MEDICAID MANAGED CARE
|
|
- Bridget Melton
- 8 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network th Street, NW Suite 300 Washington, DC Sylvia Burwell Secretary Department of Health and Human Services Attention: CMS-2390-P Room 445-G Hubert H. Humphrey Building 200 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, D.C Re: Medicaid and Children s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Programs; Medicaid Managed Care, CHIP Delivered in Managed Care, Medicaid and CHIP Comprehensive Quality Strategies, and Revisions Related to Third Party Liability; Proposed Rules 80 Fed. Reg (June 1, 2015) Dear Secretary Burwell: The American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACS CAN) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule implementing changes to the Medicaid Managed Care and Children s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Comprehensive Quality Strategies. ACS CAN, the nonprofit, nonpartisan advocacy affiliate of the American Cancer Society, supports evidence-based policy and legislative solutions designed to eliminate cancer as a major health problem. As the nation s leading advocate for public policies that are helping to defeat cancer, ACS CAN ensures that cancer patients, survivors, and their families have a voice in public policy matters at all levels of government. ACS CAN commends CMS for recognizing the importance of ensuring that Medicaid delivers better quality care to the millions of lower income Americans who rely on the program. If done well, managed care has the potential to encourage seamless care, foster integration across sites of care and collaboration among providers, and utilize technology in ways that help to improve care. Central to the success of managed care in Medicaid is the systematic measurement of success. Only by measuring how well Medicaid plans actually deliver on their promise of better coordinated care will CMS be able to ensure more patient-centered care for Medicaid enrollees. I. MEDICAID MANAGED CARE B. Provisions of the Proposed Regulations 1. Alignment with Other Health Coverage Programs a. Marketing ( ) CMS proposes to amend the definition of marketing. Under the proposal, a qualified health plan (QHP) would be permitted to communication and/or engage in marketing to a Medicaid enrollee even if the QHP also is the entity providing Medicaid managed care plan.
2 Page 2 ACS CAN urges CMS to prohibit a QHP issuer from engaging in marketing activities with a Medicaid managed care enrollee or potential enrollee. We are concerned that by allowing such communication to fall outside the scope of marketing materials, it also falls outside the scope of CMS review. Thus, there would be little to no oversight on the content of the information being provided to Medicaid managed care enrollees. This could result in confusion on the part of Medicaid managed care enrollees who may not be made fully aware of their opportunity to choose a different Medicaid managed care plan. We urge CMS to clarify that any marketing materials directed at a Medicaid enrollee or potential enrollee even those produced by issuers of qualified health plans be subject to the marketing activities provisions of the proposed rule. b. Appeals and Grievances ( , etc.) (3) General Requirements ( ) Level of review: CMS proposes to limit Managed Care Organization (MCO), Pre-paid Inpatient Health Plan (PIHP), and Pre-paid Ambulatory Health Plan (PAHP) to only one level of appeal for enrollees before beneficiaries exhaust the managed care plan s internal appeals process. After a beneficiary exhausts the internal appeals process, the beneficiary would be able to request a state fair hearing (SFH). ACS CAN supports this proposal. Many cancer patients must utilize a plan s appeals process in order to obtain access to products and services necessary for their cancer treatment. Minimizing the levels of a plan s internal review process will allow a patient more timely access to an external reviewer who can independently evaluate the validity of the patient s appeal. Timing of grievances and appeals: CMS proposes to require uniform rules across all states with respect to the timing of filing a grievance or appeal. Currently states are permitted to set a timeframe between 20 and 90 days for an enrollee to file an appeal. CMS proposes to allow grievances to be filed at any time and for appeals to be filed within 60 calendar dates of the receipt of the notice of adverse benefit determination. This timeframe is consistent with Medicare Advantage (MA) and private health plan rules. ACS CAN supports this proposal. We believe the proposed appeals timeframes will help ensure consistency across all states. We also support CMS proposal to establish appeals timeframes consistent with MA and private health plan rules. This consistency will help minimize confusion as an enrollee transitions into and out of the Medicaid program. Electronic access: CMS also requests comment on the extent to which states and managed care plans currently are using or plan to implement an on-line system that can be assessed by enrollees for filing and/or status updates for grievances and appeals. ACS CAN supports the use of electronic access to systems, which has the potential to improve enrollee information and reduce plan administrative costs. However, we are concerned that CMS also should permit an enrollee to file an appeal and/or grievance and check status updates through non-electronic means as well. Many Medicaid beneficiaries do not have 24/7 Internet access.
3 Page 3 (4) Timely and Adequate Notice of Adverse Benefit Determination ( ) CMS proposes to add a requirement that a plan must notify the enrollee of the reason for the plan s adverse determination. In addition, CMS proposes that the enrollee must be provided upon request and free of charge, reasonable access to and copies of all documents, records, and other information relevant to the enrollee s claim for benefits. ACS CAN supports this proposal. Many cancer patients must utilize a plan s appeals process in order to obtain access to products and services that may be necessary to treat their cancer, particularly in cases where the cancer may be rare or in an advanced state. Allowing the enrollee notice of reason for an adverse determination will help the enrollee as she works through the appeals process, if necessary. (5) Handling of Grievances and Appeals ( ) CMS proposes to require MCOs, PIHPs, or PAHPs to send an acknowledgement receipt for each appeal. These entities also would have to ensure that individuals making decisions were not involved in any previous level of review or decision making (including a requirement that decision-makers cannot be subordinates of those involved in the previous levels of review or decision-making) and have the appropriate clinical expertise. CMS also added a requirement that decision makers must take into account all comments, documents, records, and other information submitted by the enrollee or their representative, regardless of whether such information was submitted or considered in the initial determination. ACS CAN supports these proposed changes, which we believe will help to ensure that an enrollee is provided a fair and impartial review of his grievance or appeal. (6) Resolution and Notification: Grievances and Appeals ( and (f)) Timeframe: Currently MCOs and PIHPs have up to 45 days to make a standard (non-expedited appeal). CMS proposes to shorten the timeframe to 30 days in which MCOs, PIHPs, and PAHPs would have to make a decision about an enrollee appeal. In addition, CMS proposes to modify its expedited appeals decision timeframe from 3 working days to 72 hours. ACS CAN supports these proposed timeframes. Reducing timeframes by which the plan must act on an enrollee s request for appeal will help ensure that the enrollee can obtain more timely access to a necessary product or service. Extension: Currently CMS allows the appeal timeframes to be extended by up to 14 days at the enrollee s request or at the plan s request provided that the additional information needed during the delay is in the best interest of the enrollee. When the request for an extension is not requested by the enrollee, CMS proposes to require plans to make reasonable efforts to provide the enrollee prompt oral notice and written notice within 2 calendar days. CMS also proposes new standards that would require the appeal to be resolved as expeditiously as the enrollee s health condition requires and no later than the date that the extension expires. ACS CAN supports the proposal to allow an enrollee to request an extension of the appeals timeframe. However, we are concerned that CMS proposal to allow a plan to extend the appeal timeframe needs additional clarification. As currently written, this proposal could be broadly construed to the benefit of
4 Page 4 the plan, and to the detriment of the enrollee who will face a delay in receiving access to the product or service that is the subject of the appeal. c. Medical Loss Ratio ( 438.4, 438.5, 438.8, and ) CMS proposes to implement a medical loss ratio (MLR) standard of at least 85 percent for the rate year beginning January 1, In the preamble, CMS notes that the goal of developing the MLR standards is to be consistent with the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) model and federal regulations pertaining to private market and Medicare Advantage plans. ACS CAN supports CMS proposal. MLR is a powerful tool for assessing the value of actuarially sound premiums, provides consistency in insurance regulation, and ensures transparency and accountability. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, a majority of states have average Medicaid managed care MLRs at 85 percent or higher. 1 CMS proposes to include in the MLR numerator activities that improve health care quality. ACS CAN supports CMS proposal, which we believe will help to ensure that plans are incentivized to engage in activities that improve health care quality. We encourage CMS to enumerate specific activities such as care coordination, case management, and non-emergency medical transportation services within the text of the regulation ( 438.8(e)(3)). 2. Standard Contract Provisions ( 438.3, 438.6) Coverage of outpatient drugs: CMS proposes to add a new section that would apply certain rules to MCOs, PIHPs, and PAHPs regarding coverage of covered outpatient drugs that currently apply only to fee-for-service drug coverage. Among other changes, the requirements are intended to ensure that if a drug is not included in a plan s formulary, the drug can be made available to an enrollee under a prior authorization process. ACS CAN supports CMS proposal, which we believe will help to ensure that enrollees have access to prescription drugs that may not be included on a plan s formulary. However, we note the regulations do not provide a minimum formulary requirement. We urge CMS to establish such requirements in order to ensure that enrollees have access to prescription drugs that best meets their needs, thus precluding the need for an individual to access the prior authorization process. Prior authorization timeframe: CMS clarifies the prior authorization requirements, stating that plans are required to provide a response to a request for prior authorization for a covered outpatient drug within 24 hours of the request and dispense a 72 hour supply of the drug in emergency situations. ACS CAN applauds CMS for including this requirement, which we believe provides an important consumer protection. Individuals undergoing cancer treatment often need timely access to prescription drugs and a delay could negatively impact a patient s prognosis. 1 Kaiser Family Foundation found that 28 out of the 36 states for which information was available had an average Medicaid managed care MLR of at least 85 percent. Julia Paradise, Key Findings on Medicaid Managed Care: Highlights from the Medicaid Managed Care Market Tracker, Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured (Dec. 2014), available at
5 Page 5 5. Beneficiary Protections a. Enrollment ( ) Voluntary and mandatory managed care programs: For both voluntary and mandatory managed care programs, CMS proposes that states provide at least 14 days of fee-for-service coverage for potential enrollees to choose a managed care plan. ACS CAN appreciates CMS clarification that individuals receive fee-for-service coverage while they choose their managed care plan. We are concerned, however, that the 14-day requirement provides insufficient time in which an individual can meaningfully make a choice of managed care plans. Individuals need time to review their coverage options. We note that the health insurance marketplace and the Medicare programs provide a significantly longer timeframe in which enrollees can choose a plan. We strongly urge CMS to adopt a 45-day election period, during which the enrollee will receive fee-for-service coverage. Enrollment information: In an effort to provide all beneficiaries with information, education, and the opportunity to choose their plan, CMS proposes to require states to develop informational notices that clearly explain the impact of failing to choose a plan (default enrollment). ACS CAN supports CMS proposal. With respect to default enrollment, we urge CMS to require that states take into account any existing provider relationships the enrollee may have, paying particular attention to any specialists or subspecialists who provide care to the enrollee. For example, if an enrollee were currently undergoing cancer treatment, switching oncologists could result in delayed treatment and could be harmful to the individual. b. Disenrollment Standards and Limitations ( ) 90-day disenrollment: CMS proposes to change the disenrollment rules to limit disenrollment without cause to the first 90 days of the enrollee s initial enrollment. Currently, enrollees are permitted to disenroll from a plan every 90 days until potentially all managed care options are exhausted. ACS CAN opposes this proposal. An enrollee may choose to switch plans for a variety of reasons (e.g., providers may not be accessible via public transportation, the enrollee may wish to see a provider that is not included in a plan s network, etc.). Allowing enrollees only one 90-day period in which to switch to a different plan takes away an enrollee s opportunity to utilize a plan that best meets the enrollee s needs. For example, an enrollee may experience a cancer diagnosis 120 days after enrollment and it may be in her best interest to switch to a different plan that provides better coverage for cancer treatments. In such instances, disallowing the individual the opportunity to switch plans may negatively impact the individual s long-term prognosis. Disenrollment by the managed care entity: CMS would prohibit an MCO, PIHP, PAHP, and PCCM from requesting that an enrollee be disenrolled because of an adverse change in the enrollee s health status (b)(2). However, CMS would provide an exception when the enrollee s continued enrollment in the MCO, PIHP, PAHP, [Primary Care Case Manager (PCCM)], or PCCM entity seriously impairs the entity s ability to furnish services to either this particular enrollee or other enrollees. Id. ACS CAN is concerned this language could be used to discriminate against certain enrollees, particularly high-cost enrollees, such as individuals with cancer. Rather than permitting plans to involuntarily
6 Page 6 disenroll an enrollee, we urge CMS to create safeguards that would permit the enrollee to obtain access to medically necessary products and services. Cause for disenrollment: CMS proposes limited causes that would permit an enrollee to request disenrollment in a managed care plan. Specifically, CMS proposes that for enrollees who use Managed Long-Term Services and Supports (MLTSS) services, an enrollee would meet the disenrollment cause requirement if the enrollee would have to change their residential, institutional, or employment supports provider based on that provider s change in status from an in-network to an out-of-network provider with the MCO, PIHP, or PAHP (d)(2)(iv). ACS CAN supports this proposal and strongly encourages CMS to expand this requirement beyond individuals who use MLTSS services. Cancer patients often need access to specialized providers and when those providers are no longer in the network, the patient will likely experience a gap in care which can negatively impact a cancer patient s prognosis. c. Beneficiary Support System ( ) CMS proposes to require that states develop and implement a beneficiary support system for enrollees. This system would provide choice counseling and assistance for enrollees in understanding managed care and for those who have expressed an interest in Long-Term Services and Supports (LTSS). ACS CAN applauds CMS requiring states to create a beneficiary support system. However, we note that many individuals with chronic care needs use a caregiver. We strongly urge CMS to require that caregivers are included in the beneficiary support system. We note that (e) provides functions specific to LTSS activities. Many of these requirements also would benefit individuals with chronic care needs and/or who are undergoing specialized treatments such as cancer. Thus, we strongly encourage CMS to expand this section to include other enrollees who may benefit. We are concerned, however, that the proposed rule fails to provide sufficient detail regarding what plans should be required to provide as part of the beneficiary support system. We urge CMS to require plans to provide care coordination and patient navigation services. Currently, many patient navigation services are covered only with a Medicaid 1115 waiver. We urge CMS to require plans to include patient navigation services as part of the care management benefit. Care coordination allows for deliberate organizing of patient care, ensuring that the patients needs are communicated at the appropriate time and to the appropriate person which in turn allows for safer and more effective care. 2 Those features make care coordination extremely important throughout the cancer care continuum. The inclusion of coordinating services between care setting and ensuring discharge planning for short, as well as, long term care is not only more efficient, but cost effective. Readmissions are often caused by the lack of coordination, costing Medicaid $7.6 billion in A lack of care coordination for cancer patients has been shown to result in lower quality of care for cancer 2 Care Coordination. May Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. 3 Hines A, Barret M, Jiang J, and Steiner, C. April Conditions With the Largest Number of Adult Hospital Readmissions by Payer, HCUP Statistical Brief #172. April Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD.
7 Page 7 patients. 4 Better coordination between providers and more seamless transitions of care would save Medicaid dollars and provide cancer enrollees a more coordinated process. Care coordination works in concert with patient navigation. Patient navigator services should include the delivery of current and customized diagnosis and treatment information that ensures patient understanding and informs decision making; the connection of patients to useful and available community services; consistent support and monitoring of care plans; and, an overall determination of the needed services to be used to remove barriers to care including transportation, lodging, health insurance, cultural, and language barriers. Providing for a new enrollee s needs assessment within 90 days of enrollment would be an integral step in the right direction to address cancer associated issues. This opportunity will allow CMS to identify conditions that when left uncontrolled cause a negative impact on health, as well as increases overall cost. Knowledge gained through the new enrollee s needs assessment can allow for targeted and early intervention. In cancer this is extremely relevant due to the risk posed by other comorbidities, such as diabetes and heart disease. Medicaid enrollees often experience challenges affecting their health and ability to navigate the health care system. 5 Gaps in coverage, literacy level, cultural and communication barriers, deficiencies in transportation, unstable housing, insecure employment, and low socioeconomic status all contribute to poorer outcomes. For these reasons, ensuring focus on care coordination that is broader in scope than primary care is imperative. This is especially relevant throughout the cancer care continuum, as cancer patients and their families face a number of not only medical, but social and economic challenges. To treat the whole patient, Medicaid will have to go beyond physical health. Care coordination will have to encompass services from multiple social support and community providers, addressing behavioral and psychosocial needs to bridge gaps in care. e. Continued Services to Beneficiaries and Coordination and Continuity of Care ( , ) CMS proposes to add specific requirements to ensure that enrollees have access to services during transition between plans. The proposed rule would apply continuity of care coverage during a transition from FFS to a MCO, PIHP, PAHP, PCCM or PCCM entity or transition from one MCO, PIHP, PAHP, PCCM or PCCM entity to another when an enrollee, in the absence of continued services, would suffer serious detriment to their health or be at risk of hospitalization or institutionalization (b). ACS CAN supports this proposal and we encourage CMS to broaden this continuity of care provision to also include instances where an individual transitions into the Medicaid program and when an individual transitions from an MCO, PIHP, PCCM or PCCM entity into FFS. We also urge CMS to ensure that continuity of care provisions are broadened to include instances when a provider particularly a specialist like an oncologist leaves the plan s network. 4 Bowles EJA, Tuzzio L, Wiese CJ, et al. Understanding High-Quality Cancer Care: A Summary of Expert Perspectives. Cancer, 2008; 112(4): Hospital Guide to Reducing Medicaid Readmissions: Why Focus on Medicaid Readmissions?. August Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD.
8 Page 8 We note CMS proposal would extend only to instances where the enrollee would suffer serious detriment to their health or be at risk of hospitalization or institutionalization. We believe this language would not cover all instances in which continuity of care may be appropriate. We urge CMS to consider revising the standard to instances where discontinuing care by that physician or health care provider would worsen the condition and interfere with anticipated outcomes. We also urge CMS to broaden this definition to allow individuals who are undergoing a course of treatment for a serious acute condition to continue to receive care from their initial providers. A serious acute condition would include a disease or condition requiring complex on-going care which the covered person is currently receiving, post-op visit by the surgeon preforming the surgery, such as chemotherapy or radiation therapy. We are concerned with the proposed language requiring plans only to provide a best effort to conduct an initial assessment of each enrollee s needs. We urge CMS to strengthen this language to require plans to conduct the assessment not just make a best effort to do so. Finally, we urge CMS to clarify that an individual who transitions between plans is not subject to additional prior authorization and/or step therapy requirements simply because the individual transitioned into the plan. Such requirements can create barriers to care during these periods of transition. 6. Modernize Regulatory Requirements a. Availability of Services, Assurances of Adequate Capacity of Services, and Network Adequacy Standards ( , , , ) CMS proposes to establish standards for states to follow to develop Medicaid managed care network adequacy standards that address medical services, behavioral health services, and long term services and supports. ACS CAN strongly supports CMS addition of these new provisions. Timely access: We note the proposed rule does not include requirements imposing limits on the maximum time an enrollee must wait to see a provider (b)(3). For some conditions, like cancer, a delay in accessing a provider can negatively impact an individual s treatment options and/or prognosis. We urge CMS to establish requirements to ensure that an enrollee s wait time to see an innetwork provider does not impede the enrollee s access to care. If a plan is unable to provide the enrollee with access to an in-network provider within a timely manner, then the enrollee should be permitted to access an out-of-network provider who is located geographically proximate to the enrollee. CMS also should consider adding requirements that the state perform periodic assessment of wait times. Access to out-of-network providers: CMS proposes to require that plans allow an enrollee to obtain services from an out-of-network provider when necessary services are not available from in-network providers (b). ACS CAN supports CMS proposal. Individuals with cancer need access to specialized services, which may require the enrollee to seek care from an out-of-network provider, particularly if the cancer requires access to subspecialists. We urge CMS to clarify that in cases where an enrollee needs to access services from a provider who is not within the plan s network, the plan will arrange for the enrollee to receive care from a geographically proximate provider with the specialized expertise necessary to treat the enrollee s condition.
9 Page 9 b. Quality of Care Accreditation: CMS proposes to a requirement that as a condition of contacting with the state, MCOs, PIHPs, and PAHPs must undergo a review of the basis of performance in accordance with standards as least as stringent as those used by private accreditation entities approves or recognized by CMS. ACS CAN supports CMS commitment to ensure that managed care plans are held accountable for the quality of care they provide to their enrollees. However, we are concerned that under the proposal, states could require plans to be held to only certain reporting requirements, which could result in inconsistent reporting across plans. We urge CMS to permit states to accept the accreditation standards used by private accreditation entities in their entirety, as required for Marketplace plans. Star rating system: CMS proposes to create a star rating system for Medicaid managed care plans, similar to the system used in the marketplace. All consumers regardless of their source of insurance coverage need clear, concise and reliable information so that they can make the appropriate choice of a plan that best meets their needs. We commend CMS for its goal of greater quality transparency. We agree with your assessment that a star system similar to that used in the market place makes sense as it provides a more seamless approach for those consumers who move into Medicaid from the marketplace. At the same time we would caution CMS that a poorly designed quality rating system could actually do more harm than good not providing beneficiaries with accurate and timely information that could lead them to choose the wrong plan. This would create distrust in the system. We strongly urge CMS to develop a star rating system with considerable input from the consumer community. The listening sessions outlined in the draft rule are one tool. We urge CMS also to create a consumer advisory committee that can provide input throughout the development of the system. d. Information Standards ( ) CMS proposes a number of requirements related to the information that is made available to current and potential enrollees in Medicaid managed care plans. Limited English proficiency: It is well documented that limited language proficiency creates barriers to accessing care. The proposed rule would define the term prevalent to mean a non-english language determined to be spoken by a significant number or percentage of potential enrollees and enrollees that are limited English proficient and consistent with the Office for Civil Rights in enforcing antidiscrimination provisions (a). We strongly urge CMS to clarify the terms significant number or percentage to mean the lesser of 1,000 individuals or 5 percent of the population in the managed care plan s service area. Provider contract termination: CMS proposes to require MCOs, PIHPs, PAHPs, and PCCM entities to make a good faith effort to give written notice of termination of a contracted provider within 15 days of the termination of the contract, to each enrollee who received his primary care from, or was seen on a regular basis by, the terminating provider (f)(1). We are concerned that the proposed rule fails to provide sufficient clarity regarding what is meant by the term seen on a regular basis by. We urge CMS to provide additional information. Following successful cancer treatment, a cancer survivor must have periodic appointments with her oncologist. We are concerned that, under the proposed rule, a cancer survivor may not be made aware
10 Page 10 if her oncologist were to terminate a contract with the plan. Thus, we urge CMS to ensure that individuals who received specialized services such as cancer care receive notice when their specialist leaves the plan s network. When a specialist leaves the plan s network, CMS should require the plan to provide notice to enrollees who have seen the specialist within the past three years. This notice also should inform the enrollee of in-network providers who are accepting new patients. Provider directories: We are pleased CMS is requiring plans to provide specific information regarding provider directories. We note that some providers may have multiple office locations and appreciate CMS requirement that the directory note a provider s locations, if applicable. We also support CMS proposal to require that the directory note whether the provider is accepting new patients. In some instances, providers with multiple locations only may accept new patients at one location and not at all locations. Thus, we urge CMS to clarify that if a provider maintains multiple locations, she must note the extent to which she is accepting new patients at each of her facilities. Formulary information: CMS proposes to require MCOs, PIPHs, PAHPs, and PCCM entities to make available specific information about the plan s formulary. ACS CAN supports CMS proposal. We also urge CMS to require plans to note whether any drugs on the formulary may be subject to utilization management review edits (e.g., step therapy, prior authorization, etc.). Individuals with cancer often must take specific prescription drugs involved in the treatment of their cancers and may prefer a plan that imposes limited or no utilization management review edits on their specific drugs. CMS also should require plans to provide information to an enrollee regarding the process for obtaining medically necessary drugs that are not included in the plan s formulary. g. Non-Emergency Medicaid Transportation PAHPs ( 438.9) CMS proposes to limit the scope of standards that apply to non-emergency medical transportation (NEMT) PAHPs. ACS CAN is concerned with CMS proposed policy under which NEMT PAHPs would not be required to have a grievance system in place. We believe that individuals who utilize NEMT PAPH services should have access to a grievance process in order to register a compliant about the quality of services received. Cancer patients often utilize NEMT services to access cancer screenings, diagnostic, and treatment services. After receiving a cancer diagnosis, one of the most difficult challenges patients face is getting to and from treatment. Oncology practitioners often counsel cancer patients not to drive following treatment because chemotherapy leaves patients fatigued, and some of the medications administered along with chemotherapy tend to make patients drowsy and unable to drive themselves or use public transportation. In addition, many cancer patients particularly those with low or limited incomes do not own a vehicle, cannot afford public transportation, or do not live in an area where public transportation is readily accessible. Often patients do not have a family member or friend who is available to provide regular assistance with transportation. Individuals with cancer need regular access to care and cancer treatment services; when that access is disrupted as it could be when the individual lacks transportation to the health care service the effectiveness of the treatment could be jeopardized and the individual s chance of survival could be significantly reduced. NEMT is also used by individuals to obtain access to preventive services, such as cancer screenings. Early detection of cancer generally results in less expensive treatments and better health outcomes.
11 Page 11 Further, colorectal and cervical cancer screenings can prevent cancer by detecting and removing precancerous lesions. However, lack of transportation to screening services hinders an individual s ability to obtain the necessary screening and thus for some individuals could result in detection of cancer at a later stage. Conclusion On behalf of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network we thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule implementing changes to the Medicaid managed care program. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or have your staff contact Anna Schwamlein Howard, Policy Principal, Access and Quality of Care at Anna.Howard@cancer.org or Sincerely, Christopher W. Hansen President American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network
July 17, 2015. Submitted electronically to: www.regulations.gov
Andy Slavitt Acting Administrator Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Department of Health and Human Services Attention: CMS 2390 P P.O. Box 8016 Baltimore, MD 21244 8016 Submitted electronically
More informationWHAT HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS SHOULD KNOW ABOUT THE PROPOSED MEDICAID MANAGED CARE REGULATIONS RELEASED LAST WEEK
WHAT HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS SHOULD KNOW ABOUT THE PROPOSED MEDICAID MANAGED CARE REGULATIONS RELEASED LAST WEEK By Mark E. Reagan, Felicia Y Sze, Joseph R. LaMagna, Nina Adatia Marsden and Yanyan Zhou Basics:
More informationMedicaid and CHIP Managed Care Notice of Proposed rulemaking (CMS-2390-F): Overview of the NPRM. Centers for Medicaid & CHIP Services
Medicaid and CHIP Managed Care Notice of Proposed rulemaking (CMS-2390-F): Overview of the NPRM Centers for Medicaid & CHIP Services CMS-2390-P Notice of Propose Rulemaking (NPRM) Federal Register display
More informationJuly 27 th, 2015. Dear Acting Director Slavitt,
July 27 th, 2015 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Department of Health and Human Services Attn: CMS- 2390- P P.O. Box 8016 Baltimore, MD 21244-8016 Re: Proposed Rule for Medicaid and Children s
More informationModify the Institutions for Mental Disease (IMDs) exclusion for capitation payments
July 27, 2015 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Department of Health and Human Services Attention: CMS-2390-P 7500 Security Boulevard Baltimore, MD 21244 SUBMITTED ELECTRONICALLY Re: CMS-2390-P:
More informationCMS-14612-P Medicare Program; Medicare Shared Savings Program; Accountable Care Organizations Proposed Rule 79 Fed. Reg. 72760 (December 8, 2014)
American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network 555 11 th Street, NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 202.661.5700 www.acscan.org Marilyn Tavenner Administrator Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Department
More informationProposed Medicaid Managed Care Regulations: Guide to Implications for the Aging and Disability Network
Proposed Medicaid Managed Care Regulations: Guide to Implications for the Aging and Disability Network Introduction: For the first time in over a decade, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
More informationSome Significant Changes Come To Medicaid Managed Care
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Some Significant Changes Come To Medicaid Managed
More informationJuly 27, 2015. Dear Acting Administrator Slavitt:
Andrew M. Slavitt Acting Administrator Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Hubert H. Humphrey Building, Room 445 G 200 Independence Avenue, SW Washington,
More informationMedicaid Managed Care Things Just Got Tougher for the MCOs
Medicaid Managed Care Things Just Got Tougher for the MCOs Jud DeLoss & Laura Ashpole September 10, 2015 AGENDA 1. Background on Medicaid Managed Care 2. Applicable Federal Regulations & Impact 3. Parity
More informationshared with, and maintained by all providers and the MCO, PIHP, or PAHP that is coordinating the
CMS-2390-P 158 shared with, and maintained by all providers and the MCO, PIHP, or PAHP that is coordinating the care. Therefore, we propose to add standards in new paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)(5) that each
More informationOctober 3, 2011. Re: File code CMS-9989-P. Dear Director Larsen,
October 3, 2011 Steve Larsen Director, Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Department of Health and Human Services Hubert H. Humphrey Building,
More informationRE: Center for Medicaid and CHIP Services Revisions to Medicaid Managed Care Regulations
Cynthia Mann, J.D. Deputy Administrator Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Director Center for Medicaid and CHIP Services 7500 Security Boulevard Mail Stop: S2-26-12 Baltimore, MD 21244 RE: Center
More informationEQR PROTOCOL 1 ASSESSING MCO COMPLIANCE WITH MEDICAID AND CHIP MANAGED CARE REGULATIONS
EQR PROTOCOL 1 ASSESSING MCO COMPLIANCE WITH MEDICAID AND CHIP MANAGED CARE REGULATIONS Attachment D: The purpose of this Attachment to Protocol 1 is to provide the reviewer(s) with sample review questions
More informationHIV Health Care Access Working Group
July 27, 2015 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Department of Health and Human Services Attention: P.O. Box 8016 Baltimore, MD 21244-8016 Re: Medicaid and Children s Health Insurance Program (CHIP)
More informationOctober 31, 2011. Dear Dr. Berwick:
Donald Berwick, M.D., M.P.P. Administrator Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Hubert H. Humphrey Building 200 Independence Avenue, S.W. Room 445-G Washington, DC 20201 RE: CMS 9989 P; Patient Protection
More information1 Community Catalyst. Strengthening Long-Term Services and Supports. Retrieved from
Comments to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Re: Medicaid and CHIP Managed Care Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (CMS 2390-P) Submitted by Community Catalyst July 27, 2015 Community Catalyst respectfully
More informationMarch 2, 2015. Dear Ms. Borzi:
March 2, 2015 Phyllis C. Borzi, Assistant Secretary Employee Benefits Security Administration U.S. Department of Labor 200 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20210 RE: Summary of Benefits and Coverage
More informationSubmitted Electronically RE: CMS-1609-P: ISSUE # 1: Solicitation of Comments on Definitions of Terminal Illness and Related Conditions :
June 20, 2014 Submitted Electronically Ms. Marilyn B. Tavenner Administrator Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Department of Health and Human Services 200 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC
More informationComparison of Consumer Protections in Three Health Insurance Markets
REPORT Comparison of Consumer Protections in Three Health Insurance Markets March 2015 MEDICARE ADVANTAGE, QUALIFIED HEALTH PLANS AND MEDICAID MANAGED CARE ORGANIZATIONS Executive Summary... i Introduction...
More informationDecember 3, 2010. Dear Administrator Berwick:
Donald Berwick, M.D. Administrator Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Department of Health and Human Services Room 445-G, Hubert H. Humphrey Building 200 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20201
More informationOHIO CONSUMERS FOR HEALTH COVERAGE POLICY PRIORITIES FY 2012-13. Medicaid Make Improvements to Improve Care and Lower Costs
OHIO CONSUMERS FOR HEALTH COVERAGE POLICY PRIORITIES FY 2012-13 Ohio Consumers for Health Coverage supports robust implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) in Ohio, making
More informationFinal Rule on Essential Health Benefits, Actuarial Value, Accreditation. February 26, 2013
Final Rule on Essential Health Benefits, Actuarial Value, Accreditation February 26, 2013 Prepared by ACP s Health Policy and Regulatory Affairs Department On February 20, 2013, the Department of Health
More informationMay 7, 2012. Submitted Electronically
May 7, 2012 Submitted Electronically Secretary Kathleen Sebelius Department of Health and Human Services Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology Attention: 2014 edition EHR
More informationApril 12, 2011. CMS-9981-P Comments on Proposed Rules Relating to Student Health Insurance Coverage Under the Affordable Care Act
AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT April 12, 2011 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Department of Health and Human Services Hubert H. Humphrey Building 200 Independence Avenue,
More informationStrengthening Community Health Centers. Provides funds to build new and expand existing community health centers. Effective Fiscal Year 2011.
Implementation Timeline Reflecting the Affordable Care Act 2010 Access to Insurance for Uninsured Americans with a Pre-Existing Condition. Provides uninsured Americans with pre-existing conditions access
More informationApril 21, 2014. RE: File Code CMS-9949-P (Exchange and Insurance Market Standards for 2015 and Beyond) Dear Administrator Tavenner:
April 21, 2014 The Honorable Marilyn Tavenner Administrator Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ATTN: CMS-9949-P PO Box 8016 Baltimore, MD 21244-8016 RE:
More informationCMS PROPOSES NEW RULES FOR MANAGED MEDICAID
Health and Life Sciences BRIEF JULY 2015 CMS PROPOSES NEW RULES FOR MANAGED MEDICAID (HELLO, RED TAPE) AUTHORS Jim Fields, Partner Parie Garg, Principal Martin Graf, Partner On May 27, the Centers for
More informationTESTIMONY. on the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission s (MedPAC) June Report to the Congress
520 Eighth Avenue, North Wing, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10018 212.869.3850/Fax: 212.869.3532 TESTIMONY on the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission s (MedPAC) June Report to the Congress to the United States
More informationIowa Wellness Plan 1115 Waiver Application Final
11.1 Summary of Public Comment Iowa Wellness Plan 1115 Waiver Application Final The majority of the comments were generally supportive of the consensus reached to create two Iowa waiver proposals and expand
More informationHealth Care Reform Update January 2012 MG76120 0212 LILLY USA, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Health Care Reform Update January 2012 Disclaimer This presentation is for educational purposes only. It is not a complete analysis of the material contained herein. Before taking any action on the issues
More informationDepartment of Health and Human Services. Part II
Vol. 80 Monday, No. 104 June 1, 2015 Part II Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 42 CFR Parts 431, 433, 438, et al. Medicaid and Children s Health Insurance
More informationHealth Reform and the AAP: What the New Law Means for Children and Pediatricians
Health Reform and the AAP: What the New Law Means for Children and Pediatricians Throughout the health reform process, the American Academy of Pediatrics has focused on three fundamental priorities for
More information1900 K St. NW Washington, DC 20006 c/o McKenna Long
1900 K St. NW Washington, DC 20006 c/o McKenna Long Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services U. S. Department of Health and Human Services Attention CMS 1345 P P.O. Box 8013, Baltimore, MD 21244 8013 Re:
More informationDecember 18, 2015. Dear Mr. Slavitt:
Andrew M. Slavitt Acting Administrator Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Hubert H. Humphrey Building 200 Independence Avenue, S.W., Room 445-G Washington, DC 20201 RE: Proposed Rule: CMS-9937-P/RIN
More informationJanuary 3, 2012. RE: Comments submitted at http://www.regulations.gov.
January 3, 2012 RE: Comments submitted at http://www.regulations.gov. Marilyn Tavenner, Acting Administrator U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Attention:
More informationCMS Regulations re: Medicaid Managed Care
CMS Regulations re: Medicaid Managed Care July 16, 2015 Maureen M. Corcoran, President, Vorys Health Care Advisors Suzanne J. Scrutton, Partner, Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease Why & Why Now? Almost 50%
More informationNational Health Council
National Health Council 1730 M Street NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20036-4561 202-785-3910 www.nationalhealthcouncil.org info@nhcouncil.org BOARD OF DIRECTORS Chairperson Randy Beranek National Psoriasis
More informationApril 3, 2015. Re: Request for Comment: ONC Interoperability Roadmap. Dear Dr. DeSalvo:
Karen DeSalvo, M.D., M.P.H., M.Sc. Acting Assistant Secretary for Health National Coordinator for Health Information Technology U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 200 Independence Avenue, S.W.,
More informationADVANCING HIGHER EDUCATION IN NURSING
September 4, 2012 Submitted via www.regulations.gov Marilyn Tavenner Acting Administrator Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Department of Health and Human Services Attn: CMS 1590 P P.O. Box 8010
More informationCMS NEWS. October, 25, 2012 (202) 690-6145
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Room 352-G 200 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20201 CMS NEWS FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: CMS Media Relations October,
More informationMENTAL HEALTH PARITY AND ADDICTION EQUITY ACT RESOURCE GUIDE
MENTAL HEALTH PARITY AND ADDICTION EQUITY ACT RESOURCE GUIDE May 2014 THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND CAREY SCHOOL OF LAW DRUG POLICY AND PUBLIC HEALTH STRATEGIES CLINIC 2 PARITY ACT RESOURCE GUIDE TABLE OF
More informationArthritis Foundation Position Statement on Biosimilar Substitution
Arthritis Foundation Position Statement on Biosimilar Substitution The Affordable Care Act creates a regulatory pathway for the approval of a new generation of biologic medications called biosimilars.
More informationA Consumer Guide to Understanding Health Plan Networks
A Consumer Guide to Understanding Health Plan Networks Table of Contents steps you can take to understand your health plan s provider network pg 4 What a provider network is pg 8 Many people are now shopping
More informationPatient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009: Health Insurance Exchanges
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009: Health Insurance Exchanges Provision Notes Standards SUBTITLE D AVAILABLE COVERAGE CHOICES FOR ALL AMERICANS PART I Establishment of Qualified Health
More informationHow Health Reform Will Help Children with Mental Health Needs
How Health Reform Will Help Children with Mental Health Needs The new health care reform law, called the Affordable Care Act (or ACA), will give children who have mental health needs better access to the
More informationJanuary 30, 2012. RE: Essential Health Benefits Bulletin. Dear Secretary Sebelius:
The Honorable Kathleen Sebelius Secretary of Health and Human Services U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 200 Independence Ave SW Washington, DC 20201 RE: Essential Health Benefits Bulletin Dear
More informationRate-Setting and Actuarial Soundness
Cindy Mann Director, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Department of Health and Human Services P.O. Box 8016 Baltimore, MD 21244 8016 Dear Director Mann: On behalf of Medicaid Health Plans of America
More informationTransitioning Low-Income Children from a Separate Children s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) to Medicaid October 18, 2013
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 7500 Security Boulevard, Mail Stop S2-26-12 Baltimore, MD 21244-1850 Center for Medicaid and CHIP Services Transitioning
More information(RIN) 0906-AB08; 340-B
October, 2015 Ms. Krista Pedley Director, Office of Pharmacy Affairs (OPA) Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop 08W05A Rockville, Maryland 20857 Re: Regulatory
More informationNebraska Medicaid Managed Long-Term Services and Supports
Background A significant shift in the management and administration of Medicaid services has taken place over the past several years with the growth of managed care. Full-risk managed care is a health
More informationSeptember 25, 2014. Dear Ms. Mann:
September 25, 2014 Cindy Mann, Director Center for Medicaid and CHIP Services Department of Health and Human Services 200 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20001 Dear Ms. Mann: NAMD is pleased to
More informationUNIFORM HEALTH CARRIER EXTERNAL REVIEW MODEL ACT
Model Regulation Service April 2010 UNIFORM HEALTH CARRIER EXTERNAL REVIEW MODEL ACT Table of Contents Section 1. Title Section 2. Purpose and Intent Section 3. Definitions Section 4. Applicability and
More informationGAO MEDICARE ADVANTAGE. Relationship between Benefit Package Designs and Plans Average Beneficiary Health Status. Report to Congressional Requesters
GAO United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Requesters April 2010 MEDICARE ADVANTAGE Relationship between Benefit Package Designs and Plans Average Beneficiary Health Status
More informationSeptember 8, 2015. Dear Acting Administrator Slavitt:
September 8, 2015 Mr. Andrew Slavitt Acting Administrator Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 7500 Security Boulevard Baltimore, MD 21244 Re: CMS-5516-P;
More informationRe: Interim Final Rules Relating to Internal Claims and Appeals and External Review Processes (RIN-0991-AB70)
Office of Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight Department of Health and Human Services Room 445-G Hubert H. Humphrey Building 200 Independence Ave., SW Washington, DC 20201 Re: Interim Final Rules
More informationHealth Insurance Reform at a Glance Implementation Timeline
Health Insurance Reform at a Glance Implementation Timeline 2010 Access to Insurance for Uninsured Americans with a Pre-Existing Condition. Provides uninsured Americans with pre-existing conditions access
More informationANCOR Comments Medicaid Managed Care Regulations July 27, 2015
ANCOR Comments Medicaid Managed Care Regulations July 27, 2015 Andy Slavitt Acting Administrator Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Attention: CMS-2390-P
More informationA fter much-anticipation, the Health Resources and
BNA s Health Care Policy Report Reproduced with permission from BNA s Health Care Policy Report, 23 HCPR 1420, 09/21/2015. Copyright 2015 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033) http://www.bna.com
More informationCenter for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation Request for Information on Health Plan Innovation Initiatives at CMS
Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation Request for Information on Health Plan Innovation Initiatives at CMS Agency/Office: Type of Notice: Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Medicare
More informationWhat this means for Idaho?
What this means for Idaho? Why now? The 2011 Idaho Legislature approved the Medicaid Cost Containment and Health Care Improvement Act : The current fee-for-service health care delivery system of payment
More informationLong-Term and Post-Acute Care Financing Reform Proposal
Long-Term and Post-Acute Care Financing Reform Proposal Section 1: Reforming and Rationalizing Medicare Post-Acute Care Benefits Overview. The proposal will reform and rationalize Medicare post-acute care
More informationRE: CMS-1416-P, Medicare Program; Medicare Shared Savings Program; Accountable Care Organizations; Proposed Rule
Marilynn B. Tavenner Administrator Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Hubert H. Humphrey Building, Room 445-G 200 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC
More informationSenate-Passed Bill (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act H.R. 3590)**
Prevention and Screening Services Cost-sharing Eliminates cost sharing requirements for requirements for all preventive services (including prevention and colorectal cancer screening) that have a screening
More informationJuly 27, 2015. Dear Acting Administrator Slavitt:
Acting Administrator Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Department of Health and Human Services Attention: CMS-2390-P P.O. Box 8106 Baltimore, MD 21244-8016 Re: Proposed Rule for Medicaid and Children
More informationVNS CHOICE: Managing Complex Care Needs for the Frail Elderly of New York City. Roberta Brill Vice President, VNS Health Plans
VNS CHOICE: Managing Complex Care Needs for the Frail Elderly of New York City Roberta Brill Vice President, VNS Health Plans VNS CHOICE Organization Subsidiary of the Visiting Nurse Service of New York
More informationEligibility, Enrollment, Disenrollment & Grace Period
Section 2. Eligibility, Enrollment, Disenrollment & Grace Period Enrollment Enrollment in Ohio s Marketplace Program The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is the program which implements
More informationRe: CMS 3819-P, Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Conditions of Participation for Home Health Agencies; Proposed Rule, Oct. 9, 2014.
Marilyn B. Tavenner Administrator Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Hubert H. Humphrey Building 200 Independence Avenue, S.W., Room 445-G Washington, D.C. 20201 Re: CMS 3819-P, Medicare and Medicaid
More informationOctober 15, 2010. Re: National Health Care Quality Strategy and Plan. Dear Dr. Wilson,
October 15, 2010 Dr. Nancy Wilson, R.N., M.D., M.P.H. Senior Advisor to the Director Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) 540 Gaither Road Room 3216 Rockville, MD 20850 Re: National Health
More informationComprehensive Information
June 4, 2010 The Honorable Kathleen Sebelius Secretary U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 200 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20201 Mr. Jay Angoff Director Office of Consumer Information
More informationPatient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009: Immediate Health Insurance Market Reforms
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009: Immediate Health Insurance Market Reforms Provision Notes Standards Development Applicability Effective Date PPACA Statutory Annual and Lifetime Limits
More informationFlorida Data as of July 2003. Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services in Medicaid and SCHIP in Florida
Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services in Medicaid and SCHIP in Florida As of July 2003 2,441,266 people were covered under Florida's Medicaid and SCHIP programs. There were 2,113,820 enrolled in the
More informationTitle 19, Part 3, Chapter 14: Managed Care Plan Network Adequacy. Requirements for Health Carriers and Participating Providers
Title 19, Part 3, Chapter 14: Managed Care Plan Network Adequacy Table of Contents Rule 14.01. Rule 14.02. Rule 14.03. Rule 14.04. Rule 14.05. Rule 14.06. Rule 14.07. Rule 14.08. Rule 14.09. Rule 14.10.
More informationFAQS ABOUT AFFORDABLE CARE ACT IMPLEMENTATION (PART XVIII) AND MENTAL HEALTH PARITY IMPLEMENTATION January 9, 2014
FAQS ABOUT AFFORDABLE CARE ACT IMPLEMENTATION (PART XVIII) AND MENTAL HEALTH PARITY IMPLEMENTATION January 9, 2014 Set out below are additional Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) regarding implementation
More informationRe: Advance Notice/Call Letter for Medicare Advantage Plans for Calendar Year (CY) 2014
March 1, 2013 Marilyn Tavenner, RN, BSN, MHA Acting Administrator Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Department of Health and Human Services 200 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, D.C. 20201 Submitted
More informationRE: CMS-3819-P; Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Conditions of Participation for Home Health Agencies
January 6, 2015 Marilyn Tavenner Administrator Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Department of Health and Human Services Room 445 G Attention: CMS-3819-P Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence
More informationJanuary 18, 2012. Dear Ms. Tavenner:
January 18, 2012 Marilyn Tavenner, RN, BSN, MHA Acting Administrator Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Department of Health and Human Services 200 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, D.C. 20201
More information[Adapted from Fed. Reg. 52530; NAIC Glossary of Health Insurance and Medical Terms: 3]
New York State Benchmark Plan Recommendations Introduction The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) includes Rehabilitative and Habilitative Services and Devices as one of the ten categories
More informationWhy the Affordable Care Act Matters for Women: Health Insurance 101
Why the Affordable Care Act Matters for Women: Health Insurance 101 APRIL 2014 Women are the health care decision makers in our country they make approximately 80 percent of the health care decisions in
More informationOregon Data as of July 2003. Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services in Medicaid and SCHIP in Oregon
Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services in Medicaid and SCHIP in Oregon As of July 2003, 398,874 people were covered under Oregon s Medicaid/SCHIP programs. There were 380,546 enrolled in the Medicaid
More informationNC General Statutes - Chapter 108D 1
Chapter 108D. Medicaid Managed Care for Behavioral Health Services. Article 1. General Provisions. 108D-1. Definitions. The following definitions apply in this Chapter, unless the context clearly requires
More informationSeptember 4, 2012. Submitted Electronically
September 4, 2012 Ms. Marilyn Tavenner Acting Administrator Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Department of Health and Human Services Attention: CMS-1589-P P.O. Box 8016 Baltimore, MD 21244-8016
More informationManaged Care in Minnesota
Managed Care in Minnesota This profile reflects state managed care program information as of August 2014, and only includes information on active federal operating authorities, and as such, the program
More informationSEPTEMBER 2014. This brief was produced under Award No.: EENS91173N, Project: 34757, for Simon and Co.
HEALTH INSURANCE BENEFITS ADVISORS: Understanding Responsibilities, Regulations, Restrictions and the Relevance to Implementing the Affordable Care Act SEPTEMBER 2014 Alexandra M. Stewart, Marisa A. Cox,
More informationURAC Issue Brief: Best Practices in Network Management
1220 L Street, NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 202.216.9010 Best Practices in Network Management Introduction As consumers enroll in health plans through newly formed Health Insurance Marketplaces,
More informationTHE MEDICARE R x DRUG LAW
THE MEDICARE R x DRUG LAW Medicare Prescription Drug Coverage for Residents of Nursing Homes and Assisted Living Facilities: Special Problems and Concerns Prepared by Toby S. Edelman, Esq. Center for Medicare
More informationFY 2016 Hospice Wage Index and Payment Rate Update and Hospice Quality Reporting Requirements Proposed Rule
June 24, 2015 Andrew Slavitt Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Attention: CMS- 1629-P, Mail Stop C4-26-05 7500 Security Boulevard Baltimore, MD 21244-1850
More informationReport to Congress. Improving the Identification of Health Care Disparities in. Medicaid and CHIP
Report to Congress Improving the Identification of Health Care Disparities in Medicaid and CHIP Sylvia Mathews Burwell Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services November 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS
More informationU.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Region II
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Region II FINAL REPORT New Jersey EPSDT Review Report Dental Services March 2008 Site Visit Executive Summary The Early
More informationRe: Medicare Program; Medicare Shared Savings Program: Accountable Care Organizations (CMS-1345-P)
Donald M. Berwick, MD Administrator Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Department of Health and Human Services Attention: CMS-1503-FC Mail Stop C4-26-05 7500 Security Boulevard Baltimore, MD 21244-1850
More informationExceptions and Appeals for Drug Therapies: A Guide for Healthcare Providers
Exceptions and Appeals for Drug Therapies: A Guide for Healthcare Providers Table of Contents Introduction... 5 Prior Authorization... 7 Overview... 7 Step Therapy... 7 Quantity Limits... 7 The Prior Authorization
More informationH7833_150304MO01. Information for Care Providers about UnitedHealthcare Connected (Medicare- Medicaid Plan) in Harris County, Texas
H7833_150304MO01 Information for Care Providers about UnitedHealthcare Connected (Medicare- Medicaid Plan) in Harris County, Texas Agenda Connecting Medicare and Medicaid Eligible Members Service Coordination
More informationManaged Care in New York
Managed Care in New York This profile reflects state managed care program information as of August 2014, and only includes information on active federal operating authorities, and as such, the program
More informationIssue Brief: Minimum Medical Loss Ratio Requirements
Issue Brief: Minimum Medical Loss Ratio Requirements The term Medical Loss Ratio or MLR refers to the share of premium revenues that an insurer or health plan spends on patient care and quality improvement
More informationSubmitted Electronically to AdvanceNotice2016@cms.hhs.gov
March 6, 2015 Marilyn Tavenner, RN, BSN, MHA Administrator Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Department of Health and Human Services 200 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, D.C. 20201 Submitted
More informationFrom: Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight 200 Independence Avenue SW Washington, DC 20201 Date: March 13, 2014
More informationEQR PROTOCOL 1: ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH MEDICAID MANAGED CARE REGULATIONS
OMB Approval No. 0938-0786 EQR PROTOCOL 1: ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH MEDICAID MANAGED CARE REGULATIONS A Mandatory Protocol for External Quality Review (EQR) Protocol 1: Protocol 2: Validation of Measures
More informationAffordable Care Act at 3: Strengthening Medicare
Affordable Care Act at 3: Strengthening Medicare ISSUE BRIEF Fifth in a series May 22, 2013 Kyle Brown Senior Health Policy Analyst 789 Sherman St. Suite 300 Denver, CO 80203 www.cclponline.org 303-573-5669
More informationPutting Patients at the Heart of what Value Means
November 19, 2015 Robert Carlson, MD Chief Executive Officer National Comprehensive Cancer Network 275 Commerce Drive, Suite 300 Fort Washington, PA 19034 Dear Dr. Carlson, The undersigned organizations
More information