Skip to Main Content

insightsarticles

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

11.12.20

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.

Related Industries

Related Services

Related Professionals

Principals

BerryDunn experts and 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.
 

Article
COVID-19 and opportunities to reboot managed care

Read this if you are a Chief Financial Officer, Chief Compliance Officer, FINOP, or charged with governance of a broker-dealer.

The results of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board’s (PCAOB) 2020 inspections are included in its 2020 Annual Report on the Interim Inspection Program Related to Audits of Brokers and Dealers. There were 65 audit firms inspected in 2020 by the PCAOB and, although deficiencies declined 11% from 2019, 51 firms still had deficiencies. This high level of deficiencies, as well as the nature of the deficiencies, provides insight into audit quality for broker-dealer stakeholders. Those charged with governance should be having conversations with their auditor to see how they are addressing these commonly found deficiencies and asking if the PCAOB identified any deficiencies in the auditor’s most recent examination. 

If there were deficiencies identified, what actions have been taken to eliminate these deficiencies going forward? Although the annual report on the Interim Inspection Program acts as an auditor report card, the results may have implications for the broker-dealer, as gaps in audit quality may mean internal control weaknesses or misstatements go undetected.

Attestation Standard (AT) No. 1 examination engagements test compliance with the financial responsibility rules and the internal controls surrounding compliance with the financial responsibility rules. The PCAOB examined 21 of these engagements and found 14 of them to have deficiencies. The PCAOB continued to find high deficiency rates in testing internal control over compliance (ICOC). They specifically found that many audit firms did not obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence about the operating effectiveness of controls important to the auditor’s conclusions regarding the effectiveness of ICOC. This insufficiency was widespread in all four areas of the financial responsibility rules: the Reserve Requirement rule, possession or control requirements of the Customer Protection Rule, Account Statement Rule, and the Quarterly Security Counts Rule.

The PCAOB also identified a firm that included a statement in its examination report that referred to an assertion by the broker-dealer that its ICOC was effective as of its fiscal year-end; however, the broker-dealer did not include that required assertion in its compliance report.

AT No. 2 review engagements test compliance with the broker-dealer’s exemption provisions. The PCAOB examined 83 AT No. 2 engagements and found 19 of them to have deficiencies. The most significant deficiencies were that audit firms:

  • Did not make required inquiries, including inquiries about controls in place to maintain compliance with the exemption provisions, and those involving the nature, frequency, and results of related monitoring activities.
  • Similar to AT No. 1 engagements, included a statement in their review reports that referred to an assertion by the broker-dealer that it met the identified exemption provisions throughout the most recent fiscal year without exception; however, the broker-dealers did not include that required assertion in their exemption reports.

The majority of the deficiencies found were in the audits of the financial statements. The PCAOB did not examine every aspect of the financial statement audit, but focused on key areas. These areas were: revenue, evaluating audit results, identifying and assessing risks of material misstatement, related party relationships and transactions, receivables and payables, consideration of an entity’s ability to continue as a going concern, consideration of materiality in planning and performing an audit, leases, and fair value measurements. Of these areas, revenue and evaluating audit results had the most deficiencies, with 45 and 27 deficiencies, or 47% and 26% of engagements examined, respectively.

Auditing standards indicate there is a rebuttable presumption that improper revenue recognition is a fraud risk. In the PCAOB’s examinations, most audit firms either identified a fraud risk related to revenue or did not rebut the presumption of revenue recognition as a fraud risk. These firms should have addressed the risk of material misstatement through appropriate substantive procedures that included tests of details. The PCAOB noted there were instances of firms that did not perform any procedures for one or more significant revenue accounts, or did not perform procedures to address the assessed risks of material misstatement for one or more relevant assertions for revenue. The PCAOB also identified deficiencies related to revenue in audit firms’ sampling methodologies and substantive analytical procedures. Other deficiencies of note, that were not revenue related, included:

  • Incomplete qualitative and quantitative disclosure information, specifically in regards to revenue from contracts with customers and leases.
  • Missing required elements from the auditor’s report.
  • Missing auditor communications:
    • Not inquiring of the audit committee (or equivalent body) about whether it was aware of matters relevant to the audit.
    • Not communicating the audit strategy and results of the audit to the audit committee (or equivalent body).
  • Engagement quality reviews were not performed for some audit and attestation engagements.
  • Audit firms assisted in the preparation of broker-dealer financial statements and supplemental information.

Although there have been improvements in the amounts of deficiencies found in the PCAOB’s examinations, the 2020 annual report shows that there is still work to be done by audit firms. Just like auditors should be inquiring of broker-dealer clients about the results of their most recent FINRA examination, broker-dealers should be inquiring of auditors about the results of their most recent PCAOB examination. Doing so will help broker-dealers identify where their auditor may reside on the audit quality spectrum. If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to reach out to our broker-dealer services team.

Article
2020 Annual Report on the Interim Inspection Program Related to Audits of Brokers and Dealers

Read this if you are a director or manager at a Health and Human Services agency in charge of modernizing your state's Health and Human Services systems.

With stream-lined applications, online portals, text updates, and one-stop offices serving programs like Medicaid, SNAP, and Child Welfare, states are rapidly adopting integrated systems serving multiple programs. As state leaders collaborate on system design and functionality to meet federal and state requirements, it is equally important to create a human-centered design built for the whole family.

We know families are comprised of a variety of people with various levels of need, and blended families ranging from grandparents to infants may qualify for a variety of programs. We may connect with families who are on Medicaid, aged and disabled or SNAP, but also have cases within child support or with child welfare. 

If your state is considering updating a current system, or procuring for an innovative design, there are key strategies and concepts to consider when creating a fully integrated system for our most vulnerable populations. Below are a few advantages for building a human-centric system:

  • The sharing of demographic, contact, and financial information reduces duplication and improves communication between state entities and families seeking services
  • Improvement of business services and expedited eligibility determinations, as a human-centric model gathers information upfront to reduce a stream of verification requests
  • The cost of ownership decreases when multiple programs share design costs
  • Client portals and services align as a family-focused model

Collaboration and integrated design

How many states use a separate application for Medicaid and SNAP? More specifically, is the application process time consuming? Is the same information requested over and over for each program? 

How efficient (and wonderful) would it be for clients to complete task-based questions, and then each program could review the information separately for case-based eligibility? How can you design an integrated system that aligns with business and federal rules, and state policy?

Once your state has decided a human-centered design would be most beneficial, you can narrow your focus—whether you are already in the RFP process, or within requirements sessions. You can stop extraneous efforts, and change your perspective by asking the question: How can we build this for the entire family? The first step is to see beyond your specific program requirements and consider the families each program serves. 

Integrated design is usually most successful when leaders and subject matter experts from multiple programs can collaborate. If all personnel are engaged in an overarching vision of building a system for the family, the integrated design can be fundamentally successful, and transforming for your entire work environment across agencies and departments.

Begin with combining leadership and subject matter experts from each geographic region. Families in the far corners of our states may have unique needs or challenges only experts from those areas know about. These collaborative sessions provide streamlined communications and ideas, and empower staff to become actively involved and invested in an integrated system design. 

Next, delve into the core information required from each family member and utilize a checklist to determine if the information meets the requirements of the individual programs. Finally, decide which specific data can streamline across programs for benefit determinations. For example, name, address, age, employment, income, disability status, and family composition are standard pieces of information. However, two or more programs may also require documentation on housing, motor vehicle, or retirement accounts.

Maintaining your focus on the families you serve

When designing an integrated system, it is easy to lose focus on the family and return to program-specific requirements. Your leaders and subject matter experts know what their individual programs need, which can lead to debates over final decisions regarding design. It is perfectly normal to develop tunnel vision regarding our programs because we want to meet regulations and maintain funding.

Below are recommendations for maintaining your focus on building for the family, which can start as soon as the RFP. 

  • Emphasize RFP team accountability
    • Everyone should share an array of family household examples who benefit from the various programs (Medicaid, SNAP, TANF, etc.), to help determine how to deliver a full spectrum of services. 
    • Challenge each program with writing their program-specific sections of the RFP and have one person combine the responses for a review session.
  • If the integrated system design is in the requirements phase, brainstorm scenarios, like the benefit example provided in recommendation number one. When information is required by one program, but not another, can the team collaborate and include the information knowing it could benefit an entire family?
  • When considering required tasks, and special requests, always ask: Will this request/change/enhancement help a family, or help staff assist a family?
  • Consider a universal approach to case management. Can staff be cross trained to support multiple programs to reduce transferring clients to additional staff?

We understand adopting a human-centered design can be a challenging approach, but there are options and approaches to help you through the process. Just continue to ask yourself, when it comes to an integrated approach, are you building the system for the program or for the family?

Article
Integrated design and development for state agencies: Building for the family

Read this if you support State Medicaid Program Integrity efforts.

Recently, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released updated guidance on how states should handle their Third Party Liability (TPL) claims and ensuring that all insurances pay prior to the State Medicaid Agency (SMA) paying any claims. Before we get into the updated guidance, let’s discuss the basics of TPL and what your SMA needs to know.

TPL Basics

There are several different types of healthcare liabilities:

  • Health insurers – Coordination of benefits and primary payers; this can be through group insurances or employer/member paid insurance.
  • Government programs – Public health programs, such as the Breast & Cervical Cancer Screening or the Vaccines for Children Program.
  • Other people or entities – Automobile insurance, product liability, or medical malpractice. The main thing to remember is that Medicaid will not pay if someone else is responsible.
  • Awards through courts or casualty/tort claims – This would be if a payment is made in a settlement, Medicaid can claim off of that award for Medicaid covered services that do not exceed what has already been paid out.

Again, the main thing to remember is Medicaid is the payer of last resort! There are few exceptions to this rule, including:

  • Indian Health Services (IHS), where Medicaid pays first and IHS covers the remaining services covered for this population.
  • Members who have Veterans Assistance (VA) coverage. Medicaid is the second payer to VA benefits except for in nursing homes and emergency treatment cases outside of VA facilities.

Agencies have data use agreements that describe how the data will be collected, transmitted, and used. But where does the data come from? 

  • Caseworkers can collect information directly from the member at the time of enrollment or re-enrollment.
  • Eligibility system(s) and the TPL vendor can access both state and federal data exchanges, which can then be shared with the Medicaid Management Information System (MMIS).
  • Medical, dental, vision, and pharmacy claims are a great source of data because this information comes from the provider who collects it from the member.
  • Data exchanges are also an important part of data gathering:
    • State Wage Information Collection Agencies (SWICA) is a state database that shows if a member or family member is employed allowing the state to inquire about additional coverage through the employers insurance.
    • Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS) is related to members of current or former military service who have TriCare insurance coverage.
    • State Verification and Eligibility Systems (SVES) and the State Data Exchange (SDX) work together to verify tax information, employment, eligibility, etc.
      • These systems work for more than just TPL through verifying enrollment but TPL is a component. 
      • This is also where the state can reduce duplicate enrollments—having a member with enrollments in Medicaid in several states and reaping the benefits in each state.
  • Motor vehicle administration and worker’s compensation systems can verify if the claim was the result of an automobile accident or occurred on the job. Once verified in the system, an edit can be included to deny so the TPL vendor knows to go back and review the claim.
  • Payers and health plans share the information with each other and with Medicaid. This allows all payer to use the same database.

TPL checkpoints

Throughout the process of developing a claim, there are many opportunities to check TPL coverage. The member is a great source of information since who else knows more about a person, besides themselves. The member enrollment caseworker and the enrollment application can also provide a lot of information that comes directly from the member. Through Medicaid and CHIP work with the Managed Care Organizations (MCO), it is in the MCO’s best interest to ask a member about TPL coverage during each and every encounter with the member. However, it is important to remember that if TPL is involved, Medicaid is the payer of last resort; but for CHIP, if TPL is involved, typically there is no CHIP coverage. 

The TPL vendor, enrollment broker, and providers are also excellent resources for obtaining member information. The TPL vendor conducts data mining within claims to find external causes of conditions that suggest another person or entity is responsible for payment. When a member calls the enrollment broker to choose their MCO, this is an opportunity to ask the member about any TPL coverage. Finally, the providers can share valuable information that was received from the member.

Claims adjudication process

Up to this point, we have discussed the primary payer information, the accident indicator, and a work related indicator, but there are still a couple more steps in the process to discuss. Your SMA’s should set the edits within your MMIS so that the state can process payments correctly up front to reduce overpayments and the expense of recouping that money. The edits within the MMIS should be regularly reviewed to ensure they are in compliance with state policies (including state plans) and federal guidelines.

Some other areas that should be reviewed to check for TPL coverage is the member age and diagnosis codes. If the member is 65 years of age or older, Medicare should be considered as a source of coverage. Also, diagnosis codes can be an indicator of an automobile accident or injury on the job. Following each of these steps, can prevent the state from overpaying a claim or making a payment in error.

Potential TPL indicators in information received on a claim can vary. For example, CMS and dental codes use the same field names, while the uniform billing (UB) form has defined codes to identify the primary liability. 

CMS-1500     UB-04     Dental
Other Insurance Condition Code Other Insurance
Accident Date Occurrence Code Accident Date
Work Related Injury Diagnosis Code Work Related Injury
Diagnosis Codes Diagnosis Code

Data relationships

The relationship between data sources varies across programs. Medicaid feeds into and/or receives information from all data sources, including CHIP, MCOs, TPL vendor, data warehouse, federal databases, and state databases (such as department of motor vehicles and worker’s compensation). CHIP interacts with Medicaid, MCOs, TPL vendor, and the data warehouse. The TPL vendor exchanges information with Medicaid, CHIP, MCOs, data warehouse, and state databases. The MCOs have a relationship with Medicaid, CHIP, TPL vendor, and the data warehouse. Working together, these programs have access to all of the different data sources; however, sometimes the relationship is indirect and takes multiple steps to complete the transaction. This is why the sharing of data is so important!

TPL data sharing

Working together is the best way to ensure all entities have access to the same and as much information as possible. There typically needs to be a contract relationship between your SMA and all entities that send or receive data. It is a good idea for the SMA to have a data use agreement with each agency that defines how the data will be collected, transmitted, and used. The data can be transmitted in any way, as long as it is secure, and can be stored in the data warehouse which allows all entities that will use the data to have access to the same information.

MCO contracting

The MCO contract between the SMA or the CHIP Agency and the MCO requires the MCOs to conduct TPL activity. In addition, your state should consider including a finder’s keepers clause in their contract with the MCO, which allows the state to collect on overpayments that the MCO chooses not to collect. For example: the MCO can decide that it will cost more to recoup the overpayment than the money recouped so the MCO can choose not to pursue in which case the state can pursue. The state would keep all the money collected.

The contract between your SMA and TPL vendor should include the state and federal data searches as required by regulation. This contract should also include sharing of data with the MCOs that reduces the risk of duplicate expenses for the SMA and the MCOs.

TPL policy

It is key for your SMA to align all policies to both state and federal regulations but the more the policies are aligned across programs within your state, the better.

Many TPL policy references can provide all information regarding the federal regulations.

  • Title 42, Chapter IV, Subchapter C, Part 433 – State Fiscal Administration, Subpart D – Third-Party Liability
  • Medicaid Bipartisan Budget Act (BBA) of 2018, Section 53102, Third Party Liability in Medicaid and CHIP
  • Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA)
  • Coordination of Benefits and Third Party Liability (COB/TPL) in Medicaid 2020 Handbook
    • This comprehensive resource includes all of the references as well as guidance for your SMA.
  • Medicaid.gov TPL 
    • Good resource for updated information in addition to resources and guidance for states.

Now that we have covered the basics of TPL, let’s review some of the updated guidance recently released by CMS.

TPL policy changes

Medicaid BBA of 2018

  • CMS updated the pay and chase guidelines and removed some of the requirements.
    • SMAs are no longer required to pay and chase pregnancy claims. These can now be rejected up front.
  • CMS updated medical support enforcement claims payment to extend the timely filing period.
    • The timely filing period was 30 days but has now been extended up to 100 days.

DRA of 2005

  • The updated regulations clarified that third-parties include:

    • Health insurance
    • Medicare
    • Employer sponsored health insurance
    • Settlements from liability insurer
    • Workers compensation
    • Long-term care insurance
    • State and federal programs unless specifically excluded by statute
  • The updated regulations also specified that health insurers should provide the SMA with eligibility data, honor assignment of right to payment, and refrain from procedural denial of Medicaid claims.

COB/TPL in Medicaid 2020 Handbook

  • CMS updated the guidelines to include the pay and chase requirement for Medical Support Enforcement and Preventive Pediatric Services.

On August 27, 2021, CMS released guidance directing SMAs to ensure their state plans are updated and in compliance with federal guidelines by December 31, 2021. 

You can learn more about the updated guidance here

MCO claims

  • MCO encounter claims need to be in the state’s data warehouse to ensure:
    • TPL services are tracked in the data warehouse
    • TPL and MCO paid claims can be differentiated
    • All services are reported within the warehouse

Next steps

There are several things you can do to help ensure your SMA is getting the most out of your TPL data. You can review the following:

  • Medicaid, CHIP, and MCO TPL policies
  • TPL vendor business processes and policies
  • MCO contracts for TPL language
  • TPL vendor contract
  • Claim edits in the MMIS

If you have any questions, please contact our Medicaid consulting team. We're here to help.

Article
Third Party Liability claims: What state Medicaid agencies need to know

Read this if you are a State Medicaid Director, State Medicaid Chief Information Officer, State Medicaid Project Manager, or State Procurement Officer.

Hurray! The in-person Medicaid Enterprise Systems Conference (MESC) was successfully held! It was a wonderful and true reunion for all those who attended the conference in Boston this year. Hats off to MESC’s sponsoring organization, NESCSO, for holding a hybrid in-person/virtual event. Although there were some minor technological glitches at the start, MESC went very smoothly. The curriculum, good planning, and hard work prevailed and led to a very successful conference.

Before highlighting the session content and conference themes, I must mention what first occurred upon arrival: We were able to greet our colleagues, partners, and vendor teams. How wonderful it was to be together with some colleagues who I had not seen for over two years! We all had stories and pictures that video conferencing just can’t convey, and being able to share them, face-fo-face (and tear-to-tear), was the highlight for me. Who cried when Shivane Pratap and Laura Licata played cello and violin Bach pieces for us? That would be me. 

Our Medicaid Practice Group team was not able to get to our agendas until checking in with each other. The joy of seeing people, hugging people, shaking hands, or bumping elbows or fists underscored the value of being able to utilize all our senses when we meet with people—after all, we are in a people industry, and it was amazing to see the care we have for each other, and it was a reminder that that care is the foundation of what we strive to deliver to the Medicaid population each and every day through our work.

What an amazing 18 months we’ve been through—hearing that the Medicaid population is now over 80 million, and that it exceeds the Medicare population is hard to fathom, and this means that the Medicaid population is 25% of our overall population, and Medicaid and Medicare populations combined are half of our population. I think the growth in Medicaid of 10 million members in just a few years is a reflection of the pandemic and hardships our nation is currently enduring.

In the midst of the loss endured as COVID-19 waves continue to seep through this world, we have accomplished much. I’m not sure if these gains seem bigger because it’s been two years since we last gathered, the appreciation of being able to get anything accomplished other than respond to the pandemic, or maybe we really have hit our goals out of the ballpark (most likely a mixture of all three).

Significant achievements of the past two years

Items of significant accomplishment and change since our last MESC in-person conference include:

  • A new administration and CMS Senior Leadership, Deputy Administrator and Director, Daniel Tsai
  • System and policy changes to accommodate needs driven by COVID-19, the substance use epidemic, and other hardships
  • Continued modular implementations, piloting of Outcomes-Based Certification and a focus on the Medicaid problems we are trying to solve
  • Steady progress on Medicaid Enterprise Systems modernization
  • Human-centered design focus
  • States seem to be striving to be more proactive and set up project management offices to help them be more efficient (great to hear attitudes like Kentucky’s, “If you can measure it, you can improve it.”). Examining the root cause with good planning helps reduce “reacting”
  • Agency collaboration and improvements in interoperability as well as collaboration with our federal CMS partners
  • Improved tools and monitoring tools (how about Tennessee’s dashboard demo!)

Challenges ahead that were raised in sessions and conversations during MESC include:

  • Public health emergency “unwinding” – lots of rule changes, potential re-enrollment for up to 80 million members
  • Coverage and access – healthcare is at a tipping point, and the future is a connected healthcare system
  • Equity and patient access
  • Whole person care innovation, delivery system reform, putting patients at the center
  • Managing data and data exchanges
  • Focus on Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR)—a progressive change

Inspiration to continue moving forward

Concepts of inspiration that I carry with me from this conference and will help me continue moving forward:

  • Many responses to the pandemic began organically with only a few, which grew to hundreds of thousands, showing us that a “few” (i.e., us) can lead to meaningful and impactful solutions.
  • Medicaid is about the people it’s serving, not the technology.
  • Everyone is born with creativity and the importance of curiosity as a form of listening
  • Collaboration is about peer respect—we need to understand what everyone is excellent at so we can count on them (thank you Michael Hendrix!)
  • Embrace change as a healthy way of being

We all know there is a lot going on right now and there is more to come—at work, in our lives, in our country, and on this planet. Our state partners need help as they are continually asked to do more (effectively) with less. States’ Medicaid members need help, and our state partners need help. Examining how we are structured, what tools and organizational and project management approaches we can leverage, and how we care for ourselves and our teams so we can be there for our citizens, will take us a long way towards a successful outcome. We are all in this together. Let’s dare to be bold, be creative, be innovative, be intentional—let’s lead the way to fulfil our vision and our mission!

Article
MESC 2021 reflections 

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 State Medicaid Enterprise System (MES) certification or modernization efforts.

As states transition to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' (CMS) Outcomes-Based Certification (OBC), many jurisdictions are also implementing (or considering implementation of) an Integrated Eligibility System (IES). Federal certification for a standalone Medicaid Enterprise System (MES) comes with its own challenges, especially as states navigate the recent shift to OBC for Medicaid Eligibility and Enrollment (E&E) services. Certification in the context of an IES creates a whole new set of considerations for states, as Medicaid eligibility overlaps with that of benefit programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistant Program (SNAP), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and others. We’ve identified the following areas for consideration in your own state's IES implementation: 

  • Modernizing MES 
    It's likely your state has considered the pros and cons of implementing an IES, since CMS' announcement of increased federal funds for states committed to building new and/or enhanced Medicaid systems. Determining whether an IES is the right solution is no small undertaking. From coordinating on user design to system security, development of an IES requires buy-in across a wider range of programs and stakeholders. Certification will look different from that of a standalone MES. For example, your state will not only need to ensure compliance with CMS' Minimum Acceptable Risk Standards for Exchanges (MARS-E), but also account for sensitive data, such as medical information, across program interfaces and integration. 

    BerryDunn recommends one of the first steps states take in the planning phase of their IES implementation is to identify how they will define their certification team. Federal certification itself does not yet reflect the level of integration states want to achieve with an IES, and will require as much subject matter expertise per program included in the IES as it requires an understanding of your state's targeted integration outcomes and desired overlap among programs.
  • Scale and scope of requirements
    Once your agency commits to designing an IES, the scope of its solution becomes much broader. With this comes a wider range of contract requirements. Requirements can be program-specific (e.g., relevant only to Medicaid) or program-agnostic (e.g., general technical, "look-and-feel", and security requirements that apply throughout the solution). Common requirements across certain programs (e.g., certain eligibility criteria) will also need to be determined. Requirements validation and the development of Requirements Traceability Matrixes (RTM) per program are critical parts of the development phase of an IES implementation.

    BerryDunn recommends a comprehensive mapping process of requirements to OBC and other federal certification criteria, to ensure system design is in compliance with federal guidance prior to entering go/no-go for system testing phases.
  • Outcomes as they apply across programs
    CMS' transition to OBC changed the way states define their Medicaid program outcomes. Under this new definition outcomes are the value-add, or the end result, a state wishes to achieve as the result of its Medicaid eligibility solution enhancements. In the context of an IES, Medicaid outcomes have to be considered in terms of their relation to other programs. For example, presumptive eligibility (PE) between SNAP and Medicaid and/or cross-program referrals might become more direct outcomes when there is an immediate data exchange between and among programs.

    BerryDunn recommends consideration of what you hope to achieve with your IES implementation. Is it simply an upgrade to an antiquated legacy system(s), or is the goal ultimately to improve data sharing and coordination across benefit programs? While certification documentation is submitted to individual federal agencies, cross-program outcomes can be worked into your contract requirements to ensure they are included in IES business rules and design.
  • Cost allocation
    In the planning phase of any Design, Development, and Implementation (DDI) project, states submit an Advance Planning Document (APD) to formally request Federal Financial Participation (FFP), pending certification review and approval. This APD process becomes more complex in an IES, as states need to account for FFP from federal programs in addition to CMS as well as develop a weighted cost allocation methodology to distribute shares equitably across benefit programs.

    BerryDunn recommends States utilize the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children & Families (ACF), Office of Child Support Enforcement's (OCSE) Cost Allocation Methodologies (CAM) Toolkit to inform your cost allocation model across benefit programs, as part of the APD development process
  • Timeline
    A traditional MES implementation timeline accounts for project stages such as configuration sessions, requirement mapping, design validation, testing, CMS' Operational Readiness Review (ORR), etc. The project schedule for an IES is dependent on additional factors and variables. Scheduling of federal certification reviews for OBC and/or other programs might be held up by project delays in another area of the implementation, and project teams must be agile enough to navigate such changes

    BerryDunn recommends development of a thoughtful, comprehensive project schedule allowing ample time for each project phase across programs. We also recommend states cultivate relationships with federal partners including, but not limited to, CMS, to communicate when a development delay is anticipated. Engaging federal partners throughout the DDI phases will be a critical part of your IES implementation.

In theory, an IES benefits stakeholders on both sides of the system. Caseworkers avoid duplication of efforts, reduce administrative costs, and ensure program integrity, while individuals and families on the receiving end of public benefit programs experience a more efficient, streamlined application process. In practice, the development of a comprehensive business rules, case management, and workflow system across human services programs can prove to be a heavy lift for states, including but not limited to considerations around certification to secure FFP. Planning for the implications of an IES implementation ahead of time will go a long way in preparing your agency and state for this comprehensive certification effort.
 
For further reading
Keep an eye out for the next blog in this series, highlighting certification guidelines across an IES implementation (for CMS and other Federal programs). You can read more on OBC here

If you have questions about your specific situation, please contact the Medicaid Consulting team. We’re here to help. 

Article
States transition to Outcomes-Based Certification: Considerations and recommendations

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, Organization development: Shortcuts for states to consider, here: 

Over the last two years, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has undertaken an effort to streamline MES certification. During this time, we have been fortunate enough to be 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. The content we are covering is based on our experience supporting states with efforts related to CMS certification. We do not speak for CMS, nor do we have the authority to do so.

What organization development (OD) shortcuts can state Medicaid agencies consider when faced with competing priorities and challenges such as Medicaid modernization projects in flight, staffing shortages, and a retiring workforce?

The shortcuts include rapid development and understanding of the “why”. This requires the courage to challenge assumptions, especially around transparency, to allow for a consistent understanding of the needs, data, environment, and staff members’ role in impacting the health of the people served by a state’s Medicaid program. To rapidly gain an understanding of the “why”, state Medicaid agencies should:

  1. Accelerate the transparency of information and use of data in ways that lead to a collective understanding of the “why”. Accelerating a collective understanding of the why requires improved communication mechanisms. 
  2. Invest time to connect with staff. The insistence, persistence, and consistency of leaders to stay connected to their workforce will help keep the focus on the “why” and build a shared sense of connection and purpose among teams.
  3. Create the standard that planning involves all stakeholders (e.g., policy, operations, systems staff, etc.) and focus on building consensus and alignment throughout the organization. During planning, identify answers to the following questions: What are we trying to achieve, what are the outcomes, and what is the vision for what we are trying to do?
  4. Question any fragmentation. For example, if there is a hiring freeze, several staff are retiring, and demand is increasing, it is a good idea to think about how the organization manages people. Question boundaries related to your staff and the business processes they perform (e.g., some staff can only complete a portion of a business process because of a job classification). Look at ways to broaden the expectations of staff, eliminate unnecessary handoffs, and expect development. Leaders and teams work together to build a culture that is vision-driven, data-informed, and values-based.

What are some considerations when organizations are defining program outcomes and the “why” behind what they are doing? 

Keep in mind that designing system requirements is not the same as designing program outcomes. System requirements need to be able to deliver the outcomes and the information the organization needs. With something like a Medicaid Enterprise System (MES) modernization project, outcomes are what follow because of a successful project or series of projects. For example, a state Medicaid agency looking to improve access to care might develop an outcome focused on enabling the timely and accurate screening and revalidation for Medicaid providers. 

Next, keeping with the improving access to care example, state Medicaid agencies should define and communicate the roles technology and staff play in helping achieve the desired outcome and continue communicating and helping staff understand the “why”. In Medicaid we impact people’s lives, and that makes it easy to find the heart. Helping staff connect their own motivation and find meaning in achieving an outcome is key to help ensure project success and realize desired outcomes. 

Program outcomes represents one of the six major categories related to organizational health: 

  1. Leadership
  2. Strategy
  3. Workforce
  4. Operations and process improvement 
  5. Person-centered service
  6. Program outcomes

Focusing on these six key areas during the analysis, planning, development, and integration will help organizations improve performance, increase their impact, and achieve program outcomes. Reach out to the BerryDunn’s Medicaid and Organization Development consulting team for more information about how organization develop can help your Medicaid agency.
 

Article
Outcomes and organization development, part II

Read this if you are a business owner. 

Consider the value of the following two hypothetical companies. Roger owns Wag More, Bark Less (WMBL), a pet service company that employs 10 full-time dog walkers. Anita owns a very similar company, Happy Dog Walking Service (Happy Dog), which also happens to employ 10 full-time dog walkers. These companies are both almost identical, and last year, they generated the same amount of revenue and income. A key difference, however, is in the management styles of the owners. Roger is extremely disorganized and has difficulty with record retention, locating information, and tracking and analyzing data. He is relatively inexperienced as a manager. Anita, meanwhile, is very punctual and organized and has 15 years of management experience. She is very capable of monitoring dog-walking data to optimize routes, manage employee utilization, and track client satisfaction. Which company is more valuable? 

Despite being identical in terms of service offering and size, most people would identify Happy Dog as being more valuable. Alarm bells start to ring in a valuation analyst’s head when learning about the sloppy management style, lack of experience, and poor use of data at WMBL. The difference in value should be substantial. Despite generating the same amount of profit last year, Happy Dog could be worth twice as much as WMBL because these risk factors may jeopardize future profits.

In addition to the risk factors from the above example, there are many other drivers of business value.

Valuation formula

In its simplest form, the valuation of a business can be reduced to the following formula based on earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA). Factors that affect value do so by affecting the valuation multiple. Companies such as WMBL would be worth a lower multiple of EBITDA, and a higher multiple would be justified for less risky companies such as Happy Dog. 

Estimating an EBITDA multiple

A generic multiple often thrown around is 5x EBITDA. EBITDA multiples from the DealStats database show a slightly lower average over time. From 2017 to 2019, the EBITDA multiples were around 5x, then declined in 2020 and 2021. The chart below shows trends in historical EBITDA multiples.1 

Median Selling Price/EBITDA with Trailing Three-Quarter Average


In reality, EBITDA multiples vary widely by industry. For example, in the DealStats database, the median EBITDA multiple for retail trade was 3.8x compared to 6.5x for manufacturing companies.2 The chart below presents EBITDA multiples by industry from the DealStats database.

Selling Price/EBITDA Interquartile Range by Industry Sector (Private Targets)


Even within a specific industry, multiples can vary dramatically. For example, from the chart above, the median wholesale trade multiple was slightly above 5.0x, but the 75th percentile multiple for this industry was approximately 10.0x. 

Factors affecting EBITDA multiples

Differences in valuation multiples from company to company reflect differences in risk profiles. High-risk companies command lower multiples than safe investments. The following chart illustrates how certain operational risk factors may affect the valuation multiple.

Other factors that affect valuation multiples include the following:

  • Access to capital
  • Supplier concentration 
  • Supplier pricing advantage 
  • Product or service diversification 
  • Life cycle of current products or services 
  • Geographical distribution 
  • Currency risk 
  • Internal controls 
  • Business owner reliance
  • Legal/litigation issues 
  • Years in operation
  • Location   
  • Demographics 
  • Availability of labor 
  • Employee stability 
  • Internal and external culture 
  • Economic factors 
  • Industry and government regulations 
  • Political factors 
  • Fixed asset age and condition 
  • Strength of intangible assets 
  • Distribution system 
  • IT systems 
  • Technology life cycle 

One model to assess risk and select an appropriate multiple is the exit and succession planning software prepared by MAUS Business Systems (“MAUS”). The MAUS Business Attractiveness model assists analysts in assessing and diagramming the risk profile of a company. This model was developed to assess business attractiveness to potential acquirers based on common risk factors. Analysts can use this software as part of their assessment of an appropriate valuation multiple. This model is also a helpful communication tool because it provides a visual representation of a company’s risk profile and highlights the areas in which a company can improve. 

Using this model, analysts assess a company’s risk profile regarding several key factors. MAUS then generates a report that includes a series of diagrams like the one below. Business attractiveness factors are positioned around the outside of a polygon. If a company performs well regarding a particular factor, a point is plotted towards the outside of the polygon. If the company performs poorly, a point is plotted towards the center of the shape. The points are then connected to visualize a company’s risk profile. 

Business Risk & Value Factors

         

The larger the colored shape is in the MAUS diagram, the higher the valuation multiple should be. However, these factors do not all affect the multiple equally. The valuation multiple may be highly responsive to some factors and less responsive to others. Additionally, each factor may not have a linear effect on the valuation multiple. For these reasons, formula-based estimates of valuation multiples are often inaccurate, although a great place to start for a ballpark indication of value. For matters of importance where accuracy is paramount, we strongly recommend consulting with a valuation professional. In addition to valuation expertise, an outside party provides an independent, unbiased assessment of value. 

Conclusion

The value of a business can be affected dramatically by its risk profile. Analysts value businesses based on a number of different factors that affect value. 

1,2 DealStats Value Index 2Q 2021, Business Valuation Resources, LLC (www.bvresources.com).

Article
Factors affecting the value of a company