J. Brandon Durbin2950-50th Street 909-18th St.Lubbock, Texas 79413 Plano, Texas806-791-1591 469-361-0120Fax 806-791-3974brandon@dhcg.combrandon@durbinco.com

Topics

Medicaid & State programsMedicare issues and legislative updateMedicare Group Appeals

M

NA I

Y

RU O

L

ES

I

RT G

O

M

NP E

C

EM R

L

YJ S

P

ID S

B

OH

MW

ML

SA F

U E

S

AC

DI

ZE

WV R

D S

K

RP L

PC

R

VI S

D

MS S

B

TA

JE

CY

RR H

C E

R

DU

UB

LP

IP R

S H

Waiver Issues RenewalDeferralUCC IssuesMedicaid DSHNursing Facility MPA (UPL)NAIPPayment reforms (VBP, etc)

EM

ID

AC

DI

M

NA I

Y

RU O

L

ES

I

RT G

O

M

NP E

C

EM R

L

YJ S

P

ID S

B

OH

MW

ML

SA F

U E

S

AC

DI

ZE

WV R

D S

K

RP L

PC

R

VI S

D

MS S

B

TA

JE

CY

RR H

C E

R

DU

UB

LP

IP R

S H

Waiver Renewal – DSRIPCMS

Streamline this process Prototype projects for regions More realistic valuations

Rural Providers Minimum allocations Meaningful RURAL projects in the prototypes

Waiver Renewal – UCCCMS does not like UCCFlorida is a case study for our renewal

CMS back at the table for FloridaCMS is pushing “expansion”, but this is

DOAIssues are not realisticEven with expansion we would have

significant UCC, so we must renew UCCFlorida is getting renewal of their UCC

(LIP)

Waiver Renewal - UCC

AlternativesRural Providers have close to cost on

traditional, and if the riders pass there is very little UCC for Medicaid. Its all about the uninsured.

Alternatives such as a provider assessment, provider taxes, local provider fees will not provide funds for rural providers, as this just increases the Medicaid payments.

Funding MechanicsThe deferral was caused by CMS letter to

State Medicaid Directors TX position - Cannot legislate or rule make by

memo or letter Established this method at the inception of

the waiverWill it Continue

The lawyers feel that Texas is legal, and that the use of a memo to change federal law is not applicable.

A state wide provider tax is DOA

M

NA I

Y

RU O

L

ES

I

RT G

O

M

NP E

C

EM R

L

YJ S

P

ID S

B

OH

MW

ML

SA F

U E

S

AC

DI

ZE

WV R

D S

K

RP L

PC

R

VI S

D

MS S

B

TA

JE

CY

RR H

C E

R

DU

UB

LP

IP R

S H

Funding Time Frames last of 2014

UC IGT due June 5th. Their will be a commitment date before

May 6th – 15th

UC paid June 30, 2015Rural hospitals are not considered

“Transferring” Even though you IGT.

Speeding up the process for 2015

Request participation in May 2015 for 2015Tools in June 2015

Increasing the prepopulated data including cost reports should help, as long as there are not too many errors.

Local Provider FeesLocal provider fee through the County South Texas did in 2013 – Funded $160M

in UCC2015 bills – Waco, Temple, Beaumont,

Bryan/College Station, Texarkana, Longview, possible for Tyler.

Will fund $476M in UCC if all bills enacted $316M is new to program This will cause more stress on the system

Some markets will be disrupted RHP 1 & 16 will have the greatest impact

HaircutsIn 2013 this was 21.6% for those with fully funding IGT.In 2014 (DY3), with no other changes other than the base decreasing this would be 31.6% The win last year was to exempt Rider 38 hospitals from most of the cuts, projected haircut as follows:

DY3 9.4%DY4 14.2%DY5 20.5%

Rider 38 Hospitals

Hospitals in counties less than 60,000 in 2010

Sole Community HospitalsRural Referral HospitalsCritical Access Hospitals

Other HaircutsOther Haircuts are very difficult to estimate, with the new pool system. Based on PY commitment levels, this is about 15%, but estimates are up to 25%With LPPF, this would increase about an additional 10% in DY4, plus the overall reduction in the UCC pool. The Private programs will have the most impact. Possible rolling back in 2015 about 15% of all community benefits.

M

NA I

Y

RU O

L

ES

I

RT G

O

M

NP E

C

EM R

L

YJ S

P

ID S

B

OH

MW

ML

SA F

U E

S

AC

DI

ZE

WV R

D S

K

RP L

PC

R

VI S

D

MS S

B

TA

JE

CY

RR H

C E

R

DU

UB

LP

IP R

S H

DSH 2015 application date is the same as the UC tool – May 2015 for requesting the tool.

DSH 2014 IGT date May 4th, 2015 Payment date is May 29th, 2015 Everything is pending the IGT.

Two are resisting an IGT, but other 6 have committed to take their share

How could a District forego $20M+ net for principle?

SD

H

DSH rules are already published Still issues with the transferring IGT. State GR for future years is (pick one)

Nonexistent Iffy Reduced Certain

There is a better way to handle this

SD

H

If we look at the effect of GR on the DSH program , the GR has about $300M net impact. Rural is about $12-13M benefit The Outpatient and inpatient Rider is about

$80M. The impact of $300M in GR for a

supplemental MCO payment is $700M+

Rates are better than DSH GR

SD

H

Rural DSH issues IGT will be on 50% of the amount, due to

State GR in 2014 Future amounts will be based on 100% IGT,

due to no State GR. Pass 3 will play a small part in future years

($30M) in total funding, with about half going to non rural public hospitals.

Will help on the UCC haircuts

SD

H

Will need to revise DSH estimates if Rider on Outpatient passes

The rider will decrease UCC cost & DSH capacity

Reducing haircut You will get more overall money, but

much of it will come in the way of claim payments

SD

H

M

NA I

Y

RU O

L

ES

I

RT G

O

M

NP E

C

EM R

L

YJ S

P

ID S

B

OH

MW

ML

SA F

U E

S

AC

DI

ZE

WV R

D S

K

RP L

PC

R

VI S

D

MS S

B

TA

JE

CY

RR H

C E

R

DU

UB

LP

IP R

S H

HHSC has changed the name to Minimum Payment Amount Program(MPAP)

New program goes through the Managed Care Organizations (MCO’s)

Closed program for now, but needs to be looked at for beyond 2016

Need to rewrite the rules for the future

HN

UL

P

Future program will have an emphasis on quality programs

Probably HHSC proscriptive projects and managed by MCO’s

Also need to solve some funding problems

MCO’s have identified many issues and are willing to help fix them

HN

UL

P

IGT’s were based on data from 2013-14 through April of 2014

Due to reductions in nursing home admissions, the MCO’s will probably make a profit on this process, which is one of the issues the MCO’s seem willing to mitigate

IGT funding requirements and timing on MPAP payments are disruptive to cash flows

HN

UL

P

The overall NH census has been reducing about 1-3% per year in most regions, before managed care.

The managed care companies want to decrease utilization and have case workers actively working to reduce census

HN

UL

P

Census in 2014

Annual Estimated MPAIGT @.4195

Actual Census Actual PaymentVariance

A 50 2,190,000 918,705 50 2,190,000 - B 70 3,066,000 1,286,187 68 2,978,400 (87,600)

C 60 2,628,000 1,102,446 62 2,715,600 87,600

D 90 3,942,000 1,653,669 87 3,810,600 (131,400)

E 40 1,752,000 734,964 37 1,620,600 (131,400)

D 85 3,723,000 1,561,799 84 3,679,200 (43,800)

395

17,301,000 7,257,770 388 16,994,400

(306,600)

Minimum Payment Amount Scenario in a Declining Census Model

(Impacts Nursing Facility MPAP Payments but does not impact MCO Rate Enhancements for MPAP)

So what happens to that $306,6oo in the example?

That becomes MCO profit. The real number when extrapolated and

without the MCO’s reducing any census is about $9M that will not be realized based on these assumptions.

If they are successful in reduction of residents that number grows…

HN

UL

P

We have met with TORCH, Kevin Reed, Kevin Nolting and Billy Millwee (who represents the MCO’s)

The MCO’s are agreeable to a solution where they will distribute the profit, as long as MCO can mitigate any losses.

If MCO has risk for losses, the whole process may have bigger issues

HN

UL

P

Census in

2014

Annual Estimated

MPAIGT @.4195

Actual Censu

sActual

PaymentCorrect IGT Variance

A 50 2,190,000

918,705 50

2,190,000

918,705

-

B 70 3,066,000

1,286,187 68

2,978,400

1,249,439

(36,748)

C 60 2,628,000

1,102,446 62

2,715,600

1,139,194

36,748

D 90 3,942,000

1,653,669 87

3,810,600

1,598,547

(55,122)

E 40 1,752,000

734,964 37

1,620,600

679,842

(55,122)

D 85 3,723,000

1,561,799 84

3,679,200

1,543,424

(18,374)

395

17,301,000

7,257,770 388

16,994,400

7,129,151

(128,619)

Also need to solve a fairness of IGT issue. The IGT is based on historical data and this may require an adjustment to align with actual data.

Program would be jointly administrated by TORCH and TAHP (MCO Association)

Cost should be minimal, and should more than be covered by profits from MCO profit distribution.

HN

UL

P

MCO’s are also willing to make a prospective supplemental payment, to assist in the cash flow.

Pay enough additional money on a quarterly basis to solve cash flow issues

All public providers need to participate This is very similar to other programs in

other states using MCO arrangements

HN

UL

P

New Program – NAIPNetwork Access Improvement ProgramMini DSRIP program –less bureaucracyYear by Year program – Not long term

projectsWe are working on a few projects

School TeleMed TeleNICU™ through Dallas Children's

More to come on this in the coming months

EM

ID

AC

DI

Rates & Value Based PurchasingVBP is the buzzword for payment reform

Non Emergent ED was a bad one, that hopefully TORCH can get eliminated

Very difficult to use VBP where the hospital has no real control over the care.

It is continuing and will grow to make up most of your payment programsEAPG are still being pushed for the MCO.

We need the rural rider on outpatient!!!

EM

ID

AC

DI

TelehealthThis has boomed in the last few yearsUrban to rural is a traditional focus

Needs sustainability, not just referral basedPossible new programs

TeleNICUSchoolsNursing HomesTeleED and after hours clinics– Lots of

potential savings.

Medicare IssuesEHR payments and missing MCO data No Shadow bill = No payment

CAH Swing Bed Utilization requires MCO for advantage plans be included in total. Will dilute SB reimbursement Make sure advantage is paying swing bed

rates

Low Volume Group Appeal We have one based on using actual

utilization, not two year old data Average is $100K per provider

Medicare Legislation - PendingExtension of Low-Volume Hospital Adjustment

Extension of Medicare Dependent Hospitals

program

Extension of Therapy Cap Exceptions Process

Enforcement delay of Two-Midnight Policy

Medicare Ambulance Add-on Payments – Extends

the add-on payment for ground ambulance

services, including in super rural areas

Medicare Home Health Rural 3% Add-On

Questions