CMS Largely Holds Firm on Most Proposed MA Payment & Policy Changes for 2017
On April 4th, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued the Final Notice of Methodological Changes for Calendar Year (CY) 2017 for Medicare Advantage (MA) Capitation Rates, Part C and Part D Payment Policies, and 2017 Call Letter. This is the final notice of changes in rates of payment and overall policy.
CMS finalized most of its proposals from the Advance Notice and Call Letter, however did make some notable changes:
- Rates and Trend: The final trend is 3.12% inclusive of underlying trend and prior period adjustments. The underlying trend was slightly higher than estimated while the correction to the prior period was lower than expected (0.14%), so in the end, the trend nets out close to the original estimate. CMS estimates a 0.85% increase of all-in rates.
- Normalization Factor: CMS notes a technical error which affected the proposed normalization factors in the Draft Call Letter. The normalization factor was updated from 0.993 to 0.998.
- Encounter Data: CMS will increase the use of encounter data-based risk scores to 25% in 2017, instead of 50% as proposed in the Draft Call Letter.
- Employer Group Waiver Plans (EGWP): CMS is finalizing its new policy for calculating EGWP county payment rates, with two modifications. First, CMS will blend individual market plan bids and EGWP bids from 2016 for 2017, in order to allow for a two year transition period. Second, CMS will use prior payment year information to calculate base payment amounts in order to release the final EGWP payment rates in the Rate Announcement instead of August as previously expected. It is also important to note that while the methodology waives the bidding requirements, MA EGWPs must still submit plan benefit package and formulary in accordance to the 2017 Final Call Letter.
- Star Reduction Policy: As noted in a March HPMS memo, CMS is suspending the reduction of the overall and summary Star Ratings of contracts that are under sanction, while CMS re-evaluates the impact of sanctions, audits, and CMPs on the Star Ratings. CMS plans to describe the new proposals in Fall 2016.
- Low rated plans to be terminated: Although CMS will continue with termination of plans falling below 3 stars, CMS announced it may ‘stay' a termination, including notification of beneficiaries, if the organization holding the poorly-rated contract is prepared to consolidate that contract into a higher rated contract during the bid cycle for the upcoming plan year.
The following major proposals were finalized as proposed:
- Risk Model for Dual Eligibles: Although the proposed methodology will be implemented, data will be updated, so the original estimated rate impact by category may change. Despite the new rate impact, organizations should still expect increase in payments for non-institutional full-duals and reduced payments for all other categories. CMS estimates a net impact on rates of -0.6%.
- Stars dual Interim Adjustment: CMS is moving forward with its proposal to apply the Categorical Adjustment Index factor to overall, Part C Summary and Part D Summary Ratings as an interim solution to account for the Star Ratings impact of dual-eligible and disabled beneficiaries.
- Opioid Overutilization: CMS is finalizing its proposal to combat opioid overutilization by implementing new edits to prevent overutilization at the Point of Sale (POS). CMS expects sponsors to implement either a soft edit or hard edit, or use both as originally proposed in the draft Call Letter, and work toward at minimum a hard edit in 2018.
Compliance Updates:
- CMS again reminds Part D sponsors that it is stepping up enforcement actions on coverage disputes and complaints, the leading noncompliance issue for plans.
- Plans failing financial audits conducted on one-third audits will now also be subject to sanctions and civil money penalties
- CMS is ramping up audits and enforcement actions in network adequacy, provider directory accuracy, and medication therapy management programs.
These are just the major highlights of from CMS' Final Notice and Call Letter. Stay tuned for Gorman Health Group's (GHG's) industry experts summary and analysis of the final changes for 2017, coming out shortly. questions about the summary? Contact us to start a dialogue.
Resources
New Webinar! Join us TODAY from 1-2 pm ET for a hard-hitting analysis of the final rulings in the 2017 MA rate announcement and final Call Letter. We will outline the critical areas that will have the greatest impact on the industry, emphasizing core business functions in Risk Adjustment, Provider Network, Quality, Compliance, Pharmacy, and Data Integrity. Register Now >>
Stay connected to industry news and gain perspective on how to navigate the latest issues through GHG's weekly newsletter. Subscribe >>
2017 ACA Applicants and Network Transparency
The National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) completed their review of provider network rules and published a draft of a new Model Rule. This is the first update of network rules in over 20 years. NAIC convened a committee of regulators, health plans, and consumers to provide input to the development of the draft document. The drive to develop the new rules came from the realization narrow networks used in Marketplace plans were the basis of increases in consumer complaints. Throughout the draft, NAIC recognizes the differences that exist between regulations in various states and the proposed changes, so any state can choose to follow the draft or construct its own rules. It has a three-year timeline.
At the same time in December, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) proposed network regulations for Qualified Health Plans (QHPs). The final regulation published in February, however, recognized the three-year NAIC timeline, sort of.
First, the draft NAIC rule takes on some of the changes prompted by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in several ways. NAIC revises definitions for emergency services and conditions, emergency service stabilization, primary care and specialty providers, telehealth, as well as tiered networks. With new definitions throughout the document, the impact of the changes becomes more evident. Draft NAIC rules incorporate final ACA rules that specify in greater detail what health plans must do when they fail to have a provider for a covered benefit. These include payment, notice to persons who need the benefit, and a process for requesting services from a non-participating provider.
Second, the most significant section discusses network adequacy. This section adds many of the ACA requirements related to underserved individuals, children, tiered networks, as well as access. Alternatively, it also recognizes some states use time, distance, and waiting standards. To avoid potential state/federal conflicts, CMS proposed new network rules that would have required CMS to approve state network rules. If CMS did not approve the state method, a federal default based on time and distance would have applied. CMS decided not to finalize this rule, stating they would monitor the states' adoption of the NAIC standard over a three-year period before making any new federal regulation. But, in the end, CMS said they would still apply time and distance standards anyway. It's likely this will be the case for the foreseeable future — not just 2017.
So, what will be the effect of this new model rule? First, nothing defines "without unreasonable delay." Notably, over the past three years, CMS has cited this same regulatory language as frustrated applicants sought to fix networks CMS rejected. The CMS approach to unreasonable delay appeared to be "we'll know it when we see it."
In an attempt at transparency, CMS has finally provided a set of time and distance metrics. Notably, for many years in Medicare, CMS has used software based on time and distance standards and, no doubt, has been using it for QHPs. The magic of the software is it provides a view of what CMS may see in an applicant's network. Using software quickly provides targets and assists in developing justifications needed to address gaps. GHG conducts network access reviews using this same software to ensure QHPs meet access rules before submission to CMS. So, with increasing pressure to build narrow networks, QHPs can have access to solid support tools on what meets access without unreasonable delay.
Resources
For actionable advice and best practices, join us at our annual Gorman Health Group 2016 Forum, April 19-20, at the Worthington Renaissance Fort Worth Hotel in Fort Worth, Texas. During this year's information-packed two days, our elite team of experts, operators, clients, and partners will help you figure out what matters and what doesn't. We will share proven tactics to cut costs, increase member satisfaction, and manage and drive sustainable growth. The hotel room block expires on March 28 so register now to reserve your seat!
The application process for Medicare Advantage and Part D, the Health Insurance Marketplace, and ACOs is an arduous one. Completing the application requires the cooperation from your entire organization.Don't let the application process get in the way of your day-to-day operations. Contact us today to ensure a smooth, compliant process.
Stay connected to industry news and gain perspective on how to navigate the latest issues through GHG's weekly newsletter. Subscribe >>
Is the Honeymoon Over? Issuers Begin Receiving Direct Payment from the FFM System of Record
Although the financial hit may have been delayed a few months, it is still inevitable. Issuers will be moving from the driver's seat when it comes to being paid for their members within the Federally-Facilitated Marketplace (FFM). Beginning in April 2016, FFM Issuers will feel the financial impact of being out of synch with the Marketplace for the first time.
Since the launch of the Marketplace, Issuers have been invoicing the FFM directly at a plan level versus a policy level (subscriber) in order to be paid Advanced Premium Tax Credits (APTCs), Cost Sharing Reductions (CSRs), and User Fee (UF) charges. Now, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will make monthly payments directly to Issuers based on effectuated enrollees within the federal system, not the Issuer system. By shifting the direction of Issuer payment and the data source that derives the payment calculation, Issuers are in store for a turbulent and unpredictable ride if not prepared.
As planned in 2016, CMS sent payment files directly to Issuers representing the FFM-calculated payment. While on the surface it appeared the implementation moved into motion, there was a catch—all FFM Issuers, whether or not they were deemed "ready" to receive payment files (in the form of a Preliminary Payment Report (PPR) and HIX 820) directly from CMS, were still being paid from the Issuer's system of record for the first three months of the year. This delay was established as a transitional step for Issuers to become comfortable with the new payment files and allowed more time for all Issuers to be certified. As we approach the April payment month, CMS has offered another temporary adjustment for three additional months in cases where the FFM calculation and the Issuer's calculation is greater than a 25% variance. In these cases, CMS will cap the difference between the FFM and the Issuer by applying a manual adjustment to bring the variance to the 25% mark. After June, all temporary transitions cease, and Issuers will be paid based on the FFM system of record.
With CMS building transitions and seeing variances with Issuer data at 10%, 25%, or greater, this should be an indication there is a looming payment issue at hand. To oversimplify, if an Issuer is out of synch with the FFM for the month of January, and a January adjustment doesn't occur in subsequent payment months and compounds as discrepancies age and member updates occur month over month, the payment dilemma is exponentially hitting the bottom line of your organization in real dollars. Your organization's operational health impacts payment. The sooner you prepare for this reality, the better.
Top Strategies for Preparing for the Future:
- Move back to the driver's seat and understand your discrepancy rate. This includes:
- Subscribers not found on the FFM's system but on Issuer's system per month
- Subscribers not found on the Issuer's system but on the FFM's system per month
- APTC differences per month
- CSR differences per month
- Total Premium differences per month to aid UF calculation errors
- Measuring a discrepancy rate should summarize not only discrepant subscribers but also discrepant member months. For example, the Issuer and FFM may be in synch the first three coverage months but not equal the remaining nine months of the coverage year such as FFM 1/1/2016 - 12/31/2016 versus Issuer 1/1/2016 - 3/31/2016. This logic applies to all discrepancies whether related to a coverage period discrepancy or the data elements within a coverage period, such as an APTC overpayment. All scenarios are financially impacting to the Issuer.
- Based on the above, calculate the financial impact of those very discrepancies. In other words, if resolved, the prospective HIX 820 will pay $A and adjust $B retrospectively.
- Understand passive reconciliation may have carried you this far but is futile for the future. Only you can influence the predictability of your monthly payment. Being reactive to the HIX 820 will be a major disadvantage for your organization. Would you allow another party to dip into your checking account and wait until your monthly statement to view deposits and debits? Understand transactional data can be predictive.
Issuers Must Focus on Key Operational Processes:
- Process all incoming 834 transactions (in all forms) and resolve all errors.
- Submit timely IC834s and resolve/resubmit all errors.
- Submit timely and accurate membership snapshots to CMS each month for reconciling purposes.
- Update your enrollment system, as needed.
- Audit the FFM RCNO file to ensure the FFM is taking action on their updates as well.
- Most importantly, calculate an Expected Total Payment each month and continue to submit your Issuer plan-level calculation to CMS for as long as they will accept it.
There has been an abundant amount of discussion surrounding the source of truth regarding Marketplace enrollment data. Building processes around enrollment transactions with essential checks and balances continues to be an important part of this landscape. Roadmap initiatives are underway with more emphasis on Marketplace compliance audits. It goes without saying—you never want CMS to identify you are being paid for non-members or not being paid for members consuming the benefit. With all the aches and pains that come with launching a government business, your organization must control the processes it can and have an audit trail for FFM defects impacting your payment as well. Documentation, substantiation, and a paper trail are all key components for audit readiness.
Resources
To learn more about the Gorman Health Group reconciliation solution, Valencia™, and how it supports Enrollment and Payment Reconciliation for Issuers, please contact ghg@ghgadvisors.com or Diane Fischer at dfischer@ghgadvisors.com.
Gorman Health Grouop's Valencia™ creates the workflows organizations like yours need for critical operational functions. With Valencia™, you'll always know where your membership and premium-related data is out of sync, thus eliminating missed revenue and inappropriate claims payments. Contact us today to set up a demo >>
For actionable advice and best practices, join us at our annual Gorman Health Group 2016 Forum, April 19-20, at the Worthington Renaissance Fort Worth Hotel in Fort Worth, Texas. During this year's information-packed two days, our elite team of experts, operators, clients, and partners will help you figure out what matters and what doesn't. We will share proven tactics to cut costs, increase member satisfaction, and manage and drive sustainable growth. The hotel room block expires on March 28 so register now to reserve your seat!
Stay connected to industry news and gain perspective on how to navigate the latest issues through GHG's weekly newsletter. Subscribe >>
CMS Proposes New Part B Prescription Drug Payment Model
On March 8, 2016, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid (CMS) released a proposed rule which aims to test a new alternative payment design to pay for drugs covered under Medicare Part B. Medicare Part B covers prescription drugs administered in a physician's office or hospital outpatient department. Currently, covered Part B drugs fall into three categories: drugs furnished incident to a physician's service, drugs administered via a covered item of durable medical equipment, and other drugs specified by statute.
CMS found Part B payments for separately-paid drugs in 2015 were $22 billion, amounting to an average annual increase of 8.6% since 2007. Additionally, a new report from ASPE found drug price increases and a shift to prescribing more expensive drugs account for 30% of prescription spending growth.
Currently, most Medicare Part B drugs are paid using the Average Sales Price (ASP) plus a statutorily mandated 6% add-on. This creates an incentive to prescribe more expensive drugs due to the higher payment amount. Under the new model, Medicare Part B would pay the ASP plus an add-on of 2.5% and a flat fee of $16 per drug per day. The lower add-on and inclusion of the flat fee would decrease the incentive to provide more expensive drugs as the revenue for the drugs would be more evenly distributed.
CMS is proposing to introduce the new reimbursement program in select geographic areas in the fall of 2016. CMS will then roll out the second part of the experiment in which they will test several other pricing methodologies currently utilized by commercial health plans and pharmacy benefit managers. Some of these tools are: discounting or eliminating cost-sharing, providing feedback on prescribing patterns and decision support tools, basing pricing on a drug's clinical effectiveness, and setting benchmarks for a group of therapeutically similar drug products.
The experiment will run for five years, with the Part 2 phase running the last three years. The evaluation will focus on whether the experiment reduces Part B drug spending, without limiting coverage or benefits, while maintaining or improving patient care.
Although all providers furnishing Part B drugs will be required to participate, some would be placed into control groups and will remain under the 6% add-on payment.
While CMS announced this new model would provide relief for certain providers, by relieving the pressure to provide higher cost drugs when they are not appropriate, the industry has already dealt out criticism for the new proposal, and CMS is bound to receive many comments on the new payment model. However, the private industry does already use "value-based pricing," and CMS is seeking to use a similar methodology to bring costs down while maintaining value. CMS is accepting comments on this proposal until May 9, 2016.
Resouruces
For actionable advice and best practices, join us at our annual Gorman Health Group 2016 Forum, April 19-20, at the Worthington Renaissance Fort Worth Hotel in Fort Worth, Texas. During this year's information-packed two days, our elite team of experts, operators, clients, and partners will help you figure out what matters and what doesn't. We will share proven tactics to cut costs, increase member satisfaction, and manage and drive sustainable growth. Register now >>
Stay connected to industry news and gain perspective on how to navigate the latest issues through GHG's weekly newsletter. Subscribe >>
MA Plans' Must-Fix: the Member Experience
Now more than ever, it's clear to us health plans and their stakeholders will thrive or die based on the member experience they provide. The member experience, especially with drug benefits, now represents more than half of a health plan's Star Rating in Medicare Advantage (MA), with millions in bonuses and bid rebates hanging in the balance. It also drives member retention and thereby acquisition expense (now averaging $1,200 per/member, or more than an average month's premium), so how members are treated now determines both health plan revenues and costs.
Overall, the member experience in a Medicare plan is defined by an enrollee's ability to get timely appointments, care, and information, how well providers communicate, and whether member-facing health plan and provider staff are helpful, courteous, and respectful. It's driven by the company culture, its commitment to communication, and the empowerment of staff to solve problems. And despite two-thirds of plans saying the member experience is their top investment priority, we are losing ground.
In a few short years, the Star Ratings system has evolved from a crappy consumer information tool to a multi-billion dollar pay-for-performance (P4P) initiative investing in improved processes and outcomes of care in MA. In 2016, the scoring methodology for Star Ratings ensures the member experience measures, especially in Part D, count for more than half of a plan's rating. It also narrows the margin for error, so only a 10% deviation in performance on the critical Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®) is the difference between a 2-Star Rating and a 4-Star Rating.
On an enrollment-weighted basis, MA averages a 4.03 rating, with 49% of contracts (179) and 71% of members in plans over 4 Stars. But on CAHPS®, the program dropped from 3.45 Stars in 2015 to 3.4 Stars this year. That's a big problem threatening to drag the program back below the all-important 4th Star and, taken in context of other recent data, gets downright scary.
Last week our friends at Deft Research released their latest Seniors Shopping survey on the 2016 open enrollment period. They found that for the first time in recent memory, far more seniors are leaving Medicare Advantage for Medigap than vice-versa.
On virtually every measure, they found declining loyalty to and retention with their health plan. That says a lot about the state of the member experience in MA despite the priority and focus. It says we're missing the point.
Meanwhile, Alegeus Technologies had some incredible findings in their annual health plan consumer survey presented at the recent AHIP conference. First, they found half of members (50%) do not want to "play an active role" in their healthcare. This argues plans' investments in "member engagement" may be backfiring with half their enrollees. And there was widespread confusion in what they're paying for, possibly delineating why appeals and grievances processing remains the top compliance challenge for plans:
-
66% of members think they're not paying the right amount
-
56% complain they don't know how much they are spending until after they receive services
-
45% of members say they simply do not know much they spend even after getting a bill
-
45% say they never know what is covered
All of this says the way we think of and invest in the "member experience" needs rethinking.
It reminds me of the seminal 2014 behavioral economics study that found that happiness is defined by expectations being exceeded a little bit on a regular basis. Because expectations are variable, everyone can be made happy. That begins during the marketing and sales process and continues throughout the member lifecycle.
Moving to proactive service models is only the beginning. Only half our members want to be involved — the rest are disappointed and confused enough to be leaving in growing numbers to join inferior and more expensive products. They need help navigating provider networks, better understanding of how to use their benefits, and what to expect in out-of-pocket spending in real time. They need in-plan service ninjas empowered to solve their problem on the first call. They need Pharmacy Benefit Managers to get it together and health plans to advocate and agitate for members with their vendors. They need constant improvement in the member experience to be the new normal in government programs.
Resources
For actionable advice and best practices, join us at our annual Gorman Health Group 2016 Forum, April 19-20, at the Worthington Renaissance Fort Worth Hotel in Fort Worth, Texas. During this year's information-packed two days, our elite team of experts, operators, clients, and partners will help you figure out what matters and what doesn't. We will share proven tactics to cut costs, increase member satisfaction, and manage and drive sustainable growth. Register now >>
Stay connected to industry news and gain perspective on how to navigate the latest issues through GHG's weekly newsletter. Subscribe >>
Another Health Plan Cuts Commissions — Is there a trend developing?
Is there a trend developing with health plans and their offerings under the Affordable Care Act (ACA)?
Raising rates, high-risk members, and cutting agent commissions continue to be challenges for all health insurance companies offering plans under the ACA. Some of the big plans still in the game say it's too early to bail out, and they see the ACA as a big opportunity. But late last year, one of the largest health plans announced they would be pulling out of the ACA business. Following this news, multiple non-profit Co-Ops announced their closure, and, most recently, another large health plan providing ACA products is following suit, announcing late February they would be cutting commission on sales of individual health plans. We can all agree changes in the structure of the individual market need to happen, but how fast can these changes be made and still accomplish profitable enrollment goals?
With fewer options, will agents still be a necessary resource for the prospect?
In the last year, we have seen several health plans pulling back on their marketing and reducing the number of choices for the consumer. It appears health plans are still trying to figure out how to price the products and if they should pay commission to agents or have the prospects use online tools to navigate their health care options. Meanwhile, agents are left with less in their pockets and wondering if there is still an opportunity for them in the ACA.
If agents generally sell plans within the Marketplace, and these continue to dwindle, where will that leave the agent? With the uncertainty of how big plans will navigate the complexity of the ACA, it is anticipated that agents will redirect focus to Medicare for 2016:
Reason #1 — No doubt the Medicare space offers unprecedented opportunity! With the growing number of Baby Boomers, health plans and agents continue to see limitless earning potential (nearly 10,000 people turn 65 every day).
Reason #2 — Commissions for Medicare Advantage (MA) are typically paid on application submission for some of the large plans and include lifetime renewals, which means agents and agencies get paid as soon as an application is submitted, and, after 13 months of enrollment, the agent and agency receive a prorated monthly commission for the life of the policy.
Reason #3 — Year-round selling opportunities. These days, it's not just about the open enrollment period — many agents find a great deal of opportunity with the dual-eligible (Medicare and Medicaid) population, as these individuals can enroll year-round.
Don't get distracted by the ACA crisis, focus your time and energy on building a sustainable business in Medicare. For more information about Medicare, Field Marketing Organizations (FMOs), and year-round selling opportunities, please contact:
Carrie Barker-Settles
Director, Sales & Marketing Services
Gorman Health Group
cbarkersettles@ghgadvisors.com
Resources
For actionable advice and best practices, join us at our annual Gorman Health Group 2016 Forum, April 19-20, at the Worthington Renaissance Fort Worth Hotel in Fort Worth, Texas. During this year's information-packed two days, our elite team of experts, operators, clients, and partners will help you figure out what matters and what doesn't. We will share proven tactics to cut costs, increase member satisfaction, and manage and drive sustainable growth. Register now >>
Stay connected to industry news and gain perspective on how to navigate the latest issues through GHG's weekly newsletter. Subscribe >>
Gorman Health Group's Sales Sentinel™ provides a platform for organizations to onboard their agents, adapt to any oversight program, as well as generate commission payments. To learn more about Sales Sentinel™ or to request a demo, visit our website >>
Operations Mistakes Will Be Costly — Highlights of the 2017 Draft Call Letter
There was a time when operational areas were shooting for 98% accuracy as the "golden" number. In today's age of data and focused audits, even 99% may not be enough. The Call Letter doesn't have many surprising new risk areas for Operations. No new crazy regulations to ponder how we can possibly implement them. Instead, they have something worse: the addition of teeth to the new regulations. Why is this worse? Because the focus is on areas Operations and plans often struggle with and eventually accept status quo as good enough. How many times have you heard or possibly said, "What are our peers doing?" and used them as the measuring stick.
Some of the key focuses to keep operational eyes on are:
- One-Third Financial Audit Results — Don't skip this section thinking this is Finance and doesn't involve Operations. One-third financial audits are full of operational reviews with direct member impact. The Draft Call Letter is indicating, beginning with 2017, one-third financial audits for plan year 2015 will have potential enforcement action like civil money penalties (CMPs) assessed for findings with adverse beneficiary impact. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) specifically calls out increased or incorrect cost-sharing or copayments as items of concern. Reviewing your benefit setup and claims processing to ensure controls are in place for adequate application of copays is a fundamental process but one in which CMS is seeing discrepancies year after year. Plans should review their controls or Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) processes, their provider fee schedule process, and their benefit setup processes to ensure beneficiaries are protected and benefit designs are operationalized each year as filed with CMS.
- Timely Processing of Coverage Determinations and Redeterminations — Your plan may delegate coverage determinations and possibly redeterminations, but whether delegated or processed in house, the plan is responsible. CMS is seeing a continued high volume of auto-forwards of coverage determinations and redeterminations to the Independent Review Entity (IRE) when these functions are not processed within required time frames. CMS is indicating they will be taking action against plans with high volumes—no waiting for an audit and a review of the results. CMS has the data to know there is a problem. Have you looked at your numbers? Do you know your auto-forward volumes? Better yet, do you know the root causes and mitigations to ensure there are no auto-forwards and no negative beneficiary impact?
- Data Integrity — Once again a misleading title that has big operational impacts. CMS is raising concerns CMS program audits are identifying issues that may impact Star Ratings data used for Star Ratings. CMS is indicating they are looking at tying audit findings to data submitted for Part C and Part D reporting and Star Ratings where the audit may have raised concerns. CMS is indicating finding issues within other reviews, such as program audits, may result in review of submitted data for Star Ratings. They are right—it is a holistic approach health plans should be using to get ahead of this curve. If during an internal audit at the health plan a finding occurred indicating grievances were under-reported, is there follow-through to reconcile that under-reporting and revise Part C and Part D grievance reports? In our often-siloed departments and processes, that type of follow through doesn't often occur.
We are all busy. Few of us in Operations have the luxury of focusing on one product or function. We are all trying to keep multiple balls in the air. But if we don't take time to evaluate, stabilize, and set up good controls, we won't survive unscathed. The last thing any of us want is an enforcement action that will take time and energy to resolve and will ultimately impact our members, resulting in most or all of the balls crashing down. Our multi-disciplinary team of consultants has been in your shoes—we have juggled the same balls and are ready to partner with you. Contact us to get started >>
Resources
For actionable advice and best practices, join us at our annual Gorman Health Group 2016 Forum, April 19-20, at the Worthington Renaissance Fort Worth Hotel in Fort Worth, Texas. During this year's information-packed two days, our elite team of experts, operators, clients, and partners will help you figure out what matters and what doesn't. We will share proven tactics to cut costs, increase member satisfaction, and manage and drive sustainable growth. Register now >>
Stay connected to industry news and gain perspective on how to navigate the latest issues through GHG's weekly newsletter. Subscribe >>
Final Rule: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; HHS Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2017
The anticipation is finally over — the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; HHS Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2017 Final Rule" has arrived. This annual document provides health plan issuers the rules and requirements to develop plans and operational processes for the upcoming year. Since the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was enacted, health plans have been feeling the pressure regarding the premiums allocated to the Marketplace plans, coupled with staggering losses for this line of business with the elimination of the underwriting process, health plans have been receiving negative feedback from all angles. Now to layer onto that pressure, for 2017, two of the three stabilization programs — reinsurance and risk corridor — will no longer be included to provide health plans financial relief since the applicable timing for these programs has expired. To enhance the existing stabilization program, the risk adjustment model will be recalibrated using more recent data to reflect more closely with the commercial market risks experienced.
Some of the high-level changes reflected in the Final Rule are the following:
- Open Enrollment Period for 2017 and 2018 will continue to have the same dates as 2016, which is November 1 through January 31 of the following year. Starting in 2019, the open enrollment period will be shortened to start on November 1 and end on December 15 of the same year.
- Standardized plans have been introduced as an option for 2017. Issuers are not required at this point to utilize these standardized plans and are allowed to offer non-standardized plans if they choose, however, it is encouraged that issuers offer the standardized silver plans. Standardized plans are preferred by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to allow the enrollee to have a better shopping experience on the Marketplace. It allows for a more apples-to-apples comparison of the plans offered. Therefore, because of the ease to enrollees, the Marketplace will arrange the plans to be found more easily. There are 6 standardized plans available to choose from. One for each metal level with the exclusion of platinum. The standard or "base" silver plan also has benefits aligned for each of the actuarial value (AV) plans that are utilized for the members that are eligible for the cost sharing subsidy. In total the silver plan ends up with 4 standardized plans and then 1 plan each for gold and bronze.
Each plan has a fixed deductible, fixed annual limitation on cost-sharing, and fixed copayment or coinsurance for the Essential Health Benefits (EHBs) that are a part of the actuarial value (AV) calculator, with the addition of urgent care. These benefits represent a large percentage of the total allowable costs for an average enrollee.
- Cost-sharing maximum out-of-pocket limit has increased from $6,500 to $7,150 for an individual and from $13,000 to $14,300 for a family.
- Network Adequacy proposed requirements were partially accepted in the final rule. Probably the biggest requirement that was not accepted was the time and distance standard.
- "Surprise Bills" are a concern of members, which has been addressed in this notice.
- Federally-Facilitated Marketplace (FFM) user fees will stay at 3.5% for issuers utilizing the (FFM). Issuers who are part of a State-Based Marketplace (SBM) that utilized the FFM platform will see some relief with a reduction in their user fee for 2017, from 3% to 1.5% of premium.
- Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) will not be allowed to include fraud prevention expenses as part of the numerator as proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).
A detailed analysis of the Final Rule including health plan impacts, will be provided in the coming week.
Resources
Register your team for the 2016 GHG Forum! For more details around the event and agenda, download the full conference brochure or visit our website. Register now >>.
Stay connected to industry news and gain perspective on how to navigate the latest issues through GHG's weekly newsletter. Subscribe >>
There's a Lot to Like and to Fear in the 2017 Medicare Advantage Call Letter
On Friday after the close, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released the 2017 Medicare Advantage (MA) Call Letter with proposed policy and payment changes. There's a lot to like — and much to fear. On payments, CMS came in with higher-than-expected rates that make clear the long walk in the desert from cuts in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is over. But on compliance, they are rolling out the firing squad with a broad mandate, and the Administration will leave its mark long after Obama has left office.
What We Like:
- The draft offers all-in rates of +1.35% and a trend of +3.05%, better than last year and better than expected.
- CMS is leaving home visits for MA risk adjustment untouched. If ever CMS was going to clamp down on this after years of threats, this was the time — in the last year of the Administration. By not doing so, we think they're closing the book, acknowledging much good also comes from these house calls, and the home is the most underutilized source of care in the delivery system for seniors. Despite MedPAC recommendations and a drumbeat of op-eds, CMS didn't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
- There are big proposed changes to risk adjustment and Star Ratingsfor MA plans serving dual eligibles.
- CMS would launch a new payment system with six subcategories: full duals, partial duals, and non-duals, for both aged and disabled beneficiaries. The net effect is like a crude, mega-risk adjuster, paying plans with more duals bigger, more accurate payments, while paying slightly less to plans with fewer duals.
- On Star Ratings, CMS is proposing an adjustment on three key measures — the overall plan rating, and Part C and D summary ratings — which will increase ratings for plans with higher proportions of duals and could increase bonus payments if the plan is 4+ stars. This is a big win for the industry.
- The health insurer issuer tax has been suspended for a year (and will return in 2018).
What We're Worried About:
- The rapid acceleration from 10% to 50% encounter data driving risk adjustment could depress risk scores. It's clear CMS is moving to 100% encounter data as quickly as possible and likely presages the use of encounters and not Fee-for-Service (FFS) claims to calculate risk factors as well as the phase-out of the coding intensity adjustment.
- CMS is proposing changes for Employer Group Waiver Plans (EGWPs) that amount to a "tax" on sponsors designed to reduce Medicare's spend on these 3 million of the 18 million beneficiaries in MA. EGWPs typically bid much higher than individual MA plans, and the proposal will likely result in a cost-shift to group members or a reduction in supplemental benefits. There was no estimated impact given, so watch this closely.
- CMS made it clear Star Ratings low performers will be executed by firing squad as early as next week. The Call Letter states plans rated below 3 stars for 3 consecutive years will be terminated in February 2016 for a December 31 effective date. Three to six plans qualify for termination. This will be the timeline for future years, and CMS states these decisions are non-negotiable.
- Huge news here on the compliance front:
- CMS notified Part D sponsors it's stepping up enforcement actions on coverage disputes and complaints, the leading noncompliance issue for plans.
- Plans failing the financial audits conducted on one-third of plans each year will no longer be subject to corrective action plans but rather sanctions and civil monetary penalties.
- CMS is ramping up audits and enforcement actions in network adequacy, provider directory accuracy, and medication therapy management programs.
As always, we now enter the frenzied public comment/lobbying phase where the industry tries to get an even better deal, with the final policies announced April 4. As these things go, MA plans should be generally happy about the financial picture while getting down to the busy work of getting the compliance house in order. Most of what's proposed here, we think, becomes the "new normal" long after Obama has left office.
Resources
Join John Gorman, GHG Executive Chairman, and colleagues, Olga Walther, Senior Legislative & Policy Advisor, and Leslie Mullins, GHG's Senior Consultant, as they provide a hard-hitting analysis of critical areas addressed in the document. Learn what the proposed "methodology changes" could mean for your organization and its partners, and the steps you can take to soften the impact on Tuesday, March 1 from 2:30-3:30 pm ET. Register now >>
Register your team for the 2016 GHG Forum. For more details around the event and agenda, download the full conference brochure or visit our website. Register now >>
Stay connected to industry news and gain perspective on how to navigate the latest issues through GHG's weekly newsletter. Subscribe >>
What to Watch: The Fiscal Year 2017 budget
President Obama released the Fiscal Year 2017 budget last Tuesday, which contains many significant proposals to government healthcare programs. Although both the Senate and House's budget committees already rejected hearings from the President's budget chief and unsurprisingly declared the bill "dead on arrival," the proposals do contain many bipartisan provisions with significant cost savings. One such proposal organizations should watch carefully, for example, is using competitive bidding in Medicare Advantage plans.
Most of the Medicare and Medicaid proposals are estimated to provide savings. The Congressional Budget Office's (CBO's) review of the budget in March will further shine light on which proposals will make it through the budget process. In a new memo, The GHG Policy team provides an overview of proposals to watch in a new memo, including:
ACA Updates
- Medicaid Expansion Incentive
- Uniform billing and out of network charges
- Marketplace eligibility determinations
- Cadillac Tax updates
Medicaid Budget Updates:
- Medical Loss Ratio (MLR)
- CHIP Funding
- Health Coverage Expansion Proposals
- Long-Term Services and Supports (LTSS)
Medicare Advantage (MA):
- Competitive Bidding Proposal
- Higher payments to high-quality MA plans
- Telehealth expansion
Part D:
- State-federal Medicaid negotiating tool
- Part D plan sponsor incentives to better manage high prescription drug costs.
- Increase of manufacturer rebates
- Mandate to provide rebates consistent with Medicaid rebate levels for drugs provided to low-income Part D beneficiaries.
Alternative Payment Models (APMs):
- Bundled Medicare payments for post-acute providers such as nursing homes and home health agencies.
- New bonus payment for hospitals that collaborate with certain APMs.
- Quality bonus program for the highest rated Part D plans
Resources
Register your team now through February 14 for the 2016 GHG Forum, and take advantage of our standard registration rate of $1,095 before the price goes up to $1,295 on February 15. Register now >> For more details around the event and agenda, download the full conference brochure or visit our website.
Stay connected to industry news and gain perspective on how to navigate the latest issues through GHG's weekly newsletter. Subscribe >>