost of the proposal.

    The inclusion of well-defined service level agreements (SLAs) in requests for proposals (RFPs) can be an effective way to manage resulting contracts. However, SLAs with undefined or punitive performance standards, compliance calculations, and remedies can also cause a vendor to consider whether to submit a bid response.

    RFPs for states that require performance bonds may result in significantly fewer proposals submitted, as the cost of a performance bond may make the total cost of the project too high to be successfully completed. If not required by law that vendors obtain performance bonds, states may want to explore other effective contractual protections that are more impactful than performance bonds, such as SLAs, warranties, and acceptance criteria.
  • Mandatory requirements―Are we able to meet the mandatory requirements? Does the cost of meeting these requirements keep us in a competitive range?

    Understanding the dichotomy between mandatory requirements and terms and conditions can be challenging, because in essence, mandatory requirements are non-negotiable terms and conditions. A state may consider organizing mandatory requirements into categories (e.g., system requirements, project requirements, state and federal regulations). This can help potential vendors determine whether all of the mandatory requirements are truly non-negotiable. Typically, vendors are prepared to meet all regulatory requirements, but not necessarily all project requirements.
  • Onsite/offsite requirements―Can we meet the onsite/offsite requirements? Do we already have nearby resources available? Are any location requirements negotiable?

    Onsite/offsite requirements have a direct impact on the project cost. Factors include accessibility of the onsite location, frequency of required onsite participation, and what positions/roles are required to be onsite or local. These requirements can make the resource pool much smaller when RFPs require staff to be located in the state office or require full-time onsite presence. And as a result, we may decide not to respond to the RFP.

    If the state specifies an onsite presence for general positions (e.g., project managers and business analysts), but is more flexible on onsite requirements for technical niche roles, the state may receive more responses to their request for services and/or more qualified consultants.
  • Due date of the proposal―Do we have the available proposal staff and subject matter experts to complete a quality proposal in the time given?

    We consider several factors when looking at the due date, including scope, the amount of work necessary to complete a quality response, and the proposal’s due date. A proposal with a very short due date that requires significant work presents a challenge and may result in less quality responses received.
  • Vendor available staffing―Do we have qualified staff available for this project? Do we need to work with subcontractors to get a complete team?

    We evaluate when the work is scheduled to begin to ensure we have the ability to provide qualified staff and obtain agreements with subcontractors. Overly strict qualifications that narrow the pool of qualified staff can affect whether we are able to respond. A state might consider whether key staff really needs a specific certification or skill or, instead, the proven ability to do the required work.

    For example, technical staff may not have worked on this particular type of project, but on a similar one with easily transferable skills. We have several long-term relationships with our subcontractors and find they can be an integral part of the services we propose. If carefully managed and vetted, we feel subcontractors can be an added value for the states.
  • Required certifications (e.g., Project Management Professional® (PMP®), Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) certification)―Does our staff have the required certifications that are needed to complete this project?

    Many projects requests require specific certifications. On a small project, maybe other certifications can help ensure that we have the skills required for a successful project. Smaller vendors, particularly, might not have PMP®-certified staff and so may be prohibited from proposing on a project that they could perform with high quality.
  • Project timeline―Is the timeline to complete the project reasonable and is our staff available during the timeframe needed for each position for the length of the project?

    A realistic and reasonable timeline is critical for the success of a project. This is a factor we consider as we identify any clear or potential risks. A qualified vendor will not provide a proposal response to an unrealistic project timeline, without requesting either to negotiate the contract or requesting a change order later in the project. If the timeline is unrealistic, the state also runs the risk that the vendor will create many change requests, leading to a higher cost.

Other things we consider when responding to a request for services include: is there a reasonable published budget, what are the minority/women-owned business (M/WBE) requirements, and are these new services that we are interested in and do they fit within our company's overall business objectives?

Every vendor may have their own checklist and/or process that they go through before making a decision to propose on new services. We are aware that states and their agencies want a wide-variety of high-quality responses from which to choose. Understanding the key areas that a proposer evaluates may help states provide requirements that lead to more high-quality and better value proposals. If you would like to learn more about our process, or have specific questions, please contact the Medicaid Consulting team.

Article
What vendors want: Other factors that influence vendors when considering responding to a request for services

Read this if your agency is planning to procure a services vendor. 

Every published request for services aims to acquire the highest-quality services for the best value. Requests may be as simple as an email to a qualified vendor list or as formal as a request for proposal (RFP) published on a state’s procurement website. However big or small the request, upon receiving it, we, or a potential vendor, triages it using the following primary criteria:

  1. Scope of services―Are these services or solutions we can provide? If we can’t provide the entire scope of services, do we have partners that can?
    As a potential responding vendor, we review the scope of services to see if it is clearly defined and provides enough detail to help us make a decision to pursue the proposal. Part of this review is to check if there are specific requests for products or solutions, and if the requests are for products or solutions that we provide or that we can easily procure to support the scope of work. 
  2. Qualifications―What are the requirements and can we meet them?
    We verify that we can supply proofs of concept to validate experience and qualification requirements. We check to see if the requirements and required services/solutions are clearly defined and we confirm that we have the proof of experience to show the client. Strict or inflexible requirements may mean a new vendor is unable to propose new and innovative services and may not be the right fit.
  3. Value―Is this a service request that we can add value to? Will it provide fair compensation?
    We look to see if we can perform the services or provide the solution at a rate that meets the client’s budget. Sometimes, depending upon the scope of services, we can provide services at a rate typically lower than our competitors. Or, conversely, though we can perform the scope of services, the software/hardware we would have to purchase might make our cost lower in value to the client than a well-positioned competitor.

An answer of “no” on any of the above questions typically means that we will pass on responding to the opportunity. 

The above questions are primary considerations. There are other factors when we consider an opportunity, such as where the work is located in comparison to our available resources and if there is an incumbent vendor with a solid and successful history. We will consider these and other factors in our next article. If you would like to learn more about our process, or have specific questions, please contact the Medicaid Consulting team.
 

Article
What vendors want: Vendor decision process in answering requests for services

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.
 

Article
COVID-19 and opportunities to reboot managed care

Read this if you are a leader at a state Medicaid agency, Long-Term Care Hospital, Rural Health Clinic, Federally Qualified Health Center, or intermediate care facility.

The new fact sheet from CMS provides state and local governments that may be developing alternate care sites with information on how to receive payments for acute inpatient and outpatient care through federal programs, including Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP).

CMS notes that it is easiest for an existing enrolled hospital or health system to obtain payments through CMS programs for covered health care services furnished at the ACS by treating the ACS as a short-term extension of their current ‘brick-and-mortar’ facilities. 

State and local governments that want to build a hospital ACS have three options if they wish to be paid by CMS for providing covered hospital inpatient and outpatient services:

  1. Transfer operation and billing for care delivered in the ACS to a hospital or health system which is enrolled
  2. Enroll the ACS as a new hospital in CMS programs
  3. As an alternative, instead of making facility payments, enrolled physicians or other non-physician practitioners may bill for covered services that they furnish at the ACS

CMS guidance to states on implementing the optional COVID-19 testing group 

CMS has provided new guidance to states who may be planning to implement the Optional COVID-19 Testing Group, which was established by the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) for uninsured individuals in order to furnish COVID-19 testing and associated services.

  • The guidance from CMS outlines the different requirements connected with implementing the uninsured group, inclusive of eligibility and enrollment, data reporting, and claims. 
  • The guidance also describes flexibilities available to help states achieve implementation of the new group and strategies to meet related requirements. 
  • For more information related to the eligibility requirements and the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) available for coverage, states can also refer to Section B of the FFCRA and Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) posted April 13, 2020.

CMS announces enhanced enforcement actions based on nursing home COVID-19 data and inspection results

Earlier in the month of June, CMS released new guidelines related to enforcement for nursing homes who may have violations of infection control practices.

  • CMS intends to apportion $80 million in CARES Act funding to states in order to increase infection control surveys. With CARES Act funding, states will be required to carry out on-site surveys of nursing homes with previous COVID-19 outbreaks, in addition to nursing homes with newly confirmed cases.
  • CMS will make technical assistance available in support of this effort through Quality Improvement Organizations (QIOs) for nursing homes to assist in establishing best practices for infection control.
  • States are required to submit 100% of focused surveys of their nursing homes to CMS by July 31, 2020. It should be noted that submission delays may result in reductions to a state’s Cares Act allocation for FFY 2021.

HHS announces 45-day compliance deadline extension for providers

On May 22, The Department of Health and Human Service (HHS) announced a 45-day extension to the deadline for providers who are receiving payments from the Provider Relief Fund to accept the necessary terms and conditions of the payments.

  • Should providers wish to keep funds—which may have been automatically dispersed—they must agree to the terms and conditions of the Provider Relief Fund.
  • In order to support impacted facilities there is $50 billion in available COVID-19 relief funding for distribution to providers that bill for Medicare beneficiaries.
  • The announcement from HHS gives providers 90 days from the original receipt date of a payment to accept the terms and conditions.  Alternatively, providers may choose to return the funds.

HHS announces $4.9 billion distribution to nursing facilities impacted by COVID-19

HHS has announced it has begun the distribution of additional relief funds to Skilled Nursing Facilities (SNFs) in order to address ongoing needs related to COVID-19. Such needs include labor, improving testing capacity, and obtaining personal protective equipment as well as additional expenses specifically linked to the COVID-19 pandemic.

  • HHS intends to make the fund distributions to SNFs on both a fixed and variable basis. 
  • Each eligible SNF will receive a fixed dissemination of $50,000 in addition to an allotment of $2,500 per bed. All certified SNFs with six or more certified beds will be eligible for this distribution.
  • Recipients of these funds must attest that they will use Provider Relief Fund payments for allowed purposes under the terms and conditions as well as agree to comply with future audit and reporting requirements.

We’re here to help. If you have more questions or want to have an in-depth conversation about your specific situation, please contact the Medicaid consulting team

Article
CMS releases new guidance on Alternate Care Sites, the optional COVID-19 testing group, and more

Read this if you are an administrator, manager, or director at a Rural Health Clinic (RHC) or Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC).

The following outlines key due dates related to various CARES Act funding streams that you may have received. Updated as of April 27, 2020.

1. Round two of the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) was just signed last week. If you have not applied and plan to do so, please do so ASAP as the funds are likely to be exhausted quickly.
2. Your 12-month budget for the CARES Act funding is due on May 8, 2020. As you prepare your budget, please consider the following:
a. If you were lucky enough to get approved for PPP loans, use these funds first to pay for salaries and wages as they are for eight weeks only.
b. We encourage including federal grant expenses in all budget categories to enable you to take advantage of the flexibility HRSA has provided you by allowing reclassifications between budget categories up to the lesser of 25% of the federal award or $250,000 without asking for prior approval. If you wish to reclassify amounts to a budget category which didn’t previously have federal funds budgeted, you will have to submit a budget revision to HRSA for approval. This guidance applies to your base 330 grant as well. 
c. Remember, if an employee is paid more than $197,300 (Executive II salary level as of January 1, 2020), you can only charge $197,300 to any HRSA grant. This salary limitation does not apply to consultants or contracted employees.
d. Use of these funds is very likely to undergo audits, similar to the ARRA funding a number of years ago, therefore make sure you properly track how you use these funds (audit trail).
e. Have your personnel policies been modified for consistency with any new practices you’ve implemented as a result of the public health emergency (for example, hazard pay, family and sick leave and remote working)?

Click here for a list of HRSA’s examples of the allowable uses of the CARES Act funding.    
 
3. The initial distribution you received on April 20, 2020 from the CARES Act Provider Relief Fund has an attestation due on May 10, 2020. There are various provisions governing the use of the funds and we suggest you consider the ability to use these funds to offset lost earnings so you do not have to complete with the other funding programs you have received.

Article
CARES Act funding deadlines: Update for FQHCs and RHCs