The CMS Fall Conference: 4 Ways to Solve the Preparedness Problem

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) held their Fall Conference and Webcast on September 10 in Baltimore.  The presentations and videos from the event are found on the Compliance Training, Education & Outreach site here.  CMS covered various aspects of the Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug (MA-PD) program, but here I've focused on four lessons I heard loud and clear: work with CMS, prepare ahead of time, seek continuous improvement, and don't wait until the last minute.

Linda Anders from CMS hosted two Aetna representatives who discussed lessons learned in beneficiary and pharmacy outreach stemming from strategic network changes taking place over 2014 to 2015.  They had developed a communication strategy but soon understood a lack of clarity and misinformation caused significant beneficiary and pharmacy confusion.  Ms. Anders stressed there is much to be learned from Aetna for any plan contemplating changes to their program.  Aetna recognized their Part D network configuration was "generally consistent" with CMS requirements.  It is recommended any plan contemplating program changes not tested in the industry work closely with CMS on these initiatives.

Gregory Woods gave valuable information regarding the Value-Based Insurance Design (VBID) Model Test.  Things will move quickly for the VBID model.  While they are beginning this test for 1/1/2017 effectives, the Request for Application (RFA) responses will be due sometime this November or December.   This is new, so Compliance and Product teams, prepare yourself for a new onslaught of questions from Clinical and Actuarial, because they are coming.

As a lead-in to a presentation from MAXIMUS Federal Services, CMS confirmed they are working with a small number of plans on point of sale rejections. They hope to share more information about that in the 2017 call letter.  Some helpful reminders were then provided regarding appeals going to MAXIMUS.  Make sure your organization is referring to the most updated process manuals provided by MAXIMUS for Part C and Part D appeals.  Additionally, there is a significant amount of appeals data dating back to 1997 showing your plan's percentage of upholds and overturns.  Organizations can compare to other plans to benchmark or simply leverage to spark internal process improvements.  Cathleen MacInnes, Project Director, also addressed the development of a submission portal for electronic upload of case info to MAXIMUS.  If your organization is interested in participating, contact either her or her Part D counterpart.  From an operational perspective, that should make sharing case info much easier, so long as it is secure, secure, secure.

The icing on this conference cake was the update from Jennifer Smith, Director, Division of Analysis, Policy and Strategy, Medicare Parts C and D Oversight and Enforcement Group, on 2015/2016 program audit protocol, processes, and activity.  The changes she outlined are exciting — here are some, and since I've already written plenty, you can either watch the video or contact me for more details and my thoughts.

  • Edits to record layouts will include not only those outlined during June's Oversight and Enforcement conference but also additional edits based on plan and auditor feedback. Extraneous fields will be gone, headers will be added to record layouts, and more clear instruction will be incorporated as to what should be included and excluded.
  • Beneficiary Impact Analyses (BIAs) will not be requested at the time of the self-identified and self-disclosed issue reporting.  Organizations should still anticipate a BIA request if an issue is found during an audit.
  • CMS is also revising their policy on the "three strikes" for universe submission.
  • The two anticipated pilot audit areas are being moved to 2016.
  • Compliance Program Effectiveness (CPE) will be conducted either onsite or virtually.

"It is also important to remember the audit protocols are more like a pop-quiz than a final exam," says Charro Knight-Lilly, Senior Vice President of Client Relations.   Don't lose sight of the need to comply with all requirements and testing performance through monitoring, auditing, and annual risk assessment.  Ms. Smith said something that resonated with me and likely others in the industry:  Don't wait until the audit notice to practice universe pulls and activities.  If you do, you are behind the 8-ball.

Resources

CMS outlined areas of poor performance within the release of the Outlier Notification in August.  In addition to audits and Corrective Action Plans (CAPs), this notice also referenced Compliance Letters (C and D) and Star Ratings (C and D) as areas of concern and indicators of poor performance.  Both of these areas require advance planning, preparation, and coordination in order to make an impact a minimum of one full year later.  Don't exhale as we head in to the 2016 Annual Election Period (AEP) — now is the time to plan strategy for 2017.  Contact us to learn more.

Join John Gorman, Founder and Executive Chairman at GHG, for our upcoming webinar on MA-VBID Model plan requirements, needed strategies for data analysis and benefit development, as well as what you need to be doing now to prepare for January 2017 on Tuesday, September 29, from 1-2 pm ET.  Register here

Stay connected to industry news and gain perspective on how to navigate the latest issues through GHG's weekly newsletter. Subscribe >>


The Impact of CMS Changes on MA & FFM 2016 Agent Readiness

Preparing for the 2016 selling season means implementing a strategy that mitigates compliance risks for your organization and empowers your sales force to meet your enrollment targets. In our recent webinar regarding the impact of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) changes on Medicare Advantage (MA) and Federally-Facilitated Marketplace (FFM) 2016 Agent Readiness, I outlined key takeaways your organization needs to enforce in order to protect your health plan from compliance risks while also positioning it for sales success in 2016 and beyond.

1. MA/Part D Compliance and FWA Training for FDRs:

Beginning on January 1, 2016, every organization will need to ensure Compliance and Fraud, Waste, and Abuse (FWA) training requirements for first-tier, downstream, and related entities (FDRs) are fulfilled ONLY through CMS courses found on the Medicare Learning Network (MLN). This includes contracted Field Marketing Organizations (FMOs) and agents/brokers. This means the organization may now require these individuals to take custom training and must have mechanisms in place to accept completion of the CMS training. CMS also explicitly states plans will need to provide accurate reporting of this information.

Ways to fulfill requirement:

Note this requirement does not exempt organizations from ensuring all employees and FDRs are informed on how to report instances of fraud, waste, or abuse and other relevant information as described in Compliance Program requirements.

2. New Features for Health Insurance Marketplace Training

CMS is implementing changes to its process where vendors will be offering training. CMS has approved three vendors as "conditionally approved" (not approved until go-live in late summer 2015). GHG is a conditionally-approved vendor for Health Insurance Marketplace training. The number one takeaway from this is agents still begin and end on the CMS website. They cannot come to any vendor website to take their training; they must go directly to CMS and choose the party they would like to utilize.

Important to note:

  • Vendors may use CMS' training or vendor-developed training approved by CMS.
  • New! Vendor pricing varies: GHG's pricing is $29 for Individual and/or Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP), while AHIP is $125 for Individual or SHOP and $150 for both.
  • Vendors offer Continuing Education (CE) units in 5 or more states (pricing varies by vendor).

For information on the requirements and process for completing Health Insurance Marketplace agent and broker registration and training for plan year 2016, please visit here.

Learn more about GHG Health Insurance Marketplace training at exchangebrokertraining.com.

3. Plan Benefit Training Is Important (but doesn't have to be long!)

The point of plan benefit training is not to communicate every detail of your benefits but to provide key information, such as:

  • basic company information,
  • plan types,
  • service areas,
  • premiums and deductibles,
  • any changes from benefits last year,
  • network restrictions and/or changes,
  • highlights of drug benefits,
  • description of value-added benefits,
  • anything that makes you stand out from competitors, and
  • most importantly, how and where to get more detailed information

Remember, every interaction your sales agents have with prospective enrollees should be viewed as a golden opportunity to educate the public about your organization. Ensure your staff is effectively trained to make every member touch count.

4. Licensure

CMS does not specify how or how often the organization checks licensure − just that they ensure the agent is licensed. GHG recommends the organization use primary-source verification through the state Department of Insurance (DOI) or National Insurance Producer Registry (NIPR). At a minimum, the organization should check annually and upon any expiration date. Quarterly checks are slightly more robust, and monthly checks the most rigorous.

5. OIG/GSA (Exclusion) Checks

Like compliance and FWA training, this is a compliance requirement that applies to all delegates (and employees) — not just agents. Every agent representing your plan needs to be checked against the federal exclusion lists every month. Plans need to work with their Compliance Department to ensure this requirement is met.

Whether you operate strictly in the MA market or are participating in the Health Insurance Marketplace, thorough and streamlined agent/broker training positions your plan to make the most of every opportunity and minimize compliance risks. Focus on better agents, not just more agents, to best serve your plan and your beneficiaries.

Need help? GHG's fully-automated Sales Sentinel™ can take your agents from zero to ready-to-sell in as little as one week, ensuring agents are not only trained but contracted, licensed, and appointed per CMS requirements. Sales Sentinel™ can also assist your organization with administrative onboarding functions such as form collection and writing code assignment.

If you have questions, please contact me directly at afleming@ghgadvisors.com.


Resources

Gorman Health Group is one of three conditionally approved for exchange marketplace training, is accepted by all carriers in federal exchange states and provides CE credits available in most states. To learn more visit exchangebrokertraining.com >>

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

 


At the Intersection of Exhausted and Impossible

Today, most employees and employers in all organizations struggle to do more with less…not just health plans.

Information flow and the necessity to respond quickly to change have totally transformed existing jobs in the last ten years. There is little opportunity to spend days considering the implications of data and information received. The necessity of implementing new programs to meet the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) requirements strains the resources of health plan organizations and departments even further and may contribute to lapses in compliance and, therefore, regulatory risk. A daily to-do list for the Part D team routinely includes:

  • Rejected claims review
  • Formulary maintenance
  • Adjudication issues resolution
  • Intra-departmental calls to assist with resolution of grievances and Complaints Tracking Module cases (CTMs)
  • Transition fill and notice monitoring
  • B versus D medication resolutions
  • Intra-departmental and other organization meetings
  • Compliance communications and directives
  • Personnel issue resolution
  • Clinical pharmacy activities
  • Part D Star Ratings monitoring and report reviews
  • Case management activities
  • CMS-required reporting
  • Enrollment and eligibility issue resolution
  • Prescription drug event (PDE) reconciliation
  • AND the never diminishing email inbox

The list goes on and on.  A thorough review of all department functions either utilizing internal human resource assistance or external experts can provide recommendations for the right size staffing, resource delineation, and recommendations for new products or tools for the Pharmacy/Part D Department. The review should include the following questions: What is the right mix of pharmacists, pharmacy technicians, and business analysts? How many hours or full-time employee (FTE) segments should be dedicated to the various tasks? Will additional training and refining of work processes help to alleviate some of the burden? Is there a software solution that will streamline some of the manual processes currently in place?

With the insufficient amount of true subject matter experts in the industry, we know recruiting is difficult and time consuming. If interim staffing is what you need, Gorman Health Group (GHG) can enhance your team with our own, providing knowledgeable, effective assistance and an eye for detail from processors and analysts with decades of experience. Our pharmacy consultants come fully trained and prepared to provide short-term or long-term support and create a business case for additional resources, training, and tools. We offer strategic and operational leadership experts when, and where you need it.

Interested in more information? Contact us today.

Resources

Our Part D services are designed with your staff in mind, ensuring that with a mix of counsel and DIY tools your staff will have access to actionable information — faster. Don't chase data points.  Spend your time on the things that will impact your audit results when a CMS audit comes — and it always does. Visit our website to learn more >>

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


Quality Ratings: No National Standard for MCOs…Yet

A recent article noted five major changes in new Medicaid Managed Care rules, one pertaining to a quality ratings system. Many states have quality ratings for managed care plans, but currently there is no national standard.  Medicare has a five-star system evaluating private plans, and private plans offered through the Affordable Care Act's (ACA's) Health Insurance Marketplace will begin publishing quality ratings in 2016.  Ratings for Medicaid managed care plans would look similar to the Marketplace plan ratings.

"CMS' rationale was to more closely align the ratings system for managed care plans with [exchange plans], because a lot of those plans in the Marketplace are also Medicaid managed care providers," said Lisa Shugarman, a consultant at Health Management Associates.

The Marketplace plans will begin testing a ratings system this year including three broad categories (clinical quality, patient satisfaction, and plan management/affordability) that would also be a part of the managed care ratings. The Marketplace plans' ratings system will also have dozens of sub-categories — the specifics of which will be determined by state officials and health experts.  It has taken about three to five years for the Marketplace plans to have their ratings system up and running and would likely be the same time frame for managed care, according to Matt Roan, another consultant at Health Management Associates.

States would have the option to include additional measures, but the process for doing that isn't clear yet, and many managed care organizations (MCOs) are wary of too much variation between state quality reporting systems. They will be pushing CMS to ensure a high level of standardization to ease compliance.

Non-profit Medicaid plans support quality ratings, but they also think the rule should apply to traditional, state-run Medicaid and other arrangements, such as Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs).

 

Resources

Gorman Health Group can help your organization implement successful quality initiatives, from both the quality and operations perspectives, to improve scoring and control costs while continuing to serve the rapidly expanding Medicaid and dual-eligible populations. Visit our website to learn more >>

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


Obamacare Reinsurance and Risk Adjustment, Year One.

The much-anticipated "Summary Report on Transitional Reinsurance Payments and Permanent Risk Adjustment Transfers for the 2014 Benefit Year" has been released by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). A staggering 99.7% of Issuers were able to successfully submit data. The remaining 0.3% either did not set up an EDGE server or submitted data CMS could not use for risk adjustment calculations.  Considering the aggressive timeline Issuers were given, this completion percentage is quite remarkable. Those who failed to submit compliant risk adjustment data were slapped with a non-compliance fee, which was distributed to other Issuers in the state.

CMS also announced plans would receive full payment under the reinsurance program. The reinsurance coinsurance rate has been increased from the provisionally announced 80% to 100% since the funds collected by CMS exceeded the requests for reinsurance payments. The information provided in this report further confirms risk adjustment will be an integral part of an Issuer's financial standing.  It demonstrates risk adjustment payment transfers equate to anywhere between 2% of the total premium for merged plans to 21% of the total premium for catastrophic plans.  So overall, from the highest view point, the processes for risk adjustment and reinsurance have shown to be a success. That perspective does not necessarily stand true when looking at the Issuers at a more granular level.

Yes, 99.7% of Issuers were able to successfully meet the submission requirements and get their data onto the server. That does not mean the data were complete and accurate to truly reflect the risk of the company. It just means, out of the 758 issuers eligible to participate in the risk adjustment payment transfer, 99.7% of them were able to send some sort of data to the server in the format CMS required and, therefore, were able to avoid receiving the default non-compliance charge.  Issuers' completion percentages increased with each submission that got closer and closer to the April 30, 2015, deadline. The increase may not have been because Issuers were correcting errors; rather, it was CMS relaxing edits, allowing more data to be accepted onto the EDGE server. It would not have been beneficial for neither the Issuers nor CMS to have low completion percentages.

The commercial risk adjustment model is a zero-sum approach, meaning it collects funds from lower-risk Issuers then redistributes those funds to higher-risk Issuers.  In order to determine how one company compares against another, state averages are calculated. An average is calculated for the monthly premium, risk score, rating area, and actuarial value for each risk pool category. These averages are then used in combination with the Issuers' actual calculations to determine the amount an Issuer is required to pay or will be receiving for risk adjustment.  In looking at the Issuer-specific information, you're able to see the "winners" and "losers" for each state.

When evaluating how your company compared against internal projections and against your competitors in the market, here are a few things to consider:

  • Approximately 20%-30% of your commercial individual and small group population will have a diagnosis correlating to a Hierarchical Condition Category (HCC) risk adjustment category. A missing diagnosis code for commercial risk adjustment could be the difference between receiving a payment or making a payment. What is your company's end-to-end reconciliation process for member and claims EDGE server data submission?
  • There were unique claims circumstances CMS wanted handled a specific way, such as bundled claims and interim claims. These types of claims typically carry a lot of diagnosis information and claim cost.  Were these claims handled appropriately to ensure demographic and diagnosis information was fully captured?
  • Commercial risk adjustment is not just a process but rather a company strategy needing to be embedded throughout various departments in the organization. Is the strategy for your organization clear and understood by the areas involved in knowing how they impact risk adjustment?

It seems like it has taken forever for the 2014 risk adjustment payment transfer and reinsurance payment information to be released. Whether your results were stellar or not, don't get too hung up on the actual payments. What's done is done. Spend the time evaluating the full 2014 end-to-end process. What went well? What needs to improve? Act quickly and set your plan in place to impact your 2015 results—April 30, 2016, will be here before you know it.  And invest wisely in people and systems to avoid subsidizing your competition due to inadequate or incomplete diagnosis data.

 

Resources

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


CMS to Monitor Access to Care, Defines Provider Network Adequacy Pilot Program

During the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Audit & Enforcement Conference & Webinar held on June 16, 2015, CMS provided a glimpse as to how the Provider Network Adequacy (PNA) Pilot Program would begin to monitor beneficiary access to care.

The two-pronged approach will evaluate both provider network adequacy and the plan's provider directory.  As we have seen over the past several months, from the Call Letter to the proposed Medicaid rule, there is a renewed focus on provider network access across all government-sponsored health plans.  The focus is on not only the beneficiary's ability to access care in a timely manner but to ensure the member and referring providers have up-to-date demographic information on providers, including open/closed panel status.

 

Historically speaking, Medicare Advantage (MA) plans have submitted their provider and facility networks via Health Service Delivery (HSD) tables during their initial application or during a service area expansion (SAE). The HSD tables have been the source of truth for the MA plan to validate 90% of their enrollees had access to the full spectrum of providers and facilities within a given time and distance metric. Unless requested during the bid submission process, plans may not have validated their network against CMS standards from the original date of inception.  We have found from year to year, even with no changes to the provider network, it is possible for adequacy to change due to the beneficiary population files updated by CMS.  Additionally, we may have kept the same providers in the network but may not have captured changes, such as closing their panel to new patients, in our directories.  Fueled by increasing beneficiary complaints, plans will now be required to diligently monitor their providers and the provider office information.

As a result, CMS is supplementing the current guidance on provider directories and network access and availability reporting. CMS expects plans to establish and maintain a proactive, structured process to assess the availability of contracted providers on a monthly basis and monitor more closely member access to their provider network. CMS will monitor compliance via direct monitoring and the new PNA Pilot Program.

The new PNA Pilot Program will evaluate the two functional areas, network adequacy and provider directory, by requiring submission of HSD tables and by CMS calling a sub-set of providers from the HSD tables to monitor accuracy of information. The process, while still under development by CMS, is designed to promote continual self-evaluation by health plans. During the Audit & Enforcement Conference & Webcast, CMS outlined the process for the PNA requests.

  • CMS will issue a Pre-Audit Issue Summary (PAIS)
    • Plans will have the ability to disclose network adequacy issues in two ways: sponsor-disclosed, meaning the issue was discovered by the plan and disclosed to CMS prior to the audit, or self-identified, meaning the issue was discovered by the plan after the start of the audit and self-reported to CMS.
    • In response to the network adequacy findings, plans will be asked to provide a Beneficiary Impact Analysis to disclose areas where beneficiaries will be affected by network issues. The impact analysis should be a three-month look-back at all beneficiaries who received care by the identified provider(s).
  • Plan will also be asked to provide their provider directory to CMS.

A Sample PNA Audit Timeline:

  • Within 5 business days of the engagement letter:
    • PAIS will be issued
    • Impact Analysis for PAIS
    • Provider Directory
    • Within 10 business days of the engagement letter:
      • HSD tables uploaded to Network Management Module (NMM)
      • NMM will provide plan with a report identifying all network deficiencies
      • Within 14 days of receipt of the deficiency notice:
        • Submit exception requests

The aggressive audit timeline will require plans to incorporate a robust network adequacy monitoring policy into its workflow processes.  When we look at the types of exception requests that will potentially be included in the final CMS policy, plans will not only need to be well-versed on their network but also the total number of providers/facilities available in their service area.  Plans must be able to identify patterns of care for their network and non-network providers, alternative providers that could provide the services, such as ENTs providing allergy clinics, and be able to pull the information together in a relatively short time.

The second portion of the audit process will be to ensure the provider directory is current for provider demographic information and open/closed panel status.  Per CMS, they will review a select representative sample of providers from the HSD tables and verify the directory information, by calling each provider office, to ensure the information available to the beneficiary is correct.  The Call Letter indicated plans should incorporate a robust policy to outreach to providers on a monthly basis to validate the provider's network status and ensure any changes, both provider or plan initiated, are updated on a real-time basis.  CMS intends to further define the new policies and procedures governing the PNA Pilot Program and issue the guidance late summer/early fall via the Health Plan Management System (HPMS).

As CMS increases the scrutiny on provider network access and availability, we can only wait to see the impact it will have on a plan's ability to move towards building a network based upon quality indicators and the value-based contracting and reimbursement models needed to shift providers into a population health and outcomes-oriented mindset.

Gorman Health Group can assist your organization navigate the network adequacy pilot and provide the infrastructure support solutions needed to build a smarter provider network. Contact me directly at emartin@ghgadvisors.com for more information.

 

Resources:

At Gorman Health Group, we can help you decide what payment models are appropriate to your unique circumstance and support your implementation efforts. Learn more >>

Stay connected to industry news and gain perspective on how to navigate the latest issues through GHG's weekly newsletter. Subscribe >>

 

 

 


Re-Evaluating Your Plan's QI Evaluation and the Process Behind It.

This is the time of year when most plans have either completed, or are in the process of completing, their annual evaluation of their Quality Improvement (QI) Program Description and Work Plan for operating year 2014.  In the 12+ years I have worked for Gorman Health Group (GHG), I have seen a range of evaluations — from great evaluations to those that are just a couple of pages without content.  Let's examine some mistakes and discuss some industry happenings that are often missed in the overall QI world.  Before we go on to discuss, let's remind ourselves what the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is looking for in a QI Program Description, which is based upon the regulation 42 CFR § 422.152:

For each plan, a Medicare Advantage Organization must:

  1. Develop and implement a chronic care improvement program (CCIP) 42 CFR §422.152(c);
  2. Develop and implement a quality improvement project (QIP) 42 CFR §422.152(d);
  3. Develop and maintain a health information system (42 CFR §422.152(f)(1));
  4. Encourage providers to participate in CMS and HHS QI initiatives (42 CFR §422.152(a)(3));
  5. Implement a program review process for formal evaluation of the impact and effectiveness of the QI Program at least annually (42 CFR §422.152(f)(2));
  6. Correct all problems that come to its attention through internal surveillance, complaints, or other mechanisms (42 CFR §422.152(f)(3));
  7. Contract with an approved Medicare Consumer Assessment of Health Providers and Systems (CAHPS®) vendor to conduct the Medicare CAHPS® satisfaction survey of Medicare enrollees (42 CFR §422.152(b)(5)); and,
  8. Measure performance under the plan using standard measures required by CMS and report its performance to CMS (42 CFR §422.152(e)(i)).
  9. Develop, compile, evaluate, and report certain measures and other information to CMS, its enrollees, and the general public. Responsible for safeguarding the confidentiality of the doctor-patient relationship and report to CMS in the manner required cost of operations, patterns of utilizations of services, and availability, accessibility, and acceptability of Medicare-approved and covered services (42 CFR §422.516(a)).

Mistakes often seen:

Develop and maintain a health information system: Many plans have multiple platforms that make reporting — the validity and accuracy of — a nightmare! When a plan implements a new care management system, for example, the overall analysis of its performance is often not reported in the QI Work Plan or at the plan's QI Committee. Yet, this is a vital piece to overall operational and quality success.  Ask yourselves: Did your plan implement a new system or module upgrade in plan year 2014, and do we know if it has improved our overall reporting and impacted any quality measures or our providers?

Recommendation: As part of a system upgrade or new system implementation project plan, include overall success reporting to the QI Committee.  This can include major milestones success or failure during implementation as well as a narrative summary of changes the plan and/or providers will experience upon completion of the project. Will there be new requirements for claims submission? A new clearinghouse?  A new provider portal sign-in process? Don't forget all of your external and internal customers and the impact they may experience.

Plan goals for HEDIS: I often see goals set for middle-of-the-road success at or below the 50th percentile. While I am not encouraging setting unrealistic goals, many plans miss aligning their HEDIS goals with a 4 or 5 Star Rating corridor.  Now that CMS will be eliminating pre-determined benchmarks for plan year 2016, it will be even more important for HEDIS goals to be realigned with your plan's Star strategy.  I also see many plans not include an improvement process or overall data analytics in their QI Work Plan showing how HEDIS measures actually improve overall population outcomes.  We really don't want providers just checking a box that a test was completed — we want to understand if and how the HEDIS measures have possibly improved the overall health of our membership, and, if the outcomes are positive, how did this occur? Health plans often share data with providers regarding gaps in care but miss sharing any overall improved health outcomes so providers can see the successes of their efforts.

Recommendation: Consider adding true outcomes measures to specific HEDIS measures, especially those measures that affect your Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug (MA-PD) Plan or Special Needs Plan (SNP) population as a whole.  The goal of the evaluation is to effect improvement changes both in plan operations as well as clinical outcomes.

Correct all problems that come to its attention through internal surveillance, complaints, or other mechanisms: Many plans recognize they have multiple issues or problems which may come to their attention through internal monitoring and auditing, inter-rater reliability processes, or dashboard reporting.  These problems/issues, however, often do not make it to the QI process cycle.

Recommendation: Remember, when your plan discovers a risk area through internal monitoring or a high volume of complaints/Complaints Tracking Module complaints (CTMs) for a defined reason/category, it is the plan's responsibility to institute a process which identifies a root cause, implements a corrective action, and measures the success of the corrective action.  Clinical and non-clinical activities are part of the overall QI process.

Lastly, let's discuss the pay for performance or provider incentive plan process.  Many plans have instituted an incentive program designed to improve health outcomes, prevent acute readmissions, improve medication adherence, or improve preventive health services measures which reward physicians financially when goals are achieved.  Yet, many of the goals within a provider incentive program do not align with the goals for Star Ratings, goals within a Model of Care (MOC) for SNPs, nor do these payments align with improved overall outcomes for a population.

Recommendation: Overlay the benchmarks from your current provider incentive program to be sure they align with desired goals defined within your QI Work Plan and your Star Rating strategy.  Also evaluate your population health outcomes to determine if your incentive program is driving the results your plan desires.

If your plan is still an outlier in the completion of your program's annual evaluation, GHG is ready to assist!

 

Resources

GHG's clinical team of experts can assess your current quality program, and develop integrated strategies to build a new foundation focused on the areas that matter to you most: cost, quality and revenue. Visit our website to learn more >>

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


CMS Spotlight on Provider Directories & Network Adequacy

As we learned from the 2016 Call Letter, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is placing a renewed focus on Medicare Advantage (MA) plans' provider network, with emphasis on both online provider directories and network adequacy.

CMS plans to monitor compliance of plans' adherence through direct monitoring with additional contract funds and through the development of a new network adequacy audit protocol to be tested in 2015 that will determine whether the provider network meets published CMS adequacy standards. The compliance and enforcement of the new protocols will include civil money penalties (CMPs) and enrollment closures.

Recent beneficiary complaints have brought into focus the accuracy, or lack thereof, with Medicare Advantage Organizations' (MAOs') online provider directories.  Beneficiaries, and sometimes referring providers, have shown frustration in attempting to make an appointment, only to find the provider is no longer accepting new patients, has moved, or is no longer participating with the plan.  CMS has supplemented their current guidance on provider directories and expects plans to:

  • Establish and maintain a proactive and structured process by which to verify the availability of its contracted providers. This process will include outreach, on a monthly basis, to verify there has been no change in a provider's address, phone number, and office hours, and determine if the provider's panel is open or closed to new patients,
  • Establish a policy to review and address beneficiary complaints when they are denied access to a provider(s), and
  • Include a provision for real-time updates to the online directory.

Additionally, the Call Letter announced a new network adequacy protocol to be tested in 2015.  During his presentation at the CMS Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug Plan (MA-PD) Spring Conference & Webcast, Greg Buglio provided insight concerning the upcoming audit protocol.

Mr. Buglio shared that the Network Management Module (NMM) is a standalone module, a version of which currently resides within the Health Plan Management System (HPMS), which may be utilized by MA plans to submit Health Services Delivery (HSD) provider and facility tables for evaluation against CMS HSD criteria.

CMS notes a robust version of the NMM will be released at the end of July 2015.  According to CMS, the new version will be highly flexible and support a variety of reasons for HSD submission.  The updated NMM will support CMS-initiated requests for submission of HSD tables and exception requests for various processes. Once released in late summer/early fall, the NMM will contain user guides, help screens, and templates for HSD submission.

The NMM will also permit plan-initiated submissions.  It was noted plan-initiated submissions will not be viewable or evaluated by CMS.  The goal is that plans will be encouraged to continuously self-evaluate their own network adequacy against CMS' criteria. Presently, CMS only reviews network adequacy with initial and service area expansion applications. We anticipate the self-evaluation will work similar to the network pre-checks available during the application process. It was noted the templates within the NMM would not be the same template used during the application process. The two templates will not be interchangeable.

We anticipate further guidance surrounding the network adequacy protocol to be presented during CMS' upcoming MA-PD Audit & Enforcement Conference & Webcast  taking place on June 16.  Prioritize this event, and attend either in person or via webinar.

 

Resources

At Gorman Health Group, we can help you decide what payment models are appropriate to your unique circumstance and support your implementation efforts. Learn more >>

Stay connected to industry news and gain perspective on how to navigate the latest issues through GHG's weekly newsletter. Subscribe >>

 


You've Got Mail: National Sample RADV Audit Scores are In

By now you may have received your score from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) regarding the national sample for Risk Adjustment Data Validation (RADV) audits.

Wondering how you compare to your peers or competitors and what the implications of your score are?

Factors that should be taken into account regarding your score compared to the national average:

  • If you were to extend your score across your entire membership, would you be satisfied with the results?
  • What is the impact on your revenue and bid/benefit design?
  • Are inaccuracies going to have an impact on HEDIS measures and Medical Trend Management?
  • Do you have a long-term strategy to positively affect your results through concurrent reviews and targeted provider education/engagement strategies?

Regardless of what your results are, you need to have a solid action plan in place for improvement and maintenance. Due to the size of the sample, it is not statistically significant enough for your organization to receive the large scale impact this number potentially poses on revenue, medical costs related to beneficiaries, and your organization as a whole.

Mock RADV's and concurrent chart reviews should be a part of your risk adjustment program, and should be coupled with targeted provider education and engagement strategies.

Critical next steps:

  • Implement standard operating procedures for internal Mock RADV audit programs
  • Leverage analytics to target and profile your provider network for education and engagement
  • Implement year-round concurrent reviews to ensure optimal results for revenue capture and avoidance of RADV exposure and potential overpayment recovery requests from CMS.

Gorman Health Group supports our clients in evaluating the efficiency, compliance, and strategic value of risk adjustment programs from start to finish. We have a unique opportunity to collaborate with our clients and design, implement and operationalize year-round processes to ensure risk score accuracy and alignment. Together, we can develop enterprise-wide strategies to manage medical costs and improve clinical quality outcomes.

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

 

Resources

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

 

Gorman Health Group (GHG) announced its new vision for maximizing healthcare analytics and optimizing risk adjustment programs. Read the full press release >>

 

 

 


Marry Data to Build Accurate Customer Profiles

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

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

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

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

 

Resources

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

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

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

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