New AHC Model Supports Better Care, Smarter Spending & Healthier People
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) recently announced the Accountable Health Communities (AHC) Model, which will examine whether systematically identifying and attempting to address health-related social needs of Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries through referral and community navigation services can impact healthcare costs, reduce inpatient and outpatient healthcare utilization, and improve healthcare quality and delivery.
As Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs), integrated delivery systems, and community-based organizations collaborate on how to best meet the medical and socio-economic needs of our most vulnerable populations, this new grant opportunity is a way to further solidify and strengthen provider partnerships. "The AHC Model will allow providers to leverage the clinical and technology infrastructure they have built and test solutions and interventions for the health-related but unmet social needs such as food insecurity and unstable housing," said Olga Bronnikova, Senior Legislative & Policy Advisor at Gorman Health Group (GHG).
"Since the time of Hippocrates, physicians have known their patients' physical health is highly dependent on factors in their physical, economic, and social environment," said Leslie Mullins, Senior Consultant at GHG. "The World Health Organization (WHO) has described these Social Determinants of Health (SDH) as the conditions in which people are born, grow, work, live, and age, and studies have shown SDH account for 15% to 40% of the variance in health between different groups. The AHC model will directly address how improving the SDH will affect beneficiaries' healthcare costs and improve health outcomes.
Information about the AHC Model is available at Accountable Health Communities Model web page.
Eligible Participants:
Eligible applicants are community-based organizations, healthcare provider practices, hospitals and health systems, institutions of higher education, local government entities, tribal organizations, and for-profit and non-profit local and national entities with the capacity to develop and maintain a referral network with clinical delivery sites and community service providers. All states are eligible. Medicare Advantage (MA) and Program of All-inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE) organizations are not eligible to serve as bridge organizations.
Model Details:
The model is a five-year test which will aim to address beneficiaries' social needs in the following core areas:
• Housing instability and quality,
• Food insecurity,
• Utility needs,
• Interpersonal violence, and
• Transportation needs beyond medical transportation.
The model includes three tracks which will attempt to test the following service delivery approaches:
Track 1 — Awareness: Increasing beneficiary awareness of available community services through information dissemination and referral.
Track 2 — Assistance: Providing community service navigation to assist high-risk beneficiaries with accessing community services to address the identified social needs impacting their total healthcare costs, inpatient and outpatient healthcare utilization, and health and quality of care.
Track 3 — Alignment: Encourage partner alignment to ensure community services are available and responsive to the needs of beneficiaries.
- The bridge organization is responsible for coordinating community efforts to: Identify and partner with clinical delivery sites and community service providers.
- Conduct systematic health-related social needs screenings
- Connect beneficiaries to community resources via referrals for identified unmet health-related social needs.
- Tracks 2 and 3: Assist beneficiaries with accessing community resources through community service navigation.
- Track 3: Partner with and align community service partners to optimize community capacity to address health-related social needs.
Bridge organizations are expected to partner with:
- At least one Medicaid state agency.
- Clinical delivery sites including at least one of the following: hospital, primary care provider or practice, provider of behavioral health services.
Community service providers who can address the health-related social needs identified through a screening.
Award Information:
Up to $1 million to each bridge organization in Track 1 — Awareness
Up to $2.57 million to each bridge organization in Track 2 — Assistance
Up to $4.51 million to each bridge organization in Track 3 — Alignment
CMS anticipates awards will be made in the fall of 2016. The model period is five years, from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2021.
CMS will support and fund:
• 12 cooperative agreements for Track 1
• 12 cooperative agreements for Track 2
• 20 cooperative agreements for Track 3
Instructions and Deadlines
Applicants must submit a letter of intent (LOI) to http://innovationgov.force.com/ahc by February 8, 2016. If an LOI is not submitted, any subsequent application will be ineligible. Applications are due by 1:00 p.m. EST on March 31, 2016. Applicants may apply for up to two tracks, but successful applicants will only be selected for one.
At Gorman Health Group (GHG), we have successfully assisted providers in forming ACOs and developing strategies to address the clinical and socio-economic needs of vulnerable populations within our communities. We are prepared to assist you in your decision-making process for which of the various tracks of the grant application to apply, completion of the grant application, and implementation of your program. As noted above, time is of the essence. Let GHG help bring your innovative care ideas to fruition.
For more information, please contact me directly at emartin@ghgadvisors.com.
Resources
GHG's multidisciplinary team of experts will assess the alignment of your products, your current network and your market to translate your business strategies into practical, efficient and rigorous work processes with the highest degree of compliance and accountability. Visit our website to learn more >>
Register your team now through January 31 for the 2016 GHG Forum, and take advantage of our New Year's special! Save 15% using promo code NewYear16 at checkout. Register now >>
Stay connected to industry news and gain perspective on how to navigate the latest issues through GHG's weekly newsletter. Subscribe >>
Network Adequacy Top of Mind for CMS
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) continues to reinforce its focus on health plan provider networks with several recent announcements.
The release of the new Network Management Module (NMM) within the Health Plan Management System (HPMS) is the tool CMS will utilize for monitoring network adequacy. The NMM functionality allows both CMS and organizations to evaluate health services delivery (HSD) provider and facility networks separate from the annual application process. The NMM employs the same evaluation criteria and calculations currently used by the automated network review portion of the Medicare Advantage (MA) initial and Service Area Expansion (SAE) application process. Please note organizations can access the NMM functionality to submit their network tables for an "organization-initiated" automated review. Results generated for an "organization-initiated" review will only be available to your organization and not be viewable by CMS. Our subject matter experts at GHG are able to assist plans in utilizing this new functionality as part of an overall network audit and maintenance policy plans should adopt to continually assess how their network, as its largest asset, meets the goals of the organization.
Additionally, CMS released the Draft 2017 Letter to Issuers in the Federally-facilitated Marketplace (FFM) on December 23, 2015, and is proposing new policies on network adequacy and monitoring to provide more transparency and detail to be Qualified Health Plans (QHPs) in an FFM to fulfill the requirements to provide reasonable provider access to their members. Plans have the ability to review the draft letter and provide comments back to CMS by January 17, 2016. We have provided a link to the full draft letter, and, as with MA plans, Gorman Health Group (GHG) has the ability to manage your network adequacy reports and audit for all QHPs.
Lastly, on January 13, 2016, CMS provided training on the summary of changes to the 2017 MA applications. One of the key points addressed is the SAE application will require HSD Tables for the entire Medicare Advantage Organization (MAO) network at the contract level, not just the counties the application is proposing to expand into with the SAE request. The change comes as CMS has indicated plans should have tighter control on their existing provider networks to ensure adequacy is met over the life of the contract.
At GHG, we have experts who have worked directly with managing provider networks and adequacy for over 20 years, including detailed analytics such as specialty code mapping and software which is critical in building the infrastructure needed to fully support the quality and financial goals the network brings to your health plan. Please reach out if we can provide guidance regarding the rules and regulations for all government-sponsored health plan networks.
Resources
GHG's multidisciplinary team of experts will assess the alignment of your products, your current network and your market to translate your business strategies into practical, efficient and rigorous work processes with the highest degree of compliance and accountability. Visit our website to learn more >>
Register your team now through January 31 for the 2016 GHG Forum, and take advantage of our New Year's special! Save 15% using promo code NewYear16 at checkout. Register now >>
Stay connected to industry news and gain perspective on how to navigate the latest issues through GHG's weekly newsletter. Subscribe >>
Top Tips for Star Ratings Success in 2016
Amidst our rapidly-changing industry landscape, the Star Ratings program essentially serves as a "Medicare Advantage stress test," measuring a plan's ability to master the operational complexities encountered while improving the quality of care and general health status of Medicare beneficiaries through member-pleasing experiences. At any given time, there are multiple Star Ratings cycles in play. For example: operational teams and providers have now shifted their focus to services impacting 2018 Star Ratings, Quality and Pharmacy teams are beginning to finalize Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS®) and Prescription Drug Event (PDE) data for 2017 Star Ratings, and the Star Ratings team is feverishly working to optimize performance across both the 2017 and 2018 Star Ratings cycles.
As we've said before, there is no rest for the weary within Star Ratings, and 2016 will likely be no different. But January is a time for new beginnings and fresh starts, so we want to provide you with a few helpful tips to start off the New Year strong:
Monitor and Manage Execution Risk
As John described in his blog this week, we are watching a slew of significant industry issues this year. Some of these issues will directly impact Star Ratings workflows (such as potential new measures, potential program changes to account for dual eligibles/low-income subsidy (LIS) members, and the evolution of Medication Therapy Management (MTM), some will directly impact Star Ratings strategy (such as mergers, drug pricing, provider networks, and care delivery), while others will have an indirect impact on Star Ratings. The Star Ratings impact of these issues and risks, combined with the impact of internal and local risks and issues, will continue to evolve and may change unpredictably throughout the year. It's important for health plan leaders to understand the Star Ratings impact associated with these, and other, types of issues so risks can be routinely evaluated and mitigated where possible. Just as importantly, monitor and evaluate your internal execution risks so mitigation strategies can be deployed when staffing challenges, organizational changes, or administrative processes are not functioning as designed. Make sure your Star Ratings reporting, monitoring, and oversight processes spotlight these risks so leadership is aware of key risks and can adjust the sails as needed if the winds change during the year.
Align Your 2016 Star Ratings Work Plan with Your Strategic Plan.
Health plans are updating their strategic plans more frequently, and often more significantly, than in the past to account for the nature, extent, and speed of industry changes. It is not uncommon for staff to invest time, effort, and resources in selected areas only to later discover there were other, more critical, areas which could have yielded a higher return on investment (ROI) from Star Ratings-related investments. Star Ratings success amidst a changing industry will test a plan's flexibility, agility, and leadership. With that in mind:
- Ensure your 2016 Star Ratings work plan aligns with your organization's strategic plan and captures activities needed to mitigate the impact of strategic adjustments.
- When planning for strategic change, engage Star Ratings leaders to ensure leadership is prepared for, and can mitigate the impact of, such strategic change on Star Ratings. As changes are made, help department leaders understand the full scope of change and its impact on Star Ratings and deploy well-planned tactics to mitigate Stars Ratings risk as changes are implemented.
- Align Star Ratings strategies and tactics with population health, quality improvement, and care management workstreams, and cross-leverage member interventions to simultaneously achieve cross-functional purposes.
- Evaluate the impact of your delegates and vendors on your Star Ratings strategic goals and deploy targeted efforts where improvement is needed.
Run Star Ratings as a Strategic Program
A health plan's Star Rating ultimately reflects the effectiveness with which the entire organization (and its first-tier, downstream, and related entities) and its provider/pharmacy networks work together to improve quality of care and the health status of Medicare beneficiaries in ways which meet members' expectations. As Star Ratings expand into long-standing, multi-faceted new clinical areas, health plans may discover a need for increased collaboration among internal teams and with providers. With this in mind, it is important plans run Star Ratings as a strategic program with dedicated leadership, well-documented workflows, and carefully-crafted leadership support to best ensure the plan hits the ever-important 4-Star threshold.
Resources
Every Star Ratings work plan is unique, and the opportunities to improve performance are similarly unique. With this in mind, it can often be helpful to conduct an objective evaluation of your program. Gorman Health Group's team of experts can help you review key infrastructure and workflows to identify opportunities to improve your Star Ratings performance.
Register your team now through January 31 for the 2016 GHG Forum, and take advantage of our New Year's special! Save 15% using promo code NewYear16 at checkout. Register now >>
Stay connected to industry news and gain perspective on how to navigate the latest issues through GHG's weekly newsletter. Subscribe >>
Issues That Will Define Government Health Programs in 2016
The new year brings a slew of issues that will define government-sponsored health programs. Here's what we're watching closely, not necessarily in this order. Opportunities have never been greater in Medicare, Medicaid, and ObamaCare, but execution risk is rising fast. If this was an easy business, we'd be out of business.
Drug Pricing: Prospects for a legal fix in Congress is questionable, and this will be a leading issue in the Presidential campaign. Expect administrative action, demonstration project solicitations from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), "comparative effectiveness research" by federal agencies on specialty drugs, and "collaborative pricing" initiatives between pharma manufacturers and payers on high-profile therapeutic classes. Health plan CEOs expect higher specialty drug cost trends to be the biggest driver of medical cost trend in 2016.
Medication Therapy Management (MTM): 2016 is the year MTM gets real. CMS will begin conducting widespread audits of Medicare Advantage (MA) and Part D plan medication reviews, and there is tremendous emphasis on MTM in the Star Ratings system. Making MTM real for your members will require extensive vendor contracting and Pharmacy Benefit Manager (PBM) coordination, so turn your plan's attention to this fast.
Antitrust/Mergers: Sometime in Q3 or Q4 of 2016, the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice Antitrust Division will rule on proposed mergers for Aetna/Humana, Anthem/CIGNA, Walgreens/Rite-Aid, and Pfizer/Allergan. We expect all four deals to be approved but with strings attached; e.g., we expect Aetna/Humana will have to divest 250,000-450,000 lives to get a green light.
Star Ratings: Must be a central focus of all payers and providers in government programs. Star Ratings has transcended MA and Part D. Star Ratings data is already being collected by ObamaCare plans, and over a dozen state Medicaid programs are using CAHPS® and Star Ratings data in contracting with plans for dual-eligible and managed long-term care (LTC) initiatives. And while there aren't major changes to Star Ratings measures in 2016, scoring is the game-changer: 50% more plans will be scored for the first time this year, guaranteeing a shift right in the ratings bell curve and that many of 2015's 4-Star plans will go off the cliff. To maintain progress, plans must run Star Ratings as a program with dedicated leadership and execution spelled out at the workflow level.
Risk Adjustment: 2016 will usher in increased efforts to ensure payment accuracy through more stringent and expansive Risk Adjustment Data Validation (RADV) reviews, and so providers delegated for risk and sharing in a percent of premium will be in the spotlight. CMS is seeking to contract with third-party auditors on RADV, and risk adjustment is a top concern in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) work plan.
Providers and Care Delivery: 2016 will be a transformative year with contracted providers in government programs. Narrow/preferred networks and value-based risk contracting will go mainstream this year, whether providers are ready or not. Huge penalties start this month on network adequacy and accuracy of provider directories, and NAIC's model guidance on provider networks will be a central document governing the issue. Star Ratings measures on access to care and the member experience put new heft and revenue behind network requirements. Provider-sponsored entities will provide a mini-surge of dozens of new plans into MA and Medicaid in 2016 and 2017, especially among Medicare Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs), so keep your friends close and your enemies closer. Home- and community-based services and alternatives to nursing homes will go mainstream in 2016. Retail pharmacies will become the second-most-important provider type for health plans. With crushing burdens of ICD-10 and meaningful use, small and mid-size practices will become overwhelmed and will underperform. Plans will need aggressive oversight, quality improvement, and directory management activities to stay ahead.
Exchange Payment: For the first time in two years, CMS is going to begin paying plans HIX 820s at the member level, which will shine a spotlight on enrollment reconciliation issues that have been lingering. The plans' readiness transition period is from January to March, then it gets real in April.
Medicaid and Dual Eligibles: Unexpected states like LA, SD, and IA are now considering Medicaid expansion. CMS is focusing on new Medicaid quality measures and will be depending heavily on NCQA quality measures to gauge health plans. This will impact payment and future membership for some lower-rated plans. Beneficiary opt-outs in excess of 75% are plaguing early dual-eligible demos, but many states remain in fiscal crisis and need to move ahead to balance budgets.
Compliance: 2015 was a near-record year in CMS enforcement actions, and scores always get settled with insurers in the second term of a Democratic administration. There will be a slew of rules coming from CMS this year as well as expanded audits from OIG. Both agencies' approaches indicate how critical documentation remains: CMS added a number of items to documentation requests for Compliance Program Effectiveness; Medicaid, dual-eligible, and LTC demos are still very documentation-heavy, and CMS found that approximately two-thirds of CMS-reviewed FFM issuer plan policies and procedures (P&Ps) were incomplete or had operational findings with their vendor contracts. So even though there is focus on data monitoring and passed/failed samples, P&Ps and documents are still the cornerstone.
There is no question that 2016 will be a banner year in government programs enrollment, and the long walk in the desert on payment rates in MA and Medicaid appears to be over. But execution risk and the enforcement environment have never been tougher. This year will be a "Darwinian moment:" it's not about being the biggest or even the smartest but being the most adaptable.
.
Resources
Register your team now through January 31 for the 2016 GHG Forum, and take advantage of our New Year's special! Save 15% using promo code NewYear16 at checkout. Register now >>
Stay connected to industry news and gain perspective on how to navigate the latest issues through GHG's weekly newsletter. Subscribe >>
New Hospice Policies Could Mean Big Changes for MA
Medicare's hospice care is garnering much attention and starting the evolution process this year. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued several new regulations changing hospice payments, and these regulations come with big implications for Medicare Advantage (MA) plans as well.
Last month, the Senate Committee released a policy options paper, discussing solutions for managing chronic illness. In the paper, the Committee proposed that MA plans be required to offer the hospice benefit currently provided under Medicare Part A. Such a change would mean changes to the MA payment system in order to include hospice reimbursement. It would also come with the inclusion of additional measures under the Star Ratings system.
These proposals have been floated around throughout the years, however, with the inclusion of the new end of life talks and the evaluation of the Care Choices Model, this proposal has more teeth and may become reality in the next several years.
Medicare will now also pay for Advance Care Planning talks. Most Medicare beneficiaries and their families state they would like to be involved in end of life planning, yet these talks are often avoided because of the sensitivity of the subject, prognostic uncertainty, and, most importantly, lack of training or pathways for physicians to facilitate these talks. A small number of beneficiaries currently have advanced care directives. This year is an important test for this new payment in assessing whether the talks will have an effect on the care patients choose to receive and whether this will result in more frequent and earlier hospice admission.
Although these payments are small, this is a great opportunity for plans to lead more physicians to discuss end of life care and put plans at an advantage if approached correctly. More patients electing hospice care could lead to better patient quality and experience. Hospice care is more person-centered and tends to improve outcomes such as pain and satisfaction. At the same time, although plans would lose the patient's premium from the shift to hospice, they would also shift the bad claims experience due to the highly expensive end of life palliative treatments and unnecessary hospital care. However, due to the sensitive nature of the discussions, plans should establish a careful framework in their approach in order to contain patient satisfaction and quality.
This year also marks the launch of the Medicare Care Choices Model (MCCM) from CMS. The five-year model allows some hospice-eligible patients to access hospice care without having to forego curative treatments, the way the system is currently set up, and allows for providers to receive payment for this care. The program has some significant limitations: hospice providers will only receive $400 per month or $200 per month for those enrolled for less than 15 days. This means in order to be financially appealing, patients will receive much lower benefits than normally received through hospice treatment. However, it may set up a basis for continued advanced care discussions and lead to more patients electing full hospice care. Despite the low payment, however, the model received significant provider interest and will see a high level of participation.
Resources
At Gorman Health Group, we would be happy to work with your organization to develop beneficiary outreach and/or other programs to address the growing need for this kind of program, which, if applied properly would benefit both the beneficiary and the help plan. Contact us to learn more >>
Register your team now through January 31 for the 2016 GHG Forum, and take advantage of our New Year's special! Save 15% using promo code NewYear16 at checkout. Register now >>
Stay connected to industry news and gain perspective on how to navigate the latest issues through GHG's weekly newsletter. Subscribe >>
Health Insurance Marketplace — What's Contributing to the 2016 Enrollment Growth?
On December 22, 2015, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released a snapshot report of the Health Insurance Marketplace Open Enrollment, capturing Marketplace enrollment from the beginning of Open Enrollment (November 1) through December 19 (Week 7 of Open Enrollment) for consumers who signed up for health coverage through the Healthcare.gov platform. Not accounting for the millions more selecting plans through State-based Marketplaces (SBMs):
- More than 8.2 million consumers signed up for healthcare coverage — 28% more than enrollment a year prior.
- Approximately 29% (about 2.4 million) are new consumers, while 71% are consumers renewing coverage.
- New consumers are over one-third higher than the number of new consumers who signed up by the deadline for January 1 coverage last year.
- More than 4 million people made plan selections between December 13 and December 19, which represents almost 50% of the cumulative Open Enrollment plan selections through December 19, 2015.
So what is contributing to the positive enrollment growth in the 2016 Health Insurance Marketplace?
While it is normal to see higher consumer demands during the weeks leading up to the January 1 effective coverage deadline, there are some other factors which may be contributing to the enrollment trends.
- Automatic renewal process — As part of the Federally-facilitated Marketplace (FFM) auto-enrollment process, generally, if consumers do nothing, they will be auto-enrolled in the same plan with the same premium tax credit and other financial assistance, if applicable, as the prior plan year. This provides consumers with a simple, familiar process to renew their coverage.
- Broker guidance and training— CMS is providing more guidance and instructional tips to brokers on how to engage consumers and simplify the consumer enrollment experience. This can been seen in:
- the numerous broker training sessions CMS hosted going into Open Enrollment,
- CMS provided enrollment tools such as the "Marketplace Application Checklist" brokers can use to help consumers prepare to complete their applications on Healthcare.gov,
- a new "For Agents and Brokers" link has been added at Healthcare.gov, making it easier for agents and brokers to get to the Agents and Brokers Resources webpage (http://go.cms.gov/CCIIOAB),
- and consumer research shared with brokers showing what drives consumers to take action.
- Customer awareness — The first Health Insurance Marketplace Open Enrollment period was longer than in future years in order to give consumers a chance to understand their options and make a selection (in addition to allowing further opportunity to beneficiaries impacted by hiccups in FFM enrollment functionality to complete enrollment). As we enter the 2016 plan year, enrollment processes and functionality are not only tighter, renewing beneficiaries are now more familiar with how to research coverage options and avenues in which they can enroll.
With Open Enrollment coming closer to the end, extremely high traffic is anticipated on Healthcare.gov specifically on the January 15 cut-off date.
CMS will continue to release snapshot reports for the Healthcare.gov platform throughout Open Enrollment. It is anticipated more detailed reports which look at plan selections across the FFM and SBM will be released by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) later in the Open Enrollment period.
For more Open Enrollment Trends:
https://www.cms.gov/Newsroom/MediaReleaseDatabase/Fact-sheets/2015-Fact-sheets-items/2015-12-22.html
Resources
Gorman Health Group's annual training can help you prepare. As a CMS approved training vendor, we offer robust training on an easy-to-use platform at an unbelievably low price. Visit our website to learn more >>
Register your team now through January 31 for the 2016 GHG Forum, and take advantage of our New Year's special! Save 15% using promo code NewYear16 at checkout. Register now >>
Stay connected to industry news and gain perspective on how to navigate the latest issues through GHG's weekly newsletter. Subscribe >>
Top Five Operational Resolutions for 2016
Did you know only 8% of people who make New Year's Resolutions achieve them? There are many reasons why resolutions are not accomplished. They may have been too aggressive or priorities changed. Sometimes it's because the goal is too vague or there are far too many and a person is unable to focus on them all.
When it comes to achieving resolutions, there are two keys to success: be specific and stay positive.
Here are our top five operational resolutions to consider for 2016:
- Re-evaluate your controls against current guidance. Are the standards still the same? Is your evaluation process adequate to ensure compliance?
- Fix your highest volume workaround. Every department has them. Some prevent rework, some are due to obsolete systems, some were set up for ease of users, but workarounds are hard to monitor, hard to explain in an audit, and are a risk with staff turnover. Fix it so you have one less thing to sidetrack processes.
- Set up redundancy in processes. We have all been in a place where a single individual knows a process. Your single source of success can easily turn into a single source of failure if that staff person wins the lottery and decides to travel the world.
- Evaluate and improve the highest priority item requiring rework. One client had a high volume of Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) records which would be closed and then show up again every few months. The rework and premium loss and recovery were a continuous cycle. After evaluating the records, a root cause was identified, which was within the plan's control, and resulted in less MSP churn.
- Celebrate more successes. Does your staff know their compliance rates? Do they know if they are improving month over month? Do they know the compliance issue they reported resulted in better ongoing compliance and prevented harm to members? Celebrating successes not only ensures staff sees the part they play in the big picture but reinforces the requirements.
Gorman Health Group has experienced consultants who can assess and review the operational areas of your organization. We can review current processes and look for efficiencies to improve outcomes and better compliance. Make a resolution to improve your organization's operational areas — we can help make it happen in 2016.
For more information, please contact me directly at jbillman@ghgadvisors.com.
Resources
Register your team now through January 31 for the 2016 GHG Forum, and take advantage of our New Year's special! Save 15% using promo code NewYear16 at checkout. Register now >>
Stay connected to industry news and gain perspective on how to navigate the latest issues through GHG's weekly newsletter. Subscribe >>
Three Reasons Why Compliance Program Effectiveness Needs Evaluation Now
Happy New Year! It's a time when your organization may be evaluating whether or not to submit a new application or a service area expansion. This may be when annual training kicks off once again. You may be reviewing attestations to determine which vendors need to provide you with new documentation. And don't forget to ensure the Claims Department has updated systems to reflect the current prompt payment interest rate.
For those of you in Compliance, all of the above might be on your radar, in addition to the day-to-day. If you have not tested or evaluated the effectiveness of your Compliance Program lately, now is the time to do it. Here are three reasons why:
- Major pharmacies cited for repeat violations of privacy violations. Pharmacies arguably make up the largest group of downstream entities for Sponsors. Those contracted pharmacies have been subject to hundreds of Sponsor-specific general compliance and fraud, waste, and abuse (FWA) training in the past, as well as the trainings created by the pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs). (Starting this year, Sponsors must require first tier, downstream, and related entities (FDRs) to take the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) training and accept the certificate of completion.) As you can see from the article, health information privacy complaints are on the rise. Sponsors should not simply check a box confirming a PBM attested that all pharmacies took training — this should be tested and sampled as part of auditing and monitoring. Furthermore, if and when a potential pattern of issues is identified, a deeper investigatory dive and escalation of corrective actions should be pursued.
- The new season of audits is approaching. At the end of October, CMS released their revised 2015/2016 protocols. Recently, CMS released a memo stating they continue to receive inquiries and concerns not only from Sponsors but also from FDRs regarding the difficulties encountered with adopting the new training requirement. While they have not delayed or retracted the requirement, CMS has decided to suspend their review of the FDR training certification aspect in their program audit protocol. Having this suspended in the audit protocol is by no means a free pass — it only highlights CMS' acknowledgement that implementing their guidance has been a challenge. Plan Sponsors still have the responsibility of ensuring those contracted to service their members understand their obligations, because it doesn't only take an audit for CMS to take action over FDR issues — it could be one call to a Regional Office or an escalated number of Complaints Tracking Module (CTM) cases that places your organization on CMS' radar.
- You may already know where your weaknesses are — evaluate the program and get those weaknesses and corrections documented. CMS has placed the onus on Sponsors to hire independent auditors to validate program audit corrections. If you are targeted this year, why not be as prepared as you possibly can be? Some things you cannot change — but it is of utmost importance you make time to conduct a Compliance Program Effectiveness (CPE) audit.
CMS has never said they are looking for a perfect audit. They expect to find things; therefore, you should also expect to find things in your own CPE audit. By virtue of regularly testing and evaluating the effectiveness, you make strides to strengthen your organization as a whole.
Resources
Register your team now through January 31 for the 2016 GHG Forum, and take advantage of our New Year's special! Save 15% using promo code NewYear16 at checkout. Register now >>
In addition to monitoring your operations and auditing the organization's performance, CMS also audits the compliance function. In recent years many CMS sanctions have been issued as the result of a Compliance Program that was determined to be ineffective. Learn how GHG can help >>
Stay connected to industry news and gain perspective on how to navigate the latest issues through GHG's weekly newsletter. Subscribe >>
United Healthcare Potential Exit
Last month, United Healthcare (UHC) made an announcement that shocked the industry — it may leave the Health Insurance Marketplace if it can't become profitable by 2017. The company stated it expects to lose $490 million next year due to its participation in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) market. Standing by its comments, UHC pointed to "structural" problems with the ACA as the factor behind its unprofitability. Adding to the deterrent of the Marketplace business, the company stated it will stop paying broker commissions for Marketplace policies as well as individual plans not sold on the Marketplace. UHC's announcement is troubling, especially with recent news of the failing co-ops — 12 of the 23 co-ops have already closed their doors, and even the most profitable, such as Maine's Community Health Options who announced profits in 2014, have lost money this year.
So what are the structural problems, and should plans and consumers on the Marketplace be worried?
One major issue is, of course, the risk adjustment and risk corridor programs under the ACA. With Congress unwilling to increase funds for the program, health plans faced a huge hit in 2015, recouping only 13% of requested funds through the risk corridor program. Congress remains firm on its decision not to further fund this part of the ACA, which means the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will have to find alternate means if it wishes to assist plans with their losses next year.
Another big change the ACA brought is the inability to initially properly price for the incoming consumers. Insurers set rates without any risk factors or data on the incoming policyholders and did not anticipate the sicker populations who would flood the market. This issue will likely linger — with 12 of the co-ops folding, the big question in 2016 is, where will these consumers who made the companies unprofitable sign up? At the same time, there is still a large population of healthy, young individuals unwilling to sign up for the health plans despite the mandate. It remains to be seen whether the tax penalty of 2016 will be enough to steer individuals during the next open enrollment period.
The lack of flexibility in benefit design is also a consideration of health plans. Many see the current rules as a pill too large to swallow all at once — the sudden requirement for plans to accept all consumers with pre-existing conditions, remove lifetime maximums, and pay no less than 60% of medical costs may have been more than plans could handle in altering their benefit designs. Another issue is the grandfathering of plans not compliant with the ACA due to the famous line, "If you like your plan, you can keep it." California chose not to comply with this grandfathering requirement, leading to a higher number of healthy and risk-averse people already covered on catastrophic plans to sign up under the ACA. Other states, on the other hand, gained only the people who could now sign up because there was a prohibition of pre-existing conditions, leaving people with catastrophic plans and their squeaky-clean claims history to the individual market.
At the same time, the flexible open enrollment periods also created a disincentive for healthy people to sign up, while allowing individuals who are suddenly faced with medical claims to quickly jump onto a plan through loopholes in the rules. CMS is dialing back on one of these enrollment period loopholes this year by announcing there will not be an open enrollment period extension during tax season for those who learn of the steep penalty when filing.
Do these problems and UHC's warning mean the demise of ACA?
It is important to remember the Marketplace, as well as the individual market, is simply not the primary business of UHC. While several months ago UHC announced it may expand its Marketplace presence in more states, this announcement they may do the opposite and pull out of the Marketplace could mean the exit of co-ops and the imminent mergers have made UHC re-focus on its main bread and butter business instead — the group market. Most of UHC's profits come from group sales of employer-sponsored health plans. UHC started out its participation in the ACA in only a handful of states, with conservative premium offerings, and only cautiously increased their market last year. This approach means UHC has a small risk pool, and dipping their toes in the Marketplace water could have hurt them in the long run. At the same time, despite the cautious entrance into the Marketplace, start-up costs to create these new plan offerings were no doubt substantial, and the small population who did choose UHC likely did so for the brand recognition — in other words, consumers who knew they would incur more claims and needed better plans. At the same time, with the mergers going through next year, the Marketplace is not going to be UHC's game―their focus will be group plans, while Humana and Aetna will likely dominate the Medicare Advantage space; Cigna and Anthem and the blues, the individual market.
At the same time, CIGNA and Aetna, while acknowledging they also did not profit from the Marketplace, stated it's way too early to call for an exit from the Marketplace. And the program was not without its winners in 2014. Looking at companies who had to share their profits in the risk corridor program in 2014, for example, plans in California were big winners — namely Blue Shield of CA, Kaiser, and Anthem Blue Cross. This could be due in part to the number of young individuals in urban areas who did sign up for coverage in California, marking the success of the Covered California campaign, as well as not setting premiums as aggressively as possible in the past year.
What we do know is, this open enrollment period is crucial for CMS. While CMS already announced they anticipate low enrollment numbers, it is vital to the success of the ACA that these numbers include the healthier and younger individuals who have yet to sign up for a plan and are not deterred by the tax penalty.
Resources
As CMS expectations regarding risk adjustment continue to evolve, health plan, ACOs, and capitated health systems must design and flawlessly implement a strategic, mixed model that incorporates a meaningful percentage of retrospective, concurrent, and prospective initiatives, plus drives data integration with care management. Visit our website to learn more >>
Registration for the GHG 2016 Forum is now open! This year we are offering a tiered pricing schedule. Register between now and February 14 to receive the $1095 price. Come February 15, the price increases to $1,295.Register today >>
Stay connected to industry news and gain perspective on how to navigate the latest issues through GHG's weekly newsletter. Subscribe >>
Agent Commission: Don't find yourself on the wrong end of the tipping point
Agent compensation for Medicare Advantage has changed drastically since the implementation of the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act (MIPPA) of 2008. MIPPA included regulations, for the first time, around Agent/Broker Commission - among many other things. The goal of implementing commission requirements was to ensure there was a level playing field between plans by implementing the Fair Market Value (FMV) limits, thereby removing the incentive for agents/brokers to enroll a beneficiary into the top-paying plan or to churn beneficiaries from one plan to another. Rather, the goal was to ensure the beneficiary was enrolled in the plan that best fit his/her needs.
So, how did it work? Well, for the most part, we have seen the requirements implemented and The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) prescribed processes followed. However, we've also seen an increasing amount of instances in which plans are trying to get around CMS requirements. For example, by paying exorbitant "override fees" to the Third-Party Marketing Organization (TMO) for little to no actual services in exchange or by not pro-rating commissions per CMS instructions, an issue which we saw addressed twice by CMS via Health Plan Management System (HPMS) memo this Annual Election Period (AEP). See HPMS memos titled, "Agent/Broker Compensation," released on October 30, 2015 and November 20, 2015.
The reality is that CMS has been focusing their Program Audits in recent years on those issues which have direct impact on beneficiary access to care and has not routinely audited agent commission requirements for several years. Have plans taken advantage of the fact CMS has been focusing efforts elsewhere? Yes, we believe so. However, it appears CMS is becoming aware of the non-compliance around agent commission that is pervasive and even standard in the industry, evidenced by the multiple HPMS memos released this AEP addressing issues of non-compliance.
We know that in the past several years, CMS has exercised its authority by handing down Enrollment Sanctions and Civil Money Penalties (CMPs) for non-compliance. In fact, we see the current year-to-date total CMP amount at $4,719,220 — up from $1,131,505 in 2013.
So, the question is not if CMS will take action to address non-compliance around agent commission, the question is when. More importantly, when CMS does take action, on which side of the tipping point will your Organization land?
If you're not sure where to start, here are some recommendations:
- Review your agent/broker and TMO contracts to ensure the contract language is in compliance with CMS requirements — pay particular attention to the "admin fees" being paid to the TMO.
- Review actual payments made to agents/brokers to ensure the payment system is calculating the accurate amount based on current compensation schedules on file with CMS.
- Review actual payments made to agents/brokers when the amount should have been pro-rated to ensure the payment system is calculating the amount accurately.
If you have questions or need clarification regarding any of the information listed above, contact us here and a team member will be in touch with you shortly.
Resources
Gorman Health Group's Sales Sentinel™ Commissions Module provides a quick and easy solution for organizations to generate commissions payments. Contact us today to learn more >>
Registration for the GHG 2016 Forum is now open! This year we are offering a tiered pricing schedule. Register between now and February 14 to receive the $1095 price. Come February 15, the price increases to $1,295.Register today >>
Stay connected to industry news and gain perspective on how to navigate the latest issues through GHG's weekly newsletter. Subscribe >>