The GHG Blog is just the tip of the iceberg. Check out the Point for complete access to all content from GHG experts.
- After Hours
- Agent Oversight
- Brain Food
- Health Insurance Exchanges
- Part D
- Performance Optimization
- Policy & Health Reform
- Prospective Evaluations
- Provider Relations
- Risk Adjustment
- Sales & Marketing
- Star Ratings
- Nancy on Making Order from Chaos
- kdambrosio on An “October Surprise” in Medicare Advantage Star Ratings
- Garth D. Weme, CIC on An “October Surprise” in Medicare Advantage Star Ratings
- Clark on Making Order from Chaos
- RP on How to Efficiently Conduct an Audit
Topic: Brain Food
For the past year, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has been publishing information and proposing new regulations regarding the criticality of ensuring beneficiaries not only have access to care, but access to accurate information with which to make informed decisions about their healthcare coverage. Data Integrity is at the forefront of the initiatives enforced by government mandates, and provider data has topped the list of areas that not only need the most improvement, but the most oversight, correction, and potentially sanction. As we saw last year with the CMS network requirement changes, many plans were unprepared to submit their entire network footprint in their service area expansion applications. By moving the online directory guidance in the Medicare Managed Care Manual from Chapter 3 (Marketing) to Chapter 4 (Beneficiary Protections), CMS has solidified the fact it is no longer acceptable to have inaccuracies in an area key for members to evaluate their health plan choices and find access to care. Now is the time to set new ongoing network monitoring processes in place that ensure your CMS network submissions and Health Service Delivery (HSD) tables mirror your online provider directories, guaranteeing you are prepared to address provider and member complaints stemming from directory inaccuracies.
The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) held a public meeting last week and had a full plate of a variety of topics from Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) to Medicare Part B drug payment issues.
As 2016 comes to a close, planning for next year should be well underway. Bids are in, and budgets for the current year are being evaluated against reality before next yearâ€™s strategies are finalized. As the ACA continues to evolve, CMS has been busy with new programs and more oversight. A plan or provider has to be vigilant about identifying any weaknesses that could mean high costs or low expectations relative to budget. Parent companies have to be aware of line of business similarities and differences as Exchange and Medicaid business become more like Medicare Advantage in terms of programs and benchmarks. A recent article from Kaiser on retention makes great points about the line of business impact on retention and how it is a simple metric that encompasses many operational issues.
We have often noted when a team works well together, it can collectively accomplish more than its members alone. This adage has never been truer than the looming Medicare Access & CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA) legislation and the steps providers will need to take to make a successful transition.
On September 13, 2016, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) quietly released its long-awaited proposed methodology on the calculation of Civil Money Penalties (CMPs). The memo describes the calculation method of CMPs for Medicare Advantage Organizations (MAOs), Prescription Drug Plans (PDPs), Cost Plans, and Programs of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE) plans in 2017. While CMS is not mandated to release this methodology, it did so in response to industry concern over transparency of CMP calculation and to provide more clarity to compliance operations. Comments on the proposed methodology are due to CMS by 5:00 p.m. ET on October 13, 2016.