parellaview graph # 1 overview of presentation program design options program design conclusions...
TRANSCRIPT
Parella View Graph # 1
OVERVIEW OF PRESENTATION
Program Design Options
Program Design Conclusions
Benefit Package Design
Husky Plus
Outreach Efforts
Evaluation and Monitoring
Parella View Graph # 2
THE STARS IN THEIR COURSES...
William Shakespeare
A State Budget Surplus
An Enhanced Federal Match
An Election Year
A Clambake
Parella View Graph # 3
To Medicaid, or Not to Medicaid, That Is the Question?
Concern About the Creation of a New Entitlement
- Prospects for continued federal funding beyond 2002
- Concern about individual cause of action (litigation about notices, fair hearings, etc.)
- Concern about the “T” in EPSDT: Unlimited benefit package
Concern About Ability to Draw Down Full Federal Match If We Stick to the Limits on Expansion in the BBA
- 200% FPL or
- 50 percentage points higher than current Medicaid eligibility
STAGE ONE: PROGRAM DESIGN
Parella View Graph # 4
Federal Allotment for Connecticut ($35 Million in FFY 1998) Was Based on the Number of Uninsured Children Below 200% FPL
As of April, 1997 Connecticut Already Covered Children Born After September 30, 1983 up to 185% FPL
- Further Medicaid eligibility expansions to 185% FPL already enacted by the legislature- children born after July 1, 1981 effective July 1, 1997- children born after January 1, 1980 effective January 1, 1998
Wanted a Package for All Working Families
- no Medicaid stigma- coordinated outreach to Medicaid and Non-Medicaid- accessible outreach to Medicaid eligible populations- did not want intake through the “welfare office”- wanted a buy-in option regardless of income
STAGE ONE: PROGRAM DESIGN (cont.)
Parella View Graph # 5
Combination Approach
- Capture enhanced Title XXI Match (65%) on previously enacted Medicaid expansions for children up through age 18 up to 185% FPL
- Above 185% FPL, a non-Medicaid expansion
- took advantage of the open-ended reference to income disregards to extend subsidized coverage to 300% FPL
- full buy-in option available above 300% FPL
STAGE TWO: CONCLUSIONS
Parella View Graph # 6
Of the Three Non-Medicaid Options (FEHBP, Largest HMO, State Employees), State Employees Selected As Most Generous
Within State Employee Option, Three Benefit Packages Available- Blue Cross (discounted Fee For Service)- MD Health Plan (IPA model)- Kaiser Permanente (staff model)
Compared All Three Plans on Each Covered Service, Selected the Most Generous Option
Copayments Capped at $650 Per Family Per Year Premiums Capped at $600 Per Family Above 235% FPL Total Annual Cost Sharing Maximum - $1,250
PHASE THREE: BENEFIT DESIGN
Parella View Graph # 7
Even With a Generous Commercial Insurance Benefit Package, There Was a Concern That the Needs of Children With Special Health Care Needs Would Not Be Accommodated
Options Were:- Bring back Medicaid- Offer a risk adjusted rate for special needs kids, similar to
what we do in Husky A (Medicaid Managed Care)- Provide a supplemental, wraparound package that would
not count against the 10% cap on administrative costs Selected the Supplemental Package
- Children will be dual eligible, simultaneously receiving benefits from Husky B and Husky Plus
- Husky Plus modeled on care coordination under existing Title V program
- Title V eligibility expanded to 300% FPL
PHASE FOUR: HUSKY PLUS
Parella View Graph # 8
Plan Established for Children With Special Physical Needs
- Two Title V centers of excellence selected as providers- Connecticut Children’s Medical Center- Yale Childrens Hospital
- Title V steering committee becomes the steering committee for Husky Plus
A New Plan Established for Children With Special Behavioral Health Needs
- Yale Child Study Center designated as plan coordinator- Community providers selected by RFP process
Both Plans Funded With $2.5 Million for SFY 1999
PHASE FOUR: HUSKY PLUS (cont.)
Parella View Graph # 9
Children Determined to Be Medically Eligible for Both Plans Based on Designated Screening Tools to Measure Level of Impairment
In Each Plan, Care Coordinators Develop a Treatment Plan in Coordination With the Primary Care Provider and the Utilization Review Staff in the Child’s Husky B Plan
Each Plan Has Final Decision Over Payment Decisions for the Services in Their Benefit Package
- The Goal Is Collaboration and Consensus
- If the Husky B and the Husky Plus Plan Cannot Agree on Who Pays for a Service in the Treatment Plan, the Final Decision Goes to the Department
PHASE FOUR: HUSKY PLUS (cont.)
Parella View Graph # 10
PHASE FIVE: OUTREACH
Medical Assistance for Children Has Now Become One New Program (Husky) With Three Distinct Parts:- Husky A (Medicaid)- Husky B (Title XXI expansion)- Husky Plus (special needs)
Coordinated Marketing and Outreach for All Three Programs
- De-stigmatize Medicaid- Bring in the Medicaid eligible children- Take advantage of the new name for the program
A Four Page Application Developed for Husky A & B
- Application process invisible to the client between the two programs
Parella View Graph # 11
A Single Point of Entry Servicer (SPES) Contracted to Screen and Process Applications for the Two Programs
- Benova, the Medicaid managed care enrollment broker, selected as the SPES
- Benova screens all applications for Medicaid eligibility.
- if Medicaid eligible, application referred to a DSS office
- Benova and the DSS offices are linked electronically
- Benova and DSS staff are co-located at each other’s offices
- If the applicant is eligible for Husky B, Benova processes the eligibility in their own system
- Benova processes managed care enrollments for both Husky A & Husky B
PHASE FIVE: OUTREACH (cont.)
Parella View Graph # 12
Outreach Effort Is Coordinated With Funded Projects in Schools, School Based Health Centers, Community Health Centers, and Hospitals
Future Plans Include Presumptive Eligibility for Husky A (Medicaid) at WIC Sites, Healthy Start, and Child Care Providers
Outreach Is Critical, Not Only to Reach Uninsured Population, but to Negate the Impact of Adverse Selection
PHASE FIVE: OUTREACH (cont.)
Parella View Graph # 13
In Husky A, There Is a Comprehensive Data Reporting Mechanism in Place With the Health Plans on a Range of Measures Including Encounter Data
Desire Was to Not Make Husky B Like Medicaid but to Follow a Commercial Model
In Connecticut, We Do Have Legislation That Requires HMOs to Submit Comprehensive HEDIS Data to the Department of Insurance
- HEDIS data is for the entire plan book of business
Couldn’t Accept Not Having at Least HEDIS Data That Was Specific to Husky B Reported Annually
- HEDIS will be supplemented by a report on well child visits (EPSDT-LIGHT)
PHASE SIX: EVALUATION AND MONITORING
Parella View Graph # 14
No Encounter Data on Husky B Plans
For Husky Plus, We Felt the Data Set of Paid Services Would Be Small Enough That We Could Require Quarterly Encounter Data From Both Husky Plus Physical and Husky Plus Behavioral
We’re Going to Measure Our Success in Enrolling Uninsured Kids Against the Same Data the Interval Census (CPAS) Data
- Remains to be seen whether the census provides an accurate baseline on the number of uninsured children
PHASE SIX: EVALUATION AND MONITORING (cont.)
Parella View Graph # 15
August, 1997 Balanced Budget Act Passes
October, 1997 Husky Legislation Enacted
January, 1998 State Plan Submitted
April, 1998 State Plan Approved
June, 1998 Enrollment Begins
July, 1998 Services Begin in Managed Care Plans and Husky Plus
KEY DATES
Parella View Graph # 16
Phase One: Enthusiasm
Phase Two: Disillusionment
Phase Three: Panic
Phase Four: The Assessment of Blame
Phase Five: The Punishment of the Innocents
Phase Six: Praise for the Non-Participants
SIX PHASES OF EVERY PROJECT
Parella View Graph # 17
HUSKY ACTIVITYJUNE 1, 1998--AUGUST 9, 1998
APPLICATIONS RECEIVED BY THE SPES
# of Children
Via Mail 2,797Community Presentations 3DSS Field Office Walk-Ins 128DSS Referrals from Caseworkers 64Phone 1,287
Total 4,279
APPLICATION STATUS
# of Children
Approved for HUSKY B 981Referred to DSS for HUSKY A Review 1,801Withdrawn 19Denied 252Pending 1,226
Total Reviewed 4,279
Parella View Graph # 18
HUSKY B
APPLICATIONS APPROVED BY INCOME BAND
Income Band # of Children
185-235% FPL 585
185-235% FPL 348
300% + FPL 48
Total 981
APPLICATIONS DENIED BY REASON CODE
# of Children
Documentation not returned 12Incomplete Application 9Insurance Coverage Within Past 6 Mos 17Application not Signed 4Not Connecticut Resident 5Other Medical Insurance 154Over 19 Years of Age 2Receiving HUSKY A 49
Total 252