Showing posts with label Medicare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Medicare. Show all posts

Thursday, August 17, 2017

Medicare: Beware of hidden charges for "observation services"

In Michigan, most adults with developmental disabilities are eligible for Medicaid as long as they meet the eligibility criteria based on the individual’s (not the family’s) income and other financial assets. In addition, when a parent of a “Disabled Adult Child” (or DAC) retires, dies, or is receiving Social Security disability benefits, the DAC is also eligible for social security benefits including Medicare. (This can be complicated, so take the time to find out more about eligibility criteria and how to apply for government disability benefits, starting with the Website for the U.S. Social Security Administration .) 

According to the Social Security Website on Benefits for a Disabled Child , “An adult disabled before age 22 may be eligible for child's benefits if a parent is deceased or starts receiving retirement or disability benefits. We consider this a ‘child’s’ benefit because it is paid on a parent's Social Security earnings record.”

My son Danny has had multiple emergency room visits and hospitalizations over the last 6 months. After one visit to the ER he was placed in a hospital room for observation for two days. This was the first I had heard of this category of care. Because of the severity of Danny’s disabilities and his inability to work or pay for services, he is not billed for hospital or emergency room care - everything so far has been covered by Medicaid and Medicare.
It is possible, however, for people covered by Medicare to be charged for services they did not know they would be responsible for ahead of time.

A class action lawsuit brought by Justice in Aging
 is proceeding through the courts to determine the appeal rights of patients who have been charged for “observation services”, often without their knowledge, and without the right to appeal the charges.

This is from a recent Justice in Aging email:

Nancy Niemi was hospitalized for 39 days after a visit to an emergency room. She’s 84-years-old and eligible for Medicare. The hospital, however, categorized her as an outpatient receiving “observation services” for her entire stay. Medicare covers hospital care through an inclusive payment under Part A if the stay is classified as inpatient, but patients may incur unexpected cost sharing if the stay is classified as “outpatient” observation covered under Part B. Ms. Niemi was now in debt for thousands of dollars for her entire 39-day stay, and, in addition, Medicare does not permit beneficiaries to appeal when they are classified as receiving observation services when they are in the hospital, so she had no way to challenge the lack of coverage.

Due to a federal court decision issued last week, Nancy Neimi is now a member of a nationwide class of hospital patients who may gain the right to appeal their placement on observation. Hospitals commonly classify patients under observation, and, until March of this year, often without their knowledge. This practice has left many older adults and others with thousands of dollars in surprise bills not just for the hospital stay, but also medicine and other services received while classified as under observation. Class members could number in the hundreds of thousands. One study found that, in 2009 alone, 918,180 Medicare beneficiaries experienced observation stays.

Justice in Aging filed the original lawsuit (now named Alexander v. Price) along with the Center for Medicare Advocacy in 2011. The case was initially dismissed, but plaintiffs appealed to the 2nd Circuit and prevailed. The case is now going forward on the Due Process claim. Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that Medicare must allow beneficiaries to challenge the decision they are only receiving observation services. The class certification order was issued on July 31, 2017 and can be read here.

If you have a client who you think may be a member of the class, you can submit their story here. Otherwise, no action is required at this time. We’ll keep you updated on the case as it moves forward.

Wednesday, December 16, 2015

The Individual Program Plan Under Fire : What every Parent and Guardian Must Know



The Individual Program Plan (IPP) Under Fire: Three Things Every Parent and Conservator Must Know from Autism Society SF Bay Area on Vimeo.

I am generally critical of the ARC and its reputation nationally for imposing its ideology of full inclusion on people with disabilities and their families regardless of need or individual circumstance. This presentation, however, by Barbara Maizie, Executive Director of the ARC of Contra Costa County, California, and a member of Keeping the Lanterman Promise on the importance of the Individualized Program Plan (IPP) is the best I have ever seen. It was part of the Autism Society San Francisco Bay Area's 2015 Conference, "Let a Thousand Flowers Bloom: The Bay Area Adult Autism/DD Programs and Housing Summit." The conference took place October 23, 2015 at Santa Clara University and featured more than 50 speakers.

In Michigan, the equivalent to the IPP is the Individual Plan of Service (IPOS) required by state law for everyone receiving  mental health services through the Community Mental Health system. Her message applies here and in other states that require DD services as an entitlement under protections in their state laws.

Update on Barbara Maizie: I had never met Barbara except through this video. Sadly, she was diagnosed with a brain tumor earlier this year and died on August 13, 2016. It makes me appreciate even more the influence that one person can have. 

Tuesday, September 22, 2015

Michigan : Public forum on integrated care for Medicare/Medicaid eligbles

This is from the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS):

The MDHHS will be hosting a public information forum on MI Health Link, the state’s integrated care program for individuals who are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid. You are welcome to attend the forum in Escanaba on Tuesday, October 20 from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon. ET.  The forum will be held at the Joseph Heirman University Center on the campus of Bay College in Room 952. 

The presentation at the forum will focus on the member experience upon joining the new program for persons eligible for MI Health Link. We encourage those who may be eligible for MI Health Link, as well as their families, friends, advocates, allies, and anyone else who may be interested in learning more about this program, to join us.
 
MDHHS is providing a conference line for interested stakeholders to participate by phone. 
The conference line information is also posted on the MI Health Link website.


Call-in number: 888-363-4734
Access number: 4162210

There are 250 lines available on a first come first served basis.  We encourage organizations to listen in groups in order to maximize lines available for others.  If you get a message stating “Please try your call again later”, all lines are full.

Prior to the forum, the agenda and presentation will be available on the MI Health Link website.

For interpreting services or other accommodation requirements at the forum, please contact the Integrated Care Division at 517-241-4293 or at be e-mailing INTEGRATEDCARE@MICHIGAN.GOV.

Thank you,
The MI Health Link Team
Michigan Department of Health and Human Services

Thursday, March 27, 2014

Michigan Forum on Integrated Care for Dual Eligibles

The Integrated Care Forum is about Michigan's plan, scaled back to a 3-year demonstration project, to integrate care for dual eligibles (beneficiaries of both Medicare and Medicaid). A surprising number of dual eligibles have developmental disabilities, are under the age of 65, and receive DD mental health services from local Community Mental Health agencies making this an important issue for people with DD.

The demonstration project will be implemented in four regions of the state:
  • Region 1: all counties in the UP
  • Region 4: Southwest Michigan including Berry, Berrien, Branch, Calhoun, Cass, Kalamazoo, St. Joseph, and Van Buren Counties.
  • Region 7: Wayne County
  • Region 9: Macomb County
The forum in Kalamazoo was postponed in January 2014 until April 2014:

INTEGRATED CARE

SAVE THE DATE: Integrated Care Implementation Forum - Rescheduled for Kalamazoo

Dear Stakeholder:

The Michigan Department of Community Health (MDCH) will be hosting a public forum on the state’s plan to integrate care for individuals who are dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid on April 8, 2014 at the Radisson Plaza Hotel and Suites, located at 100 W. Michigan Avenue in Kalamazoo.  The forum will be held in the Arcadia Ballroom located on the main level from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon EST.

MDCH is providing a conference line for interested stakeholders to participate by phone.  The conference line information is also posted on the Integrated Care website.

Call-in number: 888-363-4734
Access number: 4162210

There are 250 lines available on a first come first served basis.  We encourage organizations to listen in groups in order to maximize lines available for others.  If you get a message stating “Please try your call again later”, all lines are full.

Prior to the forum, the presentation will be available on the Integrated Care website .

A local map to the Radisson Plaza Hotel and Suites can be found here


The address for personal GPS and online mapping systems is:

100 W. Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, MI 49007

Parking is available in the hotel’s attached parking garage. Green parking passes will be available at the forum registration table to cover the cost of parking for participants.  When leaving the parking garage, enter your parking ticket into the machine followed by the green parking pass to avoid a parking fee.

Complimentary valet parking is available to those utilizing wheelchairs or with accessibility/mobility issues.

For interpreting services, or other accommodations at the forum, contact the Integrated Care Division at 517-241-4293.

Monday, January 27, 2014

Meeting on Medicaid/Medicare Integrated Care canceled; to be rescheduled in the next 3 - 4 months

Snow Donuts
A Public Forum on Integrated Care for people eligible for both Medicaid and Medicare has been cancelled:

Dear Stakeholders,

Due to the current weather conditions and the forecast for the weather to decline tomorrow, MDCH has made the difficult decision to cancel the Integrated Care Implementation Forum scheduled tomorrow, January 28 at the Radisson Plaza Hotel in downtown Kalamazoo.  The safety of attendees is our most important priority.

This forum will be rescheduled within the next 3 to 4 months at the same location.  Watch your e-mail in March for the rescheduled meeting date.

Thank you

Integrated Care Team


Here's why it has been cancelled from wunderground.com: 
Monday
partlycloudy Times of sun and clouds. Highs in the mid single digits and lows -8 to -12F.

Tuesday

partlycloudy Partly cloudy skies. High 2F. Winds WSW at 10 to 20 mph.

Thursday, January 2, 2014

Public Forum on Integrated Care for people eligible for both Medicaid and Medicare

This is a notice from the Michigan Department of Community Health about a public forum on the integration of care for people eligible for both Medicaid and Medicare. The state is implementing a plan approved by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. As far as I know, the details of the plan have not changed much from the plan described here. The plan would cover mental health services as well as medical care. It has an opt-out provision for beneficiaries who do not wish to participate. The plan is being implemented in a limited number of regions in the state that does not include the four counties in southeast Michigan - Washtenaw, Lenawee, Livingston, and Munroe Counties.

****************************************

Dear Stakeholder:

The Michigan Department of Community Health (MDCH) will be hosting a public forum on the state’s plan to integrate care for individuals who are dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid on January 28, 2014 at the Radisson Plaza Hotel and Suites, located at 100 W. Michigan Avenue in Kalamazoo.  The forum will be held in the Arcadia Ballroom located on the main level from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon EST.

MDCH is providing a conference line for interested stakeholders to participate by phone.  The conference line information is also posted on the Integrated Care website.

Call-in number: 888-363-4734
Access number: 4162210

There are 250 lines available on a first come first served basis.  We encourage organizations to listen in groups in order to maximize lines available for others.  If you get a message stating “Please try your call again later”, all lines are full.
  

Prior to the forum, the presentation will be available on the Integrated Care website which can be found at the following web address: http://www.michigan.gov/mdch/0,4612,7-132-2939__2939__2939-259203--,00.html

A local map to the Radisson Plaza Hotel and Suites can be found here: http://www.radisson.com/kalamazoo-hotel-mi-49007/mikalama/area/map

The address for personal GPS and online mapping systems is:

100 W. Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, MI 49007

Parking is available in the hotel’s attached parking garage. Green parking passes will be available at the forum registration table to cover the cost of parking for participants.  When leaving the parking garage, enter your parking ticket into the machine followed by the green parking pass to avoid a parking fee.

Complimentary valet parking is available to those utilizing wheelchairs or with accessibility/mobility issues.

For interpreting services, or other accommodations at the forum, contact the Integrated Care Division at 517-241-4293.
 

Saturday, January 26, 2013

Update on important Medicare settlement

This is an update from my blogpost of January 18th, 2013. The final approval of the settlement requires that skilled nursing and therapy services necessary to maintain a person's condition be covered by Medicare based on need rather on improvement in the benficiary's condition.

From the Center for Medicare Advocacy (CMA):

"The Center for Medicare Advocacy, along with its co-counsel Vermont Legal Aid are pleased that the Settlement in the Medicare Improvement Standard case, Jimmo v. Sebelius,[1] was approved on January 24, 2013 during a scheduled fairness hearing, marking a critical step forward for thousands of beneficiaries nationwide. "

Friday, January 18, 2013

Important Medicare case settlement awaits final approval

UPDATE from the Center for Medicare Advocacy: "The Center for Medicare Advocacy, along with its co-counsel Vermont Legal Aid are pleased that the Settlement in the Medicare Improvement Standard case, Jimmo v. Sebelius,[1] was approved on January 24, 2013 during a scheduled fairness hearing, marking a critical step forward for thousands of beneficiaries nationwide. "
 
******************************
[Most low-income adults who are developmentally disabled are eligible for Medicaid when they turn 18. They may also become eligible for Medicare if a parent who has been paying into the Social Security System either dies, retires, or becomes disabled.] 
 
An agreement has been reached in a class action lawsuit that is especially important to people covered by Medicare who have chronic or debilitating medical conditions from which they may not recover or improve. In the final stage of the settlement process, a Fairness Hearing will be held on January 24, 2013 to determine whether the agreement is "fair, reasonable, and adequate", after which a final judgment may be issued to approve the settlement.

In  Jimmo v. Sebelius, No. 11-cv-17 (D.Vt.), the plaintiffs contend that Medicare has for years illegally restricted coverage of skilled nursing and therapy services  only to beneficiaries who showed improvement. Beneficiaries who needed services to maintain their status or to slow deterioration were denied services on the basis that they would not improve. A settlement that was signed by the Chief Judge for the District of Vermont on November 20, 2012 would overturn the "improvement standard" and require that skilled nursing and therapy services necessary to maintain a person's condition can be covered by Medicare.

[Visit the Web site for Center for Medicare Advocacy, Inc.  for the most complete information on the case that includes Frequently Asked Questions, personal stories, and links to important documents.]

The federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has agreed to revise the Medicare Benefit Policy Manual to include new policy provisions. Skilled Nursing Facilities, Home Health Services, and Outpatient Therapy Services, including outpatient physical and occupational therapy and speech pathology services, will be covered "to perform a maintenance program [that] does not turn on the presence or absence of a beneficiary's potential for improvement from the therapy, but rather on the beneficiary's need for skilled care."


****************************


The Center for Medicare Advocacy, Inc. asks and answers an important question:

Q:  Will the Jimmo Settlement Agreement cost Medicare too much?


A:   The Settlement only provides Medicare coverage for services that the law has always covered, and for which people pay into Medicare to receive. The skilled maintenance nursing and therapy that is at the heart of the Settlement is usually low-cost, low-tech care that will often prevent the individual from declining further and requiring more intense, more expensive care.  In addition to being the right and legal thing to do, covering services such as those included in the Settlement Agreement may actually be more cost-effective than failing to provide these services.


A recent study regarding a Veterans Administration care model makes this point. In the VA program primary care teams are provided to assist the highest cost patients with multiple chronic diseases in their homes. The program operates in more than 250 locations, has an average daily census of more than 27,000 patients and has shown savings of 24% where costs are the highest. It has reduced hospitalizations by over 60% and has reduced nursing home use by over 80%. Many similar programs show savings on the highest cost patients of 50% or more, while showing very high patient/caregiver satisfaction.

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Latest Revisions to the Michigan Dual Eligibles Plan

Jennie and friends
The Michigan Association of Community Mental Health Boards (MACMHB) and the Michigan Association of Hospital Plans (MAHP) issued a joint letter to members on changes to the state plan to integrate the care of people eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid. In negotiations with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the federal agency that oversees and regulates Medicare and Medicaid, a preliminary agreement has been worked out with the state. 

The Dual Eligibles plan will be scaled back to a 3-year demonstration project to be implemented in selected regions of the state.  Michigan and the CMS will formally conclude negotiations with a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that will be the basis for this implementation.

Neither the number nor location of regions has yet been decided. The state has recently approved a new regional configuration for Pre-Paid Inpatient Health Plans (PIHPs), reducing the number of PIHPs in the state from 18 to 10.
A PIHP is the administrative entity over local Community Mental Health agencies. Within each selected region, no sub-populations or sets of services will be excluded from the plan.
   
According to the letter:

CMS will require three-way contracts between the federal government, the state and management entities selected to participate in the project. 
  • Management entities will include integrated care organizations (ICOs) and prepaid inpatient health plans (PIHPs). 
  • In the proposed plan, ICOs will cover physical health and long term care services, including but not limited to, institutional and community based long term services and supports and pharmacy.
  • In the proposed plan, PIHPs will cover behavioral health and habilitative services, including developmental disabilities, mental illness, or substance abuse problems.
Here is the map of these new regions. The Integrated Care Organizations will cover the same regions as the PIHPs. (The CMH Partnership of Southeast Michigan will remain intact and continue to include Washtenaw, Livingston, Monroe, and Lenawee Counties). "Once selected, each region and contracted entities, (ICO/PIHPs) will be maintained for a total of three years to accommodate evaluation requirements."

In addition:

  • Eligible individuals will be automatically enrolled into the integrated system, but can opt out prior to enrollment as well as after beginning to receive services.
  • Michigan is continuing its process to include stakeholder input on an ongoing basis throughout the course of the demonstration.
  • Subject to CMS approval, the program will begin providing coverage in January of 2014.
Other details in the letter and documents on the Michigan Integrated Care Web site include schedules for Integrated Care Organizations to apply for contracts. Here is more information and background on the Dual Eligibles Plan. Stay tuned for further developments.

Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Dual Eligibles - Why can't Michigan be more like Ohio?



Ohio, along with at least 25 other states including Michigan, has developed a plan to coordinate care for people who are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid. Michigan's plan has not yet been approved by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), but CMS has approved Ohio's plan. Michigan's draft plan so far covers all populations in the state, including people with developmental disabilities, and is more ambitious and radical in its approach. The final plan will be reviewed by the Michigan legislature before it is submitted to CMS.

Ohio, wisely, I think, has limited its plan for Dual Eligibles geographically to 29 of its 88 counties. It will not include people residing in Intermediate Care Facilities for the Intellectually Disabled (ICFs/ID) or people who receive services through a Medicaid waiver (such as Michigan's Habilitation Supports Waiver for people with DD). Anyone will be able to leave the program at any time.

This information comes from the Capitol Insider, 12/17/12, a publication of the National Arc:

Medicaid – News for individuals who are dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid in Ohio

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) negotiated the third Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Ohio to test a new model for providing person-centered, coordinated care to individuals who are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid (dually eligible). Ohio’s demonstration will cover individuals who are dually eligible in 29 counties and will begin in September 2013. Over 100,000 dually eligible individuals will be eligible to receive their health care and long term services through managed care. Individuals with developmental disabilities, who reside in intermediate care facilities for individuals with intellectual disabilities (ICFs/ID) or receive services through a Medicaid waiver, will not be eligible for the program. The companies chosen by Ohio to manage the program are Molina Healthcare, Aetna, UnitedHealthGroup, the Buckeye Community Health Plan run by Centene, and an alliance between Humana and CareSource, a non-profit health plan. People will be able to leave the program at any time or choose another plan. Ohio follows Massachusetts and Washington in negotiating MOUs with CMS.

Here is more information on Dual Eligibles in Michigan.

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

Medicare/Medicaid Eligibles: The Kaiser Report on State Plans and Michigan's Plan so far

Way back in 2011, Michigan was one of fifteen states to receive a contract with the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to develop a model to integrate the care of people eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid. (CMS is the federal agency that regulates and oversees Medicare and Medicaid.) Michigan was among the first 15 states to receive funds to develop a plan. By July of 2011, 26 states were participating in planning. A Report from the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured from October 2012, summarizes and provides data on the plans from 26 states. 

Michigan's Dual Eligibles plan would affect about 200,000 people who are elderly, mentally ill, or physically or developmentally disabled and poor.  The purpose of the plan is to reduce costs and improve care. But the premise on which federal and state governments justify the idea that the share of spending can be reduced for the Medicare/Medicaid eligible population is  questionable. As stated in the introduction to the Kaiser Commission Report, "Dual eligible beneficiaries are among the poorest and sickest people covered by either Medicare or Medicaid and consequently account for a disproportionate share of spending in both programs." How is the share of spending disproportionate after one accounts for the characteristics of this population?

I think it is safe to assume that medical and hospital costs are generally too high and that we pay too much for prescription drugs and  medical devices and equipment. But almost half of the Medicare/Medicaid population are people under 65, many of whom receive Medicaid-funded mental health services through Michigan's Community Mental Health system.  Cost increases in areas covered by CMH have been relatively stable: 


"Per capita health care costs in the US increased by more than 5% per year between 2002 and 2009, with a total increase of 57% during that period. The public mental health system has seen an increase of approximately 2.2% per enrollee per year in that same period."
(from the MACMHB Guide to Integrated Care for Dual Eligibles)
 
Finding ways to control the high cost of medical care is laudable, but the fear by individuals and their families who receive services through the CMH system is that reducing the costs of mental health services can only be achieved by reducing the number and quality of services available and by cannibalizing existing programs for people with developmental disabilities and mental illness to fund  services to other under-funded populations.


Other objections to the plan include:


The use of state-wide standardized assessments to determine needs and identify services is contrary to the idea of Person-Centered Planning. Assessments should be used by the PCP team to determine needs and services, but assessments alone should not be the determining factor. The state plan for dual eligibles reduces the PCP meeting to a little get-together to ratify the decisions that have already been made through the assessment process.

The proposed revisions to the Dual Eligible Plan's  "Care Bridge" give more control over assessment and determination of services to an Integrated Care Organization, ICO, a Medicaid health plan, thereby giving decision-making power to the medical system of care rather than the mental health system. While locally controlled Community Mental Health agencies may continue to play a role in assessing and determining needs of people with developmental disabilities, they do so under contract to the ICOs, organizations  that have little experience with the populations served by the CMH system. Case management services may or may not be provided by CMH agencies, further diminishing the role of publicly controlled local CMH agencies in implementing and overseeing the provision of services. 


Key Questions 


Overall, according to the Kaiser Commission Report, there are crucial questions that remain to be answered regarding how the 26 state's will implement their plans.
 
(Page 16) As CMS continues to review the 26 states’ proposals and finalizes MOUs [Memoranda of Understanding] to implement demonstrations in selected states over the coming months, attention should be given to several key questions, such as:

  • How will beneficiaries be notified about the demonstrations and enroll and disenroll?
  • How will Medicare and Medicaid contributions be calculated, risk-adjusted, and adjusted over time?
  • What will the source(s) of savings be, and how will savings be shared among CMS, the state, plans and/or providers?
  • How will the demonstrations affect access to home and community-based services?
  • How will medical necessity determinations be made, and how will beneficiaries appeal decisions with which they disagree?
  • Will beneficiaries be able to retain their current providers and services and access an adequate provider network?
  • How will plans and providers meet the needs of and provide reasonable accommodations to beneficiaries with a range of physical, mental health, and cognitive disabilities?
  • How will quality be measured, and how will the demonstrations be monitored and evaluated?
  • To what extent will the specific standards that health plans must meet to participate in the demonstrations vary from existing Medicare Advantage and Medicaid managed care requirements?
  • How will stakeholders continue to be engaged throughout the design and implementation process?
These are not trivial questions that must be answered. But of course, once a plan is approved it's not set in stone, is it? Well, apparently it is. This is from pages 18 and 19 of the Kaiser Commmission Report:
 

CMS’s financial alignment models for dual eligible beneficiaries are based on the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation’s (CMMI) new § 1115A demonstration authority created in the ACA [the Affordable Care Act]. The following questions and answers explain the scope of the Secretary’s authority and the process for testing new payment and service delivery models under § 1115A. 
...

What is the scope of the Secretary’s [of Health and Human Services] § 1115A waiver authority?
 

The law [the Affordable Care Act] prohibits administrative or judicial review of the Secretary’s selection of models, organizations, sites, or participants; the elements, parameters, scope, and duration of models; determinations regarding budget neutrality, termination or modification of a design and implementation; and determinations about the expansion and scope of models.

Wow! A law that is outside the reach of administrative or judicial review? That's a chilling notion. This means the plan will have to be absolutely perfect before it is finally submitted to CMS by the state. What could possibly go wrong?

Tuesday, September 25, 2012

Draft revisions to Michigan's Dual Eligibles plan

Is it possible to make the Michigan plan for Dual Eligibles worse for people with developmental disabilities? Apparently, yes, but we all still have a say in how this comes out and so does the Michigan legislature.
 

This is an e-mail from Tom Bird from ddAdvocates of Western Michigan sent out on 9/5/12.  It provides links to documents and other sources of information on Michigan's new proposal for an Integrated Care Bridge between Medicare, Medicaid, and mental health services.

From the Michigan Department of Community Health (MDCH): 

The Michigan Department of Community Health submitted documents to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) in response to its request for additional detail regarding the Integrated Care Bridge.  The Care Bridge is Michigan’s model for care coordination that was first outlined in the integrated care proposal submitted to CMS in April 2012.

These documents are drafts of the proposed Care Bridge concepts, have been posted to the website, and will be updated as discussions with CMS and stakeholders continue.

 

See the current Care Bridge concepts here. Scroll down to "Care Bridge Documents - 8-30-2012" for the link to the documents. The direct link to the pdf file is here .

Tom Bird's comments on the proposal:

"This contains the letters to CMS as well as the power point presentation, and a 'narrative' on how the care bridge would work, in addition to the vignettes on how it is supposed to work. The PLC [Primary Lead Coordinator] is supposed to be an ICO [Integrated Care Organization] (multi-county Health Plan) employee, responsible for the initial screening and intake, and the LC [Lead Coordinator] is either an ICO employee or an ICO-certified and trained contractor of another organization which the ICO will ultimately have control over and oversight of. It could be an existing CMH supports coordinator, but they would have to be trained and supervised by the ICO, with their time billed to the ICO. Either way, it puts the ICO (Health Plan) in total control of the 'care Bridge' functions as well as all of the funding for both Medicare and Medicaid (which are co-mingled and can be redistributed as the ICO desires); it puts the ICO in a position to deny or restrict services desired by the consumer, all far removed from the current system of local delivery, which presently offers local input and oversight via control of CMH Board appointments. If you add the incentive for the ICO to restrict (expensive) services due to the proposed 'profit sharing' of any savings, you have a big red flag waving."


Legislative review of changes to the Dual Eligibles plan is required by law: 

The following is wording from the 2012 appropriations law concerning legislative review of plans submitted to the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS):

Sec. 264. 
(1) Upon submission of a Medicaid waiver, a Medicaid state plan amendment, or a similar proposal to the centers for Medicare and Medicaid services, the department shall notify the house and senate appropriations subcommittees on community health and the house and senate fiscal agencies of the submission.

(2) The department shall provide written or verbal biannual reports to the senate and house appropriations subcommittees on community health and the senate and house fiscal agencies summarizing the status of any new or ongoing discussions with the centers for Medicare and Medicaid services or the federal department of health and humanservices regarding potential or future Medicaid waiver applications.


(3) The department shall inform the senate and house appropriations subcommittees on community health and the senate and house fiscal agencies of any alterations or adjustments made to the published plan for integrated care for individuals who are dual Medicare/Medicaid eligibles when the final version of the plan has been submitted to the
federal centers for Medicare and Medicaid services or the federal department of health and human services.


(4) At least 30 days before implementation of the plan for integrated care for individuals who are dual Medicare/Medicaid eligibles, the department shall submit the plan to the legislature for review.
[emphasis added]


***************************************

Here is a refresher course on the issues regarding dual eligibles and people with DD.

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

The Senate Fiscal Agency Comments on Michigan's Dual Eligibles Plan

For a clear and concise overview of the Michigan plan for Dual Eligibles and its effects on the state, read the analysis from the Michigan Senate Fiscal Agency (SFA).  According to its Website, the SFA is "a nonpartisan legislative agency created to provide the Michigan Senate with sound and unbiased assistance in two principal ways: providing staff support to the Senate Appropriations Committee and assisting all members of the Senate on State budget-related issues; and providing analysis of all proposed legislation being considered by the Senate."

The report is called "The Snyder Administration's Proposed Dual Eligibility Waiver". You can link to it from the SFA Website under "State Notes"

From the SFA report:

Who will be affected by the proposal (page 2): 

The majority of the 211,000 dual eligibles in Michigan are low-income elderly people. However, there are many nonelderly who are Medicare recipients, in particular disabled individuals with work histories and many developmentally disabled and mentally ill individuals. In fact, over 40% of dual eligibles are under the age of 65, with developmentally disabled and mentally ill individuals under age 65 comprising 15% of the total dual eligible population. Because the population affected by this waiver extends beyond the low income elderly, designing a program is more complicated than just addressing issues surrounding medical care for the elderly.

The Administration's proposal would have a major impact on the public behavioral health system, that is, Community Mental Health (CMH) boards and the Pre-Paid Inpatient Health Plans (PIHPs). Due to many developmentally disabled and mentally ill adults being Medicare-eligible, nearly half of CMH and PIHP expenditures are for services to dual eligibles. The CMH and PIHP community expressed strong concern about the integration proposal as it was being developed.

Contracting with separate entities for physical health care (Integrated Care Organizations) and mental health services (Pre-paid Inpatient Health Plans) (pages 3-4): 

It should be noted that just because the State opted not to fold behavioral health services into the ICOs, one should not conclude that this could not happen in the future. The contracts would be for a specified period of time and the State could, in the future, choose to seek fully integrated care and have the ICOs cover all behavioral health services for dual eligibles.

When PIHPs were created a decade ago, the original proposal was to allow any entity, including private firms, to compete to provide behavioral health services to Medicaid clients. The final proposal gave right of first refusal to CMHs, which preserved the public mental health system's lead role in Medicaid behavioral health care. This waiver expires on September 30, 2013, and the State could opt to bid out the PIHP services at that time.

Continuity of Services (page 4):

Perhaps the greatest concern during any shift to an expanded managed care model is ensuring continuity of care. This is especially important for the dual eligible population, which includes many individuals with severe pre-existing health conditions. The Administration states that its contracts would include requirements to maintain existing services and providers"until an assessment is completed and care transition arrangements are made through the person-centered planning process"….

Savings (pages 5-6): 

On the savings front, the Governor's recommended FY 2012-13 DCH budget assumed savings of $29.7 million Gross and $10.0 million General Fund/General Purpose due to the dual integration waiver. Given that the waiver would not begin enrolling clients until July 2013, these savings, which would have to be realized for a subset of the population over the last three months of FY 2012-13, are questionable…

Assuming that savings eventually did occur, another concern is how they would be shared between the State and Federal government. The DCH estimates that, by the time the program starts, there will be about $9.0 billion in Medicare and Medicaid spending on the dual eligible population, and the vast majority of that will be Federal dollars (as all Medicare spending is Federal and almost two-thirds of Michigan's Medicaid spending is Federal). Therefore, assuming that the integration of care was successful in saving money, there remains the question of how the amount saved would be estimated and how it would be split between the State and Federal government. That matter would be determined in the negotiations between the DCH and CMS.

Conclusion (page 6)

This proposal represents certainly the most significant change in Michigan Medicaid policy since the shift to managed care for physical and behavioral health and arguably the most significant change in publicly funded health coverage since the advent of the Medicare and Medicaid programs over 40 years ago.

Comments on Michigan's Plan for Dual Eligibles due on May 30, 2012

The Michigan Department of Community Health (MDCH) submitted its plan to integrate care for people who are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid to the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Here is a copy of the plan sent to CMS by the MDCH with a few changes from the version that was made available on March 5, 2012.

You can also link to the plan online by going to the Website for the Integrated Care Resource Center. For comparison, there are also links to plans from other states that have been submitted to CMS.

Comments on the MDCH plan should be sent to CMS by e-mail to  MI-MedicareMedicaidCoordination@cms.hhs.gov by 5 p.m., May 30, 2012. It is important that the CMS hear from you about what you think of the plan and how it might affect people you know who have developmental disabilities.

I read through the plan, but did not find any changes that would affect the comments I sent earlier to the MDCH in April.  

Here is background information on the Dual Eligible plan. Here are more comments on the plan.

Thursday, April 12, 2012

More Comments on Michigan's Dual Eligibles Plan

Below are links to comments on the Michigan proposal for "Integrated Care for people who are Medicare-Medicaid Eligible." The people commenting all have family members who have been served by the Community Mental Health (CMH) system as well as professional or volunteer experiences that give them insights into the workings of the system that serves people with developmental disabilities and mental illness.

Rita Bird, a parent and Ottawa County CMH  Board member, gave testimony to the Michigan Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the Department of Community Health in March 2012 on the  Dual Eligibles plan.

She raises questions about the cost of implementing the dual eligibles plan:
"Good judgment demands that cost estimates be as accurate as possible in order to determine whether the Plan is financially sound and sustainable. "..

She is also concerned about "general confusion about the meaning of the plan and the state's intent in implementing it":

"What happens when the two systems [physical health care and mental health services] are in competition for the same dollars?"

"Who makes the final decisions on which services are covered, which services have priority, who delivers the services, who receives the services, and who has 'veto power over services that may be deemed just too expensive to provide to a particular population or to someone who is deemed too disabled, to sick, or too old for the expense?"

Rita's recommendations to the legislature are:
  • Do not allow mental health funding allocations to be co-mingled with physical health care losing vital dedicated funding allocations for those with mental, cognitive, and physical disabilities. 
  • Insist on the assurance that all current mental health services including enhanced Waiver services be continued and monitor waiver negotiations between DCH and CMS. 
  • Delay approval of the Proposed DE Plan until it can be presented in its final form following CMS negotiations.
  • Insist on a complete “Carve Out” of the existing mental health system structure until it can be accurately scrutinized for any cost savings and unnecessary bureaucratic weight. This has not been done.
  • Have the mental health system continue to serve the DD population.
  • Do not allow their services to be included in Long Term Care.
Marianne Huff, Executive Director of Allegan County Community Mental Health Services (ACCMHS) also comments on "the lack of sufficient detail to know whether or not there is a reason to be concerned."

She believes that " persons with disabilities have not been afforded an equal opportunity to learn about the Plan nor have persons with disabilities been given equal opportunity to participate in public discussions regarding the Plan."

She says, "...it is our contention that the stakeholder involvement process was limited and not truly accessible to those who comprise the greatest number of the almost 198,644 Dual Eligibles in the state of Michigan:  Qualified Persons with Disabilities."
 
Of further concern is "the lack of detail in the Plan as it applies to the current CMHSP system as a provider network and county-based system of specialty supports to persons with disabilities...It is difficult to speculate about the rationale for not including a more detailed explanation about the role of CMHSPs, but there is a sense that the Plan is designed to eventually eliminate the county-based community mental health system. "

Ed Diegel is from DD Advocates of Wayne County. In his comments, he emphasizes the importance of assuring that funding intended for people with DD is not used for non-DD programs, that inappropriate uses of these funds should be prohibited, and that the rights of the DD must be protected.

He also makes the point that in Wayne County, "when two of three Major Care Provider Networks (MCPN’s) unilaterally cut funding to programs for the Developmentally Disabled (with no corresponding reductions in State funding), the cuts resulted in service reductions and health and safety issues across the county. The conclusion is that there is no ‘administrative excess’ in the DD system for funding services for other populations."

On physical health care, Ed says that many people with DD who have complex medical needs may  exhibit symptoms different than the normal population or they may be presented in a different way.  He also notes that many people with DD  have doctors in more than one medical center.

He is also knowledgeable about  business operations of public agencies, service providers, and contractors. He emphasizes the need for planning for additional personnel that may be needed and re-defining industry practices to guard against the following:
  • Excessive overhead assessments from contracting agencies at every level. i.e. Wayne County assessments for contracts that include kick backs and favoritism and excessive buy out provisions included in the over all overhead assessment
  • Excessive reserves – recently the Michigan Attorney General sued the Federal Government to allow Blue Cross and 10 or 11 other Michigan Insurers to accumulate excessive reserves for its Michigan business (more than the 25% the Federal Govt allows).
  • For-profit and non-profit company returns must be uniformly reported to assure against excessive profit taking. For instance, Health Net, a California Medicaid insurer shares are up over 64% since Oct 3, 2011 on news it will get a portion of the California dual eligible business!!
My comments on the plan are here .
 

Comments on the state plan to the Michigan Department of Community Health (MDCH) were due on April 4th, 2012, but comments can be submitted anytime to this email address: Integratedcare@michigan.gov 

This is the dual eligibles website for more background information on the plan.

If you have comments, be sure to let your legislators know. After the state submits its draft of the plan to CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services), there will probably be negotiations with CMS that may result in changes. Fortunately, language was recently placed in an appropriations bill that requires the MDCH to submit the final draft of the dual eligibles plan to the legislature before the final version is submitted to the CMS.

Tuesday, April 3, 2012

Is the Michigan CMH system too inefficient and costly?

In my experience, Michigan's Community Mental Health system is chronically underfunded and overburdened. It can be both frustrating and tremendously helpful, depending on who you are dealing with and the system's capacity to solve your particular problem. Despite its flaws, the CMH system has many things going for it.

This is from the "MACMHB [Michigan Association of Community Mental Health Boards] Guide to Integrated Care for Dual Eligibles":

There has been some talk of excessive administration in the existing public behavioral health and developmental disabilities structure. However, the actual expenditure data suggests a very different reality. Consider the following:

  1. The MDCH Finger Tip report indicates that the managed care administrative expense for the PIHP [Pre-paid Inpatient Health Plan] system in FY 10 was 6.5% of reported expenditures. An Analysis of the Medicaid Unit Net Cost report data required by MDCH indicates that payments for services constitute 91.4% of Medicaid expenditures by PIHPs. The remaining expenditure of 8.6% consists of administration and payment to risk reserves. As there is no profit factor, this suggests an MLR [Medical Loss Ratio] for the PIHPs of 91.4%. In the letter from the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs to the federal Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight supporting the state's request for an extension for meeting the PPACA [Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act] requirements for MLR insurance companies cited in this letter (other than BCBS [Blue Cross Blue Shield]) reported MLR ranging from 55.5% to 86.1%
  2. The average administrative expenditure for CMHSP [Community Mental Health Services Program] service delivery operations for all services (both Medicaid and non-Medicaid), as reported in the Administrative Cost report for FY 10 was only 9.9%. Consider that the excessive administrative cost in healthcare is pervasive and considered one of the most significant challenges to reducing expenditures. The CMHSP programs bear considerable regulatory burden and serve a chronic population which would suggest a higher administrative cost, which is not evident.
  3. Per capita health care costs in the US increased by more than 5% per year between 2002 and 2009, with a total increase of 57% during that period. The public mental health system has seen an increase of approximately 2.2% per enrollee per year in that same period.

While the public mental health system may have various issues, an examination of the data demonstrates an efficient health care delivery system. The public behavioral health system--as the only system currently managing dual eligibles--has effectively transitioned Michigan from state-based institutional care to a network of community-based alternatives during the past 30 years. the PIHPs/CMHSPs have successfully expanded access to services by 16% since 2002 have demonstrated consistently good cost controls illustrated by low administrative expenses and rates increases significantly lower than our counterparts in traditional healthcare. The existing system, under public control and responsive to local needs, has a proven history as both the financial manager and the service delivery structure for the public healthcare safety net. It seems prudent to work within the existing system to create necessary improvements rather than to abandon this public management structure.

Michigan's Plan for Dual Eligibles: Comment on Self-Determination, Opting-out, and Physical Health Care

Self-determination and available service settings for people with DD

Currently, Self-determination is an option under state guidelines. It is an approach to serving people with DD (and others in the CMH system) that allows for individualized budgets and gives the person the ability to hire and fire service providers. While self-determination has been an innovative and useful approach for many people with DD, it is not the only or best approach for providing appropriate services for all people with DD, especially those with more extensive needs who may be safer, happier, and better served in congregate licensed settings.

In addition, under services provided by the plan, there is no mention in the proposal of Adult Foster Care homes in community settings that provide services for people who need a high level of care.

Will these settings continue to be available? Will day programs continue to be available for people with DD? Will self-determination continue to be optional, available to those who want to pursue this approach to providing services?

Penalties for opting out

There needs to be a fuller explanation of the services that will not be available to people who decide to opt out of the Dual Eligibles plan.

What are “enhanced dental and vision” services that will not be offered to people opting out? The ramifications of a decision to opt out needs to be fully understood by Medicaid and Medicare beneficiaries. Penalizing people who make that choice needs to be justified.

Physical Health Care

The ICOs will manage the provision of physical health needs of dual eligibles in the mental health system. The plan (page 17) says that ICOs may provide other physical health services at the option of the ICO, such as expanded dental services, vision services, and hearing aids, and are strongly encouraged to do so.

Does this mean that people with developmental disabilities will only receive these services depending on where they live and whether the ICO wants to offer these services rather than based on need?

Michigan's Plan for Dual Eligibles: Comments on PIHPs and State-wide Assessments

PIHPs (Pre-Paid Inpatient Health Plans) 
 
PIHPs distribute Medicaid funds to local Community Mental Health agencies in the state and provide other administrative services and management. [The Washtenaw Community Health Organization (WCHO), serves as the PIHP for a four-county area of southeastern Michigan while also serving as the Community Mental Health (CMH) agency for Washtenaw County.]

The state has decided to preserve the PIHP structure for the management and financing of local CMHs, but the number of PIHPs will be greatly reduced with each one serving a much larger geographic area than it does now. The plan does not give much detail about what the PIHPs will look like or how accessible they will be to the people they serve. The decision to preserve the PIHP structure does not assure that there won’t be major changes in how PIHPs operate.

Screening and State-wide Standardized Assessments

According to the plan, (page 2) “Upon enrollment, all beneficiaries will be initially screened to determine basic needs, followed by a more in-depth standardized assessment to determine the possible array of services. The need for specialty services through the separately contracted PIHPs will also be determined at this time…”

Does this mean that a person with a developmental disability could be assigned to an Integrated Care Organization (ICO) (this would likely be something like a Medicaid managed health plan) rather than a PIHP, even though PIHPs under current law are responsible for managing and financing mental health services to people with DD? If a person with DD chooses to be in an ICO, would they still have access to all the mental health services they need?

Also according to the plan, (page 14) once a person is determined to fall under the PIHP part of the system, the PIHP “will conduct a more extensive person-centered assessment” The core assessment instrument can trigger the use of multiple sub-sections that “span the full ranges of needs and, individually, allow for gathering in-depth information in specific areas…” Over time other subs-sections “…may be triggered, leading to identification and linkage to new services”.

Under this plan, the state will develop a standardized assessment instrument covering physical and mental health care for 200,000 people that will determine the needs of individuals and presumably the services they will be eligible for, before the individuals themselves, their families, and others who know them well, have had a chance to participate in the Person-Centered Planning process where these decisions should be made.

Why bother having a Person-Centered Plan if a state assessment has already made the determination of needs and the identification of services? 

 
Is there an “instrument” that currently exists that can identify all the medical and social supports for 200,000 people with needs as diverse as the population of people who are eligible for both Medicaid and Medicare? If not, how much will it cost to devise such an “instrument” with its expanding multiple subsections and linkages?

 
Rather than assisting a PCP team (that includes the individual being served) in determining needs and services, the standardized state-wide assessment proposed by this plan, appears to have reduced the PCP to a rubber-stamp of the state’s determination of needs and services.

Michigan's Plan for Dual Eligibles: Comment on cost savings, the DD population, and "Financial Realignment"

One of the rationales for integrating physical health care and mental health care for the Medicare-Medicaid Eligible (MME) population is that the expenditure of funds for this population is “disproportionate”. Considering that this population is overall older, sicker, and more disabled than the general population, as well as being poor, it is not surprising that a larger proportion of Medicare and Medicaid funds would be spent on their physical and mental health care

For people who are physically disabled and elderly there are large waiting lists for services that many people want and need to keep them in their own homes and avoid more expensive nursing home placements. People who have serious mental illness, on average, die at a much earlier age than the general population from preventable causes. Coordinating mental health care with improved access to physical health care is a worthy goal that may also save money in the long run by preventing expensive hospitalizations. There is nothing in the plan, however, that gives a coherent explanation of how money will be saved on the DD population unless savings come from cutting services.

The plan points out that in 2008 Michigan Medicaid spent over $843.6 million on behavioral health and developmental disability services for MMEs. Of that amount, $617.4 million was spent on people with intellectual/developmental disabilities (ID/DD). This is not surprising considering that community services for many people with DD, especially those with the most severe disabilities, are an alternative to institutional placements (all publicly operated institutions for people with ID/DD have been closed over the last thirty years.) Moving people out of institutions does not necessarily reduce their need for intensive and relatively expensive services. Furthermore, the promise that savings from closing institutions would support community services has not been fully realized.
 
Under the Michigan Proposal all the Medicaid and Medicare money for Dual Eligibles will go into one pot and spending will be “realigned”. No attempt is made to explain how this will be done, but we know that the state must find cost savings to get the plan approved by the Centers for Medicare and Medicid Services (CMS). In addition, the state will be renegotiating the state’s Medicaid Waivers that pay for community services for people with DD and others covered by the mental health system.  This makes the assurances in the plan that services will remain as they are an empty promise.

States have a great deal of leeway in determining the services they will provide and there is reason to believe there will be pressure on the state to reduce the services now in place. Programs and services for the DD population with their “disproportionate” expenditures appear to be an easy target for cost savings under the plan.