Posted on

MCOs- Medicaid managed care merger starts Jan. 1 in Virginia

MM Curator summary

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.

 
 

[MM Curator Summary]: VA is pulling together their 2 different Medicaid managed care programs.

 
 

Clipped from: https://dailyprogress.com/news/state-and-regional/medicaid-managed-care-merger-starts-jan-1-in-virginia/article_72f8c64c-d60a-5c26-a520-2f5c53469c9e.html

Virginia health care providers want the next multi-billion-dollar, Medicaid managed care contract to tackle longstanding complaints about insurers’ practices – but the state and insurers say the imminent merger of the state’s two managed care programs could fix many of those.

On Jan. 1, the state will merge the two programs, which cover virtually all the 1.8 million Virginians whose health care is paid for by the $18.7 billion, joint federal-state system.

It contracts with six insurers, formally called “managed care organizations” or MCOs, to run the plans the two programs offer Medicaid recipients.

But what insurers’ guidelines for their coverage can differ depending on which program their plans come under, even if the insurers have plans for both programs, said Doug Gray, executive director of the Virginia Association of Health Plans.

“I think that’s where a lot of confusion comes up,” he said.

Providers sometimes think they’re dealing with one program when their patients are actually in the other, he said.

On Jan. 1, the new “Cardinal Care” will merge the Medallion 4 managed care plans that serves children, pregnant women and adults – that last category has grown with Medicaid expansion, since in years past only very low income parents qualified – and the Commonwealth Coordinated Care Plus plans that serve older adults who also are on Medicare, children and adults with disabilities, and individuals in long term care.

Cardinal Care won’t change or reduce any existing coverage, the state’s Medicaid agency, the Department of Medical Assistance Services, said.

But looking ahead to the negotiations for a new five-year managed care contract with insures, providers at a DMAS advisory group, said it needed to be written to address their complaints about denials of coverage for specialized services.

The state plans to begin negotiations on a new five-year contract next year and to nail down an agreement by 2024. That contract will succeed the current contract which expires in fiscal year 2026.

It will involve a complicated juggling of the interests of several actors — patients, doctors and other providers some of whom are often at cross-purposes, MCOs — and the state agencies involved with the program — DMAS, which handles the money and sets the rules and the Department of Social Services, which determines which individuals are eligible for coverage.

Providers and insurers clash most often.  

Providers are often ignored when they bring issues to an insurer, said Marcia Tetterton, executive director of the Virginia Association for Home Care and Hospice.

Jennifer Faison, executive director of the Virginia Association of Community Services Boards, said the new contract needs to ensure more accountability over insurers’ utilization review – the process by which the firms decide whether or not a service will be covered.

The kind of work that’s the focus of Virginia’s community services boards — mental health care outside of hospitals – will be a major emphasis in the new contract, Secretary of Health and Human Resources John Littel has said.

This year has already seen a major step up in Medicaid’s mental health coverage with last December’s expansion of coverage for multisystemic therapy, intensive treatment for youth aged 11 to 18; functional family therapy, short term treatment for disruptive youth; 24-hour-a-day mobile crisis response; community stabilization for people recently receiving crisis care and short term residential stays in a crisis stabilization unit.

Craig Conners, director of payer relations at the Virginia Hospital and Health Care Association said standards for when an insurers’ network of doctors, hospitals and other caregivers is deemed adequate needs to be looked, while coordinating care when a patient is discharged is a problem.

Cardinal Care should make it easier to manage gaps in care, the Medicaid agency says, and it will provide care coordination services as needed.

The unification of Medallion 4.0 and Commonwealth Coordinated Care Plus into Cardinal Care should also simplify processes for contracting with providers and their credentialing, the Medicaid agency said.

Posted on

MCOs- Analysts worry about long-term viability of ProMedica’s Paramount health plan

MM Curator summary

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.

 
 

[MM Curator Summary]: ProMedica swears its not on the ropes. But that whole losing Ohio thing really didn’t help.

 
 

Clipped from: https://www.toledoblade.com/business/development/2022/11/28/analysts-worry-about-long-term-viability-promedicas-paramount-health-plan/stories/20221128131

 
 

David Barkholz

The Blade

dbarkholz@theblade.com

Though analysts have applauded ProMedica’s plan to divest 147 money-losing nursing homes, the handoff to new operators will be expensive and the long-term viability of ProMedica’s Paramount health plan has become a concern, according to a new report from Moody’s Investors Service.

Paramount has just 88,000 health plan members today after losing about 256,000 Medicaid members last year when the state of Ohio declined to award it a new Medicaid contract under competitive bidding. It also has about 303,000 less-lucrative dental plan members.

In a report on November 17, Moody’s noted there is “uncertainty about the health plan’s long-term viability given its low remaining membership and high competition for commercial and Medicare products.”

Advertisement

The credit-rating agency also indicated that Paramount will lose revenue next year when an administrative contract runs out that it had with Anthem to transition the Medicaid members it lost in Ohio. Anthem paid ProMedica $50 million in the first quarter for access to that book of business.

Health plans like Paramount need at least 150,000 members to be viable long-term and not be at risk to adverse selection of patients who run up outsized medical costs, said Kevin Holloran, a senior healthcare analyst with Fitch Ratings.

He said Paramount’s 88,000-member health plan count “is really on the small side.”

When Ohio did not re-award a Medicaid contract to Paramount, it cost the insurer about $1.57 billion this year in annual premium revenue. Paramount also announced about 200 job cuts after the loss.

Advertisement

In an email statement, ProMedica said Paramount is competitive and there are no plans to sell it or its various product lines.

“There is no present consideration of divesting any Paramount health plans,” the statement said.

While we are transitioning out of the Ohio Department of Medicaid’s managed care program on Feb. 1, 2023, we continue to have competitive Medicare Advantage plans, Marketplace Health Insurance, employer-sponsored health plans and dental insurance to grow Paramount Health Care.”

Paramount has been profitable throughout 2022. For the nine months ended Sept. 30, Paramount posted operating income of $39.1 million, a decrease of $24.1 million compared with the prior-year period.

Mr. Holloran said Paramount can gain the size it needs by acquiring another health plan or organically seeking new contracts with businesses and individuals.

If ProMedica doesn’t want to go down either of those avenues, selling Paramount eventually could be an option as well, Mr. Holloran said.

Moody’s said ProMedica also is looking at additional spending to provide “operating reserves” for the new operators of 147 skilled nursing homes that ProMedica has agreed to divest.

ProMedica has not revealed how much it has agreed to pay. But it easily could be more than $100 million given the scope of the operations being divested, Mr. Holloran said.

In December, ProMedica is expected to close the deal, in which it essentially agreed to give the 147 money-losing skilled nursing homes to a joint venture between Toledo-based Welltower and Integra Healthcare Properties of New York City.

It is surrendering a 15-percent stake worth about $412 million it had in a Welltower joint venture to own and operate the 147 nursing homes. ProMedica and Welltower initially purchased the nursing homes in a $3.3 billion deal for HCR ManorCare.

That turned out to be the price for getting out from under operating losses at the nursing homes. Those nursing homes were responsible for the bulk of losses in ProMedica’s senior care division that totaled $229.3 million in the first half of 2022.

In its report Nov. 17, Moody’s maintained ProMedica’s Ba2 rating on its borrowings but switched its status from under review to a negative outlook going forward. Ba2 is a notch below investment grade or junk bond status.

Part of the agency’s reasoning is that though operating losses and cash burn will be reduced by the divestiture, results are expected to fall at Paramount and ProMedica will likely take a writedown of its nursing home assets that may leave the hospital company perilously close to violating covenants on bonds and bank loans.

On the plus side, ProMedica returned its 11 hospitals to operating profitability in the third quarter. The core hospital division eked out an operating gain of $5 million in the quarter after operating losses in the first half of 2022. That $5 million operating gain compared with a $26.1 million operating gain posted in the year-earlier third quarter.

In its statement, ProMedica said it will continue “to take the requisite steps to strengthen our balance sheet throughout 2023.”

“ProMedica respects the revenue bond rating given by Moody’s Investors Service. As shared previously, we have not been immune to the challenges facing the healthcare industry, such as high inflation and persistent workforce shortages,” the statement said.

First Published November 28, 2022, 3:45pm

Posted on

MCOs- Centene in the headlines: 9 recent developments

MM Curator summary

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.

 
 

[MM Curator Summary]: Coupla highlights about Planet Centene.

 
 

Clipped from: https://www.beckerspayer.com/payer/centene-in-the-headlines-9-recent-developments.html

From striking a deal to sell Magellan Specialty Health to allegedly delivering “unacceptable” performance for its Medicaid managed care contract for Illinois foster youths, here are nine stories about Centene that Becker’s has covered since Oct. 31.     

1. Centene CEO Sarah London was named among the 118 most influential women in corporate America by WomenInc.

2. Centene holds the largest share of the ACA exchange market in the U.S. at 15 percent, according to a study from the American Medical Association. 

3. Centene completed the sale of its Spanish and Central European businesses to Vivalto Santé, a French private hospital group, 

4. Centene is selling Magellan Specialty Health to healthcare administration company Evolent Health in a deal worth up to $750 million. 

5. Centene named Monte Ford, former CIO at American Airlines, to the company’s board of directors. 

6. Centene was named the 56th best employer for veterans, according to Military Times’ “Best for Vets: Employer Survey.”

7. Centene delivered “unacceptable” performance for its Medicaid managed care contract for Illinois foster youths, an investigation from the Illinois Answers Project found. 

8. Centene donated to political candidates in states where it is up for Medicaid contract selection or defending itself against overbilling accusations, sometimes through multiple subsidiaries, according to a Kaiser Health News report. 

9. Bill and Hillary Clinton were among those who paid tribute at a memorial for late Centene CEO Michael Neidorff.  

 
 

Posted on

STATE NEWS- Louisiana Medicaid members can receive up to $400 for COVID-19 Vaccine

MM Curator summary

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.

 
 

[MM Curator Summary]: More gift card bucks to take the shot.

 
 

Clipped from: https://ldh.la.gov/news/6845

Medicaid has expanded its “Shot per 100,000” COVID-19 vaccine incentive program to include booster shots. Eligible members who already received a $200 incentive for their first or second dose of the COVID vaccine or the single dose COVID vaccine are now eligible to receive a second $200 incentive for receiving a vaccine booster dose.

This program is available to the following Medicaid members:

  • Age 5 and older who were vaccinated with their first or second dose of the COVID-19 vaccine on or after April 5, 2022.
  • Age 6 months to age 4 who were vaccinated with their first or second dose of the COVID-19 vaccine on or after July 5, 2022.
  • Age 6 months and older who received a vaccine booster dose on or after October 1, 2022.

Members are eligible for only one gift card for the first or second dose of the vaccine and only one gift card for receiving a booster shot. 

Members can choose any vaccination location to receive their shot. Click here for a list of locations. Each health plan will distribute gift cards.

Information is also available at the web site at www.ldh.la.gov/vaccinegiftcard.

Posted on

PHE/Providers- Ongoing Impacts of the Pandemic on Medicaid Home & Community-Based Services (HCBS) Programs: Findings from a 50-State Survey

MM Curator summary

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.

 
 

[MM Curator Summary]: KFF reports out how states are responding to the ongoing crisis that is the home and community based services workforce.


Clipped from: https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/ongoing-impacts-of-the-pandemic-on-medicaid-home-community-based-services-hcbs-programs-findings-from-a-50-state-survey/

Executive Summary

Widespread workforce shortages are the biggest challenges facing state Medicaid home and community-based (HCBS) programs and those shortages were greatly amplified by the COVID-19 pandemic, which reduced the number of potential workers and increased the demand for services. The American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) and COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE) authorities gave states new—but temporary—flexibility and funding to address pandemic-related challenges, which all states used. Those initiatives enabled states to respond to the pandemic and invest in HCBS programs, helping millions of seniors and people with disabilities who rely on Medicaid HCBS to meet daily self-care and independent living needs in community-based settings.

This issue brief presents the latest findings on key state policy choices about Medicaid HCBS in 2022 based on the 20th KFF survey of state officials administering Medicaid HCBS programs in all 50 states and DC. The data were collected from April through September 2022. The survey was sent to each state official responsible for overseeing the administration of HCBS benefits (e.g., home health, personal care, and services for specific populations such as people with physical disabilities), but some states submitted responses for the state overall. All states responded to the 2022 survey, but response rates for certain questions varied. Key findings include:

All responding states indicated they were experiencing shortages of direct care workers in 2022 (see Figure). States most frequently cited workforce shortages as the pandemic’s primary impact across all HCBS settings. As the pandemic persisted, HCBS workforce shortages contributed to provider closures. Most states (44) reported a permanent closure of at least one Medicaid HCBS provider during the pandemic, up from 30 states in 2021. This trend suggests that even as the broader economy returns to normal, HCBS providers continue to struggle.

Almost all states (48) responded to the workforce crisis by increasing HCBS provider payment rates. While some of these increases may have been supported through temporary ARPA funding or emergency PHE authorities, more than half of states plan to continue rate increases even after temporary funding and authorities expire. States also increased self-directed and family caregiving opportunities for HCBS beneficiaries throughout the pandemic. All states offer at least one HCBS program with the option for enrollees to self-direct their services. Forty-eight states allow legally responsible relatives (LRRs) to be paid caregivers, up from 36 states in 2020.

When asked about how they used the ARPA funding, over two-thirds of states (35) reported initiatives with high start-up costs that were generally time-limited to avoid higher ongoing costs after enhanced federal funding ended. Ten (of those 35) states reported pursuing both time-limited and ongoing HCBS initiatives using ARPA funds. Some of the most common initiatives included offering providers bonuses or incentive payments to stay on, developing or expanding worker training or certification programs, funding studies to assess provider rates or workforce development, expanding workforce registries, and upgrading IT systems.

States adopted policies to streamline enrollment processes and expand access to Medicaid HCBS during the PHE, and states reported that some policies (e.g. telehealth) will continue after the PHE ends. All states (49 of 49 reporting) allowed virtual evaluations for eligibility determinations and almost all (47 of 49 reporting) provided telehealth service delivery. Many states also provided more services to HCBS users by increasing utilization limits or offering new waiver services. Telehealth service delivery will continue in most states but increases in utilization limits are more likely to expire at the end of the PHE. Fewer states opted to use the PHE authorities to expand waiver slots or eligibility.

The COVID-19 pandemic illuminated fundamental, long-term challenges for states in providing Medicaid HCBS, but also provided opportunities for change, particularly with new authorities and funding.  While states have adopted a number of policies to bolster the HCBS workforce, it remains to be seen whether initiatives undertaken during the pandemic will yield more systemic changes longer-term. Policymakers of both parties have called for additional changes to HCBS including eliminating waiting lists for services (nearly 656,000 people were on a waiting list in 2021), increasing opportunities for family members to be paid caregivers, increasing wages for all HCBS providers, and enabling more people to live in their homes as they age. Although there is consensus on those broad policy goals, there is little consensus on how to pay for significant federal investments needed to achieve these goals, suggesting it may be some time before major reforms are enacted.

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated existing challenges for state Medicaid home and community-based (HCBS) programs and the people they serve, most notably a heightened shortage of direct care workers coupled with increased demand for services. Together, the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) and the COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE) authorities gave states new but temporary federal funding and policy flexibility to address pandemic-related challenges. All states used these initiatives to make investments in their HCBS programs, helping millions of seniors and people with disabilities who rely on Medicaid HCBS to meet daily self-care and independent living needs in community-based settings. As states continue pandemic recovery efforts, consumer demand for HCBS remains high and longstanding challenges facing Medicaid HCBS including the aging population and provider workforce shortages will likely continue for the foreseeable future.

Medicaid paid for about two-thirds of all HCBS in 2020, and waivers are the primary authority that states use to offer HCBS benefit packages with all of the 50 states and D.C. providing at least some HCBS through either a 1915(c) or an 1115 waiver. Medicaid HCBS encompass a wide range of medical and nonmedical services that assist Medicaid beneficiaries with physical, mental, and other chronic conditions or disabilities. States are required to cover Medicaid long-term services and supports (LTSS) provided in nursing homes, while all HCBS other than home health care services are optional. HCBS may be provided through state plans but are more commonly provided through waivers. Unlike Medicaid state plan authorities, which require states to cover everyone who meets certain eligibility criteria, waivers allow states to provide services to specific populations, limit the number of people served, and expand financial eligibility. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) estimates that nearly 8 million Medicaid enrollees had at least one claim for a service that could potentially be HCBS during 2019.

This issue brief presents the latest findings from a survey of states on key state policy choices about Medicaid HCBS in 2022 and the HCBS waiver landscape as of 2021. We also asked states about policies they adopted in response to the COVID-19 pandemic through the ARPA and PHE authorities, and whether they planned to continue policies adopted through PHE authorities. The Appendix Tables contain detailed state-level data.

What is the Current Landscape of Medicaid HCBS?

When asked about the waivers they had in 2021, states reported offering 255 waivers under 1915(c) authority, which is the largest source of HCBS spending. (The four states that do not provide HCBS through 1915(c) authority all offer HCBS services through an 1115 waiver.) Section 1915(c) waivers are generally targeted to a single population, such as people with physical disabilities or people with intellectual and development disabilities (I/DD). The number of Section 1915(c) waivers averages five per state. Almost all states serve people with I/DD, seniors, and nonelderly adults with physical disabilities through 1915(c) waivers (Figure 2, Appendix Table 1). Fewer states use HCBS waivers to serve people with traumatic brain and/or spinal cord injuries (TBI/SCI), children who are medically fragile or technology dependent, people with mental health disparities, and people with HIV/AIDS. States may use other authorities such as 1115 waivers to provide HCBS, but when HCBS are provided through 1115 waivers, they may be provided to multiple—or broader—target populations and may be part of larger Medicaid reforms. Thirteen states reported offering HCBS waivers authorized under Section 1115 in 2021.

Four states reported offering new waivers in 2021, the most recent year in which states were asked to report all of their HCBS waivers. Alabama and the District of Columbia reported new 1915(c) waivers serving populations with I/DD, while Missouri had a new 1915(c) waiver serving seniors and adults with physical disabilities. Idaho reported offering a new Section 1115 waiver serving individuals with mental illness. Additionally, Oregon submitted a new 1115 waiver request to provide in-home supports to individuals with higher income and assets and for those who do not meet nursing facility level of care criteria. Tennessee has pending waiver amendments to integrate the 1915 (c) waivers into its 1115 waiver.

New funding from the ARPA and authorities granted to states under the PHE helped states respond to the challenges posed by the pandemic. Under the PHE authority, the federal government granted states temporary authorities that were intended to maintain enrollment and service levels during extraordinary times. The current PHE is currently in effect until January 11, 2023, and the Biden administration has said it will give states a 60-day notice before ending the PHE. Since that notice was not issued in November 2022, it is expected the PHE will be extended again. At the end of the PHE, most waivers and broad flexibilities will expire, requiring states to either end the temporary practices or transition the practices to a permanent authority with CMS approval.

Enacted in March 2021, the ARPA increased the federal medical assistance percentage (FMAP) by 10 percentage points for states’ HCBS expenditures that were paid between April 1, 2021, and March 31, 2022. Receipt of the funds required states to demonstrate that the additional federal funding would not supplant any state funds for HCBS. To implement that requirement, participating states are required to submit spending plans that describe the amount of funds they received from the higher FMAP and on how they are spending those funds on HCBS. Activities funded with the additional ARPA money must be intended to enhance, expand, or strengthen HCBS such as providing retention bonuses or student loan forgiveness for HCBS workers, expanding coverage of HCBS, or funding infrastructure investments related to the delivery of HCBS. States have until March 31, 2025 to spend the extra federal funds that were provided for HCBS expenditures that were paid between April 1, 2021 and March 31, 2022. Funds spent after March 31, 2022, are reimbursed at the states’ normal FMAPs instead of at the higher FMAP.

How is the Pandemic Affecting the Workforce?

Workforce shortages have been exacerbated by the pandemic: All states that responded to this question indicated they were experiencing shortages of direct care workers in 2022.  When asked about shortages for specific types of workers, states reported shortages of all types of HCBS providers including home health aides, personal care attendants, direct support professionals, and community-based mental health providers. States most frequently cited workforce shortages as the pandemic’s primary impact across all HCBS settings including in-home services, group homes, adult day health programs, and supported employment programs (Figure 3).

As the pandemic persisted, HCBS workforce shortages contributed to provider closures: 44 states reported a permanent closure of at least one Medicaid HCBS provider during the pandemic (Figure 4). States reported more closures in 2022 than the year prior (30), suggesting that even as the broader economy returns to normal, HCBS providers continue to struggle. Although states did not provide explanations for why so many HCBS providers closed in 2022, it could be attributed to ongoing workforce shortages potentially coupled with provider financial difficulties stemming from pandemic-related service disruptions. Other research shows that the pandemic’s effect on employment was particularly profound for LTSS workers. Recent analysis on the Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker shows that the number of workers dropped by 14% in nursing care facilities and by 9% in community elder care facilities between February 2020 and June 2022. Many states (31) reported permanent closures affecting services provided in enrollees’ homes, adult day programs (32), and group homes (25). Fewer states reported permanent closures of other types of HBCS providers such as community mental health providers and supported employment providers, who provide job search, placement, and coaching support.

“As the pandemic has persisted, staffing shortages have extended closures of adult day programs; some providers have closed and consolidated group homes to adjust to staffing shortages.” – State official

How did States Respond to the Workforce Crisis?

When asked about their overall responses to workforce shortages, most states reported that they increased HCBS provider payment rates and most plan to continue those rate increases even after pandemic authorities and funding end (Figure 5). Among the 48 states that increased rates, over half (28) plan ongoing increases to provider payment rates. For the remaining states,14 implemented time-limited increases, 5 implemented a combination of both time-limited and ongoing increases, and 1 state reported that they didn’t know whether the rate increases would be permanent.

“There are currently not enough licensed nurses to meet the demand for nursing jobs, including nursing HCBS jobs. The decreased workforce is coupled with an increased demand for HCBS services, particularly as people are increasingly seeking medical care in a homecare setting.” – State official

Half (24) of the states that increased provider payment rates required the rate increase to be passed through to worker wages. These requirements typically are being implemented through provider attestation (18 states) or another method such as a statutorily specified split between the workers and the agency or through post-payment audits and cost reporting (10 states). Few states added such a requirement to Medicaid provider agreements (4) or health plan contracts (2). The other strategies states reported using to address the workforce shortage included offering incentive payments to recruit workers (36), developing or expanding worker education programs (34 states), and establishing or raising a minimum wage requirement for workers (20 states) (Appendix Table 2).

All states participated in the ARPA HCBS program and when asked how they used the funding, most states reported making upfront investments and confronting immediate recruitment and retention challenges in the workforce (Appendix Table 3). Most states (35) chose initiatives with high start-up costs that were generally time limited so that they would not face higher ongoing costs in the future after the period of enhanced federal funding ended. For example, states used ARPA funding to provide bonuses or incentive payments (36), develop or expand worker training or certification programs (33), expand family caregiver supports (23), fund studies to assess provider rates or workforce development (21), and develop or expand workforce registries (15). It is unknown to what extent those initiatives will continue after states have exhausted the additional federal funding they received from the ARPA.

“Self-direction has increased in all programs in which it is offered.  When traditional site-based programs were closed/short-staffed due to the pandemic, this provided additional opportunities to learn about self-direction, and individuals and families were able to hire staff to continue to receive support.” State official

States increased self-directed and family caregiving opportunities for HCBS beneficiaries throughout the pandemic as one way of addressing workforce challenges (Figure 6, Appendix Table 4). All states offer self-directed opportunities for Medicaid HCBS beneficiaries. Self-direction typically allows individuals to select and dismiss their direct care workers, determine worker schedules, set worker payments rates, and/or allocate their services budgets. Over half of states (30) reported an increase in the number of enrollees self-directing Medicaid HCBS since the onset of the pandemic, while just two states (OR, TX) reported a decline.

One of the biggest changes during the pandemic is that 48 states now allow legally responsible relatives (LRRs) to be paid caregivers (up from 36 in 2020). Legally responsible relatives may include a spouse, parent, or adult child. Covering more provider types, including LRRs, can help to increase access to services that meet daily need such as personal care and habilitation, especially when other providers are not available. About half of states (27 of 45 reporting) report an increase in the number of paid LRRs since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, while the remaining states saw no change (6) or reported unknown (12). Over three-quarters of states (39) reported that payment to LLRs was granted through the PHE/Medicaid emergency authority and half of those states (20) plan to make this flexibility permanent for at least one HCBS program/waiver.

A second major change is that all states now offer some types of supports for family caregivers, who may be either paid or unpaid. Most states (36) offer more than one type of support for family caregivers. Frequently reported family supports include respite care (48), caregiver training (29), and caregiver counseling/support groups (18). There were 14 states that reported other types of supports such as peer support services, family caregiver stipends, child day support, and supported family living.

Most (37) states report using HCBS provider sufficiency standards to help measure the extent to which there are sufficient providers to meet enrollee needs (Figure 7). For services that the states pay for directly, there are no consequences for failing to meet the standards, but they provide a useful tool for assessing provider availability and the sufficiency of the provider network. Alternatively, states are required to use provider sufficiency standards in their contracts with private care plans when HCBS are delivered by those plans. CMS finalized changes to those managed care regulations in 2020. The 2020 rule removes the requirement that states use time and distance standards to ensure health plans’ provider network adequacy and instead allows states to choose any quantitative standard. Alternate standards could include minimum provider to enrollee ratios, maximum travel time or distance to providers, minimum percentage of contracting providers accepting new patients, maximum wait times for an appointment, or hours of operation requirements.

About half of states (27) required at least one network adequacy standard for HCBS providers in a fee-for-service (FFS) model, while 23 states required at least one standard in a capitated (risk-based) model. The most common standards include time and distance when an enrollee must travel to a provider (22 states), maximum travel time or distance to a provider (22 states), and minimum provider to enrollee ratio (20 states). Fewer states reported hours of operation requirements, minimum percentage of providers accepting new patients and maximum wait time for an appointment.

What Other HCBS Strategies Did States Use to Respond to the Pandemic?

States have adopted numerous policies to streamline and expand access to Medicaid HCBS during the PHE, and some policies are expected to continue after the PHE ends (Figure 8, Appendix Table 5). One of the biggest changes to Medicaid HCBS policy during the pandemic was the use of virtual evaluations for determining enrollees’ eligibility for HCBS and their appropriate level of care. All states (49 of 49 reporting) adopted virtual evaluations. Of those, 10 states plan to continue this policy once the PHE ends and 9 noted the policy would only continue under certain circumstances or as needed. The remaining states were either uncertain about future plans (16) or plan to discontinue the policy (14) once the PHE ends.

Fewer states opted to use the PHE authorities to expand waiver slots or eligibility. Ten states reported increasing the number of waiver slots during the PHE, and eight states will continue after the PHE ends. Five states expanded eligibility either by expanding waiver financial eligibility limits (IL, NC, NV, OR) or functional eligibility criteria (MD).

“Limits for some HCBS were extended to better support individuals through the pandemic. Pre-pandemic limitations will be in place 6 months after the PHE ends.”
– State official

Twenty-five states added new services to at least one HCBS waiver during the PHE, with home delivered meals the most frequently reported new service (9 states). Sixteen states will continue to offer these new waiver services after the PHE ends, five states were planning to end the services when the PHE ends, and the final four states were still undecided at the time of the survey. Most states provided more services to HCBS users by increasing utilization limits, but many of those changes will end when the PHE does. Thirty-seven states increased utilization limits on existing HCBS services, with less than one third (eleven) of states opting to continue the policy after the PHE ends. States reported increasing limits for home delivered meals, respite, day supports, personal care services, dental, and home modifications.

Almost all states provided telehealth services to address challenges in delivering in-person HCBS during the pandemic. All but two (47 of 49 responding) states reported providing HCBS via telehealth in at least one waiver, and almost two-thirds (29) of states plan to allow at least some telehealth service delivery moving forward. States reported relying on telehealth for services such as: wellness checks, case management, supported employment, life skills training, behavioral and mental health counseling, companion, and adult day and habilitation services.

Some states used ARPA funds to make changes to their HCBS programs beyond confronting workforce challenges. Although most states reported workforce-related uses of the ARPA funding, over half of states reported offering new HCBS services and adopting or upgrading information technology systems (e.g., incident reporting, case management, and electronic visit verification) with the ARPA money (30 states each). Twelve states reported adopting or expanding HCBS quality measures (Appendix Table 3).

Looking Ahead

The COVID-19 pandemic illuminated fundamental, long-term challenges for states in providing Medicaid HCBS, but also provided opportunities for change, particularly with new authorities and funding. While states have adopted many new policies to bolster the HCBS workforce, it remains to be seen whether initiatives undertaken during the pandemic will yield more systemic changes longer-term.

In the recent months, CMS has also taken steps to improve the accessibility and quality of Medicaid HCBS. In July, the agency released the first-ever set of HCBS quality measures to promote consistent evaluation of quality across state HCBS programs and over time. The list of measures is extensive and encompasses a number of difference outcomes, but reporting is currently voluntary and it’s uncertain how widely the measures will be used. In August, CMS awarded planning grants to three states and two territories, joining the 36 states that participate in the Money Follows the Person program, which is a demonstration that allows states to receive additional federal funding for HCBS delivered to people who transition from institutional to community-based settings. That month, the agency also issued a proposed rule aimed at easing the application and enrollment process for Medicaid, which included several changes intended to increase Medicaid enrollment among seniors and individuals with disabilities.

States reported that a permanent FMAP increase for HCBS would enable them to prioritize more systemic improvements over the longer-term, such as increasing the number of waiver slots or adding permanent wage increases instead of temporary increases in the form of bonuses or incentive payments. Although it’s unlikely that the ARPA FMAP increase – which would require increased federal funding – will be made permanent in the near term, policymakers of both parties have called for systemic changes to HCBS including eliminating waiting lists, increasing opportunities for family members to be paid caregivers, increasing wages for all HCBS providers, and enabling more people to live in their homes as they age. It is unclear whether the consensus on those broad policy goals will translate into new federal laws or funding.

Posted on

Supreme Court hears case on Medicaid patients’ rights to sue

MM Curator summary

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.

 
 

[MM Curator Summary]: The nursing home is saying that patient complaints should be handled via the mechanisms in place for that; opponents are saying this would take away Medicaid members ability to sue about anything.

 
 

Clipped from: https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/payers/supreme-court-hears-case-medicaid-patients-rights-sue-advocates-warning-far-reaching

 
 

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in a case that could decide whether Medicaid beneficiaries can sue the federal government if their rights are violated. 

The case, Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County v. Talevski, centers on whether a now-deceased nursing home patient has the right to sue an Indiana-based nursing home if the home infringed on their rights. Advocates are worried the case could have far-reaching implications and could turn off a key avenue for patients to get remedies for rights violations. 

“This court should not discard decades of precedent to stray from what Congress has written,” wrote the advocacy group National Health Law Program in an amicus “friend of the court” brief. 

The case centers on a federal law that ensures an individual can sue a state government and others for civil rights violations. A family sued the nursing home operated by Marion County, Indiana, over the treatment of a family member Gorgi Talevski, who had dementia. The family objected that the home transferred him against his will and heavily medicated him. 

The nursing home said in its initial filing before the Supreme Court that Talevski was transferred due to aggressive behavior and that such complaints shouldn’t give rise to a federal civil rights lawsuit. 

Such lawsuits allow dissatisfied nursing facility residents to circumvent important state policies,” the filing said. 

An appellate court sided with the family, but the nursing home appealed to the Supreme Court. The home has argued that programs like Medicaid represent a contract between the federal government and the state and that beneficiaries “should have no right to sue based on the contract,” according to an analysis from the Georgetown University Center for Children and Families.

Advocates have worried that the case has morphed into whether any Medicaid beneficiary has a right to sue to enforce their Medicaid rights, and the effect could be “catastrophic.”

“Many Medicaid requirements would effectively go unenforced,” the center’s analysis said. “Individuals would be unable to enforce them. Only [Health and Human Services] would be able to enforce compliance and HHS lacks the bandwidth (and sometimes the inclination) to monitor and enforce the rights of tens of millions of Medicaid beneficiaries across all 50 states.”

Patient advocacy groups also charge that federal law grants such a right to Medicaid beneficiaries.

“Adherence to precedent is a bedrock restraint on the judicial power,” wrote the National Health Law Program’s brief. 

Some justices appeared to agree with that finding. 

“We have standing precedent. You’re asking us to overrule it,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said during the oral arguments Tuesday. 

She added that the law helps give a judicial remedy to patients as “neither the federal government nor the states can possibly investigate and remedy every violation of these rights that are given to people.”

A decision will likely be released next June. 

Posted on

Possible end of emergency spurs debate on Medicaid

MM Curator summary

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.

 
 

[MM Curator Summary]: Legislators in states that have expanded are saying that ending the PHE will impact minorities in states that have not expanded. TL/DR Congresspersons from CA are trying to speak for constituents in say, Alabama. Weird.

 
 

Clipped from: https://rollcall.com/2022/11/07/possible-end-of-emergency-spurs-debate-on-medicaid/

Some estimates predict between 5 million and 14 million people will lose Medicaid coverage at the end of the COVID-19 public health emergency

 
 

California Rep. Judy Chu is among the lawmakers who has expressed concern about the end of the public health emergency, saying it could hurt minority populations in states that have not expanded Medicaid. (Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call file photo)

The potential end of the COVID-19 public health emergency has reinvigorated debate over the merits and costs of expanding Medicaid.

A provision of a 2020 COVID-19 relief bill required that states keep people continuously enrolled in Medicaid through the end of the month in which the COVID-19 public health emergency ends in exchange for more federal funding. 

The provision contributed to a 25 percent enrollment surge during the pandemic, but will end when the public health emergency does, prompting a year-long unwinding during which time the Kaiser Family Foundation estimates between 5 million and 14 million people will lose Medicaid coverage.

The Biden administration projected in August that of those impacted, 383,000 would be in the 12 states that declined to expand Medicaid since the passage of the 2010 health care law. That figure changed on Tuesday, when South Dakotans voted to expand the program via ballot measure – a move that will likely prevent 42,500 individuals from losing coverage, according to state officials.

Those who do lose coverage will fall into the Medicaid “coverage gap” – they’re part of a group of 2.2 million people living in non-expansion states who make too much to qualify for Medicaid but too little to qualify for subsidized marketplace coverage under the 2010 law.

The Supreme Court ruled in 2012 that Medicaid expansion was optional, but 39 states and Washington, D.C., have capitalized on significant federal financial incentives and expanded their programs. Now, with the end of the public health emergency looming, advocates in the remaining states argue that expansion is a moral imperative with significant financial incentives. 

“There are going to be a lot of low-income folks in the coverage gap after the public health emergency ends,” said Jane Adams, campaign director at the Cover Alabama Coalition, a group advocating for expansion in Alabama. “And it doesn’t have to be this way… It’s just bad governance not to expand.”

Opposition remains stiff. 

“It’s about the state having autonomy over its money,” said Justin Bogie, senior director of fiscal policy at the Alabama Policy Institute, a conservative Birmingham-based think tank that opposes expansion. “It’s really the federalism principle – having that division of power, letting states choose how they allocate their resources without strings attached.”

The scope of loss

It’s not immediately clear when the unwinding will begin, though it could be as soon as mid-January. The Biden administration has promised to give 60 days notice before ending the public health emergency, which means they would likely alert the public by mid-November about their plans. Worries about a winter COVID-19 surge could spur the administration to renew the public health emergency.

But when the emergency does end, the Department of Health and Human Services projects nearly 7 million people will lose Medicaid coverage despite still being eligible, in what’s known as “administrative churn” — the temporary loss of Medicaid coverage when enrollees disenroll then re-enroll during a short period of time for a variety of reasons, including renewal processes and short-term changes in income that make them temporarily ineligible.

Eight million others will be disenrolled because they no longer qualify for Medicaid and will need to seek coverage elsewhere, likely on health care marketplaces. Roughly 2.8 million of those people live in states that did not expand Medicaid.

Some will be covered by expanded health care law subsidies, which were extended through 2025 as part of the Democrats’ climate, health care and tax law. But others, many of whom will be from vulnerable minority groups, will lose coverage.  

“Yes, some people will be okay,” said Rep. Robin Kelly, D-Ill., a member of the Congressional Black Caucus. “But there will still be too many people that won’t be.”

Debate around Medicaid expansion is largely partisan. Republicans control the state legislatures in each of the 11 states that have opposed expanding Medicaid, though many Republican-led states have expanded.

With Tuesday’s vote, South Dakota – where former President Donald Trump won with more than 60 percent of the vote in 2016 and 2020 – became the sixth Republican-led state to expand via ballot initiative.

North Carolina’s Republican-led state House and Senate each passed bills this year in favor of expansion. Neither was adopted before the end of the 2022 legislation session, but the votes signal a potential ideological shift in a state long opposed to expansion.

 
 

‘That ship has done sailed’

The Public Affairs Research Council of Alabama estimates that expansion would cost the state an average of $225 million per year through 2027, but would result in more than $1 billion in savings during the same time period.

 
 

Despite the potential savings, conservatives argue the $225 million cost is steep in a place like Alabama, which has a general fund budget of roughly $2.7 billion. Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey, a Republican, has consistently expressed concern about the long-term costs of the program. Ivey did not respond to multiple requests for comment. 

Bogie, of the Alabama Policy Institute, argued it’s unfair to future generations of taxpayers as federal investment in the program balloons. Federal Medicaid spending was $462 billion in 2022 and projected to rise by 2032, according to the Congressional Budget Office. 

Bogie said Alabama Republicans also worry expansion could negatively impact the state’s workforce participation, which is among the lowest in the country, by removing the incentive to obtain employer-provided insurance.

The Biden administration has opposed efforts in several states to impose work requirements. Alabama in 2021 withdrew a proposal to establish work requirements for its traditional Medicaid population.

Even the Supreme Court’s June overturning of Roe v. Wade didn’t move the needle in Alabama, Bogie said. Concerns about uninsured mothers forced to carry their babies to term were mostly quelled when the state legislature allocated $4 million to extend postpartum coverage for Medicaid beneficiaries from 60 days to 12 months.

“I think that ship has done sailed,” said Republican state Sen. David Sessions, when asked on local radio in October about the prospect of expansion.

 
 

The cliff

Expansion advocates, however, contend opponents may be forced to reconsider once the public health emergency ends and coverage loss becomes reality.

“When you don’t have families losing their coverage immediately, that makes it easier to not deal with the policy issue,” said Adam Searing, an associate professor at the Georgetown University School of Public Policy’s Center for Children and Families.

Members of the Congressional Black, Hispanic and Asian Pacific American caucuses raised concerns in an April letter to the Biden administration that Americans of color could suffer disproportionately.

More than half of Medicaid’s 73 million beneficiaries identify as Black, Hispanic, Asian American or another non-white race or ethnicity, according to the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission, a nonpartisan legislative branch agency that provides policy and data analysis to Congress.

“The end of the public health emergency represents a cliff at which millions of AAPIs (Asian American Pacific Islanders) could find themselves without coverage,” Rep. Judy Chu, D-Calif., chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, told CQ Roll Call. “I am especially concerned about AAPIs in states which have not expanded Medicaid, leaving a coverage gap of up to 2 million people without access to affordable coverage.”

Congress has little recourse to address coverage loss, though they could pass legislation to extend pandemic-era levels of Medicaid funding for the duration of the unwinding period to ease administrative burden. But there is currently no proposal to do so.

 
 

The simplest, most effective response to ward off coverage loss is to expand Medicaid in the remaining non-expansion states, said Searing. 

 
 

In Alabama, popular support for expansion is strong, according to a February 2022 poll conducted by Alabama Arise, a group affiliated with the Cover Alabama Coalition. 

The group found that more than 70 percent of Alabama residents (65.8 percent of whom were registered Republicans) favor expanding Medicaid when given arguments in support of expansion. 

Adams said the Cover Alabama Coalition hopes to build on those results and make another push for expansion after the November election. A key facet of the initiative will be meeting individually with Republican lawmakers to educate them on the potential benefits of Medicaid expansion and address any lingering ideological opposition to the 2010 health care law, Adams said.

“I’m optimistic,” Adams said. “We have a really strong coalition and we are going to be doing our due diligence to educate not only the public, but lawmakers, that the Obamacare they were scared about 10 years ago is not the same Obamacare today.”

 
 

From <https://rollcall.com/2022/11/07/possible-end-of-emergency-spurs-debate-on-medicaid/>

Posted on

FWA- Plymouth woman admits roles in food, Medicaid scams

MM Curator summary

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.

 
 

[MM Curator Summary]: $250M stolen using a fake meals for kids scam.

 
 

 
 

Clipped from: https://www.mprnews.org/story/2022/11/04/plymouth-woman-admits-roles-in-food-medicaid-scams

 
 

A woman charged in connection with what prosecutors say was a “brazen” scheme to defraud federal child nutrition programs has pleaded guilty in that case, and to separate charges of Medicaid fraud.

Anab Artan Awad is among 50 people allegedly connected to the nonprofit Feeding our Future to be charged with stealing $250 million from two U.S. Department of Agriculture programs that provide meals to schoolchildren. On Friday, Awad, 52, became the fifth defendant to plead guilty.

Through a Somali interpreter, Awad admitted taking $9.3 million in federal funds for purportedly serving meals at distribution sites in Osseo, Faribault, and Minneapolis. At the Minneapolis site, Awad falsely claimed to have served 1.5 million meals from January to April of 2021, or about 12,600 per day. The location served only a fraction of the meals that Awad claimed on reimbursement forms.

At “Golden Meadows,” her purported site in Faribault, prosecutors alleged and Awad admitted that none of the names on the attendance rosters that she submitted matched the names of children enrolled in the Faribault School District.

When he first announced the charges in September, Minnesota U.S. Attorney Andy Luger said the alleged conspirators used an online name generator meant for fiction writers to invent the names of children to include on attendance rosters.

In a separate case, Awad admitted submitting $99,000 in phony reimbursement claims to Medicaid for language interpretation services she never performed.

She agreed to pay restitution and forfeit a Rosemount home and a 2021 Dodge Ram pickup truck she bought with the stolen money.

Awad faces between 3 1/2 and five years in prison.

After a grand jury indicted her for the food fraud, a judge ordered her jailed for violating her release conditions in the Medicaid case.

Posted on

FWA- Southeast Kan. women ordered to pay restitution for Medicaid fraud

MM Curator summary

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.

 
 

[MM Curator Summary]: Both instances involved payments for caregiver services while the supposed recipients of the care were in jail.

 
 

 
 

Clipped from: https://www.wibw.com/2022/11/03/southeast-kan-women-ordered-pay-restitution-medicaid-fraud/

 
 

FILE(MGN)

PARSONS, Kan. (WIBW) – Two women from Labette Co. have been ordered to pay restitution to the state’s Medicaid program after they were found to have been paid while either their caretakers or their patients had been in jail.

Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt says that two women from Southeast Kansas have been sentenced and ordered to pay restitution for crimes against the state’s Medicaid Program.

AG Schmidt indicated that Lavanda E. Duncan, 55, of Parsons, was sentenced on Wednesday, Nov. 2, in Labette Co. District Court by Judge Steve A. Stockard on one felony count of attempted making a false claim to the program. he said she was ordered to pay a total of $2,547.16 in restitution to the program and to serve a year of supervised probation. She pleaded guilty to the charge on Sept. 7.

Schmidt noted that Duncan was found to be a Medicaid beneficiary who attempted to falsely bill the program on behalf of her three sons who served as her personal care attendants. The investigation found she had attempted to get payments on their behalf while they were behind bars in the Labette Co. Jail and unable to provide care for her.

In a second, unrelated case, the AG said Lacinda Morris, 32, of Parsons, was also sentenced on Wednesday by Judge Stockard to pay a total of $9,452.60 in restitution, to serve 18 months of supervised probation and to attend in-patient substance abuse treatment. She pleaded guilty to charges including one felony count of making a false claim to the program and one count of forgery on Aug. 18.

Schmidt indicated that Morris was found to have been working as a personal care attendant for her mother, a Medicaid beneficiary. While her mother was behind bars, Morris had submitted time sheets for payment from the Medicaid program as if she had provided care for her mother at the time.

Senior Assistant Attorney General Eve Kemple of Schmidt’s office prosecuted both cases.