BILL ANALYSIS SENATE HEALTH COMMITTEE ANALYSIS Senator Elaine K. Alquist, Chair BILL NO: AB 342 A AUTHOR: John A. P?rez B AMENDED: June 23, 2010 HEARING DATE: June 30, 2010 3 CONSULTANT: 4 Dunstan/ 2 SUBJECT Medi-Cal: demonstration project waiver SUMMARY Authorizes the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) to require that seniors and persons with disabilities (SPDs) in Medi-Cal be assigned as mandatory enrollees to new or existing managed care plans, as specified. Requires DHCS to establish organized health care delivery models for children eligible for California Children's Services (CCS). Establishes pilot projects for managing the care of those with dual eligibility in Medi-Cal and Medicare. Creates coverage expansion and enrollment demonstration projects for coverage of low-income individuals who are not otherwise eligible for Medi-Cal. CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW Existing federal law: Establishes the Medicaid program to provide comprehensive health benefits to low-income persons. Establishes the federal Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) program to provide financial assistance to hospitals that serve large numbers of Medicaid and uninsured patients. Continued--- STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 342 (John A. P?rez) Page 2 Provides that states may be granted waivers of federal law to implement demonstration projects in their Medicaid programs. Authorizes states to use benchmark plans in Medicaid, which allow the state more flexibility in determining benefits and cost sharing. Establishes the federal Medicare program, which provides health care benefits to persons 65 years of age and older and to disabled persons. Provides that the Medicare program can grant waivers of federal law for demonstration projects. Establishes that the federal government will provide a match for the Medicaid program, termed the federal medical assistance percentage (FMAP), which varies by state and territory according to a specified formula. Pursuant to the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148), establishes Medicaid eligibility for childless low-income adults and provides enhanced FMAP for this expansion population, beginning January 1, 2014. Existing state law: Establishes the Medi-Cal program, the state's Medicaid program, which is administered by DHCS, and which provides comprehensive health benefits to low-income children; their parents or caretaker relatives; pregnant women; elderly, blind or disabled persons; nursing home residents and refugees. Creates a demonstration project on hospital financing to implement a five-year federal Medicaid waiver for support of public hospitals that serve uninsured patients and patients whose health care services are covered by Medi-Cal. Defines a designated public hospital to be one of twenty-two hospitals specifically named in the statute implementing the federal waiver. Creates the Safety Net Care Pool (SNCP) containing the federal funds available under the demonstration project to ensure continued government support for the provision of health care services to uninsured populations. Establishes methods for administering the federal (DSH program payments, and a mechanism that DHCS must use to allocate the payments to designated public hospitals. Requires that matching funds for SNCP and DSH payments come from the certified public expenditures (CPE) and/or intergovernmental transfers (IGT) STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 342 (John A. P?rez) Page 3 from designated public hospitals or the governmental entities with which they are affiliated. Establishes the Health Care Coverage Initiative and provides that it shall operate pursuant to the special terms and conditions of California's Section 1115 demonstration project on hospital financing in the Medi-Cal program. Provides that coverage initiatives shall expand health care coverage to low-income, uninsured residents of 10 selected counties for federal fiscal years 2007-08 through 2009-10. Authorizes DHCS to contract, on a bid or nonbid basis, with any qualified individual, organization, or entity to provide services to, arrange for, or case manage, the care of Medi-Cal beneficiaries. Permits the contract to be exclusive or nonexclusive, statewide or on a more limited geographic basis and requires that the contracts include specified provisions. Defines a Medi-Cal managed care plan as any entity that enters into one of several types of contracts with DHCS including county organized health systems (COHS), geographic managed care plans and local initiatives. Requires DHCS to evaluate and determine the readiness of managed care plans prior to geographic expansion of Medi-Cal managed care. Existing law requires enrollment of seniors and persons with disabilities into Medi-Cal managed care plans to be voluntary, except in COHS counties where the enrollment of SPDs is mandatory. Requires counties to provide medical services for the medically indigent. Requires the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) to submit a Medi-Cal Waiver or Demonstration Project to the federal government in order to strengthen California's health care safety net, including disproportionate share hospitals; reduce the number of uninsured Californians; increase federal financial participation; improve health care quality and outcomes; and, promote home and community based care. Requires the waiver to include Medi-Cal restructuring proposals in order for the program to better serve the most STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 342 (John A. P?rez) Page 4 vulnerable beneficiaries, including SPDs, children with significant medical needs, and people with behavioral health conditions. Establishes that the goals of restructuring care for these populations include increased access to better coordinated and integrated care for these populations, improved health outcomes, and reduction in the long-term growth of the Medi-Cal program. Requires DHCS to submit a waiver proposal to the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services by a date that allows sufficient time for the waiver to be approved by no later than the later of either September 1, 2010, or the conclusion of the current Medi-Cal Hospital (1115) waiver. Authorizes this waiver to seek authority to enroll beneficiaries into specified organized delivery systems, such as managed care, enhanced primary care case management or a medical home model. Requires the waiver to include processes, and criteria, by which DHCS will evaluate and grant exemptions, on an individual basis, from any mandatory enrollment of beneficiaries into managed care. Through the Knox-Keene Act, regulates and licenses managed care plans. Requires the Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC) to enforce the Knox-Keene Act by overseeing the licensing of plans and ensuring managed care plans compliance with state law and regulations. Provides that services provided by CCS are not incorporated into Medi-Cal managed care contracts. This bill: Grants DHCS an exemption from the Administrative Procedures Act related to the development of regulations and allows implementation by all-county letters or similar instructions. Exempts the contracts from specified provisions of the Public Contract Code. Seniors and persons with disabilities Allows DHCS to enroll SPDs as mandatory enrollees into new or existing managed care health plans or county alternative models of care. Defines a county alternative model of care as an option open to all counties, except those with county organized health systems, that allows the county to develop an STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 342 (John A. P?rez) Page 5 alternative model of care, subject to approval by DHCS. Allows county models to operate without Knox-Keene licensure as long as the model does not receive full capitation and assumes full risk for its members. Allows county alternative models of care to include administrative services organizations, primary care case management plans, outpatient managed care models and other models of care that DHCS determines acceptable. Requires that a county select this option prior to commencement of mandatory enrollment of SPDS, but no later than January 1, 2012. SPD-Plan readiness Requires DHCS to do the following in terms of readiness evaluation criteria and requirements, when establishing mandatory managed care for SPDs: Assess and ensure the readiness of the managed care health plans or county alternative models of care. Ensure that the managed care health plans or county alternative models of care comply with applicable state and federal law, including those related to physical accessibility and the provision of plan information in alternative formats. Develop and implement an outreach and education program for SPDs to inform them or their enrolment options. Inform SPD beneficiaries, at least three months prior to enrollment about the changes that are expected to occur in how they receive their health care. Implement an appropriate awareness and sensitivity training program for the managed care health plans or county alternative models of care regarding serving SPDs. Coordinate with the managed care health plans or county alternative models of care in consultation with stakeholders and consumers to develop a mechanism for identifying those individuals with the highest risk and most complex health care needs. Provide managed care health plans and county alternative models of care with an enhanced facility site review tool for use in accessing the physical accessibility of providers. Develop a process to enforce legal sanctions such as financial penalties, withholding of Medi-Cal payments, enrollment termination and contract STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 342 (John A. P?rez) Page 6 termination for the managed care health plans or county alternative models of care for consistently or repeatedly failing to meet performance standards. Ensure that the managed care health plans or county alternative models of care provide a means for enrollees to request a specialist or clinic as a primary care provider. Ensure that managed care health plans or county alternative models of care are able to provide communication access to SPDs in suitable alternative formats or other methods. Require managed care health plans or county alternative models of care to provide access to out-of-network providers for SPDs who have an ongoing relationship with a provider, if the provider will accept the plan or model's rate or the applicable Medi-Cal fee-for service rate. Ensure that the managed care health plans or county alternative models of care comply with existing continuity of care requirements under the Knox Keene Act. Require that the medical exemption criteria in regulation for two plan model counties and geographic managed care counties are applied to SPDs. SPD Plan Requirements Requires DHCS, prior to exercising its authority to enroll SPDs, to ensure that all managed care health plans or county alternative models of care are able to do all of the following: Comply with criteria and requirements, related to plan readiness, compliance with applicable state and federal laws, outreach and education programs, advance notice, awareness and sensitivity training, identification of high risk individuals and site review tool. Requires that the criteria related to the assessment of network adequacy be done in collaboration with the Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC). Ensure and monitor an appropriate provider network. Assess the health care needs of SPDs and coordinate their health care across all settings. Ensure that the provider network and informational materials meet the linguistic and other special needs of SPDs. STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 342 (John A. P?rez) Page 7 Provide a clear, timely and fair process for accepting and acting upon complaints, grievances and disenrollement requests. Solicit stakeholder and member participation in advisory groups. Contract with safety-net and traditional providers. Inform SPDs of procedures for obtaining transportation services. Monitor the quality and appropriateness of care. Maintain a dedicated liaison to coordinate with each regional center. Apply a mechanism to identify SPDs with high or low risk and administer a risk assessment survey tool to determine risk level of enrollees. Conduct the risk assessment over the telephone with specified time frames, namely, within 45 days of plan enrollment for higher risk beneficiaries and 105 days for lower risk beneficiaries and develop individual care plans that are based on the health risk assessment for high risk beneficiaries. Perform specified care management and care coordination function and activities for SPDs. Establish medical homes to which enrollees will be assigned. Requires medical homes to have the following characteristics: o A primary care physician who provides core clinical management functions. o Care management and care coordination. o Identification of the beneficiary's needs and referral to appropriate services that are outside of the managed care health plans or county alternative models of care. o Uses clinical data to identify the health issues of a beneficiary. o Ensure timely and appropriate access to care. o Use clinical guidelines and other evidence-based medicine. Other SPD managed care requirements Requires that beneficiaries enrolled in managed care health plans and county alternative models of care shall have the choice to continue an established patient-provider relationship under specified conditions. STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 342 (John A. P?rez) Page 8 Provides that when an SPD is required to enroll in a managed care or alternative model of care, the enrollee's access to fee for service Medi-Cal shall not be terminated until the enrollee has been assigned to a managed care provider or county alternative model of care. Requires that the development and negotiation of capitation rates for managed care health plan contracts shall include the analysis of data specific to SPDs. Authorizes DHCS to require managed health care plans, including existing plans, to submit financial and utilization date according to DHCS requirements. Requires DHCS to determine an actuarially sound rate for the county alternative models of care that ensures access to services and is budget neutral to the state. Allows persons meeting eligibility requirements for a Program for All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE) may select a PACE plan if one is available. Implementation of SPD managed care Makes the implementation of the mandatory managed care provisions dependent upon federal financial participation or funding. Exempts the managed care contracts from specified provisions of the Government Code. Requires DHCS to make the provisions of a contract available to the public within 30 days of the effective date of the contract. Provides that if there is a conflict between the terms and conditions of the approved demonstration project and any provisions of state aid and medical assistance law, the terms and conditions shall control. Provides that if there is a conflict between any Medicaid state plan amendments and any provisions of state aid and medical assistance law, the state plan amendments shall control. Provides that if there is a conflict between the article where this section of the bill is placed and any provisions of state aid and medical assistance law, this article shall control. Provides that enrollment of SPDs into managed care health plans and county alternative models of care shall be phased in and shall not commence until necessary federal approvals have been acquired, or until February 1, 2011, whichever is later. STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 342 (John A. P?rez) Page 9 Requires DHCS, beginning January 1, 2011 and until January 1, 2014, to provide the fiscal and policy committees of the Legislature with semiannual updates regard core activities for the enrollment of SPDS into managed care health plans and county alternative models of care. Specifies requirements for the semiannual updates. Mandates DHCS, in collaboration with the Department of Social Services and county welfare departments, to monitor the utilization and caseload of the In-Home Supportive Services program. Requires DHCS, in cooperation with DMHC, to monitor the adequacy of provider networks on a quarterly basis. Requires DHCS to suspend enrollment of SPDs into managed care health plans and county alternative models of care if it determines there are not sufficient primary or specialty care providers to meet the needs of enrollees. Directs DHCS to work with counties to develop a method to be used to determine an appropriate contribution to cover the nonfederal share of inpatient hospital expenses for SPDs. Data submission by plans Requires all managed care plans and other managed care arrangement including county alternative models shall submit encounter and financial data, as specified by DHCS. Provides for payment of a two percent penalty of the monthly capitation rate for any managed care plan or other managed care arrangement that fails to comply with the data submission requirement. Provides that failure of a provider or subcontractor to submit data shall not relieve the managed care plans and other managed care arrangement of responsibility to comply with these provisions, and shall not affect imposition of the penalty. California children's services (CCS) Requires DHCS to establish organized health care delivery models for children eligible for CCS. Provides that the models shall include at least one of the following: STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 342 (John A. P?rez) Page 10 An enhanced primary care case management program. A provider-based accountable care organization. A specialty health care plan. A Medi-Cal managed care plan that includes payment and coverage for CCS-eligible conditions. Requires that regardless of which model is used, the model shall do all of the following: Establish clear standards and criteria for participation, exemption, enrollment, and disenrollment. Provide care coordination that links children and youth with special health care needs with appropriate services and resources. Establish networks that include CCS-approved providers and maintain the current system of regionalized pediatric specialty and subspecialty services. Coordinate out-of-network access. Ensure that children enrolled in the model receive care for their CCS-eligible medical conditions from CCS-approved providers consistent with the CCS standards of care. Participate in a statewide quality improvement collaborative that includes stakeholders Provide the department with data for quality monitoring and improvement measures. Requires the models to establish and support medical homes that meet specified principles, including that each child has a personal physician, the medical home is a physician-directed medical practice, the medical home utilizes a whole child orientation, care is coordinated or integrated, information, education, and support is provided in a culturally competent manner, there are quality and safety practices and measures, and payment is structured appropriately to recognize the added value provided to children and their families. Provides that services provided under these models shall not be limited to medically necessary services for CCS conditions. Authorizes DHCS to require eligible individuals to enroll in these models, to the extent permitted by federal law. STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 342 (John A. P?rez) Page 11 Authorizes children enrolled in Healthy Families to enroll in the organized delivers models. Directs DHCS to seek proposals to establish and test these models of organized health care delivery systems. Grants DHCS the authority to enter into exclusive or nonexclusive contracts on a bid or negotiated basis. Allows DHCS to amend existing managed care contracts. Exempts the contracts from specified provisions of the Public Contract Code and the Government Code. Mandates entities that contract with DHCS to report their expenditures. Requires any rates for a contract paid according to a capitated or risk-based payment shall be actuarially sound. Requires DHCS to conduct an evaluation to assess the effectiveness of each model. Specifies the required elements for the evaluation. Coverage expansion and enrollment demonstration projects Creates coverage expansion and enrollment demonstration (CEED) projects to provide health care benefits for uninsured adults 19 to 64 with incomes up to 200 percent of the federal poverty level and who are not eligible for Medicare or Medi-Cal. Requires DHCS to develop CEED projects that meet the terms and conditions of the federal waiver. States legislative findings that these projects are designed to take advantage of new options of federal support for coverage of low-income adults. Requires CEED projects to be designed and implemented to facilitate the transition of those eligible individuals to Medi-Cal coverage or to coverage through the state health insurance exchange by 2014. Authorizes counties to perform outreach and enrollment activities to target populations for these projects. Requires that CEED project include the following elements, subject to the terms and conditions of the federal waiver: Development of standardized eligibility and enrollment procedures that interface with Medi-Cal processes according to the milestones developed in consultation with the counties. Designation of a medical home, as defined, and STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 342 (John A. P?rez) Page 12 assignment of enrollees to a primary care provider. Provision of the required benefits schedule. Provision of a provider network and service delivery system, that includes participation by public and private providers, to ensure delivery of the required benefits and transition of eligible individuals to Medi-Cal or the state health insurance exchange in 2014. Development of an outreach and enrollment plan for potential enrollees and includes the public and private providers that will be needed in 2014 to serve those eligible individuals in Medi-Cal coverage, or the state health insurance exchange. Quality measurement and monitoring system. Data tracking systems to provide DHCS with data for quality monitoring and improvement and evaluation of the CEED. Demonstrate the ability of CEED projects to promote the viability of the existing safety net. Consumer assistance for individuals applying for these projects. Ability to meet program requirements. Allows CEED projects to include contracts or subcontracts with primary care clinics. Conditions the creation of CEED projects on the availability of federal financial participation. States that nothing in the CEED project shall be construed to create an entitlement. Allows CEED projects to be undertaken by a county, a consortium of counties or a city and county. Requires that the county, consortium of counties or city and county, shall provide the nonfederal share of funding through certified public expenditures or an intergovernmental transfer. Requires DHCS to develop methodologies for distributing available federal funds. Directs DHCS to balance funding allocations throughout geographic areas of the state, consistent with the requirements of the waiver. Authorizes DHCS to reallocate available federal funds if necessary to maximize receipt of federal funds or otherwise meet federal requirements. Provides that no General Fund monies shall be used to fund STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 342 (John A. P?rez) Page 13 CEED projects, services or local administrative costs. Requires DHCS to ensure that CEED projects are evaluated, and specifies the objectives of the required evaluation. Authorizes DHCS to seek federal or private funds or enter into a partnership to evaluate the CEED programs. Grants DHCS the authority to continue the existing coverage initiative projects that were part of the 2005 demonstration project. Dual eligibles Defines a "dual eligible" to mean an individual who is eligible for Medi-Cal and Medicare benefits. Requires DHCS to seek federal approval for establishing pilot projects through a Medicare and/or Medicaid demonstration project or waiver. Authorizes DHCS to operate as a delegated Medicare benefit administrator, and allows DHCS to enter into financing arrangements with CMS to share in any program savings generated by the pilot project. Directs DHCS to establish pilot projects, upon federal approval, that enable dual eligibles to receive a continuum of services and that maximize the coordination of benefits between the Medi-Cal and Medicare programs. States that the purpose of the pilot project is to develop effective health care models that integrate services authorized under Medicaid and Medicare and that may include additional services. Requires, by January 1, 2012, DHCS to identify health care models that may be included in the pilot project and to develop timelines and a process for selecting, financing, monitoring and evaluating the pilot projects. States that the goals for the pilot projects to include all of the following: Coordinating of Medi-Cal and Medicare benefits and improved continuity of acute care, long-term care and home- and community-based services. Coordinating access to acute and long-term care services for dual eligibles. Maximizing the ability of dual eligibles to remain in their homes in lieu of institutional care. Increasing the availability of, and access to, home- and community-based alternatives. STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 342 (John A. P?rez) Page 14 Directs that pilot projects shall be established in up to four counties, and shall include at least one county that provides Medi-Cal services under a county organized health care system, and one that provides using a two-plan model. Requires DHCS to consider local support for integrating medical care, long-term care and home- and community- based services and the existence of a local stakeholder process, as specified, in establishing the pilots. Authorizes DHCS to enter into exclusive or nonexclusive contracts on a bid or negotiated basis to administer the pilot projects. Exempts the contracts from specified provisions of the Government Code. Authorizes DHCS to require that dual eligibles be assigned as mandatory enrollees into managed care contracts. Requires that, if mandatory enrollment is required for dual eligibles, the applicable requirements of the department and health plans related to mandatory enrollment of SPDs in this bill are also required for dual eligibles. Any dual eligible shall have the choice no to participate in a pilot project for receiving their Medicare benefits. Allows persons meeting requirements for PACE may select a PACE plan if one is available. Requires DHCS to provide a report to the Legislature after the first full year of operation, and annually thereafter, and evaluate the pilots. Makes the implementation of this section dependent upon federal financial participation or funding. Grants DHCS an exemption from the Administrative Procedures Act related to the development of regulations and allows implementation by all-county letters or similar instructions. FISCAL IMPACT This bill in its current form has not been analyzed by a fiscal committee. STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 342 (John A. P?rez) Page 15 BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION Given that the current hospital and uninsured demonstration project waiver is expiring, the author notes that a new waiver must be negotiated and established this year, and a new authorizing statute will be needed in order to implement its provisions. According to the author, a new waiver offers new opportunities afforded by federal health care reform that will strengthen the Medi-Cal program and maximize federal funding, while making the best use of scarce state General Fund resources. New federal Medicaid flexibility offers the potential both to expand coverage to traditionally ineligible groups and to offer that coverage in innovative ways to improve care coordination, promote quality and ensure cost effectiveness. However, the author adds that such expansions must be coordinated with program investments in prevention, care coordination and management, and quality improvement to ensure that coverage dollars are wisely spent. The author indicates a waiver renewal is an opportunity to ask the federal government to provide the state flexibility, and to seek federal funding for demonstration projects that achieve the required federal budget neutrality. The author says that the state has embarked upon a comprehensive waiver proposal that seeks to accomplish the following goals: Strengthen California's frayed and overburdened safety net that provides most of the services to the uninsured and low-income; Maximize federal financial participation and federal resources for uncompensated care; Promote stability and more efficiency in state and local health care funding; and, Promote quality and value in health care services and outcomes. California's new pending waiver In the 2008-09 May revision, Governor Schwarzenegger signaled an interest in making improvements to fee-for-service Medi-Cal. The May revision stated that slowing the rate of growth in health care expenditures is an essential component of efforts to restore the state's fiscal balance and to achieve coverage for all Californians, noting that the Medi-Cal program is the largest purchaser of health care in California. It was STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 342 (John A. P?rez) Page 16 also noted that a disproportionate share of Medi-Cal spending is concentrated among a small segment of enrollees, the majority of whom have complex chronic medical conditions, including behavioral health conditions, and that emphasizing prevention and increased use of primary care services offers the promise of better health outcomes and slower rates of growth in costs. The administration concluded that it is committed to working with the Legislature and stakeholders to identify enhancements to the Medi-Cal fee-for-service system that improves health outcomes and slows the overall rate of cost growth. With the expiration date of the hospital waiver rapidly approaching, the administration and the Legislature began planning for a new, more comprehensive Section 1115 waiver. One of the budget trailer bills, ABX4 6 (Evans), outlines the goals of a new comprehensive waiver: Strengthening California's health care safety net; Reducing the number of uninsured individuals; Optimizing opportunities to increase federal financial participation; Promoting long-term, efficient and effective use of state and local funds; Improving health care quality and outcomes; and Promoting home- and community-based care. The bill also directed that the new waiver shall be developed for the purposes of providing the most vulnerable Medi-Cal enrollees with access to better coordinated and integrated care that will improve outcomes in the Medi-Cal program and help slow the long-term growth in program costs. DHCS was directed to realize the goals of the bill by considering better care coordination for seniors and persons with disabilities, enhanced coordination of Medi-Cal and Medicare coverage, improved coordination and integration of care for children with significant medical needs and improved integration of physical and behavioral health. The focus is on these groups because of the seriousness of their medical conditions. As a group, those with the most serious chronic illnesses consume the largest share of Medi-Cal expenditures. For example, an estimated 10 percent of beneficiaries account for about 75 percent of STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 342 (John A. P?rez) Page 17 program costs. Most of these are enrolled in Medi-Cal fee-for-service program, which does not currently offer an easy method to manage and integrate their care. Department of Health Care Services concept paper Late in 2009, DHCS released a concept paper for the new waiver and held a public meeting to gain comments on the paper. The revised concept paper was submitted to the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to initiate discussion on the design of the waiver. The concept paper argues that many Medi-Cal enrollees have a coordinated system of care through their enrollment in managed care plans of various types. In Medi-Cal, families generally are subject to mandatory enrollment in managed care while other groups, including seniors and persons with disabilities, may voluntarily enroll in managed care, but most elect to stay in fee-for-service Medi-Cal. The exception is in counties where Medi-Cal is provided by a county organized health system. In those selected counties all beneficiaries are enrolled in a county-created managed care plan. The concept paper argues that fee-for-service, does not provide consistent and coordinated care for California's most vulnerable populations, which are the four target groups called out in ABX4 6-the SPDs, children with special health care needs, Medicare and Medicaid dually eligible individuals and children and adults with serious mental illness. The concept paper highlights the problems with lack of coordination of care: The program does not integrate the primary, acute, behavioral health, and long- term care needs of the SPD populations. Even those SPDs enrolled in managed care face a similar problem of lack of integration when they seek specialty mental health services, because such services are carved out of Medi-Cal managed care. Fragmentation between Medi-Cal and Medicare contributes to poor outcomes and results in care being provided in inappropriate and expensive settings. Caring for the 200,000 children with special health care needs is split between Medi-Cal and CCS programs because, CCS services are carved out of Medi-Cal STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 342 (John A. P?rez) Page 18 managed care. The concept paper identifies four initiatives for achieving the goals: Promote organized delivery systems of care. Such systems will place a strong focus on primary and preventive care and evidence-based services which should be able to provide the appropriate care in the right setting at the right time. The concept paper does not recommend a delivery system for this, acknowledging that the state could use the existing managed care delivery system or newly developed enhanced medical home models and whatever mode is chosen could vary throughout the state. The overall goal will be to improve access and care coordination and slow the long-term growth rate of the Medi-Cal program. Strengthen and expand the health care safety net. The waiver will help the safety net by providing a role for designated public hospitals in a system of care for seniors and persons with disabilities, preserving and supporting state and county health care programs, and increasing federal financial participation for designated public hospitals. While the concept paper details the role of the designated public hospitals, it is silent with regard to private hospitals and other safety net providers. Implement value-based purchasing strategies. The purpose of these new strategies is to change payments to improve health care quality and outcomes and to slow the long-term growth rate of Medi-Cal. In particular, California will work to design value-based purchasing strategies for the program and for the new systems of delivery. The concept paper lists as possible options: pay for performance for providers, healthy rewards and incentives for beneficiaries and nonpayment of health care acquired conditions. Enhance the delivery system to prepare for national health care reform. The concept paper notes that the last waiver funded a coverage initiative, which resulted in DHCS awarding 10 grants in different STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 342 (John A. P?rez) Page 19 counties. DHCS would now like to see these programs made more consistent and align them more closely with the organized delivery systems for SPDs. DHCS also proposes expanding the number of coverage initiatives, reforming payments and improving enrollment into the coverage initiative. ABX4 6 required that there be a stakeholder process, which was used to assist in developing the implementation plan based on the concept paper. The implementation plan is another requirement of ABX4 6. The plan must be submitted to the Legislature at least 60 days prior to any appropriation. As required by AB X4 6 DHCS convened a Stakeholder Advisory Committee to advise on preparation of the implementation plan. The Stakeholder Advisory Committee will also advise on the implementation of the waiver until its expiration. The Stakeholder Advisory Committee includes persons with disabilities, seniors, representatives of legal services agencies that serve clients in the affected populations, health plans, specialty care providers, physicians, hospitals, county government, labor, and others as appropriate. The Stakeholder Advisory Group has been divided into five Technical Workgroups to provide technical support to DHCS on the SPDs, CCS, behavioral health integration, dual eligibles and the health care coverage initiative. As a result of its work with the Stakeholder Advisory Group and the technical workgroups, DHCS has prepared an implementation plan that has been submitted to CMS. It addresses the following major issues. Phasing in coverage for the newly eligible adults, who are adults between the ages of 19 and 64 who are not otherwise eligible for Medicaid, who are also referred to as the childless adults. Federal health care reform requires states to cover this population under Medicaid, beginning in 2014. The state proposed to accomplish this by expanding the health care initiatives that were created in the existing Section 1115 waiver. STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 342 (John A. P?rez) Page 20 Phasing in coverage for adults with incomes between 133 and 200 percent of the FPL who are not otherwise eligible for Medicaid. Beginning in 2014 most of this population will probably transition to a basic health plan or the health insurance exchange. Create more accountable, coordinated systems of care, with a focus on seniors and persons with disabilities and dual eligibles. This will be accomplished largely through expansion of managed care. In addition, the state has proposed new service delivery systems for people needing mental health or substance abuse services who need integrated care. Pilots are also being proposed for and children with special health care needs and for those who are dually eligible for Medicaid and Medicare. Expand the safety net care pool that is provided for in the state's existing 1115 waiver, so that it will continue to support safety net providers and other health care programs for low income individuals. Implement a series of improvements to the existing service delivery systems. Prepare pilots for health payment reforms within the public hospital system. The goal of these pilots will be to better align payment and care delivery incentives and are designed to help stabilize the public safety net systems. According to DHCS, these proposals will also assist the state's fiscal situation by reducing long term costs trends in the Medi-Cal program. The HCCIs are an important element of this proposal. The expansion of the health care coverage initiatives is seen by DHCS to be a bridge to the significant coverage changes contained within health care reform. They will become more standardized with less variation between counties. This will help, under the waiver proposal, transition this population into Medi-Cal in 2014. All 58 counties would have the option to participate in the HCCIs. Benefits and enrollment will depend on available resources as the program will be financed by a combination of county STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 342 (John A. P?rez) Page 21 resources and federal Medicaid matching funds. DHCS estimates that at least 56 of California's 58 counties will opt to join the HCCI program, which will enroll approximately 500,000 in the HCCIs. The benefits will have to comply with federal law by 2014, which will require a benchmark plan that provides essential health benefits as defined in federal law. These include emergency services, hospitalization, mental health and substance use disorder services, among others Part of the state's proposal is to strengthen medical homes and care coordination for the SPDs. DHCS proposes a set of requirements for provider for administering medical homes. In addition, case management services will be targeted to HCCI enrollees who are frequent users of inpatient hospital services in addition to those with chronic illnesses. Medi-Cal Medi-Cal provides coverage to 6.9 million Californians, roughly half of whom are enrolled in fee-for service and the other half in Medi-Cal managed care, which provides coverage through public and private health plans. SPDs have the greatest health care needs of any eligibility group served by Medi-Cal, and account for the highest per capita spending in Medi-Cal. Sixty-eight percent of SPDs have more than one chronic condition, twenty-eight percent have a mental health diagnosis and sixteen percent have diabetes. The average annual cost in Medi-Cal for SPDs is $8,200 per year. Among the SPD population, approximately 20,300 individuals were identified by DHCS as having five or more ED visits, and the cost of their care was over three times more expensive than care for other beneficiaries within this target population. Medi-Cal managed care Under the traditional Medi-Cal fee-for-service program, providers are reimbursed for every service they provide and assume no financial risk. Under Medi-Cal managed care, DHCS reimburses health care plans on a "capitated" basis, which is a set payment per enrolled person, per month, regardless of the number of services a Medi-Cal beneficiary receives. The health plans that contract with the state on a capitated basis assume financial risk, in that it may cost them more or less money than the capitated amount paid STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 342 (John A. P?rez) Page 22 to them to deliver the necessary care. Medi-Cal managed care plans operate in 23 of the state's 58 counties, which are generally urban counties with larger populations. There are three types of Medi-Cal managed care plans: o COHS Plans. Under this model, there is one health plan which is run by a public agency and governed by an independent board that includes local representatives. COHS plans operate in nine counties. o Geographic Managed Care Plan (GMC). The GMC system allows Medi-Cal beneficiaries to choose one of several commercial HMOs operating in a county. GMC is limited to two counties o The Two-Plan Model. DHCS contracts with only two managed care plans. Generally, one is locally developed and operated and is known as a local initiative, while the second is a commercial health plan. Twelve counties are in the two-plan model. The great majority of beneficiaries enrolled in managed care are families with seniors and persons with disabilities (SPDs) making up a small portion of the enrollees. Most families and children residing in Medi-Cal managed care counties are enrolled in managed care on a mandatory basis. Under mandatory enrollment, beneficiaries in counties with a choice of plans are free to choose a plan or, if they do not make a choice, DHCS automatically assigns them based on several criteria. SPDs in counties with managed care plans have the option of participating in fee-for-service or managed care, but generally choose fee-for-service. The exceptions are the nine COHS counties, where nearly all Medi-Cal beneficiaries are required to receive their care from a COHS plan. Only about 16 percent of SPDs are enrolled in managed care plans, including those in COHS counties. Medi-Cal managed care plans are currently regulated by both DHCS and the Department of Managed Health Care. Medi-Cal managed care plans must comply with the Knox-Keene Act, which focuses on the accessibility and adequacy of health plan provider networks; internal quality systems; health plan financial solvency; consumer rights and disclosure requirements; and, complaint resolution, including STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 342 (John A. P?rez) Page 23 complaints related to the adequacy of the care provided. Medi-Cal managed care regulations have many similar provisions to the Knox-Keene Act, but go beyond those requirements to focus on Medi-Cal enrollment procedures, scope of services, contractual reporting requirements, financial performance, capitation payments, member billing, and the handling of beneficiary grievances in the context of Medi-Cal benefits and eligibility. There is significant overlap between the two regulatory frameworks, including two consumer hotlines and grievance processes. COHS are exempted from the requirement to have a Knox-Keene license. However many of the COHS obtained Knox-Keene license in order to participate in the Healthy Families Program. In the most recent contracts, DHCS required each COHS to meet the Knox-Keene Act requirements. DMHC conducts a licensing audit of each plan every three years. The audit is not specific to Medi-Cal. The DMHC operates an "HMO Help Center" with a toll free hotline that is answered 24 hours a day. Through coordination among help center, licensing, and enforcement staff, additional audits, investigations or enforcement activities are initiated if DMHC identifies a pattern of problems through consumer or provider complaints. Current medical exemption process Under current Medi-Cal regulations, individuals required to enroll in a managed care plan on a mandatory basis are able to apply for a medical exemption. If individuals are being treated for a complex medical condition, as defined in regulation, by a provider that is not contracting with the managed care plans available in their county, they may qualify for a temporary exemption from mandatory enrollment for up to 12 months. In some instances, the exemption can also be renewed. Complex medical conditions include pregnancy, cancer, scheduled organ transplant, renal disease and dialysis, disease affecting more than one organ system (i.e., diabetes), participant in adult day health care, HIV and other conditions. Medicaid waivers Section 1115 waivers are authorized under the Social Security Act and provide the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) with broad authority to waive provisions of STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 342 (John A. P?rez) Page 24 the Medicaid statute, to allow states to institute demonstration projects and provide federal funding that would not normally be eligible under federal law. To avoid Congressional approval, these waivers must be budget-neutral over the life of the waiver, meaning that they cannot cost the federal government more than it would normally pay through Medicaid in the absence of the waiver. Waivers allow states flexibility to institute new systems of care delivery, service eligibility for non-Medicaid eligible populations or to provide services that may not be a covered benefit under Medicaid. All waivers are subject to approval by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the Office of Management and Budget, and the Department of Health and Human Services. Several states, such as Indiana, Massachusetts and Vermont have reformed their health care systems using federal Medicaid waivers. A common element in these state programs has been the expansion of each state's Medicaid program. However, some states have gone beyond this and have combined expansions with additional programs such as investments in prevention, care coordination and management, and quality improvements. Medi-Cal waivers California has 16 waivers currently, including a Section 1115 Medicaid waiver, entitled the Medi-Cal Hospital/Uninsured Care Demonstration Project, or the hospital waiver, as it is commonly known, which expires on August 31, 2010. The hospital waiver was implemented by SB 1100 of 2005 (Perata and Ducheny). SB 1100 has had widespread effects on both public and private safety net hospitals. The proposed waiver outlined in DHCS's concept paper would replace the hospital waiver. The result of SB 1100 was a wholesale change in how designated public hospitals (as defined in the waiver) and private and other public hospitals are paid under the Medi-Cal program. The current hospital waiver also contains a coverage component that has provided $180 million in federal funds annually to the state. The first two years of that funding were conditioned upon the state mandating that seniors and persons with disabilities be enrolled in managed care models of delivery service. The state did not enact legislation that would have allowed the STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 342 (John A. P?rez) Page 25 state to use that portion of the funds during the first two years. The remaining three years of the waiver have provided $180 million in federal funds for a coverage initiative, which were pilot projects for covering the uninsured. Under the waiver, federal funds match "certified public expenditures" (CPEs) for health care services provided in public hospitals and county clinics. CPEs are expenditures for providing health care to Medi-Cal recipients and the uninsured. Twenty-two selected public hospitals, including the five UC hospitals, use CPEs to claim federal funds under Medi-Cal, including DSH payments. Under the current waiver, for uncompensated care provided to Medi-Cal and uninsured patients, public hospitals have access to over $1 billion in federal DSH funds. Public hospitals are also able to access SNCP funding, which is a federal allotment of over $700 million. Health care coverage initiative (HCCI) The basic requirements for the existing HCCI projects are as follows: Enrollees must be citizens or legal residents that meet the criteria for receiving federal matching funds. Income below 200 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL). Age between 19 and 64 years. No asset tests. Ineligible for Medicaid, Health Families and Medicare. No insurance within last three months for the higher income enrollees. During the course of the current waiver, grants were awarded to 10 counties, Alameda, Contra Costa, Kern, Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara and Venture. Each of these programs must follow general state and federal criteria, but retain some flexibility. For example, three counties require a premium, to enroll while seven require co-payments for selected services. Some counties have used public providers, while others a mix of public and private providers. Orange County has used a clinic network STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 342 (John A. P?rez) Page 26 comprised entirely of private providers. HCCI counties are required to provide enrollees with a medical home that that meets the requirements for maintenance of records. All of the counties have gone beyond this requirement and are providing a patient-centered medical home Seniors and persons with disabilities According to federal law, an individual is considered disabled if he or she is unable to engage in any substantially gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment that can be expected to result in death or which has lasted, or can be expected to last, for a continuous period of not less than 12 months. Different definitions apply for children, people who are visually impaired and people who qualify for Medi-Cal's working disabled program. To be eligible for Medi-Cal, people with disabilities must also meet Medi-Cal's requirements for income, assets, residence and citizenship. In general, people with disabilities who qualify for Medi-Cal can be grouped into one of two broad categories: 1.Those who are categorically needy and, therefore, automatically qualify for Medi-Cal; or, 2.Those who are medically needy and may become eligible by incurring medical expenses each month. In addition, a small number of people qualify for Medi-Cal through federal waivers or state-only programs. Nearly 90 percent of non-elderly beneficiaries with disabilities are categorically needy, and qualify for Medi-Cal based on their eligibility for cash assistance under the Supplemental Security Income/State Supplemental Program (SSI/SSP). People who qualify for Medi-Cal based on eligibility for SSI/SSP are a heterogeneous group. Some are relatively high-functioning individuals who qualify primarily based on age and income. Among the disabled, there are a wide variety of physical impairments, mental, developmental and other chronic conditions. According to the CHCF, SPDs STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 342 (John A. P?rez) Page 27 represent only 27 percent of Medi-Cal beneficiaries, but account for 63 percent of expenditures. In particular, 28 percent of Medi-Cal benefits are for seniors and 35 percent are for individuals with disabilities. There has been considerable debate over the issue of mandatory enrollment of SPDs into Medi-Cal managed care. Mandatory enrollment of SPDs was an important element in the Governor's 2005 proposal to redesign Medi-Cal, which would have placed almost 600,000 SPDs in mandatory enrollment in Medi-Cal managed care. While this was not adopted by the Legislature, in 2005, the Legislature did approve an expansion of managed care to 13 additional counties. This approved expansion includes the mandatory enrollment of an estimated 60,000 SPDs through geographic expansion of COHS. During consideration of the Medi-Cal hospital waiver later that year, there were additional discussions of expanding managed care, but the administration eventually dropped its proposal for managed care expansion. Following those efforts, the pilot project approach was considered by the Legislature several times, but was not enacted. Performance measurement project In November 2005, the CHCF completed and released a set of recommended health plan performance standards and measures to improve the way people with disabilities and chronic conditions receive services in the Medi-Cal managed care program. The report resulted from a two-month feasibility study involving three consulting groups. The consulting team found that, in a mandatory program, more extensive standards and measures are practical, desirable, and potentially cost-efficient over time. Among other things, the CHCF report identified 53 recommendations to improve the Medi-Cal managed care program, including 23 that they considered essential. Previous hearings A joint hearing of the Senate and Assembly Budget and Health Committees was conducted on August 16, 2005, to examine the Governor's managed care proposal. The hearing revealed that important information needed for implementing managed care expansion that needed to be developed. This information includes indicators to measure health plan performance and health improvement outcomes for seniors and STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 342 (John A. P?rez) Page 28 the disabled and better information to establish managed care capitation rates. A report by George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services, funded by the California Endowment concluded that the state's experience so far with managed care for this population is so limited that it is not possible to predict what issues may arise as compulsory arrangements. California Children's Services The California Children's Services (CCS) program, which is administered by DHCS, provides medical care and medical therapy for children with certain physical limitations and chronic health conditions or diseases. Eligibility is limited to children under 21 years of age who must have one or more of the specified medical conditions and be in a family that meets one of three family income eligibility criteria. The eligibility criteria are: the families have an adjusted gross income of $40,000 or less, the children have Healthy Families coverage, or the family has medical care costs in excess of 20 percent of the family's adjusted gross income. Healthy Families covers children in families up to 250 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL). The CCS program also provides medical therapy treatment for children whose disability would impede educational or physical development, a program element that is unaffected by the income ceiling. The dual eligible population Low-income seniors and persons with disabilities who are enrolled in both Medicaid and Medicare are called dual eligibles. In California, 1.1 million of those seniors and permanently disabled persons who qualify for Medicare also qualify for Medi-Cal due to low income. According to the DHCS waiver proposal, dual eligible beneficiaries are the most chronically ill patients within both Medicare and Medicaid, requiring a complex array of services form multiple providers. Because seniors and people with disabilities generally must have incomes well below the poverty line and minimal assets to qualify for Medi-Cal, dual eligibles are much poorer than other Medicare beneficiaries. More than 60 percent live below the poverty level. Dual eligibles also tend to have more extensive health care needs than other Medicare beneficiaries. More than 50 STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 342 (John A. P?rez) Page 29 percent of dual eligibles have limitations in the activities of daily living. They have higher rates of Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, pulmonary disease and stroke. Nearly four in ten have a mental or cognitive impairment, making it very difficult for dual eligibles to make their way through complicated program changes, even if they receive education and communication efforts otherwise appropriate for an elderly population. One in four dual eligibles lives in a nursing home or other long-term care facility. Dual eligibles, like other Medicare beneficiaries, were entitled to receive coverage for outpatient prescription drugs by enrolling in a Medicare Part D plan when the program began in January 2006. Under the current system, Medicare is administered and funded by the federal government and generally covers primary and acute care and pharmacy. Medi-Cal is the secondary payer for low-income beneficiaries and covers primary and acute care, medical equipment and long-term care. Medi-Cal also pays for home- and community-based services but these may be administered separately such as In Home Support Services (IHSS). The Section 1115 waiver proposal and AB 342 seek to implement pilot projects in up to four counties to test integration of services for dual eligibles in COHS and other managed care plans that operate both Medi-Cal managed care plans and Medicare Special Needs Plans (SNPs). The Section 1115 waiver proposal also states that in addition to the pilot projects, the state will continue development of an expanded strategy that provides full integration of funding and benefits. According to the Section 1115 waiver proposal, this will be added as an amendment at a later date. Consultation with stakeholders and CMS regarding how to develop an integrated funding approach will continue. The Section 1115 waiver proposal states that Medi-Cal would integrate dual eligible beneficiaries into the organized systems of care that will be developed first for the Medi-Cal-only SPD population. Medi-Cal will ensure that the systems of care align for both populations, and that these include mandatory medical homes, care management, better connection to specialty providers, incentives that reward providers and beneficiaries for achieving the desired clinical, utilization, and cost-specific outcomes. STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 342 (John A. P?rez) Page 30 The systems of care will use existing home- and community-based service programs, such as In-Home Supportive Services, to shift care from the institution to the community by leveraging existing HCBS infrastructure and providers where possible. After Medi-Cal-only SPD systems of care are developed, dual eligible beneficiaries will be integrated in phases, according to organizational readiness in various regions. According to the Section 1115 waiver proposal, Medi-Cal would act as the administrator of the integrated program and assume the risk for managing the Medicare benefit, subject to discussions between California and CMS. Medi-Cal would be responsible for coordinating payment, coverage, and benefits for all Medicare and Medicaid acute care, behavioral health, pharmacy, and long-term support and services, including institutional care and home- and community-based services. CMS and Medi-Cal would negotiate an appropriate, risk-adjusted global amount or per member, per month amount of Medicare funding for participating dually eligible beneficiaries that would be provided by CMS to Medi-Cal to administer the Medicare benefit. The specific elements of risk sharing would be subject to discussion. Medicare Advantage Special Needs Plans (SNPs) The Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) gave CMS the authority to designate certain Medicare Advantage plans as SNPs. A SNP may limit its enrollment only to people in certain long-term care facilities (like a nursing home), people who are dual eligibles, or people with certain chronic or disabling conditions. The goal of SNPs is to provide health care and services to those who can benefit the most from the special expertise of the plans' providers and focused care management. SNPs are available in some areas of California, but not all. Three of the five COHs operate SNPs-CalOptima (OneCare), Health Plan of San Mateo and Partnership Helath Plan of California. Enrollment is voluntary. Medical homes Many states have adopted medical home legislation and programs, mostly for Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) enrollees. Some states, such as Iowa, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Vermont, also allow or STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 342 (John A. P?rez) Page 31 encourage private sector participation. Community Care of North Carolina, the state's Medicaid program, is a working example of a patient centered medical home. The goals of the program are to improve the care of the Medicaid population, control costs, develop community-based networks to manage care of populations in partnership with the state, and fully develop the medical home model. The program has demonstrated excellent quality and cost outcomes through disease management, evidence-based clinical practice, and an emphasis on a physician-led team approach. Two evaluations of this program indicate it saved the State of North Carolina $195 to $215 million in 2003 and between $230 and $260 million in 2004 when compared to historical fee-for-service. In a 2008 report to the United States (U.S.) Congress, the federal Medicare Payment Advisory Commission recommended that Congress establish a budget-neutral payment increase for primary care services furnished by primary-care-focused practitioners (defined as those whose specialty designation is defined as primary care or whose pattern of claims meets a minimum threshold of furnishing primary care services). The commission also recommended that Congress initiate a Medicare medical home pilot project, with stringent specified criteria and a physician pay-for-performance program. According to a 2007 Commonwealth Fund report, "Closing the Divide: How Medical Homes Promote Equity in Health Care," when adults have health insurance coverage and a medical home, racial and ethnic disparities in access and quality tend to disappear. The analysis, based on a Commonwealth Fund national survey, reveals that linking minority patients to a medical home can help them better manage chronic conditions and obtain critical preventive care. Related bills SB 208 (Steinberg and Alquist) is identical to AB 342. This bill is in the Assembly Health Committee and is set for hearing June 29, 2010. AB 2025 (De La Torre) would require DHCS to submit to CMS any proposed amendments to the state plan that are necessary to continue the hospital waiver. This bill is on the Assembly Appropriations Committee suspense file. STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 342 (John A. P?rez) Page 32 Prior legislation SB 1332 (Negrete-McLeod) of 2008 would have established a mandatory enrollment Medi-Cal managed care pilot program, and authorizes the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) to require that in the San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, SPDs be assigned as mandatory enrollees to new or existing managed care plans, as specified. SB 1332 was held on the Senate Appropriations Committee suspense file. ABX1 1 (Nunez) of 2008 among its many provisions, would have expanded eligibility for the Medi-Cal and Healthy Families programs, and express intent that a portion of the financing for the bill's provisions would have come from a variety of sources, including revenues from counties. This bill failed passage by the Senate Health Committee. SB 1448 (Kuehl), Chapter 76, Statutes of 2006, established the Health Care Coverage Act, which establishes a health care coverage initiative as required in the waiver Special Terms and Conditions. AB 2607 (De La Torre) of 2006 was substantially similar to SB 1332. AB 2607 was held on the Senate Appropriations Committee suspense file. SB 1100 (Perata and Ducheny), Chapter 560 Statutes of 2005 provides the framework for implementing the new federal hospital finance waiver, including establishing a new mechanism for funding of safety-net hospitals. AB 2979 (Richman) of 2006 was an administration sponsored bill that would have authorized DHCS to implement two Medi-Cal managed care pilot projects that would require mandatory enrollment for SPDs. AB 2979 was held on the Senate Appropriations Committee suspense file. AB 131 (Committee on Budget), Chapter 80, Statutes of 2005, requires DHCS to evaluate the readiness of a Medi-Cal managed care plan to commence operations to expand the geographic areas they cover, and also requires DHCS to provide to the fiscal and policy committees of the Legislature quarterly updates, regarding activities to improve the Medi-Cal managed care program and to expand to new counties, as directed by the Budget Act of 2005. STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 342 (John A. P?rez) Page 33 Arguments in support The California Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems (CAPH) supports AB 342 in concept. They argue that approval of the next waiver is critical to California's public hospitals and encompasses their core funding for essential outpatient and inpatient services provided to Medi-Cal beneficiaries and the uninsured. CAPH also supports the inclusion of a county alternative option in an organized system of care for SPDs but states that key issues remain to be fully worked out such as the definition of medical home and ensuring adequate rates. CAPH further states that the sections relating to CEED should be considered placeholder language and that further changes will be needed particularly with regard to network structure, scope of benefits and definition of medical home. Aging Services of California supports in concept, but expresses concerns that the time frame for the implementation process for SPDs into a managed care model is very aggressive and details about integrating medical care, long-term care and home and community-based services is unclear. Aging Services also states that it is troubled by the lack of mention of adult day health care, which is a vital, cost effective, community-based program for frail persons and their caregivers and is crucial for a cost effective system. The Children's Specialty Care Coalition writes in support, if amended, that although a number of their suggested amendments were incorporated, the foremost remaining concern is about children in the SPD population and the recently stated intent to mandate enrollment of disabled children into managed care. They request that children should remain in the optional managed care enrollment category so that additional work can be done to develop contract and reporting requirements. With regard to CCS pilots, they request additional amendments including an appeal process for opting out of mandatory enrollment, approval from the Legislature prior to any expansion, that the definition of medical home meet the nationally accepted criteria set by the American Academy of Pediatrics and that there be additional specifications for the evaluation. STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 342 (John A. P?rez) Page 34 The AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) supports the direction of the proposed 1115 waiver, however their support of the bill is conditioned upon amendments. They state that the current version of the bill does not acknowledge or accommodate AHF's unique position, potentially forcing AHF out of the managed care market. AHF is request amendments to authorize Medi-Cal beneficiaries with HIV/AIDS to choose a plan like AHF's and ensure that a plan like AHFs can operate in a two-plan managed care county and that the definition include a person with a confirmed HIV positive test. Concern and comments The California State Association of Counties, Urban Counties Caucus, County Welfare Directors Association and the County Health Executives Association of California write to express support for certain concepts, such as the expansion of the CEED projects. They are concerned however because they note that expansion relies on availability of county funds, therefore they ask for sufficient flexibility, including phasing in of new requirements, in order for these projects to be managed within the limits of available resources. Molina Healthcare supports the concept of what they see as improvements in health care for SPDs. However, they argue that effective plan performance standards are already in place and the enhanced standards in the bill are unnecessary. They are also concerned about the provisions that allow a beneficiary to choose a specialist as a primary care provider. Molina Healthcare also states that the proposed quarterly monitoring of provider networks by DMHS and DHCS would be costly and unnecessary. Molina Healthcare and the California Association of Health Plans expressed concern that the county alternative options would not be required to have a Knox-Keene license. The Local Health Plans of California (LHPC) expressed support of the effort to implement the new Medi-Cal 115 waiver, but they are concerned that some provisions of the bill will be a detriment to the success of the waiver. They argue that the survey of providers for accessibility standards is unworkable and will force the desperately needed specialists out away from Medi-Cal managed care. STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 342 (John A. P?rez) Page 35 They note that they encourage accessibility, but the truth is that many providers' offices are not accessible. LHPC also states that the survey itself will take hours of time for a medical providers and this extra effort could drive them away from the program. This concern is shared by Molina Healthcare and the California Association of Health Plans. LHPC, Molina Healthcare and the California Association of Health Plans also object to what they describe as punitive cuts in health plan rates if they do not provide the encounter data that DHCS wants. The California Children's Hospital Association (CCHA) is concerned about AB 342, principally because they argue that the limitations on access to pediatric subspecialty care must be addressed and mitigated in waiver and implementing legislation. They request an amendment which would dedicate the General Fund saving achieved in the waiver to private safety net hospitals to ensure access to care for low-income Californians. CCHA also requests a specific amendment to strengthen the network provider provisions for SPDS, which is a population that does include disabled children, who have vastly different medical needs than disabled adults. The California Hospital Association (CHA) states that it is critical that changes and ideas for the waiver be balanced with the financial realties that hospitals must deal with under federal health care reform, the state budget crisis and a transition period to health care reform that will put greater financial pressure on hospitals with little improvement in coverage of the uninsured. They see this five-year period as one where Medicare payments to hospitals will be reduced, with the result being greater losses and higher costs for hospitals. They note that the significant coverage expansions do not begin until 2014 which will put intensified pressures on hospitals during the next waiver. CHA argues that preserving the public and private safety net must be the top priority of the 1115 waiver. Arguments in opposition Western Center on Law and Poverty (WCLP) has a position of opposition, unless amended, because of concern that AB 342 STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 342 (John A. P?rez) Page 36 does not go far enough to protect the most vulnerable Californians during the transitions that this waiver will bring for SPDs, in particular that there are inadequate protections for this significant change of moving SPDS into mandatory Medi-Cal managed care. WCLP has suggested that additional consumer protections are needed. These include more specific requirements for primary and specialty care providers as part of network adequacy, providing beneficiaries 90 days to make a choice, a requirement of in-person assessment of new SPDs within 30 days, a standard of care for higher risk individuals where both the potential for increased outcomes and for cost savings is greatest and a requirement to arrange transportation. WCLP is also concerned with provisions related to the mandatory enrollment of dual eligibles, arguing that requiring dual eligibles to enroll in a managed care plan is a serious policy decision with potential disastrous effects for dual eligibles and allowing an opt-out on the Medicare side will not necessarily address the coordination problems. WCLP further states that the Department should not be granted broad mandatory enrollment authority and that DHCS should be required to return for more specific enrollment authority once more details about the pilots have been developed. With regard to the coverage expansion, WCLP requests amendments to the enrollment and renewal language requiring development of a simple, working enrollment process and a screen for other health coverage programs, more specific definitions and standards for "health care homes," "enhanced health care homes" and "care coordination" and at least min minimal standards both on network adequacy and timely access to care. Disability Rights California writes in opposition, unless amended, stating that they are not opposed to managed care, but do oppose the mandatory managed care requirement in the bill. They also expressed concern that the timing of this significant policy change is left to DHCS and is being planned too quickly. They note that the readiness standards are imprecise and that the standards in the California Healthcare Foundation study be adopted. Another concerns is that the assessment to identify high risk individuals, are not being done in a timely enough fashion they argue. STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 342 (John A. P?rez) Page 37 The Corporation for Supportive Housing (CSH) writes that by receiving health care home services, the frequent user initiative participants who were Medi-Cal beneficiaries experienced a 60 percent decrease in emergency room visits and a 69 percent decrease in inpatient days. CSH argues that based on evaluations of this initiative, very intensive face-to-face care coordination was a cornerstone of success in improving health outcomes and decreasing costs among this population. CSH requests amendments to require health plans to deliver higher levels of services to individuals considered high risk, in person assessments, requirements to link high risk beneficiaries with community resources and a definition of medical home using nationally recognized standards. CSH further requests amendments to promote medical homes in counties without managed care plans. The Alzheimer's Association writes that they are opposed unless amended. With regard to mandatory enrollment of SPDs, they request an amendment requiring supplemental criteria to the plan readiness that is specific to this population, expedited transmission of historical utilization data and in-person comprehensive assessment. They also request mandatory reporting to the Legislature on outcomes. The California Primary Care Association (CPCA) has an opposed unless amended position and requests that the pending legislation make clear that it is the State's intention for the customary Medicaid requirements, such as the prospective payment system or PPS reimbursement, to be in effect come 2014, when coverage for the population under 133 percent of poverty becomes mandatory (and the federal government begins to pay 100 percent of the coverage). Similar protections should be included for the subsidized populations that will be transitioned to the new insurance exchange. CPCA is also seeking contracting protections for the SPDs who will be transitioning into Medi-Cal managed care. The Congress of California Seniors adds, with regard to mandatory enrollment of SPDs, that additional specificity is needed with regard to coordinating services with home- and community-based services and objects to exceptions to the normal regulation and contracting processes. STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 342 (John A. P?rez) Page 38 PRIOR ACTIONS Prior Version of the bill Assembly Health: 18-0 Assembly Appropriations: 11-0 Assembly Floor: 78-0 COMMENTS 1. Urgency clause and urgency of issue. The bill contains an urgency clause in order that an approved waiver can be implemented as soon as possible. The existing waiver expires on August 31, 2010. 2. This bill is likely to be significantly amended during the remainder of the 2010 session. The state will be negotiating with stakeholders and the federal government through the remainder of the current session. Additional changes are likely, including significant amendments that would reflect federal direction or any other changes that need to be made as a result of the negotiations. Should this bill pass out of committee, the committee may want to rehear it when these details are finalized. 3. There are no details on the financing elements of the waiver proposal yet. A major part of the waiver proposal is the hospital financing section. The plan proposes significant changes in the way that hospitals are paid. There is nothing in this bill that relates to the hospital financing. Presumably either this bill will be amended or another vehicle will be used to implement those portions, once negotiations with CMS yield some agreement. POSITIONS Support: Aging Services of California (support in concept) AIDS Healthcare Foundation (if amended) Association of California Healthcare Districts (earlier version of bill) California Association of Public Hospitals (in concept) STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 342 (John A. P?rez) Page 39 Children's Specialty Care Coalition (if amended), Oppose: Alzheimer's Association (unless amended) AARP (unless amended) California Primary Care Association (unless amended) Corporation for Supportive Housing (unless amended) Congress of California Seniors (unless amended) Disability Rights California (unless amended) Western Center on Law & Poverty (unless amended) -- END -