You're Doing it Wrong in Care Management

An important paper recently released in the American Journal of Managed Care shattered the notion that care management can save money on high utilizers. The article reviewed recent studies of the effectiveness of health plan care management programs and found that, while many studies show significant savings, more rigorous studies concluded that savings were "limited or nonexistent."  Mind. Blown.

We're all familiar with the "80/20 rule" of the commercial health insurance market: 20% of members account for 80% of expenditures.  In government programs, Medicaid, Medicare, and now ObamaCare, it's the "5/60" rule: 5% of members account for 60% of spending.  The AJMC article showed that across all payers in 2012, it's "5/50".  95% of the population accounted for just half of health spending, while the other half of spending was towards care for 5% of the population. The 5% of people needing to spend the most on health care spend an average of around $43,000 annually; people in the top 1% have average spending of almost $98,000. At the other end of the spectrum, the 50% of the population with the lowest spending accounted for less than 3% of all total health spending; the average spending for this group was $234.

The article then explored multiple studies on effectiveness of care management, concluding it's mostly pointless.  It gave several reasons for why this might occur:

  • Many high-utilizers only stay in this category for a short period of time. Conditions causing them to need intensive care may resolve quickly, reducing costs, but a study lacking a control group may inappropriately attribute this savings to the care management program.
  • High utilizers suffer from a wide range of conditions and require a wide range of interventions, making it difficult for care management programs to tailor teams meeting each patient's needs.
  • Providers working with a care management team may better identify conditions that were previously going untreated, leading to better outcomes, but also higher costs for additional services and therapies.

The author concluded that "for care management programs focusing on high-utilizing patients, it is crucial to select patients with long-term utilization patterns that are driven by the factors most conducive to change. Given the very limited direct evidence suggesting how to accomplish this, care management programs are best served by being kept small and focused on the highest-need patients, who may not necessarily be current high utilizers."

This finding calls for a rethinking across our industry about care management.  For one thing, most health plans in our 19 years' experience are still doing 1990s-style managed care: preauthorizations, referrals, concurrent review -- what we refer to as "make work" medical management.  It's look busy, high head-count work that does little to improve quality or reduce unnecessary spending.

Many GHG clients have been working with us to modernize this approach into data-driven care coordination "pods" providing a holistic model of care focused on high utilizers and those about to become them.  This study means we need to recommit to data analytics identifying and directing the work of care managers toward those beneficiaries with long-term needs that can be impacted.  This means greater emphasis on preventable episodes of care, and on end-of-life care preferences, advance directives and care plans. If you take the top 5% of the membership that is incurring the most cost and provide complex care management, including a higher level of home care, hospital diversion, medication therapy management, nutrition counseling, and wound care, plans and their provider organizations will see a reduction in avoidable medical expenses.

Savings can also be realized if that membership is appropriately placed in the right plan with the right network. Care Management might not be the answer but applicable coverage is a strategy. That's where plan and benefit design is so important. Innovative plans are working with specialists to design products that reflect risk and chronic conditions of their members.  Our work with a prominent dialysis and kidney care provider is a perfect example: design a benefit and align a network that is tailored to patients with varying levels of chronic kidney disease, preventing disease progression and/or avoidable costs traditionally seen if CKD is not managed along the disease state continuum.  Progressive conditions like CKD, Alzheimer's, and many cancers lend themselves well to "smart management" that spans clinical staff and benefit design alike.

The one thing you know about government beneficiaries is that if they're not sick today, they're gonna be.  The game has always been finding the ones who need extraordinary care before they need it, and ensuring they get it in the right place, at the right time, from the right provider.  That hasn't changed.  This study underscores the point.  "Make work" care management must give way to "make it work".

 

Resources

Big Data is costly, distracting, overwhelming and paralyzing if not maximized. System and process interoperability and integration are keys to program alignment, oversight and evaluation . Systems and data should not just integrate; they need to align in order to yield superior, reportable outcomes. Visit our website to learn how GHG can help >>

Stay connected. Subscribe to Gorman Health Group news and updates via our weekly newsletter.


19 Lessons from 19 Years

Nineteen years ago this week, I left the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), now the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Office of Managed Care, to launch what would become Gorman Health Group.  Time has flown, the company has grown, and my backside sewn with hard lessons about our industry and government health programs.  Here are 19 lessons I've learned in those 19 years.

  1. What Medicare Advantage and Part D do, Medicaid and the commercial market, including the ObamaCare Exchanges, follow 3-5 years later.
  2. Every CMS staffer I've ever known is well-intentioned, many are downright brilliant, and all want to be good business partners to health plans.  Their shortcoming is lack of business experience and how stuff works in the real world.  There is a huge difference between policy/guidance and operations.  That's where we come in.
  3. If government health programs were an easy business, we'd be out of business.
  4. Inspect what you expect.  Or, as Reagan said, "Trust but verify."
  5. Star Ratings, like risk adjustment before it, is the biggest and most consistent experiment in performance-based payment on the planet, a total game-changer and the new fulcrum of competition. You don't excel at Stars by working on them off the side of your desk.
  6. Fish where the fishes is.
  7. Pick your vendors and partners like you pick your fruit.
  8. Capitation with performance-based payment is the only real hope for long-term viability of entitlement programs.
  9. Being a doctor is the worst job ever.  Right after community hospital CEO and President of the United States.
  10. High-performing health plans are good at everything, especially those functions that are member- and/or provider-facing.  It's about culture and execution.
  11. Health plans' days are numbered if they can't consistently provide value to CMS, their customer, and to providers, their partners.  That value is about two things: making data actionable and moving money to contributors when quality and results improve.
  12. It's easier to increase revenue than it is to cut costs.
  13. Pharmacy benefit managers are a health plan's most important partner.  They are also the ultimate B2B companies and most are struggling in the transition to B2C and true government accountability for results.
  14. Big data and high-tech is all the rage -- and all noise, unless it's actionable.  What works is low-tech: clogs on the street; a house call; a medication consult.
  15. Doctors of the future are in multispecialty practice and leaders of a team of nurses, aides, social workers, and pharmacists. They are quarterbacks, not gods.  They diagnose, and everybody else treats.
  16. So much of the future is about retail pharmacy.  In short time, they will make more providing services than filling bottles.
  17. Ninety percent of the evil and waste in the system occurs at the tip of a doctor's pen.
  18. We are all going to retire thanks to government programs.  Demographics is destiny.
  19. Five percent of members account for 60 percent of your spend.  Put the love and focus on them, and you can pretty much leave everyone else alone.

It's been an incredible ride these last two decades, and especially the last five as health reform blossoms.  We look forward to continuing the journey, older, wiser, and bigger. Stay tuned.

 

Resources

Stay connected. Subscribe to Gorman Health Group news and updates via our weekly newsletter.

 


Claims Leakage and the Path to Avoidance

All managed care organizations must operate a high-performing Claims Management. With strict medical loss ratios (MLR) as required by healthcare reform, timeliness provisions, payment accuracy, and constant regulatory requirement changes, covering operating costs pose significant challenges. Cost containment whereby eliminating excess, leakage and waste must be top priority.

The environment is rapidly changing. It doesn't mean that healthcare will be less complex—indeed, probably the opposite. These changes must be properly evaluated, managed and monitored with a focus on cost control. Claims spend is the main expense for many organizations. As customer expectations, competition and regulatory burdens crunch margins, eradicating claims leakage is critical. Throughput and efficiency are key performance data measurements. Organizations need processes and systems that minimize costs while delivering a high-quality claims experience. Rather, operational silos, as well as ineffective and disparate systems across multiple products lines cause many issues.

What is Claims Leakage?

Claims Leakage is defined as the difference between the actual claim payment made and the amount that would have been paid if more practical claim payment controls had been in place.

Claims is a key driver to a couple of very critical components of your revenue. Everyone is aware of claims as it relates to MLR, but equally important is how the claims data impacts revenue in the forms of HEDIS measures and Star Ratings (year to year composite score). As a component of MLR on the costs side — this drives benefit design; if your medical costs are lower than 85% you need additional benefits. HCC (hierarchal conditions categories) are assigned risk adjustment factors — missing claims information (leaking) could result in diminished Risk adjustment scores — same thing as with HEDIS and Stars — missing claims information means less performance in Stars measure and HEDIS.

Leakage equals wrong payment that went out the door. Bottom line, it can cause you money and rework.

Examples of leakage include:

  • Inappropriate benefit design, including member cost sharing
  • Inaccurate provider pricing and reimbursement methodologies design and updates
  • Missing claims and encounter data
  • General configuration issues: Edit rules, duplicate check, NCCI (national correct coding initiatives) and auto-denial/pay rules
  • Minimal data scrubbing: The number 1 and 2 causes of claims leakage is inaccurate membership information and inaccurate provider information.
  • Lack or poorly designed MUEs (medical unlikely edits), coding and mapping issues, including CPT, modifier guidelines, HCPCS, ICD-9/ICD-10, and all UB04 institutional coding
  • Upcoding — billing for higher level of services while lower level services were
  • Claims submitted by bogus providers
  • Pharmacy claims: Appropriate payment allocation of Medicare drug coverage: Part D versus Part A or Part B payments

How does it stop?

The path to avoidance and some best practices are as follows:

  • Develop a strategy in enhancing claims quality control and oversight activities.
  • Implement quality control auditing through pre-payment auditing reviews.
  • Develop and generate focused exception reports of where the leakage dollars are
  • Invest in strong post-pay detection technology to achieve cost avoidance savings.
  • Develop and implement automated and sophisticated algorithms:
    • Scale
    • Claims Check and Edits
    • Focus on the 5% of the financial leakage

Execution of these best practices and automating each procedural step of the claims cycle results in accurate claims resolution. Monitoring operational performance helps continuously track and trend claims inputs and outputs.

Proven Strategies to Plug the Leaks

Optimize your organization's operational performance, requiring coordination across people, processes and systems. Align and take a holistic integrated view, end-to-end, when monitoring operations.

Leaks don't occur because we plan them. They happen because we fail to plan to address them.

 

Resources

GHG Operational Performance Group includes some of our industries most experienced and proficient claims subject matter experts. Our consultants can help your organization implement best practices in claims cost containment. Contact us today to get started >>

When it comes to financial reconciliation and overall membership data management, you must protect against leakage. Need help staying ahead of the CMS reconciliation process? GHG will access your member premium revenue, accounts receivable and CMS revenue reconciliation. Visit our website to learn more >>


Spring Fever Focus: Grievances and Appeals

Spring is here, showing us all different signs of renewal.  It motivates us to clean out clutter, open those windows, and start the year fresh.  Audit season is also upon us, and people are taking a close, hard look at internal processes that surround grievances and appeals processing.  Findings in this area keep showing up, like that college grad that keeps popping in to visit his friends back on campus.  Just leave already, you've had your time!

What is causing the frequent failures that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) describes?  I spoke recently at the 2015 GHG Forum regarding this issue.  We believe it is one of the following factors: people, processes, or technology.  It's time to perform an assessment on this area.  Ask yourself these questions:

  • How much specialized training has this team received this year?  How do I know our team leaders are up on the regulations and best practices?  Is the Grievances and Appeals (G&A) Department a dumping ground for service issues that could have been handled in Member Services?  With constant call center turnover, is G&A working closely with Member Services management to educate new staff?
  • Are procedures for case processing overly complicated? Is staff empowered to effectuate change, or are they hampered by rigid workflows?  Are the procedures even referenced anymore, or are they just a placeholder document for the intranet policy and procedure (P&P) library?
  • Can I customize our case database to meet my changing reporting needs?  Are the reports I am getting out of the system providing me with the information leadership needs to make decisions?  Are there steps in place to ensure all aspects of the case were completed?  Can it produce universes according to CMS audit specifications, or do I need to prep them manually?

These are tip-of-the-iceberg questions that we consider during an operational assessment of Complaints Tracking Module (CTM), grievances, and appeals processes.  As one of the highest risk, beneficiary-facing areas of your plan, this is a great place to kick off spring cleaning.  Create a checklist of your own to conduct an assessment of these processes.  Chances are, you already know your pain points, and you just haven't documented and escalated as of yet.  Don't wait until a CMS audit notice, as illustrated by a very truthful sentiment (thanks someecards!)

 

Resources

Gorman Health Group's Complaints Tracking Module (CTM), grievances, and appeals processes, provides a new way to ensure your cases come to a timely and compliant resolution. Created with CMS in mind, as it captures key information related to intake, processing, categorization, determinations and higher appeals or re-openings to process cases according to CMS' complex and detailed requirements. Contact us >>


Medicaid Reimbursement Rates and the Future of the Program

A recent monumental decision by the Supreme Court was just passed, and it will define the way Medicaid providers will be reimbursed now and in the future.  Many Medicaid providers, including doctors, hospitals, and healthcare organizations, are already concerned with the low reimbursement rates, but now, due to the 5-4 vote by the Supreme Court, many will not have the right to push the states into increasing their payments.

In 2009, there was a ruling passed by the lower courts in Idaho to increase the state's reimbursement rates.  The ruling came about due to the fact that the centers that provided care for about 6,000 mentally disabled adults and children were being reimbursed at the 2006 Medicaid reimbursement rates.  The centers stated in their filings that the cost to maintain the treatment of these patients was substantially higher than what they were being reimbursed by the state.  But then the Supreme Court stepped in and overturned this decision, citing that the Medicaid providers have no right to sue under the current laws pertaining to the federal funding for Medicaid programs.

The positive result of the 2009 ruling of the case, Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center Inc., was that it set a precedence on enforcing federal payment requirements.  Many of the other Medicaid states were using this as a foundation for their pursuit of fairer reimbursement.  The basis of the argument was that federal requirements for rates must be "sufficient to enlist enough providers so that care and services are available under the plan. .  . to the general population in the geographic area (42 U. S. C. §1396a(a)(30)(A) ("§30(a)"). Now, with the overturn of the decision, this could mean that fewer providers of service will participate in the Medicaid program, which will mean that Medicaid members will have fewer choices and restricted access to care.

Supreme Court Justice Beyer stated his decision was made based upon the rationale on "several characteristics of federal statute," in particular the Administrative Procedure Act.  The debate that ensued during the session, and the final determination made, was mainly focused on alternative remedies, one of which was to engage the Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS") and cite §30(a) to withhold Medicaid funding, if the rates were inadequate.

The ruling has caused multiple groups, including 28 states, to voice their concerns with the decision.  While this will be a long-term debate on both sides of the spectrum, conservatives and liberals, one thing is for sure:  in the current environment, there needs to be risk strategies set into place so that the current, and future, players in Medicaid can keep sustaining the care provided with the ever-changing financial atmosphere.  Gorman Health Group (GHG) understands the complexities of the numerous shifting of variables and has a team with the expertise and knowledge to perform risk adjustment models and make recommendations based on revenue vs. medical spend.  Most states have rates that vary and are often moving targets; many organizations need to operate on projections or estimates.

GHG can provide assistance with identifying current and future costs of doing business while building in anticipated adjustments that make sense for the population served. We will position you for success by building a strategy that takes into account the service area, market environment, core competencies, and vision for the future. Contact us today to get started >>

 

Resources

Over the last several years, GHG has committed our time to understanding the needs of the dual population, which has allowed us to build systems and processes that yield quality outcomes. As states begin to increase oversight activities and implement more robust compliance and fraud waste and abuse practices, our expertise in compliance program development will be an asset to any organization. Visit out website to learn more >>

 


Reenergized After RISE…Now What?

It's the Wednesday after a jam-packed RISE conference, focused on "Best Practices and Actionable Tools for Improving Risk Adjustment and Achieving Exceptional Quality Performance."

I am sure I speak for most of my colleagues that attended the Summit when I say, "I'm reenergized, but what should I do first?" The large group sessions and the breakout meetings delivered valuable insights into why the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) keeps moving the target for both health plans and providers. As usual, the presentations were top notch.

This year, a sea of risk adjustment vendors lined the conference room, each with a solution that touted superior performance in maximizing revenue by applying innovative technology, provider/member engagement strategies, and robust analytics. Bright lights, big graphics, dashboards that actually closed the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS®) gap for the colonoscopy measure???  So many options, all impressive in their own right, but where do you go from here?

When I attended these events on behalf of my health plan, I would bring a box of pens and a few notebooks, head back home, and try and piece it all together. Without fail, something would get lost in translation, or my presentation back to the executive team on my takeaways left us all wondering how we're going to prioritize these initiatives, generate buy-in from across the company, and put these strategies to work.

Hearing and sharing best practices with clinicians, analysts, and other thought leaders in the risk adjustment space always proves to be informative, practical, and actionable. There always just seems to be one thing missing - your co-workers and executives weren't there to hear how important ALL of this is, and decisions continue to be made in a silo, and programs are perpetually designed with a one-dimensional approach to risk, quality, and medical trend management.

Being the only consultant at the conference who wasn't aligned with a vendor, I was able to take a very agnostic approach to the entire event. I couldn't help but notice that more providers were in attendance, voicing their concerns about managing data, navigating the complexities for Hierarchical Condition Category (HCC) coding, and still trying to deliver quality care to their patients. I listened to the health plan representatives discuss the challenges of selecting the right vendor partners, making the decision to bring these risk adjustment business functions back in-house, and integrating people, processes, and data across their entire enterprise.

Now that I am back home, and before I head back out to work with clients on their risk adjustment strategies, I wanted to take this time to stress the importance of being thoughtful about which vendors you select, which strategies you choose to pilot, and which operational processes you decide to uproot.

Just remember a few things:

  • Trust that what you are doing now is most likely on the right track - it just might need a little face-lift, especially when the final Call Letter is announced.
  • Technology enables an organization to launch and manage interventions that support corporate priorities. Making these investments without a solid plan to leverage the tools and analytics will only set you up for disappointment. More often than not, creating the playbook falls on your "To Do List.
  • Be confident that you know the basics, and taking your programs to the next level shouldn't rest on your shoulders alone -  we heard loud and clear that this needs to be a cross-departmental, integrated approach in order to really move the needle.

If you can read the above takeaways and feel confident that you and your organization are on the right path, GREAT- please continue to share your best practices with your industry colleagues.

On the other hand, if you are on information overload and not quite sure how or where to begin, know that Gorman Health Group and our team of healthcare analytics and risk adjustment experts have a proven track record of helping our health plan and provider clients assess, prioritize, and design initiatives that make sense for you and the communities in which you serve.

If you have any questions or would like to hear more about how we can help, please contact me directly at dweinrieb@ghgadvisors.com.

 

Resources

Whether you rely on multiple vendors or a largely internal team, GHG can help you streamline the execution of your risk adjustment approach, and build a roadmap to ensure you're keeping pace with CMS expectations in both compliance and health care outcomes. Visit our website to learn more >>

Don't miss Dan's presentation next week at the Gorman Health Group 2015 titled "Risk Adjustment: Cracking the Code" where  he will provide key takeaways from the final Call Letter and future implications, discuss vendor selection, management and oversight, as well as Provider Network strategies and the value of collaboration. Not yet registered for the event? No problem, register here today!


Marry Data to Build Accurate Customer Profiles

Have you ever played "Pin the Tail on the Donkey" as a kid and found yourself laughing when you got completely turned around and totally missed the donkey? That's what it's like when blindly developing benefits, products, marketing, and sales strategies without understanding what your current and prospective customers look and think like — except there's not a lot of laughing going on.

Utilizing enrollment and benefit data to gain an understanding of your marketplace is a great beginning to understanding your market. Taking the deep dive into the data gives you a greater understanding of your competitors, their benefits, and how different benefit, product, and possible provider strategies have affected the enrollment trend. It also gives you the ability to look at your own benefits/products and enrollment trends to try and build hypotheses of what is driving enrollment/disenrollment trends and develop premium, benefit, and product strategies to either reinforce the direction you are heading or to get back on track.

When you have the ability to add additional dimensions such as demographics, geographic, and psychographic elements to your current members and prospects to develop member and prospect profiles, it helps to gain clarity about your benefits and possible product development strategies to get a full picture of your market. This sets you up for changes that may need to be made or products to be developed in the future.

Analyzing these dimensions will also allow you to build a better pathway to smarter marketing and sales strategies to succeed. In June, when marketing and sales strategies are finalized, you don't know what your competitive advantage/disadvantage will be in the marketplace. Understanding how your 2016 products/benefits match your current membership and the prospective market and how your marketing and sales strategies will attack the market during the Annual Election Period (AEP) and subsequent year will give you a solid game plan to help crystallize your strategic vision.

 

Resources

GHG's Sales, Marketing, and Strategy division has developed a detailed analysis of the 2015 Annual Election Period (AEP). This allows health plans to understand existing opportunities in their market as well as the potential for new market opportunities.

The Medicare Advantage marketplace is evolving — are you prepared? Gorman Health Group's marketing experts have developed strategic plans for hundreds of Medicare Advantage Plans, Prescription Drug Plans, Special Needs Plans and Exchange participants. Visit our website to learn how we can help you >>

Even as you are enrolling beneficiaries for the new plan year, your team should be working on your strategic positioning for the following year — reviewing the past year's performance, conducting feasibility analyses, testing assumptions — all to ensure future success. Contact us for more information >>

Time is running out to register for the Gorman Health Group 2015 Forum, April 7-9, at the Gaylord National Resort & Convention Center. Attendees can expect timely, actionable advice on the trends shaping health care from notable speakers, including Barclay's analyst, Joshua Raskin, and regulatory guidance directly from Jennifer Smith, a Director in the Medicare Parts C and D Enforcement Group at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). Register your team today >>


Value-Based Care: HHS Sets Timeline for Transition

The Health & Human Services Department (HHS) recently announced an accelerated time frame with regards to its efforts to transition the Medicare Fee-for-Service (FFS) payment system over to alternative reimbursement models. Not to be outdone and following on the heels of the HHS announcement where a private coalition of some of the nation's largest healthcare systems and payers announced an initiative to move from FFS payments to so-called value-based payment by 2020. This coalition, called the Health Care Transformation Task Force, was proposed by Richard Gilfallin, a former Medicare official and Chief Executive of Trinity Health, a Catholic system that operates in 21 states.

While there is widespread agreement amongst healthcare leaders and policy makers that the U.S. healthcare system needs to see a significant shift away from volume-based reimbursement to one that incentivizes providers for meeting quality measures, clinical outcomes, and financial savings, the announcement can also leave us shaking our collective heads and wondering how to meet a goal when, to date, it has been so randomly undefined. As stated by Dr. Timothy G. Ferris, who is leading the effort on behalf of Partners Healthcare, "It is really easy to agree on the big-picture stuff, but it gets more complicated when you get into the details." And therein lies the challenge. To repeat a well-worn phrase, the devil is in the detail.

Providers have been willing participants in the various CMS and CMMI initiatives; some willing, some dragged kicking and screaming, have stepped up to the plate to join the bandwagon. While we have made progress, we have fallen short of expectations. Roughly, 3%, 220 of approximately 6,690, of entities that were approved to participate in bundled payments moved forward to implement the new payments. Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) participants have shown some quality improvements and saved Medicare approximately $417 million year one with the first 220 Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs); but this number is under 1% of the Medicare's FFS budget. Several of the original Pioneer ACOs have dropped out to pursue programs, such as MSSP, that offer less risk. A red flag in the new time line, and one that has affected the above initiatives, is poorly defined quality indicators and what truly constitutes value. With an accelerated time line to achieve a shift to volume-based payments, we should focus on lessons learned and steps needed to provide a roadmap to success.

Presently, alternative payment models account for approximately 20% of Medicare payments, and HHS expects to see that percentage rise to 30% by 2016 and to 50% by 2018. This same shift is already taking place within our commercial counterparts. The Blue Cross trade association reported last summer that 20% of their providers had contracts that prioritized quality over quantity, and Aetna reports that 28% of its reimbursements are now in value-based agreements and expects that number to rise to 75% by 2020. What steps do Medicare providers need to start thinking about to promote a similar shift?

  1. Partnerships: Some of the greatest partnerships in history, Batman & Robin, Abbot & Costello, Laverne & Shirley, have achieved much more together than on their own. As we look around for partners for ACOs, bundled payments, etc., we want to find providers that share our philosophy, geography, goals, and ideas. We need to do our due diligence and ensure we have established, clear-cut terms, methodologies in care, investments, and cost-savings; we also need to establish accountability up front.
  2. Consistent focus on the value of the opportunity: Involves understanding the change is not the flavor-of-the-month strategy, there will be expenses, and that collaboration is required to succeed.
  3. Strong leadership and governance: The shift to value-based reimbursement is dependent upon fostering a cultural change from the top down. Culture has its roots in the governance and leadership of the organization. There must be a unified approach around transparency, accountability, and effective outcomes. The key is to balance the upfront expenses and short-term impact to reach long-term success.

Furthermore, much speculation has been given on the change being provider-driven in order to meet the goals. With consumer savvy, newly aged-in Medicare beneficiaries, there is also a shift in patient expectations and what is available for their health care dollar. The new beneficiary is aging in from a world of patient engagement, incentive, and rewards programs, and will expect the same level of service. As HHS promotes "Better Care, Smarter Spending. Healthier People. Why It Matters?", an idealist would say it matters because we are all in this together….a realist would say, "Thanks HHS…but what are the quality measures, and how soon can I have them?" Additionally, the realist will also operate from the belief that there is no one perfect model but that different payment models apply to different treatment pricing scenarios.


Resources

Here at Gorman Health Group, we can help you decide what payment models are appropriate to your unique circumstance and support your implementation efforts. Contact us today.

Registration for the Gorman Health Group 2015 Forum is now open! Attendees can expect timely, actionable advice on the trends shaping health care from notable speakers, including Barclay's analyst, Joshua Raskin, and regulatory guidance directly from Jennifer Smith, a Director in the Medicare Parts C and D Enforcement Group at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). Register your team for The Gorman Health Group 2015 Forum today!


CMS Releases Part D Drugs and Formulary Requirements

The long awaited revision to the Prescription Drug Benefit Manual Chapter 6 is hot off the press. Many of the changes have been published previously by CMS in Best Practice guidance or communicated in the course of CMS compliance audits. The changes include additions to the sections on Medically Accepted Indications, drugs purchased in another country, drugs covered under Medicare Part A or B, policy regarding formulary changes, updates to the description of covered commercially available combination products, and updates to existing policies with respect to utilization management

The most pertinent changes include:

  • Part D plans have to apply the Part B definition of a medically-accepted indication to chemotherapy drugs that aren't covered by Part B (therefore Part D covered drugs). "Part D sponsors will be required to thoroughly understand and apply Part B's definition of an anti-cancer chemotherapeutic regimen, utilize Part B compendia, and consider peer reviewed medical literature when necessary."
  • Part D plans should use prior authorization (PA) for those drugs with the highest likelihood of non-Part D covered uses and if a medication is discovered to have been utilized for a non-Part D indication upon retrospective review, the PDE has to be deleted and the accumulators adjusted.
  • To determine the appropriate Medicare A or B or D coverage "bucket" health plans may apply prior authorization, even if the beneficiary is currently taking the drug, and even if a protected class drug is involved.
    • CMS expects Part D sponsors to work aggressively to eliminate any interruptions of current therapy
  • Unless a prior authorization criteria is submitted to CMS and approved at a dosage level, the plan must honor prescription requests for PA approved drugs for all strengths
  • Any QLs below the FDA-approved maximum dose or below the days' supply entered in the Part D benefit package (PBP) must be submitted and approved by CMS.
  • High cost edits should be above the usual and customary price of drugs to ensure that beneficiaries with valid claims for drugs are not subject to the edit.
  • Concurrent DUR edits of doses at or above FDA maximum approved dosing do not have to have prior approval from CMS. The labeling should clearly identify the dispensing as unsafe or contraindicated not just a precaution in the labeling.
  • For transition, CMS is defining non-formulary Part D drugs to mean both: (1) Part D drugs that are not on a sponsor's formulary, and (2) Part D drugs that are on a sponsor's formulary but require prior authorization or step therapy, "since a formulary drug whose access is restricted via utilization management requirements is essentially equivalent to a non-formulary Part D drug to the extent that the relevant UM requirements are not met for a particular enrollee."
  • If a plan reduces a quantity limit (e.g. 2 tablets daily to 1 tablet daily), this change would require the plan to provide a transition fill if requested.
  • For transition, a new enrollee is one whose ongoing drug therapy (whether the health plan is able to determine ongoing therapy or not) could be potentially interrupted by a drug being non- formulary.
    • So an enrollee who stays with the same contract number but changes PBPs is a new enrollee eligible for a transition supply because his or her ongoing drug therapy could potentially be interrupted. However, an enrollee who moves from one PBP to another may not be eligible for transition if the formulary is the same for both PBPs.
  • CMS is mandating a minimum 108 day look-back period to determine if a member has ongoing medication therapy or not
  • For retail transition, if the smallest available marketed package size is in excess of a 30 day supply, the plan must offer a transition supply when required.
  • CMS is requiring up to a 91- to 98-day transition supply given that many LTC pharmacies and facilities must dispense brand medications in 14-day or less increments.
  • For LTC members, plan sponsors do not have to provide more than one emergency supply fill for a drug
  • Transition benefits accrue to beneficiaries at "network" pharmacies..
  • Beneficiary opioid point of sale edits can be applied during transition. However, for non-formulary opioid medications and formulary opioid medication subject to prior authorization or step therapy under a new plan's utilization management rules, a temporary supply must be provided during transition.
  • The cost sharing for LIS members for transition fills cannot be higher than the maximum copayments in statute; for non-LIS members non-formulary drugs filled in transition would have the same copayment as non-formulary drugs approved through the exception process and formulary drugs with utilization management edits would have the same copayment during transition that they would have once the um requirement has been met.
  • For a medication that has multiple refills in transition, only one member and provider transition notice is required.
  • Medically Accepted Indication for purposes of Part D is an FDA labeled indication or an indication supported by citation in either the American Hospital Formulary System (AHFS), USP-DI (or its successor publications), or DRUGDEX®.

Three particular requirements of note are practices that we have been recommending to plans for the past five years:

  • thoroughly test the adjudication of the approved formularies in advance of and during the plan year to help identify errors
  • routinely review rejected claims at POS so that discrepancies are discovered timely
  • implement a continuity of care policy

Our Pharmacy experts can create and conduct an in-depth benefit administration test plan for your organization to validate that everything is working precisely as it should on an ongoing basis throughout the year. We can ensure your PBM is processing claims consistent with your CMS-Approved Prescription Drug Benefit.

 

Resources

The rapid changes to Part D regulations make the tracking and implementation of these CMS requirements exceptionally difficult — to say nothing of actually managing to them. Our Part D services are designed with your staff in mind, ensuring that with a mix of counsel and DIY tools your staff will have access to actionable information — faster. Contact us today to learn more >>

Registration for the Gorman Health Group 2015 Forum is now open! Attendees can expect timely, actionable advice on the trends shaping health care from notable speakers, including Barclay's analyst, Joshua Raskin, and regulatory guidance directly from Jennifer Smith, a Director in the Medicare Parts C and D Enforcement Group at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). Register your team for The Gorman Health Group 2015 Forum today!


Countdown to Final Submit

Today is the final day for current or potential plan sponsors to submit their Medicare Advantage and/or Part D application for a new contract or service area expansion (or service area expansion  for 1876 Cost Plans). By now, many of you have already hit final submit and are either celebrating or working on known deficiencies. Or, perhaps you are still waiting for documentation or a final quality check of your submission before you feel confident to submit. Here are a few of the things we learned this year along the way.

  1. CMS has not updated their Part D readme file to include the FDR chart noted in 3.1.1C.  It seems a bit redundant to the information entered in the Part D Data section of HPMS, but to each his or her own.  CMS provides no template for that chart so we can imagine either it is overlooked upon initial submission by the applicant, or it is submitted in varied forms.
  2. Despite making reference to an additional webinar to be held after the second user call, no webinar was scheduled nor was any announcement made to correct that statement. However, CMS staff demonstrated timely responsiveness to posed questions both directly sent to application contacts as well as through the DMAO mailbox.
  3. With an industry push for quality (read: limited) network establishment, applicants can expect a high level of scrutiny on exception requests. If providers are available in a service area, CMS has stated that applicants should not even submit an exception request, so put those pencils down and step up contracting efforts.

You have until 8:00 PM Eastern Time tonight to submit your application. There should be a good sense of what potential deficiencies exist, so maintain the momentum to fill those gaps. Embrace the reality that CMS may certainly identify additional gaps in the submission. Ensure that your team has time built into your implementation plan to address any additional deficiencies.

 

Resources

We've assisted scores of organizations through every step of the application process, from gathering the right data, completing the application, submitting, and responding to follow-up questions. Contact us today to ensure a smooth, compliant process.

Registration for the Gorman Health Group 2015 Forum is now open! Attendees can expect timely, actionable advice on the trends shaping health care from notable speakers, including Barclay's analyst, Joshua Raskin, and regulatory guidance directly from Jennifer Smith, a Director in the Medicare Parts C and D Enforcement Group at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). Register your team for The Gorman Health Group 2015 Forum today!