• No results found

Insurance. Declination and Exemption Forms

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Insurance. Declination and Exemption Forms"

Copied!
43
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

Insurance

(2)

Insurance Declination Forms

17 16 21 19 0 5 10 15 20 25 FY 2009 - 10 FY 2010 - 11 FY 2011 - 12 FY 2012 - 13 C ou nt o f f or m s su bm itt ed to C D HS Fiscal Year

Source: Insurance Declination forms submitted by Community Centered Boards through October 30, 2012.

(3)

Family Exceptions

52 12 3 6 Declined to provide info Non-qualifying plan Public plan (CHP+ or Medicaid) Qualifying plan

Source: Insurance Declination forms submitted by Community Centered Boards through October 30, 2012.

(4)

3 4 3 17 2 21 1 1 1 2 3 1 4 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 Community

Connections DDRC Developmental Pathways Gateway Foothills Imagine! Mountain Valley Rocky Mtn Human Svcs North Metro TRE declined to provide health insurance info non-qualifying plan

public health insurance (Medicaid or CHP+) qualifying plan

(5)

System Exceptions

21%

49% 26%

4% No providers who will

provide in

accordance with IFSP. No providers who

contract with insurance carrier. Coverage denied or IFSP service not a benefit.

Cost of co-payment or deductible more costly.

Source: Insurance Exemption forms submitted by Community Centered Boards from July 1, 2012 through October 30, 2012.

(6)

29 7 79 79 2 21 18 2 24 34 99 63 3 2 Imagine! Envision Foothills Gateway DDRC Blue Peaks Community Connections Eastern Horizons Community Options TRE Rocky Mtn Human Svcs North Metro Mountain Valley Starpoint 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Source: Insurance Exemption forms submitted by Community Centered Boards from July 1, 2012 through October 30, 2012.

(7)

How is the information being

used?

 For reporting purposes for the Department,

legislature or other funding sources

 To identify access barriers for any of the funding

hierarchy levels

 To inform technical assistance activities,

particularly as it relates to utilizing Medicaid and CHP+

 To inform public awareness materials and

general messaging related to funding Early Intervention Services

(8)
(9)

Early Intervention

Colorado

An Overview of the Coordinated System of Payments and Early Intervention Services Rates

(10)

Point of Discussion

 Pursuant to 2 CCR 503-1, Section 16.911(B) and

effective in FY 2013-14, the Department shall

implement a statewide upper rate limit for all Early Intervention Services. A third party contractor will

be hired in early fall 2012 to facilitate the process. The contractor’s role will be to analyze the early intervention rate structures in other states, provide recommendations and assist in the gathering of stakeholder input on the recommendations to the Department. Based on a final report, the

Department shall revise fiscal policies and

procedures in order to establish the upper limit for each of the Early Intervention Services that will go into effect on July 1, 2013.

(11)

Outcomes of the Discussion

 Become informed

 Have questions clarified

 Consider impact on whole system

 Contribute issues to be addressed in the Contractor’s Request for Proposal

 Provide suggestions to ensure transparent communication to stakeholders

(12)

Overview

 Current System

 Background Information  System Challenges

 Analysis Conducted to Date

 Direct Service Data from the 2012 ITCA Tipping

Points Survey

(13)

Overview of Current System

 All services are purchased through or provided

by Community Centered Boards (CCBs) (n=20)

 CCBs either bill insurers (public and private)

directly or billing is submitted by vendors

 Department of Human Services is payer of last

resort (State General Funds and Federal Part C Funds)

 $34,605,067M* were expended for direct services

in FY’11

(14)

Who Paid: Direct Service Only,

FY’11*

 Non-Qualifying Plans - $704,731  Trust – $3,454,453

 Other Local State or Federal Funds, including Mill

Levy Funds - $2,036,786

 Medicaid – $7,274,629

 State General Funds – $14,670,699  ARRA - $33,466

 Federal Part C Funds - $6,382,458

(15)

Background Information

 Coordinated System of Payment Legislation,

enacted in 2007, was intended to ensure the use of all available funding sources and to coordinate

and streamline administrative procedures

 In January 2008 the Early Intervention Services Trust

Fund was implemented

 Beginning in FY 2009-10, criteria for projected Trust

and Medicaid utilization were used in CCB allocation formulas

 In FY 2009-10 the Joint Budget Committee (JBC)

required the CDHS to provide information on cost containment strategies to address case load

growth and potential funding shortages

(16)

Direct Service Allocation

Assumptions

 Medicaid - 40% of Average Monthly Enrolled (AME) (1,346)  Trust Fund – based on actual AME from previous year (780)

(17)

Early Intervention Services

Rates

 The minimum, maximum and most frequently used rates

are on file with the Department.

 Prior to FY’10 provided by CCBs through a self report survey

process.

 Requirement to notify included in contract since FY’10.

 Each CCB shall:

 Not exceed the maximum rate limit on file for Early Intervention

Services; and

 Notify the Department of any proposed change of

reimbursement rates for all Early Intervention Services at least fifteen (15) calendar days prior to the use of such rates,

including its rate setting methodology (2 CCR 503-1, Section 16.911(A)(6) and (B))

 The maximum reimbursement rate is subject to restriction

(18)

Year End Reporting

 Section 27-10.5-710 (1) mandates that the

Department report to the General Assembly by November 1 of each year the various funding sources used for Early Intervention Services

 Number of eligible children served

 The average service costs

 Prior to FY 2011-12 this data was submitted to the

Department by CCBs using the “Early Intervention Revenue and Expenditure Report” and include each funding source by line item for:

 Service coordination

 Direct services

 Management fee, and

(19)

Vendor versus Employed Provider*

Most Utilized Early Intervention

Services

Vendor

Provider

CCB Employed

Provider

Developmental Intervention (DI) 73%

27%

Occupational Therapy (OT)

76%

24%

Physical Therapy (PT)

84%

16%

Speech Language Pathology (SLP) 84%

16%

Total

81%

19%

*Based on September 2011 Community Centered Board rate information on file with the Division for Developmental Disabilities.

(20)

System

Challenges

(21)

CCB EI Rates Compared to

Medicaid Rates

 Rates currently paid by CCBs do not incentivize Medicaid utilization

 Federal match is lost and state has to cover the full expense in cases where

Medicaid not used

 Costs may be higher due to same services (OT, PT, SLP) occurring in multiple

settings (home health, clinic setting and home and community based setting)

CPT or HCPCS Procedure Code

Service

Description Billable Unit* CO Medicaid Rate** CCB Range of MFP Rates

92507 SLP Per day $58 $40 - $150

97110 PT Per hour $43 $40 - $123

97530 OT Per hour $43 $40 - $123

*For the purposes of this report, all 15 minute billable units are presented as hourly rates.

(22)

CCB Rate Setting

Methodology

• Varies by CCB

• Vendor rates are driven

by providers in most

service areas – “amount billed is what is paid”

• Rate setting

methodology of

employed provider rates include overhead costs upwards of 60%

(23)

$0.00 $50.00 $100.00 $150.00 $200.00 $250.00 $300.00

Physical Therapy Hourly Rate Comparison

Purchased Service (Maximum Hourly Rate) CCB Provided (Maximum Hourly Rate) FY 09 - 10 Supplemental Audit Average Hourly Rate Billed

(24)

$- $50.00 $100.00 $150.00 $200.00 $250.00 $300.00 $350.00

Occupational Therapy Hourly Rate Comparison

Purchased Service (Maximum Hourly Rate) CCB Provided (Maximum Hourly Rate) FY 09 - 10 Supplemental Audit Average Hourly Rate Billed

(25)

Analysis

Conducted to

Date

(26)

Recommendations Submitted

January 2012

The upper rate limit for Early Intervention Services is determined by calculating the average of the most frequently used rates paid by each Early Intervention Service Broker (aka Community Centered Board).

Rationale

 To implement 2 CCR 503-1, Section 16.911(A)(6) and (B)  To establish a statewide cap on Early Intervention Services

rates paid to providers as a strategy for managing caseload growth in the Early Intervention Services Program

(27)

Levels of Analysis

 Historical Early Intervention Services rates data

(minimum, maximum and most frequently paid)

 Medicaid rates (not available for all Early

Intervention Services)

 Bureau of Labor Statistics Data (not available for

all professionals qualified to provide Early Intervention Services)

(28)

Options for Calculating the Early

Intervention Services Upper Rate

Limits

Option 1:

 Implement two sets of upper rate limits for Early Intervention

Services: Vendor Upper Rate Limit and Community Centered Board Provided Upper Rate Limit

Most Utilized Early

Intervention Services Hourly Upper Rate Limit for Contract Provider Hourly Upper Rate Limit for Employed Provider

Developmental Intervention $ 62.52 $ 87.68 Occupational Therapy $ 75.84 $ 84.88 Physical Therapy $ 78.44 $ 82.16 Speech Language Pathology $ 72.40 $ 94.12

Average hourly rates calculated using the September 2011 Community Centered Board rates on file with the Division for Developmental Disabilities

(29)

Option 1: Projected Impact

*Adjusted projections are based on the assumption that all Community Centered Boards will raise the cost per unit for early intervention services to the upper rate limit.

** Utilization data extracted from the FY 2009 - 10 Division for Developmental Disabilities Early Intervention Audit Report.

***Analysis based on the current Community Centered Board rates on file with the Division for Developmental Disabilities.

****Total costs/savings projections do not include funding streams reported in the FY 2009 - 10 Division for Developmental Disabilities Early

Intervention Audit Report that are not managed by the Division for Developmental Disabilities, such as Medicaid, non-qualifying private insurance plans under the Coordinated System of Payment legislation, and other funding sources.

Most Utilized Early Intervention

Services Total Costs/Savings Adjusted Costs/Savings

Developmental Intervention $(417,789.96) $(280,418.63) Occupational Therapy $(206,276.95) $(139,862.63) Physical Therapy $(161,338.12) $(46,867.49) Speech Language Pathology $(594,527.11) $(329,635.62)

(30)

Options for Calculating the Early

Intervention Services Upper Rate

Limits

Option 2:

Implement a single upper rate limit for each Early Intervention Service based on the vendor rate

Most Utilized Early Intervention Services Hourly Upper Rate Limit for Vendors

Developmental Intervention $ 62.52 Occupational Therapy $ 75.84 Physical Therapy $ 78.44 Speech Language Pathology $ 72.40

Average hourly rates calculated using the September 2011 Community Centered Board rates on file with the Division for Developmental Disabilities.

(31)

Option 2: Projected Impact

*Adjusted projections are based on the assumption that all Community Centered Boards will raise the cost per unit for early intervention services to the upper rate limit.

** Utilization data extracted from the FY 2009 - 10 Division for Developmental Disabilities Early Intervention Audit Report. ***Analysis based on the current Community Centered Board rates on file with the Division for Developmental Disabilities. ****Total costs/savings projections do not include funding streams reported in the FY 2009 - 10 Division for Developmental

Disabilities Early Intervention Audit Report that are not managed by the Division for Developmental Disabilities, such as Medicaid, non-qualifying private insurance plans under the Coordinated System of Payment legislation, and other funding sources.

Most Utilized Early

Intervention Services Total Costs/Savings Adjusted Costs/Savings

Developmental Intervention $(613,394.29) $(536,936.77) Occupational Therapy $(253,039.48) $(151,417.18) Physical Therapy $(167,712.14) $(61,659.26) Speech Language Pathology $(748,128.50) $(576,902.21) Total $(1,782,274.40) $(1,326,915.41)

(32)

2012 ITCA Tipping

Points Surveys

2012 Part C Implementation: State Challenges

and Responses, Infant & Toddler Coordinator Association

(33)

As a result of state fiscal

issues, what have you done

in the past 12 months?

Increased family fees, 1, 5% Required families to use private insurance or be placed on a fee schedule, 2, 10% Reduced provider reimbursement, 7, 35% Required prior approval for hours of service that exceed an identified amount, 4, 20% Narrowed eligibility, 6, 30%

(34)

Did any contractors/agencies

decline to continue to provide

direct services because of fiscal

constraints?

4, 11%

31, 89%

declined continued

(35)

What is the status of your

provider reimbursement

over the past three years?

23, 57%

11, 27% 1, 3%

3, 8% 2, 5% Rates stayed the

same Decreased rates Will decrease rates Increased rates Will increase rates

(36)

State Approaches to Early

Intervention Services Rates

 State established a single EI Rate

 State established rate based on discipline/service  State established EI rate based on Medicaid rate  Local program negotiated rate

(37)

Guiding Principles

Early Intervention financing system must ensure Lead Agency and provider accountability, as well as, to provide reasonable support in a manner that is responsive to providers to ensure the delivery of quality, comprehensive services to meet the needs of children and families.

(38)

Guiding Principles

Rates encourage and support service delivery to meet

individualized child and family needs and are delivered within the context of the child’s natural environment.

(39)

Guiding Principles

The reimbursement structure should support early intervention philosophy and beliefs.

(40)

Guiding Principles

The reimbursement structure should support early intervention philosophy and beliefs.

(41)

Guiding Principles

The reimbursement structure should support best practice.

(42)

Guiding Principles

The reimbursement structure should support the hiring and retention of qualified staff.

(43)

Outcomes of the Discussion

 Become informed

 Have questions clarified

 Consider impact on whole system

 Contribute issues to be addressed in the Contractor’s Request for Proposal

 Provide suggestions to ensure transparent communication to stakeholders

References

Related documents