Skip to Main Content

insightsarticles

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

10.13.21

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.

Related Industries

Related Professionals

Principals

BerryDunn experts and consultants

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article
Keeping the PERM Manual update in focus during the PHE

Read this if your State Medicaid Agency is planning Medicaid Enterprise System enhancements.

Are you a system integrator (SI) or a State Medicaid Agency (SMA) implementing or enhancing a Medicaid system or specific module? Have you considered how decisions made during design and implementation could impact the federal Payment Error Rate Measurement (PERM) reviews for SMAs?

The goal of PERM is to measure and report an unbiased estimate of the true improper payment rate for Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Every state is reviewed once every three years using a sample that includes both fee for service (FFS) and managed care (MC) payments. A state assigned error rate is not the only consequence resulting from the PERM review; there are also financial implications.

Risk reduction from PERM review

Maintaining a focus on PERM review factors when making decisions during design and implementation can protect states by reducing the risk of:

  • Submitting change requests (CR) during implementation, which can result in additional cost and time
  • Implementing changes to existing Medicaid systems during maintenance and operations
  • Findings reported during certification efforts
  • Refunding federal dollars due to improperly paid claims
  • A reduction in federal match on all claims paid

It is also important to understand the benefits of a dedicated PERM team within the state organization that includes members from the system vendor and outside PERM experts. These benefits include providing states an additional level of security to help ensure a positive outcome to the federal PERM review, helping to protect federal funding.

Having a dedicated team will help ensure all decisions made during system updates and/or implementations are made while keeping focus on PERM requirements and the further impacts of PERM reviews, saving time and remaining compliant.

Plan ahead for best results

When planning for a new module or Medicaid system request for proposal (RFPs), consider PERM-related requirements to help ensure all PERM needs are met to prevent errors and repayment of federal funds. Including PERM requirements can also help your agency ensure federal compliance and successful PERM audits. Doing so will likely reduce the amount of time system integrators spend re-working earlier development decisions and help ensure claim payments are processed, and eligibility determinations are made in accordance with federal and state regulations.

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

Article
PERM success for Medicaid agencies through system implementations

Read this if you are a behavioral health agency leader looking for solutions to manage mental health, substance misuse, and overdose crises.

As state health departments across the country continue to grapple with rising COVID-19 cases, stalling vaccination rates, and public heath workforce burnout, other crises in behavioral health may be looming. Diverted resources, disruption in treatment, and the mental stress of the COVID-19 pandemic have exacerbated mental health disorders, substance use, and drug overdoses.

State agencies need behavioral health solutions perhaps now more than ever. BerryDunn works with state agencies to mitigate the challenges of managing behavioral health and implement innovative strategies and solutions to better serve beneficiaries. Read on to understand how conducting a needs assessment, redesigning processes, and/or establishing a strategic plan can amplify the impact of your programs. 

Behavioral health in crisis

The prevalence of mental illness and substance use disorders has steadily increased over the past decade, and the pandemic has exacerbated these trends. A number of recently released studies show increases in symptoms of anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation. One CDC study indicates that in June 2020 over 40% of adults reported an adverse mental or behavioral health condition, which includes about 13% who have started or increased substance use to cope with stress or emotions related to COVID-19.1 

The toll on behavioral health outcomes is compounded by the pandemic’s disruption to behavioral health services. According to the National Council for Behavioral Health, 65% of behavioral health organizations have had to cancel, reschedule, or turn away patients, even as organizations see a dramatic increase in the demand for services.2,3 Moreover, treatment facilities and harm reduction programs across the country have scaled back services or closed entirely due to social distancing requirements, insufficient personal protective equipment, budget shortfalls, and other challenges.4 These disruptions in access to care and service delivery are having a severe impact.

Several studies indicate that patients report new barriers to care or changes in treatment and support services after the onset of the pandemic.5, 6 Barriers to care are particularly disruptive for people with substance use disorders. Social isolation and mental illness, coupled with limited treatment options and harm reduction services, creates a higher risk of suicide ideation, substance misuse, and overdose deaths.

For example, the opioid epidemic was still surging when the pandemic began, and rates of overdose have since spiked or elevated in every state across the country.7 After a decline of overdose deaths in 2018 for the first time in two decades, the CDC reported 81,230 overdose deaths from June 2019 to May 2020, the highest number of overdose deaths ever recorded in a 12-month period.8 

These trends do not appear to be improving. On October 3, the CDC reported that from March 2020 to March 2021, overdose deaths have increased 29.6% compared to the previous year, and that number will only continue to climb as more data comes in.9  

As the country continues to experience an increase in mental illness, suicide, and substance use disorders, states are in need of capacity and support to identify and/or implement strategies to mitigate these challenges. 

Solutions for state agencies

Behavioral health has been recognized as a priority issue and service area that will require significant resources and innovation. In May, the US Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra reestablished the Behavioral Health Coordinating Council to facilitate collaborative, innovative, transparent, equitable, and action-oriented approaches to address the HHS behavioral health agenda. The 2022 budget allocates $1.6 billion to the Community Mental Health Services Block Grant, which is more than double the Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 funding and $3.9 billion more than in FY 2020, to address the opioid epidemic in addition to other substance use disorders.10 

As COVID-19 continues to exacerbate behavioral health issues, states need innovative solutions to take on these challenges and leverage additional federal funding. COVID-19 is still consuming the time of many state leaders and staff, so states have a limited capacity to plan, implement, and manage the new initiatives to adequately address these issues. Here are three ways health departments can capitalize on the additional funding.

Conduct a needs assessment to identify opportunities to improve use of data and program outcomes

Despite meeting baseline reporting requirements, state agencies often lack sufficient quality data to assess program outcomes, identify underserved populations, and obtain a holistic view of the comprehensive system of care for behavioral health services. Although state agencies may be able to recognize challenges in the delivery or administration of behavioral health services, it can be difficult to identify solutions that result in sustained improvements.

By performing a structured needs assessment, health departments can evaluate their processes, systems, and resources to better understand how they are using data, and how to optimize programs to tailor behavioral health services and promote better health outcomes and a more equitable distribution of care. This analysis provides the insight for agencies to understand not only the strengths and challenges of the current environment, but also the desires and opportunities for a future solution that takes into account stakeholder needs, best practice, and emerging technologies. 

Some of the benefits we have seen our clients enjoy as a result of performing a needs assessment include: 

  • Discovering and validating strengths and challenges of current state operations through independent evaluation
  • Establishing a clear roadmap for future business and technological improvements
  • Determining costs and benefits of new, alternative, or enhanced systems and/or processes
  • Identifying the specific business and technical requirements to achieve and improve performance outcomes 

Timely, accurate, and comprehensive data is critical to improving behavioral health outcomes, and the information gathered during a needs assessment can inform further activities that support programmatic improvements. Further activities might include conducting a fit-gap analysis, performing business process redesign, establishing a prioritization matrix, and more. By identifying the greatest needs and implementing plans to address them, state agencies can better handle the impact on behavioral health services resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic and serve individuals with mental health or substance use disorders more efficiently and effectively.

Redesign processes to improve how individuals access treatment and services

Despite the availability of behavioral health services, inefficient business and technical processes can delay and frustrate individuals seeking care and in some cases, make them stop seeking care altogether. With limited resources and increasing demands, behavioral health agencies should analyze and redesign work flows to maximize efficiency, security, and efficacy. Here are a few examples of process improvements states can achieve through process redesign:

  • Streamlined data processes to reduce duplicative data entry 
  • Automated and aligned manual data collection processes 
  • Integrated siloed health information systems
  • Focused activities to maximize staff strengths
  • Increased process transparency to improve communication and collaboration 

By placing the consumer experience at the core of all services, state health departments can redesign business and technical processes to optimize the continuum of care. A comprehensive approach takes into account all aspects that contribute to the delivery of behavioral health services, including both administrative and financial processes. This helps ensure interconnected activities continue to be performed efficiently and effectively. Such improvements help consumers with co-occurring disorders (mental illness and substance use disorder) and/or developmental disorders find “no wrong door” when seeking care. 

Establish a strategic plan of action to address the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic

With the influx of available dollars resulting from the American Recovery Plan Act and other state and federal investments, health departments have a unique opportunity to fund specific initiatives to enhance the delivery and administration of behavioral health services. Understanding how to allocate the millions of newly awarded dollars in an impactful and sustainable way can be challenging. Furthermore, the additional reporting and compliance requirements linked to the funding can be difficult to navigate in addition to current monitoring obligations. 

The best way to begin using the available funding is to develop and implement strategic plans that optimize funds for behavioral health programs and services. You can establish priorities and identify sustainable solutions that build capacity, streamline operations, and promote the equitable distribution of care across populations. A few of the activities state health departments have undertaken resulting from the strategic planning initiatives include: 

  • Modernizing IT systems, including data management solutions and Electronic Health Records systems to support inpatient, outpatient, and community mental health and substance use programs 
  • Promoting organizational change management 
  • Establishing grant programs for community-driven solutions to promote health equity for the underserved population
  • Organizing, managing, and/or supporting stakeholder engagement efforts to effectively collaborate with internal and external stakeholders for a strong and comprehensive approach

The prevalence of mental illness and substance use disorder were areas of concern prior to COVID-19, and the pandemic has only made these issues worse, while adding more administrative challenges. State health departments have had to redirect their existing staff to work to address COVID-19, leaving a limited capacity to manage existing state-level programs and little to no capacity to plan and implement new initiatives. 

The federal administration and HHS are working to provide financial support to states to work to address these exacerbated health concerns; however, with the limited state capacity, states need additional support to plan, implement, and/or manage new initiatives. BerryDunn has a wide breadth of knowledge and experience in conducting needs assessments, redesigning processes, and establishing strategic plans that are aimed at amplifying the impact of state programs. Contact our behavioral health consulting team to learn more about how we can help. 

Sources:
Mental Health, Substance Use, and Suicidal Ideation During the COVID-19 Pandemic, CDC.gov
COVID-19 Pandemic Impact on Harm Reduction Services: An Environmental Scan, thenationalcouncil.org
National Council for Behavioral Health Polling Presentation, thenationalcouncil.org
The Impact of COVID-19 on Syringe Services Programs in the United States, nih.gov
COVID-19 Pandemic Impact on Harm Reduction Services: An Environmental Scan, thenationalcouncil.org
COVID-19-Related Treatment Service Disruptions Among People with Single- and Polysubstance Use Concerns, Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment
Issue Brief: Nation’s Drug-Related Overdose and Death Epidemic Continues to Worsen, American Medical Association
Increase in Fatal Drug Overdoses Across the United States Driven by Synthetic Opioids Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic, CDC.gov
Provisional Drug Overdose Death Counts, CDC.gov
10 Fiscal Year 2022 Budget in Brief: Strengthening Health and Opportunity for All Americans, HHS.gov

Article
COVID's impact on behavioral health: Solutions for state agencies

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 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