Posted on

NYS Comptroller: Department of Health paid over $100M in improper Medicaid payments

MM Curator summary

[ MM Curator Summary]: 3 recent audits of the NY Medicaid program show significant preventable losses.

 
 

The article below has been highlighted and summarized by our research team. It is provided here for member convenience as part of our Curator service.

 
 

 
 

(Photo: Getty Images)

ALBANY, N.Y. (NEWS10) – New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli has released three reports that found more than $100 million in improper payments made by the Department of Health (DOH) for the Medicare buy-in program, maternity care, and drug and therapy claims. Nearly $400,000 in premiums may have been paid for deceased individuals.

AdChoices

ADVERTISING

How New York will benefit from the federal infrastructure bill

“The Medicaid program provides critical health care services to millions of New Yorkers but the program is dogged by oversight problems and payment errors,” said DiNapoli. “Over the years, we’ve uncovered billions of dollars of waste and abuse in the system. DOH should act on our recommendations to ensure significant unnecessary expenses and preventable mistakes don’t end up costing taxpayers.”

The New York State Medicaid program is administered by DOH and is a federal, state, and local government funded program that provides medical services to economically disadvantaged populations. As of March 2021, the program had about 7.3 million recipients and claim costs totaled more than $68 billion.

One audit found that Medicaid made $31.7 million in improper Medicare premium payments from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2019. Medicaid also paid $372,716 in Medicare premiums for 282 individuals who were deceased. Auditors found Medicaid paid $23.6 million in premiums for individuals who were automatically added to the buy-in program with coverage beginning more than two years retroactively, despite limitations on this.

Dashboard tracking spending of federal recovery aid and COVID relief programs launches in New York

The second audit examined Medicaid recipients who receive their services through managed care. DOH pays managed care organizations (MCOs) a monthly premium for each enrolled recipient and the MCOs pay for services their members require. MCOs can also receive a Supplemental Maternity Capitation Payment (SMCP) for prenatal and postpartum physician care and delivery costs. However, MCOs are not eligible to receive SMCPs for maternity cases that end in termination or a miscarriage.

Auditors found about $55 million in improper and questionable SMCPs to MCOs from August 1, 2015 to July 31, 2020. They found $29.1 million was paid without the required supporting data, $23.4 million was paid where the data or other evidence indicated the maternity case ended in termination or miscarriage, and $2.4 million was paid when the SMCP date of service preceded the birth by one to six months.

Comptroller releases interactive map of New York census results

A report released in October 2019 examined payments made for prescription drugs and therapy services. It found Medicaid paid $20.1 million for services that should have been paid by Medicare. A follow-up report found DOH made some progress in addressing these problems, however, auditors identified another $17.7 million in payments that should have been paid by Medicare.

You can read the full reports on the State Comptroller website.

 
 

Clipped from: https://www.mytwintiers.com/ny-news-2/nys-comptroller-department-of-health-paid-over-100m-in-improper-medicaid-payments/

Posted on

Attorney General Ford Announces Sentencing of Las Vegas Medicaid Provider Randi Jewel Lewis in Fraud Case

MM Curator summary

[ MM Curator Summary]: 2 women who set up an entire shadow company solely for the purpose of defrauding Medicaid will get probation and have their prison sentences suspended.

 
 

The article below has been highlighted and summarized by our research team. It is provided here for member convenience as part of our Curator service.

 
 

Las Vegas, NV – Nevada Attorney General Aaron D. Ford announced that Randi Jewel Lewis, 30, of Las Vegas, was sentenced in a Medicaid fraud case involving falsely billing for Medicaid services allegedly provided to Medicaid recipients.

Lewis pleaded guilty to one count of Medicaid Fraud and one count of Money Laundering. District Court Judge Jasmin Lilly-Spells sentenced Lewis to between 19 to 48 months in prison, suspended, and placed her on probation. Lewis was also ordered to pay more than $30,000 in restitution, penalties and costs.

“My office is committed to combatting Medicaid fraud to ensure the wellbeing of its recipients and to safeguard taxpayer resources,” said AG Ford. “Prosecutions of these types of crimes helps deter future crimes against the Medicaid system, and stop predatory fraudsters from gaming the system to their advantage.”

The investigation began after the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit (MFCU) received an allegation that Vegas Health LLC (Vegas Health) submitted false information to Medicaid. The investigation revealed that Lewis and her co-defendant, Shonna Nicole Marshall, formed a ghost company with the sole objective of fraudulently billing Medicaid.

Lewis and Marshall used Medicaid providers’ and recipients’ personal information without their knowledge or consent. Lewis and Marshall then transferred the fraudulently obtained funds into multiple bank accounts and to multiple associates in order to conceal the source of the funds. Marshall, who pleaded guilty to one count of Medicaid Fraud and twenty-six counts of Money Laundering, is scheduled to be sentenced in January for her role in the fraudulent scheme.

The MFCU investigates and prosecutes financial fraud by those providing healthcare services or goods to Medicaid patients. The MFCU also investigates and prosecutes instances of elder abuse or neglect. The Nevada MFCU receives 75% of its funding from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under a grant award. The remaining 25% is funded by the State of Nevada, MFCU. Persons convicted of Medicaid fraud may also be administratively excluded from future Medicaid and Medicare participation. Anyone wishing to report suspicions regarding any of these concerns may contact the MFCU at 702-486-3420 or 775-684-1100.

This case was investigated by the Attorney General’s Medicaid Fraud Control Unit and was prosecuted by Senior Deputy Attorney General Behnaz Salimian Molina.

The amended indictment for Randi Jewel Lewis is attached.

To file a complaint with the Office of the Nevada Attorney General, click here.

###

 
 

Clipped from: https://ag.nv.gov/layouts/Page_Style_1.aspx?id=345188

Posted on

IL- Rate Increases to the Medicaid Fee Schedule (Dental)

MM Curator summary

[ MM Curator Summary]: IL dentists will get $10M in Medicaid payments next year.

 
 

The article below has been highlighted and summarized by our research team. It is provided here for member convenience as part of our Curator service.

 
 

 
 

The Illinois State Dental Society (ISDS) advocated this past session to increase rates for dental care in the Illinois Medicaid program. ISDS was successful in the pursuit of the increased rates to the extent that $10 million was added to the budget for the rate increases.  

The Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services (DHFS) just announced these rate increases to the Medicaid Fee Schedule for select dental services that ISDS helped negotiate and are scheduled to begin January 1, 2022. The specific codes with rate increases can be found by clicking here. DHFS has highlighted the increased codes in yellow.

Highlighted in these new increases are restorative services, dentures, extractions, and anesthesia services.  To review the codes and see if participation in the Medicaid program would work in your practice, please click here to see the full Medicaid fee schedule.

To enroll and learn more about being a provider in the Medicaid program, please contact DHFS by calling 1-877-782-5565 (select option #1) or by going online to https://www2.illinois.gov/hfs/impact/Pages/ContactIMPACT.aspx.

We want to thank our members again for their persistent efforts in contacting and educating their legislators on the need for this additional funding. While we are very excited for this legislative win, our work is not done. We will continue, as always, to advocate for you, the members.

 
 

Clipped from: https://www.isds.org/news-details/2021/12/01/alert!-rate-increases-to-the-medicaid-fee-schedule

Posted on

Size of Medicaid Expansion Influenced Administrative Spending

MM Curator summary

[ MM Curator Summary]: States that had more room to grow (ie had higher uninsurance rates) benefitted more when they expanded (in terms of administrative costs), likely due to economies of scale and handing over more scope to MCOs.

 
 

The article below has been highlighted and summarized by our research team. It is provided here for member convenience as part of our Curator service.

 
 

 
 

 
 

States that enacted Medicaid expansion and had high uninsurance rates among low-income residents were considered large expansion states and subsequently saw a slight decrease in administrative spending.

 
 

Source: Getty Images

 
 

By Victoria Bailey

November 30, 2021 – Medicaid expansion did not impact overall administrative spending, but states with large expansions saw slight reductions in spending while smaller expansions led to minor increases, according to a Health Affairs report.

Administrative spending covers expenditures for eligibility and enrollment assessments and processes, interagency costs, claims processing, information technology systems, and more. States did not receive reimbursement for administrative costs following Medicaid expansion, and there is little research that speaks to whether expansion impacted this spending.

Researchers from Indiana University gathered data from all fifty states and focused on two outcomes in each state: the percentage of total spending that was administrative and per enrollee administrative spending.

State expansion, spending, and enrollment data from 2007 to 2017 were obtained through various CMS and Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) reports.

The Health Affairs report looks at the differences in administrative spending between states that have expanded Medicaid and nonexpansion states. Additionally, the researchers compared large expansion states to small expansion states and states that expanded Medicaid traditionally through the Affordable Care Act to states that used Section 1115 to expand their program through waivers.

Researchers classified expansions as large or small by using the median uninsurance rate among nonelderly adults who had incomes below 100 percent of the federal poverty level in the year before the expansion. If the uninsurance rate was high, expansions were considered large.

Medicaid expansion became optional for states in 2014. Since then, 38 states and Washington DC have expanded their Medicaid programs.

Prior to 2014, expansion and nonexpansion states had similar levels of administrative spending, but most expansion states saw a larger unadjusted decline in per enrollee administrative spending after expanding their programs, researchers found.

The average annual per enrollee administrative spending in nonexpansion states before 2014 was slightly more than $444. Between 2014 and 2017, it fell to a little over $408, signifying a $35.60 decrease.

States that underwent large expansions saw a $106 annual decrease, going from an average of $507 per enrollee administrative spending pre-2014 to $401 between 2014 and 2017. States that had small expansions saw a slighter decrease of $20.99.

The adjusted analysis revealed very few differences in per enrollee administrative spending for nonexpansion and expansion states, including states that used ACA expansion methods and ones that expanded through waivers.

When categorizing Medicaid expansion states by expansion size, the differences were slightly more apparent. States that had large expansions saw a significant decrease in per enrollee administrative spending of $77 compared to nonexpansion states, while states with small expansions saw a nonsignificant increase compared to nonexpansion states.

In looking at the percentage of total spending that is administrative, researchers found similar results. Large expansion states had a nonsignificant reduction compared to nonexpansion states. Meanwhile, small expansion states had a significant increase in the percentage of spending that was administrative compared to nonexpansion states.

Overall, Medicaid expansion did not significantly escalate administrative spending for expansion states. But when considering expansion sizes, small expansions led to slight increases in administrative spending.

“States with larger expansions may experience economies of scale, where it becomes less expensive and they become more efficient as more people are enrolled in the program,” the report stated.

Additionally, states with larger expansions are known to have stricter eligibility criteria and may spend less on Medicaid overall, according to the researchers.

Small expansion states may have seen increases in administrative spending due to differences in reimbursement rates, application requirements, and eligibility and enrollment processes. States with smaller expansions also tend to have more generous Medicaid programs, which could exhibit higher spending, the report noted.

Twelve states have yet to expand Medicaid, barring access to healthcare coverage for many of their residents. Most of these states have high uninsurance rates and low eligibility thresholds which would lead to large expansions, researchers said. According to the study results, these expansions would increase coverage access while also reducing administrative spending.

The American Rescue Plan Act is encouraging states to expand Medicaid as well by offering an increase in federal medical assistance percentages (FMAP) for the first two years after expansion.

 
 

Clipped from: https://healthpayerintelligence.com/news/size-of-medicaid-expansion-influenced-administrative-spending
 

Posted on

State pushes back timeline for Medicaid bonuses; group home providers eye long-term solutions

MM Curator summary

[ MM Curator Summary]: Florida is using an application process to distribute the recently approved federal funds for HCBS services, and providers want the money right now.

 
 

The article below has been highlighted and summarized by our research team. It is provided here for member convenience as part of our Curator service.

 
 

Florida may be getting a boost in money intended to help people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, but it doesn’t look like those additional federal Medicaid funds are going to be handed out soon.

And that’s a conundrum for a system that already is under strain.

The hopes were this “bonus money” could be distributed by the end of the year, but the administration of Gov. Ron DeSantis has pushed back the timeline to distribute the funds with the goal of having the money distributed by “winter 2022.”

Given the federal government approved the state’s plan to bolster home- and community-based services in September, the timeline has some wondering why it could take five months to see the money.

“It can’t come fast enough,” Sen. Aaron Bean, chairman of the health care spending panel, told Florida Politics Monday.

 
 

Agency for Health Care Administration Chief of Staff Cody Farrill told members of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Health and Human Services earlier this month that the agency’s goal is to post employer and employee bonus applications on its website in December.

Of the $1.2 billion in additional federal money coming Florida’s way, the state is setting aside $403 million in one-time stipends for employers to apply for and another $266.6 million for their employees, Farrill said.

He said the AHCA is developing potential distribution methodologies but won’t finalize any until it determines how many employers applied for the stipends. Provider caseload will also be taken into consideration in the distribution formulas, but Farrill in his testimony offered few other details.

“We understand we want to get this out the door as quickly as possible, but also want to balance the fact that we make sure these (payments) are going to the right providers that are eligible,” Farrill said.

Philadelphia transplant Tamika Walker moved to Florida in 2014 to help care for her husband’s 100-year-old grandmother. Walker initially was hired by United Community Options of South Florida seven years ago at $10 an hour. After getting promoted, she now earns $11.30 an hour, well below the $17 hourly wage she was paid in Philadelphia.

 
 

Though she hasn’t gotten a pay raise since her promotion in 2015, Walker heaps praise on her employer. She told Florida Politics that while she’s able to “make do” because of her husband’s salary, she works with others who are financially struggling. Some staff, she says, can’t afford their own cars. They rely on Uber and Lyft to get to work.

“If they want to do it, just do it. Don’t tell us about it. Just do it.” Walker said of the pay raises. “We are trying to come out of a pandemic. We had to go to work every day and put our lives on the line.”

The DeSantis administration moved over the summer to take advantage of a 10% bump in federal Medicaid dollars available under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021. Every state moved to tap into the increased federal funds, Farrill said.

Most Florida Medicaid patients who receive home- and community-based services either are enrolled in the Medicaid managed long-term care program or the Medicaid iBudget program. The former is for frail and elderly individuals who qualify for nursing home placement but choose to receive assistance with daily living activities, such as eating and dressing, that enable them to continue to live in their homes or another non-institutional setting.

Similarly, the Medicaid iBudget program allows adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities to tap into the home- and community-based services they require to continue living outside of an institution and in their family home or a group home.

Lawmakers in recent years have committed additional funding to serve more clients and whittle down what has been a lengthy waitlist. For the iBudget program to work, however, there must be a provider network willing to serve the clients. And there are worries that Florida’s network is beginning to erode.

The Agency for Persons with Disabilities reports that between March 1 and Sept. 30, 99 group homes closed, requiring relocation of 271 clients. But during that same time span, the state reports, 108 new group homes were licensed. The APD data doesn’t indicate how many clients the newly licensed homes serve.

The Florida Association of Rehabilitation Facilities data on closures tracks APD’s but FARF did not have information on new facilities opening.

FARF President and CEO Tyler Sununu said many of the group homes that remain open have stopped accepting new clients or have limited the services they provide. Sununu surveyed his group home members this summer and found that on average there has been a 41% turnover rate at the facilities.

The survey also showed that 23% of the positions at group homes are vacant, Sununu said.

Sununu attributes the 100 closures group home closures to the trifecta of the COVID-19 pandemic, a tight labor force, and historically low Medicaid reimbursement rates

“We were really hoping the money would be available for the holidays and it looks like it’s not going to be. And that’s unfortunate,” he said. “But we are really happy the money will be coming.”

Sununu, though, has his eye on the bigger picture: getting lawmakers to increase by $147.5 million the amount Medicaid pays providers. Of that increase, about $93 million would be funded with state general revenue. The remainder comes from matching federal dollars. The increase, he maintains, would allow group homes to pay direct care workers an average $14 an hour, up from the current average wage of $11 an hour.

Bean has either helped craft or has taken the lead on developing the state’s Medicaid spending plans during most of his lengthy legislative career. He says he is awaiting the results of a state-contracted study on the state’s new minimum wage requirements and the impacts it will have on the rates providers need to be paid.

Bean said APD will get its attention during the 2022 session but made no promises about increasing provider rates.

“I fully acknowledge they are struggling. But everybody is struggling. Nursing homes are struggling, retailers are struggling, restaurants are struggling. It seems like everybody has a supply chain crunch and a working shortage. So this industry is not spared from all of the above,” he said.

Florida Developmental Disabilities Council
Executive Director Valerie Breen is less focused on the home- and community-based industry and more focused on the workforce needed to provide services now and in the future

“Definitely we need providers. But more importantly, there isn’t the workforce there to support them. That is the critical issue,” she said.

While APD certifies direct support professionals who can work in Florida, Breen said there is no professional designation for the staff, whether they provide home- and community-based services at a family home or at a community group home. She said the workforce needs to be recognized and incentivized.

“It is a huge crisis nationally and we are definitely seeing it in Florida,” she said.

To that end, Breen said the Council will launch a message campaign dubbed “Pay Fair for Care.” She said hundreds of constituents will share their stories with lawmakers about the difficulty in getting direct support professionals.

“We are looking at an extreme caregiving situation. Where families are having to take it on,” she said. “They are absolutely having to take it on and they aren’t getting any support because the workforce that we depend on for direct support professionals is slowly and surely diminishing.”

Clipped from: https://floridapolitics.com/archives/476321-state-timeline-medicaid-bonuses/

Posted on

Advocates Build Back Betters CHIP Medicaid Changes Support NY Families

MM Curator summary

[ MM Curator Summary]: The latest version of BBB/ “the Infrastructure Bill” still includes Medicaid components for 12 months continuous enrollment funding and making federal CHIP funding permanent.

 
 

The article below has been highlighted and summarized by our research team. It is provided here for member convenience as part of our Curator service.

 
 

 
 

 
 

ALBANY, N.Y. — The $1.75 trillion Build Back Better Act will soon get a vote in the U.S. Senate, and in New York, advocates say it could mean major improvements to health coverage for lower-income adults and children.

The Georgetown University Center for Children and Families said states would be required to provide 12 months of continuous eligibility for children in enrolled in Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP).

Lara Kassel, coalition coordinator for Medicaid Matters New York, said Build Back Better also would increase postpartum coverage for new mothers, from 60 days to 12 months.

“We don’t want someone to suddenly, 60 days after they’ve given birth, be without coverage,” Kassel asserted. “We know that transitioning from program to program is not always successful. It’s not always affordable for someone. And so, to have the economic security of Medicaid coverage is really critical.”

New York is among 24 states already offering continuous one-year eligibility for children in Medicaid and CHIP, but just over half do not. Supporters of the bill say they want it passed by Christmas, but with increasing inflation, detractors are concerned about the cost, and could push for trimming its scope.

Build Back Better would also permanently extend federal funding for CHIP, which provides coverage to 6.8 million children whose family income is still low, but above the Medicaid eligibility level.

Joan Alker, executive director of the Center for Children and Families, said the bill would remove financial uncertainty for many families who depend on CHIP to insure their kids.

“Hopefully this will provide an opportunity, with stability in the CHIP program, to allow states to try to get to the finish line here and get all kids covered,” Alker contended.

The Children’s Health Insurance Program currently has federal funding through 2027.
Nearly 93% of eligible New York children are enrolled either in Medicaid or the state’s CHIP program, “Child Health Plus.”
 

Clipped from: https://www.publicnewsservice.org/2021-12-01/health/advocates-build-back-betters-chip-medicaid-changes-support-ny-families/a76751-1
 

Posted on

Some Colorado therapists will no longer take Medicaid patients

MM Curator summary

[ MM Curator Summary]: CO Medicaid is trying to recoup payments from years ago, and providers say they billed properly but a tech vendor took off key information.

 
 

The article below has been highlighted and summarized by our research team. It is provided here for member convenience as part of our Curator service.

 
 

Several behavioral health providers say they will no longer treat Medicaid patients after 199 providers received letters ordering them to return payment for therapy already completed.

 
 

 
 

The logo for the Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing, which administers Medicaid in the state, on a sign in the department’s offices on Feb. 26, 2019. (John Ingold, The Colorado Sun)

As a single parent going back to college, Carla D’Agostino-Vigil signed up for Medicaid and used the government-run health insurance to attend “life-saving” therapy. So when she graduated and started her own mental health counseling practice in Westminster, D’Agostino-Vigil was adamant that she would open her doors to Medicaid patients. 

“When it was my turn, I felt very strongly about being involved,” she said. “The way things have played out, my heart is broken.”

Two years after opening her practice, D’Agostino-Vigil is among the latest round of health care providers in Colorado who are quitting the Medicaid program. Nearly half of the 175 patients at Ignite Counseling Colorado are on Medicaid, and during a six-month transition phase, D’Agostino-Vigil will “try like heck” to find other counselors who will take them. If that doesn’t work, she intends to continue helping some pro bono. 

TODAY’S UNDERWRITER

Her list of reasons is long. There was the 20% rate cut in 2020, just ahead of an increase in need for mental health care because of the isolating days of the pandemic. There were the threatening letters warning her that she was “overusing” a billing code — the code for a full hour of therapy — and that she should instead see patients for 30- or 45-minute sessions. 

But what pushed D’Agostino-Vigil, one of the only specialists in obsessive compulsive disorder taking Medicaid in Colorado, over the edge was a “recoupment” notice received by her practice and nearly 200 others in Colorado this fall. The letter said that due to incorrectly filed claims, providers would have to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars to the agency – called Colorado Community Health Alliance — that dispenses their payments. In some cases, recoupment amounts have totaled $17,000 or $18,000 for a single mental health therapist in private practice. 

The letters, copies of which were reviewed by The Colorado Sun, warn that providers have 60 days to pay up or the management agency could withhold future payments. 

 
 

Nearly 200 behavioral health care offices received letters requesting recoupment for claims that were incorrectly filed. The letters said that if providers did not pay within 60 days, the contractor could recoup the funds by withholding future payments.

The debacle is the latest headache for Medicaid providers who for years have complained of redundant paperwork and clogged bureaucracy. And in this case, it’s not that therapists and counselors were overpaid — they are being asked to return money for services they provided during the prior two years, all because of a provider identification number that was not included in the claims. 

Multiple behavioral health clinicians told The Sun they included the provider identification number. It was the computer system used by their payer, Colorado Community Health Alliance, which is owned by private insurance giant Anthem, that scrubbed the identification numbers from its claims, thinking they were not needed. 

The health alliance, which is the middleman between providers and the state Medicaid program, realized its mistake two years ago and began warning therapy practices back in March 2020 that they would have to resubmit claims, said spokeswoman Colleen Daywalt. The provider number is required by state and federal law, so when the alliance discovered the problem in July 2019, the agency began working to correct its software system to include the number on its claim forms. The problem was fixed in October 2020, Daywalt said. 

Colorado Community Health Alliance, which is the payer for behavioral health providers in Boulder, Broomfield, Clear Creek, El Paso, Gilpin, Jefferson, Park and Teller counties, began notifying providers in March 2020 that claims filed during a two-year period were out of compliance. But many of the 1,175 providers under the alliance did not take action, overwhelmed by the task of resubmitting hundreds of claims. 

A therapist who saw a client weekly during those two years would have filled about 104 claims — and that’s just for one patient. 

Last month, the health alliance sent 199 letters asking for “recoupment” payments, setting off panic and a firestorm of complaints, including in a private Facebook group where therapists and counselors vent about Medicaid frustrations. 

 
 

Colorado Community Health Alliance sent letters to 199 mental health care providers asking for money to recoup payment for claims “paid in error.”

Daywalt said it’s not the health alliance’s intent to recoup any payments, only to comply with state and federal law. She would not say the total amount of money involved in the out-of-compliance claims or the range of recoupment amounts sent to providers. 

But several therapists contacted The Sun regarding the payment debacle and shared their recoupment amounts. 

Allison Harvey, who works at a small group practice in Arvada, said the health alliance is asking for $7,000 for 74 claims in 2020. “The problem is that we submitted all of these claims correctly with all of the information necessary for payment,” she said. “The data is getting removed sometime after the claims leave our hands. Our group, like all providers who choose to serve Medicaid clients, just want to simply be paid for the work we do with this important clientele.” 

 
 

Christia Young, with Badass Therapy in Brighton, was asked to return $7,200. Now Young has stopped taking Medicaid patients through Colorado Community Health Alliance. Even before the latest claims issue, she was spending 80% of her time dealing with Medicaid claims because the health alliance was “repeatedly auditing” her filings, she said. 

And Sarah Carlson, a licensed marriage and family therapist who has accepted Medicaid for 13 years, is quitting her Medicaid contract with the health alliance effective next month. She founded The Parent-Child Interaction Center, one of the largest group practices that accepts Medicaid in Larimer, Weld and Boulder counties. 

Carlson said she’s been fighting about claims with the health alliance for years. The agency owes her thousands of dollars in past claims and now is asking for about $6,000 in recoupment on payments she received for 2020 and 2021, she said. 

“I love how they can find the claims suddenly when they want the money back, but somehow manage not to have the others on file?” Carlson said. “It’s a game, and it’s disgusting. Especially during the pandemic when the need has been soaring.”

 
 

Carlson said she would struggle to pay her office rent just serving Medicaid clients and has to subsidize Medicaid patients with those who have private insurance. “Sadly, it’s my underserved clients who will suffer, but I cannot continue this way any longer,” she said. 

The Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing, which runs the Medicaid program and contracts with Colorado Community Health Alliance to disperse payments to the providers, said providers have been warned of the claims error via multiple newsletters and meetings in 2020 and 2021. 

“While we understand this is frustrating for providers, providers and payers are responsible for submitting and processing compliant claims,” said an emailed statement from department spokesman Marc Williams. “Our contractor identified a system issue preventing this and corrected the issue. They have given providers 21 months to submit corrected claims, which they are still able to do before the recoupments take effect.”

While some providers are ending their Medicaid contracts this fall, the number of behavioral health providers who take Medicaid has grown statewide in the last year, Williams said. Practitioners in the network reached 8,371 in June, compared with 6,029 in April 2020, he said.

But Stephanie Farrell, CEO of Left Hand Management, a consulting group that helps behavioral health care offices across the state with billing and training, said the health alliance caused the problem and should have to fix it — not put the burden on small counseling centers. Colorado Community Health Alliance should pay the consequences, Farrell said, including any potential federal fines for submitting incomplete paperwork. 

TODAY’S UNDERWRITER

“It’s just a clerical issue. A data issue,” she said. “Can’t they say, ‘Let’s call it a mulligan?'”

It’s the latest example in what Farrell says is a messed-up system in which the people providing the mental health care have no voice and are buried by mountains of paperwork. She blames the organizational structure and the contractors that dispense payment.

“It’s the wild, wild West,” she said. “They just do whatever they want and they are grinding up providers in the process.” 

Clipped from: https://coloradosun.com/2021/11/29/medicaid-mental-health-claims/

 
 

Posted on

Judge stops federal COVID-19 vaccine mandate in Medicare, Medicaid facilities in 10 states

MM Curator summary

[ MM Curator Summary]: A lower court in eastern Missouri has ruled that CMS does not have the authority to make vaccination a condition required for provider payments.

 
 

The article below has been highlighted and summarized by our research team. It is provided here for member convenience as part of our Curator service.

 
 

By JOE MUELLER

THE CENTER SQUARE REPORTER

(The Center Square) —  U.S. District Judge Matthew T. Schelp on Monday ordered a preliminary injunction against the Biden Administration, stopping mandated COVID-19 vaccinations for health care workers in Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) facilities.

“Because it is evident CMS significantly understates the burden that its mandate would impose on the ability of healthcare facilities to provide proper care, and thus, save lives, the public has an interest in maintaining the ‘status quo’ while the merits of the case are determined,” Judge Schelp wrote in a 32-page memorandum and order in the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Missouri.

Missouri Republican Attorney General Eric Schmitt led a 10-state coalition filing the lawsuit on Nov. 5 to stop the CMS vaccine mandate. On the courthouse steps in St. Louis, Mr. Schmitt, a candidate for the seat of retiring Republican U.S. Senator Roy Blunt, stated many will benefit from the ruling.

“This is a significant ruling and the first of its kind in the country,” Mr. Schmitt told reporters. “What the court said today was CMS and the Biden administration has no statutory authority to do this, none whatsoever.”

Starting in late October, Mr. Schmitt led coalitions of states in filing three lawsuits against federal vaccine mandates – for federal contractors and federally contracted employees, for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s mandate on private employers with 100 or more employees, and CMS.

The Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans blocked the private-sector OSHA mandate earlier this month.

Mr. Schmitt said Monday’s ruling will help all Missourians and all served in CMS facilities.

“Our office may have led the charge on this, but it is the health care workers in Missouri and across the country, it’s the rural hospitals here and elsewhere facing certain collapse due to this mandate, and it’s the patients of those hospitals who are the real winners today,” Mr. Schmitt said.

Judge Schelp stated five times in the ruling that it’s likely Mr. Schmitt and the coalition will ultimately succeed if the ruling is appealed. The ruling only applies to the 10 states in the lawsuit – Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming.

“I would expect this to be appealed and I would expect this to go all of the way to the Supreme Court,” Mr. Schmitt said. “But the fact is we won.”

The ruling stated CMS lacked clear authorization from Congress to mandate the COVID-19 vaccine. Currently, CMS doesn’t require any vaccinations for health care workers.

“CMS failed to adequately explain its contradiction to its long-standing practice of encouraging rather than forcing – by governmental mandate – vaccination,” Judge Schelp wrote. “For years, CMS has promulgated regulations setting the conditions for Medicare and Medicaid participation; never has it required any vaccine for covered facilities’ employees – despite concerns over other illnesses and their corresponding low vaccination rates.”

Judge Schelp also stated CMS violated its own regulations by not accepting comments on policies.

“Moreover, the failure to take and respond to comments feeds into the very vaccine hesitancy CMS acknowledges is so daunting,” Judge Schelp wrote.

Judge Schelp highlighted the vaccine mandate’s negative impact on staffing at rural hospitals.

“As an example, for a general hospital located in North Platte, Nebraska, implementation of the mandate would result in the loss of the only remaining anesthesiologist,” Schelp wrote. “Understandably, without an anesthesiologist, there could be no surgeries – at all. Thus, such a loss irreparably causes a cascading effect on the entire facility and a wide range of patients. Other examples show the mandate’s far-reaching implications not just on the administration of health care itself, but the functioning of the facilities in general.”

Mr. Schmitt said the virus will always be present and the federal government needs to understand citizens and their rights.

“The truth is COVID is with us and there is always going to be a variant,” Mr. Schmitt said. “But I think the people have had enough of the government locking people down. They have had enough of government instituting mask mandates and vaccine mandates. Every time there’s an overreach, we’re going to push back.”

Bureaucrats who have never driven the back roads of Missouri or visited its rural hospitals have no idea of the effects of the vaccine mandate, Mr. Schmitt said.

“Here in flyover country, we’ve had enough and we’re going to fight back every single time they try to take our freedoms away,” Mr. Schmitt said.

Joe Mueller covers Missouri for The Center Square.

 
 

Clipped from: https://newspress.com/judge-stops-federal-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-in-medicare-medicaid-facilities-in-10-states/

Posted on

Medicaid Change Sending up to 70 California Inmates in Nursing Home Care Back to Prison

MM Curator summary

[ MM Curator Summary]: CA is unable to keep prisoners in nursing homes according to federal regulations that require no limitations on nursing home residents.

 
 

The article below has been highlighted and summarized by our research team. It is provided here for member convenience as part of our Curator service.

 
 

A new California policy and federal rules could limit medical parole to 70 inmates, sending dozens of quadriplegic, paraplegic or otherwise permanently incapacitated inmates from nursing homes back to state prisons.

California officials said they have no choice under a new approach to the enforcement of federal licensing requirements for nursing homes from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Prison officials said a change in federal rules led them to limit medical parole to only those inmates who are so ill they are hooked to ventilators to breathe, as their movement is so limited they are not a public danger.

The state policy previously allowed a much broader range of permanent incapacity, allowing inmates to be cared for in nursing homes outside of the prison walls. The policy change comes as the state of California has been reducing its prison population due to fear of spreading the coronavirus, as well as a push from voters and legislators to free infirm and after inmates who are less likely to commit more crimes.

Newsweek Newsletter sign-up >

Nearly every state allows prisoners with serious medical conditions to be released on medical parole, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, but the organization said in a 2018 review that such laws are rarely used.

Steve Fama, an attorney with the nonprofit Prison Law Office, said the court-appointed federal office that controls health care in California prisons told him the change could affect about 70 of the 210 inmates approved for medical parole under the current system.

“It’d be an awful shame if those people were returned to prison. Those patients have been proven not to need a prison setting given their medical conditions,” Fama said.

Federal officials have disagreed that revoking medical parole and putting the incapacitated inmates back into prison is the state’s only option, saying that California could leave the inmates in nursing homes with no prohibition on their leaving, or put them in different facilities that are not regulated by the federal government.

Newsweek subscription offers >

For more reporting from the Associated Press, see below:

 
 

The federal agency has taken the position that parole officials can’t impose any conditions on inmates in community medical facilities, the state said. That includes a rule that inmates not leave except with permission from their parole agent—restriction state officials said is necessary to ensure public safety.

In response, only those on ventilators are being placed in the community, corrections department spokeswoman Dana Simas said.

Simas responded that sending offenders to such non-certified facilities “would require establishing an entirely new program to monitor and audit the care provided at these facilities.” Health care provided to offenders at the current facilities is checked by the federal receiver’s office and several outside agencies.

The policy change came after just one facility in Los Angeles County was informed following an inspection ending in early July that it was violating its licensing requirements, but state officials said the federal agency told them it will be enforced at all skilled nursing facilities.

The federal agency is citing a 2016 guidance memo that it said reiterated conditions under which parolees may remain in nursing facilities.

The state’s decision affects incapacitated inmates who are deemed to still need some sort of supervision, but it does not affect compassionate releases that are approved by a court and have no strings attached. Inmates can seek compassionate release if they are diagnosed with an illness that is deemed likely to cause their death in 12 months or less and is a medical condition they did not have when sentenced.

Several other states have had to address the same issue, though federal officials couldn’t immediately say which, when or how they complied.

Researchers from the Vera Institute of Justice, a national nonprofit research and advocacy group, said barriers include limited eligibility criteria and the difficulty in applying for release. Their 2017 report found that Alabama had released 39 people on medical parole over eight years, while Texas approved 86 out of more than 2,000 requests in 2016. The legislative organization said those states had some of the highest rates of release.

California eclipsed those releases by approving 210 medical paroles and denying 110 requests since 2014, though that is a tiny fraction of the nearly 100,000 inmates currently imprisoned in the most populous state.

California Assemblyman Phil Ting, who heads the powerful Assembly Budget Committee, is carrying a bill to expand the criteria and create an easier process for placing incapacitated inmates in community health care facilities.

“Limiting it to only those on ventilators is arbitrary and not based on medical science,” he said. “Public safety is not improved by taking such an unnecessarily narrow view of this policy.”

Ting’s bill would include those who qualify for hospice care or have debilitating pain or a debilitating disease. Instead of leaving the decision to the state parole board, which is composed largely of law enforcement officials, it would create a new medical parole panel at each prison made up of health care providers. It also would keep patients in outside facilities even if they no longer meet the criteria for medical parole.

It was originally carried by former Assemblyman Rob Bonta, now the state’s attorney general, and cleared the Assembly before stalling in the Senate last summer. Ting plans to try again next year.

Those sentenced to death, life without parole or for murdering police officers are not eligible under California law, and that would not change under Ting’s proposal.

 
 

Clipped from: https://www.newsweek.com/medicaid-change-sending-70-california-inmates-nursing-home-care-back-prison-1654675