CMS strategies to reward Medicaid providers that improve care and lower costs

CMS has provided information for states interested in implementing Medicaid payment initiatives designed to reward providers that, for example, cut costs, improve access to care, or raise care quality. Under the Medicaid managed care rules, states are permitted to direct specific payments made by managed care plans to providers under certain circumstances, if the state first obtains CMS approval for the program (CMCS Informational Bulletin, November 2, 2017).

Managed care rules

Under 42 C.F.R. Sec. 438.6(c) there are three categories of state plans to implement delivery system and provider payment initiatives for managed care contracts:

1. Value-based purchasing models, which include bundled payments, episode-based payments, accountable care organizations, or other alternative models intended to recognize value or outcomes.
2. Performance improvement initiatives, which include pay-for-performance arrangements, quality-based payments, or population-based payment models.
3. Provider payment parameters, which include minimum fee schedules, a uniform dollar or percentage increase, and maximum fee schedules.

CMS approval

The regulation also requires that CMS approve these state-directed payment initiatives prior to implementation. To be approved, the initiatives must (1) be based on utilization and delivery of services to Medicaid beneficiaries covered under the contract and (2) contain payments that are directed equally, using the same terms of performance across a class of providers.

Plan components

The directed payments must advance at least one of the goals and objectives in the state’s Medicaid managed care quality strategy. States must also have a plan for evaluating whether the directed payment arrangement achieved the objectives. The evaluation plan should include: (1) identification of the performance criteria used to assess progress, (2) baseline data for performance measures, and (3) improvement targets for performance measures. States are generally free to determine which performance measures are most appropriate. If a state’s initiative is from either of the first two categories listed above (value-based purchasing models or performance improvement initiatives), the directed payments must make provider participation available across all payers and providers, using the same terms of performance and a common set of performance measures. In these two approaches, states cannot set the amount or frequency of the expenditures, nor can they recoup any unspent funds.

Multi-year arrangements

Directed payment arrangements cannot be automatically renewable, for example, annually, because CMS wants states to monitor the arrangements at least annually. CMS understands, however, that some states may want to implement multi-year payment arrangements to achieve longer-term goals. As a result, CMS has said that a multi-year arrangement will be permitted if the following conditions exist: (1) the state explicitly identifies the payment arrangement as a multi-year payment effort, (2) the state develops and describes a plan for pursuing a multi-year payment effort and the impact of the multi-year arrangement on the state’s goals, (3) no changes will be made to the payment methodology during the multi-year project, and (4) CMS approves the multi-year payment arrangement.

Plans not covered

Not all payment arrangements fall within the 42 C.F.R. 438.6(c) requirements. If a payment arrangement does not meet the regulations criteria, it need not, of course, obtain CMS approval. CMS has provided two examples:

1. States implementing a general requirement for managed care plans to increase provider reimbursement for services to Medicaid beneficiaries, as long as the state is not mandating specific payment methodology or amounts, and managed care plans retain the discretion for the amount, timing, and method for making provider payments.
2. States contractually implementing a general requirement for managed care plans to use value-based purchasing or alternative payment arrangements but the state does not mandate a specific payment methodology, and managed care plans retain the discretion to negotiate with network providers on specific terms.

Compliance date

The compliance date for obtaining 42 C.F.R. 438.6(c) approval is the rating period for Medicaid managed care contracts beginning on or after July 1, 2017. If states use a preprinted form that CMS has prepared, CMS commits to process the request within 90 calendar days of receipt.

Pilot program

The 42 C.F.R. 438.6(c) approval process has already been implemented in a pilot program. Three examples of state programs that were approved under the pilot program are:

1. A state plan to require managed care plans to pay an enhanced minimum fee schedule for professional services provided to Medicaid beneficiaries in an academic medical center by faculty physicians through a sub-capitated payment arrangement, to ensure that all Medicaid managed care enrollees have timely access to high-end specialty care.
2. A state plan to require managed care plans to pay quality incentive payments to acute care hospitals rendering services to Medicaid beneficiaries, to reduce potentially preventable readmissions.
3. A state plan to require managed care plans to pay Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) operating in their networks a per-member per-month rate for Medicaid beneficiaries, to incentivize providers to form ACOs that will be accountable for the total cost of care and the quality of care.

HHS Sec. Price: Trump’s FY 2018 budget does not ‘confuse spending with success’

On May 23, 2017, President Trump submitted his fiscal year (FY) 2018 budget proposal to Congress. The proposed budget contained the administration’s tax, spending, and policy proposals for FY 2018. The proposed budget was greeted with much criticism due to various program cuts (see $3.6T in cuts spells R-E-S-P-E-C-T in Trump budget, Health Law Daily, May 23, 2017). On June 8, 2017, HHS Secretary Price appeared before the House Ways & Means Committee and discussed the President’s proposals involving HHS programs.

Confusing spending with success

Because the President’s FY 2018 budget was met with so much criticism due to various program cuts, Price began by taking on that issue directly: “President Trump’s budget request does not confuse government spending with government success. The President understands that setting a budget is about more than establishing topline spending levels. Done properly, the budgeting process is an exercise in reforming our federal programs to make sure they actually work—so they do their job and use tax dollars wisely.”

Price continued: “The problem with many of our federal programs is not that they are too expensive or too underfunded. The real problem is that they do not work—they fail the very people they are meant to help. Fixing a broken government program requires a commitment to reform — redesigning its basic structure and refocusing taxpayer resources on innovative means to serve the people that the program is supposed to serve. And sometimes it requires recognition that the program is unnecessary because the need no longer exists or there are other programs that can better meet the needs of the people that the program was originally designed to serve.”

To emphasize this point, Price spoke directly about two federal programs, Aid to Families with Dependent Children and Medicaid.

Aid to Families with Dependent Children

According to Price, the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program undermined self-sufficiency and work. He applauded Congressional action that created the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program that promoted the empowerment of parents through work. He pointed out that TANF caseloads have declined by 75 percent through FY 2016. And that under the TANF program, the employment of single mothers increased by 12 percent from 1996 through 2000, and even after the 2008 recession, employment of single mothers is still higher than before welfare reform.

Medicaid

With regards to the Medicaid program, Price stressed that 20 years ago, annual government spending on Medicaid was less than $200 billion; and that within the next decade, that figure is estimated to top $1 trillion. Despite these investments, Price noted that: (1) one-third of doctors in America do not accept new Medicaid patients; and (2) research shows that enrolling in Medicaid does not necessarily lead to healthier outcomes for the newly eligible enrollee.

To illustrate the failure to achieve healthier outcomes, Price pointed to the results of an Oregon Health Insurance Study that replicated a randomized clinical trial by enrolling some uninsured people in Medicaid through a lottery. Comparing this population to those who remained without coverage, the data showed an increase in emergency room use for primary care, the probability of a diagnosis of diabetes, and the use of diabetes medication. The data also showed no significant effects on measures of physical health such as blood pressure, cholesterol, or average glycated hemoglobin levels (a diagnostic criterion for diabetes).

According to Price, “This mixed impact of Medicaid coverage on health outcomes suggests we need structural reforms that equip states with the resources and flexibility they need to serve their unique Medicaid populations in a way that is as compassionate and as cost-effective as possible.” This is what the President’s FY 2018 budget does, according to Price. It uses state innovation to save and strengthen Medicaid by unleashing state-level policymakers to advance reforms that are tailor-made to meet the unique needs of their citizens. Price estimates that over the next decade, these reforms will save American taxpayers $610 billion.

CHIP

Price further testified that the FY 2018 budget includes provisions to extend funding for the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). The budget would rebalance the federal-state partnership through a series of reforms, including ending the requirement under section 2001 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) (P.L. 111-148) that states move certain children from CHIP into Medicaid and capping eligibility at 250 percent of the federal poverty level to return the focus of CHIP to the most vulnerable and low-income children.

Health security and preparedness

Price affirmed HHS’ role as “the world’s leader in responding to and protecting against public health emergencies — from outbreaks of infectious disease to chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear threats — and assisting the health care sector to be prepared for cyber threats.”

To support HHS’ public health emergency preparedness and response, Price noted that the President’s budget provides $4.3 billion for disaster services coordination and response planning, biodefense and emerging infectious diseases research, and development and stockpiling of critical medical countermeasures.

Key Public Health Priorities

In his testimony, Price described three new public health crises: (1) serious mental illness; (2) substance abuse, particularly the opioid abuse epidemic; and (3) childhood obesity. He stressed his commitment to these new challenges and noted that the President’s budget would:

  • invest $5 million in new funding authorized by the 21st Century Cures Act for Assertive Community Treatment for Individuals with Serious Mental Illness;
  • include a demonstration within the Children’s Mental Health Services program to test the applicability of new research from the National Institute of Mental Health on preventing or delaying the first episode of psychosis;
  • provide $811 million — an increase of $50 million above the FY 2017 continuing resolution — in support of HHS’ five-part strategy to combat the opioid epidemic; and
  • establish a new $500 million America’s HealthBlock Grant, which will provide flexibility for states and Tribes to implement specific interventions, including those designed to spur improvements in physical activity and the nutrition of children and adolescents, and to treat leading causes of death such as heart disease.

Women’s health services

Price also testified that the President’s budget would increase funding for the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant and Healthy Start to improve the health of mothers, children, and adolescents, particularly those in low-income families. The budget would also maintain funding for a variety of programs serving women, including, community health centers, domestic violence programs, women’s cancer screenings and support, mother and infant programs, and the Office on Women’s Health.

Mental health services provider enters into $4M FCA settlement

A provider of in-home mental health services and two of its leaders agreed to pay a total of $4.5 million to settle allegations that they violated the federal False Claims Act (FCA) and the Minnesota False Claims Act by billing Medicaid for services that violated clinical supervision requirements. Under the agreement, Complementary Support Services (CSS) and related entities will pay $4 million, its president will pay $400,000, and an executive will pay $120,000.

According to Acting U.S. Attorney Gregory G. Brooker and Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson, CSS provided in-home mental health services to children and adults through two Medicaid programs that restrict reimbursement to time spent providing face-to-face services with the patient and prohibit reimbursement for a therapist’s time completing paperwork. Both programs also require a licensed therapist such as a social worker or psychologist to clinically supervise patient care to ensure that the services are appropriate and medically necessary.

Between 2007 and 2016, however, CSS failed to submit claims that reflected signature by licensed professionals serving as clinical supervisors. Instead, CSS’ president “batch signed” progress notes that formed the basis for billing Medicaid. In addition, CSS employees routinely added an extra billable unit for paperwork time for each client visit.

Local news reported that this case reflected a longstanding gap in Minnesota’s oversight of mental health services because CSS, like 200 other agencies, was unlicensed and not subject to routine regulatory oversight. In the wake of these allegations, the state began reviewing its oversight of mental health agencies.

As a part of the settlement, CSS is permanently excluded from participating in federal and state health care programs. The president agreed to an exclusion of at least eight years, and the executive agreed to an exclusion of at least five years.