BILL ANALYSIS SB 208 Page 1 Date of Hearing: June 29, 2010 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HEALTH William W. Monning, Chair SB 208 (Steinberg and Alquist) - As Amended: June 22, 2010 SENATE VOTE : Not relevant SUBJECT : Medi-Cal: demonstration project waivers. SUMMARY : Enacts the statutory changes proposed by the Department of Health Care (DHCS) to implement the proposed Section 1115 Comprehensive Demonstration Project Waiver (Section 1115 Waiver) in the Medi-Cal Program. Specifically, this bill : Coverage Expansion and Enrollment Demonstration Projects 1)Establishes local Coverage Expansion and Enrollment Demonstration (CEED) projects to provide health care benefits for uninsured adults age 19 to 24 with income up to 200% of the federal poverty level (FPL) and who are not otherwise eligible for Medi-cal or Medicare as a transition to full implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) and does the following: a) Authorizes DHCS to continue projects that were established as Health Care Coverage Initiatives) (HCCIs) under the prior Section 1115 Waiver to the extent they are authorized and consistent with the terms of the successor Section 1115 waiver; b) Requires DHCS to develop local CEED projects, the later of January 1, 2011 or 180 days after federal approval, for the purpose of providing scheduled health care benefits to uninsured adults 19 to 64 with income up to 200% FPL and not otherwise eligible for Medi-Cal or Medicare; c) Requires the CEED projects to include the following elements, subject to the terms and conditions of the Section 1115 Waiver: i) Migration to a standardized eligibility and enrollment procedure to interface with Medi-Cal, according to collaboratively established milestones; ii) Designation of a medical home and assignment to a SB 208 Page 2 primary care provider; iii) Development of an enhanced medical home, that may include case management services, to target enrollees who are frequent users of inpatient services, have chronic medical conditions or mental health conditions; iv) Benefit package as specified and a provider network and service delivery system that includes public and private providers to ensure that there is capacity to transition to coverage through Medi-Cal or the state health insurance exchange in 2014; v) Outreach and enrollment plan that reaches potential enrollees and includes the public and private providers; vi) Quality measurement and quality monitoring system, including a data tracking system for use in evaluation and performance measures; vii) Promotion of viability of existing safety net; viii) Consumer assistance with applications, access, and participation; and, ix) Ability to meet program requirements, standards, and performance measurement as developed by DHCS in consultation with participating counties. d) Authorizes CEED projects to include primary care clinics in the network. e) Authorizes counties to conduct outreach and enrollment activities to target populations such as the homeless, individuals who frequently use hospital inpatient services, individuals who use emergency departments for avoidable reasons, or people with mental health treatment needs. f) Requires DHCS to ensure that the CEED projects are evaluated to determine if they have met the requirements of the successor Section 1115 Waiver, authorizes DHCS to apply for federal or private funds, enter into partnerships with an independent, nonprofit group or a foundation, academic institution, or apply for grants from a governmental entity for this purpose. g) Authorizes counties, a city and county, a consortium of counties serving more than one county, or a health authority to apply. h) Requires the local entity that chooses to administer a SB 208 Page 3 CEED to provide local funds as the nonfederal share of the Certified Public Expenditures (CPE) or Intergovernmental Transfer as allowed under the successor Section 1115 Waiver, consistent with the terms and conditions, but specifies that nothing in these provisions shall be construed to require local entities to participate and that local funds expended shall be considered voluntary contributions. i) Requires DHCS to develop a methodology for distributing the federal funds, to seek to balance the allocations throughout the state and reallocate if necessary. j) Specifies services provided pursuant to these provisions are available to eligible uninsured persons, CEED projects shall only be established to the extent there is federal financial participation, shall not be construed to create an entitlement, and no state General Funds shall be used except as otherwise provided in the annual Budget Act. Mandatory Enrollment of Seniors and People with Disabilities in Managed Care 2)Authorizes DHCS to phase in mandatory enrollment seniors and people with disabilities (SPDs) into a Medi-Cal managed care plan or county alternative organized system of care, commencing the later of February 1, 2011 or obtaining federal approval. County Alternative Organized System of Care a) Authorizes any county that is not operating a County Organized Health System (COHS) to develop a county alternative model of care as an alternative choice to the Local Initiative (LI) or Commercial Plan (CP). b) Authorizes the county alternative model to be exempt from the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975 (Knox-Keene) unless it is a capitated model that assumes full risk and specifies that it may include various models. c) Requires counties to decide to develop the county alternative option by January 1, 2012. Pre-Enrollment SB 208 Page 4 d) Requires DHCS, prior to implementing mandatory enrollment, to ensure that each managed care plan or county alternative is able to do the following; i) Comply with the readiness evaluation criteria; ii) Ensure and monitor the adequacy of the network in each service area. DHCS is to collaborate with the Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC) in assessing the adequacy; iii) Maintain an updated listing of providers accepting new patients; iv) Assess the health care needs of the SPDs who will be enrolling across all settings including out of network; v) Ensure that provider network and informational materials meet linguistic and other special needs of SPDs such as toll-free lines and ombudsperson services; vi) Provide a process for complaints, grievances, and disenrollments as specified; vii) Solicit stakeholder participation in advisory groups; viii) Contract with safety net and traditional providers; ix) Inform enrollees of procedure for obtaining transportation; x) Monitor the quality and appropriateness of California Children's Services (CCS) eligible children; xi) Maintain a dedicated liaison to coordinate with regional centers; xii) Stratify incoming enrollees applying a risk stratification system based on fee-for-service (FFS) claims data; xiii) Administer a DHCS approved risk assessment survey tool and a telephonic assessment of newly enrolled SPDs within 45 days of enrollment for those identified as high risk and within 105 days for those identified as lower risk; xiv) Based on the health assessment, develop individual care plans for higher risk beneficiaries that includes specified components; xv) Assign enrollees to medical homes that meet specified minimum criteria; and, xvi) Perform care management and care coordination functions and activities including facilitation of SB 208 Page 5 access to health care services, equipment and medications, referral to community resources and agencies, communication with mental health and substance abuse providers, and health education. Outreach, Education and Enrollment e) Requires DHCS to develop and implement an outreach and education program to inform SPDs of their enrollment rights. f) Authorizes contracts or other arrangements with private non-profit consumer assistance organizations. g) Requires notice to beneficiaries with specified information at least three months prior to mandatory enrollment. h) Requires DHCS to implement an awareness and sensitivity training program. Requirements on DHCS . i) Requires DHCS to do the following: i) Assess and ensure managed care plan and county alternative readiness; ii) Ensure compliance with applicable federal and state laws such as physical accessibility and availability of information in alternative formats; iii) Develop a methodology, in consultation and coordination with stakeholders and plans and county alternatives, to identify persons with the highest risk and most complex health care needs; iv) Provide historical utilization data upon enrollment; v) Develop and provide to the managed care plans and county alternatives, an enhanced facility site review tool; vi) Ensure that managed care plans and county alternatives are able to provide alternative forms of communication access as specified; vii) Monitor utilization and caseload of the In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) Program, in collaboration with the Department of Social Services; and, SB 208 Page 6 viii) Work with counties to develop a method to use to determine the appropriate contribution to cover the nonfederal share of inpatient hospital expenses for SPDs. Access and Continuity j) Requires DHCS to do the following: i) Ensure that enrollees are able to request a specialist or clinic as a primary care provider; ii) Ensure that managed care plan and county alternative allow a new enrollee to continue to have access to a provider with whom they have an ongoing relationships if the provider agrees to accept the higher of the Medi-Cal FFS rate or the rate offered; and, iii) In cooperation with DMHC, monitor at least quarterly the adequacy of the provider networks. aa) Requires managed care plans and county alternatives to comply with Knox-Keene continuity of care requirements. bb) Allows specified beneficiaries to be exempt from mandatory enrollment under existing regulatory provisions. cc) Allows an enrollee to have the choice to continue to have a patient-provider relationship with a treating provider if the provider agrees and is a primary care provider or clinic contracting with the managed care plan and county alternative. dd) Allows eligible persons to select a Program for All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE) plan, if available. Sanctions and Enforcement ee) Requires DHCS to do the following: i) Develop a process to enforce legal sanctions as specified against managed care plans and county alternatives that consistently or repeatedly fail to meet performance standards; and, SB 208 Page 7 ii) Suspend new enrollment in any managed care plan and county alternative if it determines that there are not sufficient primary care or specialty providers. Rates ff) Requires DHCS to establish an actuarially sound rate, adequate to ensure access and that is budget neutral. gg) Requires the process of developing and negotiating capitated rates to include analysis of data specific to the SPD population and authorizes DHCS to require plans to submit specified data. Data and Reporting hh) Requires all managed care plans, county alternative or other managed care arrangement to submit specified encounter and financial data for services provided to all members to DHCS. ii) Provides that failure to comply with the data requirements established by DHCS shall result in penalty of 2% of the monthly capitation or arrangement until compliance and provides that responsibility is not relieved by failure of a provider or subcontractor. jj) Requires DHCS to provide to the fiscal and policy committees of the Legislature, semiannual updates on specified activities such as milestones and program changes which may include updates on outcomes and other measures of success. General Provisions aaa) Authorizes DHCS or the California Medical Assistance Commission to contract with managed care plans or other entities as specified, authorizes expedited contracting, exemptions from competitive bid requirements and other Public Contract Code requirements. bbb) Provides that the terms and conditions of certain waivers or state plan amendment shall control in the event of conflicts. SB 208 Page 8 ccc) Authorizes DHCS to implement these provisions by means of all-county letter, plan letters or plan or provider bulletins in lieu of regulations and provides that any regulations shall be deemed emergency. Persons with Dual Medi-Cal and Medicare Eligibility Pilot Project 3)Requires DHCS to seek approval federal approval for a Medicare, Medicaid, or combination demonstration project or waiver, for persons who are Medi-Cal and Medicare eligible (dual eligible), authorizes the operation of the Medicare component as a delegated Medicare benefit administrator and the sharing in any Medicare program savings as follows: a) Authorizes, after obtaining federal approval, the establishment of pilot projects in up to four counties with the purpose of developing effective health care models that integrate Medi-Cal and Medicare services. Authorizes inclusion of additional services as approved. b) Requires the pilot projects to include at least one two-plan Medi-Cal managed care county and one Medi-Cal COHS plan county. Requires DHCS, in determining the counties, to consider: i) Local support for integrating medical care, long-term care, and home-and-community based services; and, ii) Local stakeholder process that includes all interested stakeholders. c) Authorizes DHCS to require dual eligibles to be assigned as mandatory enrollees in managed care plans, provides for continuity of care with existing providers, as specified, and allows enrollees to opt out with regard to Medicare benefits. d) Requires DHCS to identify the models by January 1, 2012 and develop a timeline and process for selection, monitoring and evaluating. e) Establishes goals as follows: i) Coordinating Medi-Cal and Medicare benefits SB 208 Page 9 across health care settings and improving continuity of acute care, long-term care, and home and community-based services; ii) Coordinating access to acute and long-term care services; iii) Maximizing the ability of dual eligbles to remain in their homes and communities with appropriate services in lieu of institutional care; and, iv) Increasing availability of and access to home and community-based alternative. f) Allows eligible persons to select a PACE plan if available. CALIFORNIA CHILDREN'S SERVICES PILOT PROJECT 4)Requires DHCS to establish, by January 1, 2012 organized health care delivery models for children eligible for CCS as follows: a) Requires DHCS to seek proposals to establish and test models of organized health care delivery systems by means of contracts on a bid or negotiated basis, amending existing managed care contracts, and requires capitated or risk-based contracts to be actuarially sound and to take care-coordination activities into account. Contracts may be statewide. b) Requires the models to include at least one of the following: i) Enhanced primary care case management; ii) Provider-based accountable care organization; iii) Specialty health care plan; or, iv) Medi-Cal managed care plan that includes payment and coverage for CCS-eligible conditions. c) Provides that the models shall not be limited to services related to the CCS-eligible condition. d) Authorizes mandatory enrollment. e) Establishes requirements for each model that include: i) Care coordination linking CSHCN with services and resources in a coordinated manner; SB 208 Page 10 ii) Networks that include CCS-approved providers and the current system of regionalized pediatric specialty and sub-specialty providers; iii) Coordination of out-of-network access if appropriate; iv) Ensuring that care for CCS-eligible conditions continues to be received from CCS-approved providers using CCS standards; v) Participation in a quality improvement collaborative and providing data for monitoring and improvement measures as developed by DHCS; and, vi) Establish and support medical homes as specified. f) Requires DHCS to conduct an evaluation to assess the effectiveness of each model in improving the delivery of health care services for children eligible for CCS. DHCS is required to consult with stakeholders in developing the evaluation, to begin the process simultaneously with the implementation of the model delivery systems, and to compare the outcomes to children not enrolled in the models. g) Authorizes children enrolled in the Healthy Families Program to enroll in the models, upon approval of DHCS. EXISTING LAW : 1)Establishes the Medi-Cal Program, administered by DHCS, to provide comprehensive health care services and long-term care to pregnant women, children, and people who are aged, blind, and disabled. Services are reimbursed through FFS, capitated payments to managed care plans, COHS or other contractual arrangements. 2)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. Defines a Medi-Cal managed care plan as any entity that enters into one of several types of contracts with DHCS including COHS, geographic managed care (GMC) plans and LIs. . 3)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 SPDs into SB 208 Page 11 Medi-Cal managed care plans to be voluntary, except in COHS counties where the enrollment of SPDs is mandatory. Provides that services provided by CCS are not incorporated into Medi-Cal managed care contracts (carved-out). 4)Requires counties to provide medical services for the medically indigent. 5)Authorizes, under federal law, the waiving of specified Medicaid (Medi-Cal in California) requirements for demonstration or pilot projects. 6)Until September 1, 2010, creates a hospital demonstration project 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. 7)Creates the Safety Net Care Pool (SNCP) as the federal funds available under the demonstration project matched with "CPEs" for health care services provided in public hospitals and county clinics. 8)Under federal law, establishes the Medicare Program, which provides health care benefits, to persons 65 years of age and older and to the disabled. Provides that the Medicare Program can grant waivers of federal law for demonstration projects. 9)Establishes the CCS Program as a state program for children up to 21 years of age with certain diseases or health problems. FISCAL EFFECT : This bill, as amended, has not been analyzed by a fiscal committee. COMMENTS : 1)PURPOSE OF THIS BILL . According to the author, this bill is one of two companion bills (AB 342 (John A. Perez and Monning) is the other) that will ultimately include the statutory provisions necessary to implement a new federal waiver. California currently has several waivers, including the Medi-Cal Hospital/Uninsured Care waiver (hospital financing waiver) which will expire in August 2010. The hospital financing waiver and implementing legislation for that waiver (SB 1100 (Perata), Chapter 560, Statutes of 2005) instituted a number of changes to how the state reimburses hospitals. SB 208 Page 12 Given that the current hospital financing waiver is expiring, a new waiver must be negotiated and established by September 1, 2010 and will require implementing legislation. 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 federal budget neutrality. The author continues, the state will embark upon a fairly comprehensive waiver proposal that seeks to accomplish the following goals: a) strengthen California's frayed and overburdened safety net that provides most of the services to the uninsured and low-income; b) maximize FFP and federal resources for uncompensated care; c) promote stability and more efficiency in state and local health care funding; and, d) promote quality and value in health care services and outcomes. 2)BACKGROUND . In 2005, the State of California sought a five year federal waiver as a Medicaid demonstration project under the authority of Section 1115(a) of the Social Security Act. Under this waiver, hospital financing was fundamentally restructured. The non-federal share of Medi-Cal funds for 22 county and University of California (UC) hospitals known as Designated Public Hospitals (DPHs) was shifted from State General Funds to CPEs. The waiver also created the SNCP to pay for services to the uninsured and for unreimbursed Medi-Cal expenditures delivered through public hospitals, other governmental entities and state-funded programs. A portion of these funds were contingent on implementation of an HCCI pilot program. In October 2007 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) approved the state's proposal for the HCCI. In addition, CMS set aside a portion of the SNCP funding contingent on a Medi-Cal expansion of mandatory enrollment in managed care to SPDs. Except for COHS, this provision of the waiver was never enacted. Enacted as part of the 2009-10 budget, AB 6 X4 (Evans), Chapter 6, Statutes of 2009 Fourth Extraordinary Session, requires the state to apply for a Health Care Coordination, Improvement, and Long-Term Care Cost Containment Waiver or Demonstration Project Waiver to be approved no later than the conclusion of the current Section 1115 Waiver. As specified SB 208 Page 13 in AB 6 X4, the State of California submitted a Section 1115 Comprehensive Demonstration Project Waiver Proposal on June 2010. On May 7, 2010 DHCS submitted the Implementation Plan to the Legislature in compliance with AB 6 X4. As part of the May Revision of the Governor's Proposed Budget for fiscal year 2010-11, DHCS submitted proposed trailer bill language with the statutory changes necessary to implement the waiver plan. The Budget Conference Committee referred consideration of this legislation to the Senate and Assembly policy and fiscal committees. 3)STAKEHOLDER PROCESS . As required by AB 6 X4, DHCS has 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. As specified, 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. A Stakeholder Advisory Committee was appointed in December 31, 2009 and met on January 7, March 10, May 13 and June 10, 2010. The Stakeholder Advisory Committee has been sub-divided into five Technical Workgroups to provide technical support to DHCS on the following aspects: a) Implementation plan for mandatory enrollment of SPDs or an alternative system where managed care is not appropriate; b) Implementation plan with respect to children with special health care needs (CSHCN) in CCS; c) Implementation plan to pilot and test different strategies to integrate primary care and behavioral health services, including substance abuse, in Medi-Cal; d) Development of the Section 1115 Comprehensive Waiver/Demonstration Project implementation plan for HCCI to cover the uninsured; and, e) Implementation plan for enrollment of Dual Eligible individuals (those eligible for both Medicare and Medi-Cal) in an organized system of care that more fully integrates Medicare and Medi-Cal to provide more effective delivery of Home and Community Based Services. Each workgroup has also held multiple meetings. All meetings are open to the public. DHCS has also established a Waiver SB 208 Page 14 Renewal Resource Webpage to provide resources to those who are interested in the waiver renewal process and would like to contribute to the effort. It contains the agendas, timelines, and other materials from the Stakeholder Advisory Committee and workgroup meetings. 4)SECTION 1115 WAIVERS . Section 1115(a) of the Social Security Act authorizes the federal Secretary of the federal Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to allow states to receive federal Medicaid matching funds without complying with all of the federal Medicaid rules. Traditionally designed as research and demonstration programs to test innovative program improvements and to facilitate coverage expansions to populations not otherwise eligible, they are also used to modify benefits structures and financing mechanisms. CMS generally requires "budget neutrality" so that the federal spending would be no more than it would have been in the absence of the waiver. This requirement is particularly onerous for California due to the frugality of the Medi-Cal Program. For instance, California spent $4,528 per beneficiary in 2006. This is 25% less than the national average and ranks least among the 10 largest states. Much of the savings is a result of the Selective Provider Contracting Program contracting program which has saved billions in federal funds. In addition, until 2009, California traditionally ranked among states with the least generous federal sharing ratio. For all these reasons, California has already cost the federal government less per beneficiary than most states but has not yet been able to capitalize on this in the budget neutrality discussions. 5)WAIVER SUBMISSION. On June 4, 2010 DHCS submitted a formal Section 1115 Comprehensive Demonstration Project Waiver Proposal: "A Bridge to Reform" to CMS. The waiver application identified the following six goals: a) Begin immediate phasing in of coverage for "newly eligible" adults aged 19-64 with incomes up to 133% FPL by building on current county-based coverage initiative; b) Begin immediately phasing in coverage for adults with incomes between 133% and 200% FPL using county coverage initiatives as a transition to the health insurance exchange in 2014; c) Create more accountable, coordinated systems of care with a focus initially on SPDs and Dual Eligibles. In year two and three to propose further amendments to include SB 208 Page 15 People with Mental Health and/or Substance Abuse challenges and CSHCN as well as to advance a project for Dual Eligibles under PPACA; d) Continue and expand the SNCP; e) Implement improvements to existing service delivery system to strengthen infrastructure and prepare for full implementation of PPACA; and, f) Pilot reforms within the public hospital system to align payment and care delivery incentives. 6)HCCI . Under the current waiver, $180 million in federal funds were allotted to the county-based HCCIs to provide coverage to more than 130,000 medically-indigent adults who are not eligible for other public programs. Using a competitive process, California selected 10 counties in waiver years three, four, and five (September 1, 2007-August 31, 2010) to provide coverage to this vulnerable population through an organized system of care. The participating counties-Alameda, Contra Costa, Kern, Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Ventura-use CPEs to draw down the available federal funds. The counties were provided with significant flexibility to design their HCCI programs to reflect local needs and existing delivery systems. The State defined a standard set of eligibility criteria: In addition, counties also were allowed to define additional eligibility criteria based on their program design (e.g., to target HCCI eligibles with specific chronic medical conditions). While the eligibility criteria are fairly similar across the participating counties and all counties have developed a centralized eligibility system for their HCCI programs, the eligibility determination process varies in terms of how applications are processed and who determines eligibility. Participating counties are required to assign enrollees to a medical home, either a public hospital system provider, a community clinic, or private provider, defined as "a single provider or facility that maintains all of an eligible person's medical information and that is a licensed provider of health care services, and that provides primary medical care and prevention services." SB 1448 requires the state to evaluate and assess the impact of the HCCI programs. The state contracted with UC, Los Angeles SB 208 Page 16 Center for Health Policy Research. An Interim Evaluation Report, June 1, 2010 was submitted to CMS with the waiver proposal submission. The June evaluation presents interim findings on the seven criteria required by CMS and the state: a) expansion in health care coverage; b) expenditures; c) expansions to Safety Net Infrastructure; d) access and Quality of Care; e) efficiencies; f) sustainability; and, g) implementation. 7)BRIDGE TO REFORM : PPACA requires states, by January 1, 2014 to cover all childless adults under age 65 and with family incomes up to 133% FPL in their Medicaid program and to offer subsidized coverage through a statewide insurance exchange. States have the option of early implementation as long as the plan doesn't provide coverage to people at higher incomes than those who are not covered. California's proposal is to allow an incremental approach by expanding on the existing HCCIs and allowing all counties to participate. The individual county expansions will be dependent on the availability of county funding. Specifically, the state is proposing to treat coverage for the newly eligible (up to 133% of FPL) as a new optional eligibility group under PPACA and the 133-200% of FPL would be funded out of the SNCP. The state is requesting blanket waivers from such requirements as state wideness, comparability, and freedom of choice in order to implement this approach. However, the state acknowledges that statewide uniformity will be required by 2014. Under the new waiver, the state is proposing to work with the counties to create more standardized eligibility and enrollment, benefits, provider networks, use of medical homes, and data collection. Under PPACA, The Secretary of DHHS will be establishing definitions for a "benchmark" or "bench mark equivalent" plan. The state is proposing to establish a minimum benefits package that would be a transition to these requirements. 8)COVERAGE ENROLLMENT . According to DHCS, more than 130,000 persons are currently enrolled in the HCCIs and it estimates that 56 out of 58 counties will participate in the next expansion with a total estimated enrollment of 512,000. A significant advantage of the state's purported approach is that it avoids the complexity of attempting to cover and enroll what is estimated to be close to two million uninsured people on January 1, 2014. However, this approach will only SB 208 Page 17 be successful if in fact there is in place a system to transition the population without interruption. It is clear from the current proposal that additional refinement of this aspect will be necessary with input from representatives of the counties and other stakeholders. 9)MEDICAL HOME . A significant focus of the presentations and discussions at the Stakeholder Advisory Committee and Technical Workgroup meetings was the concept of "medical home." First used by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) in 1967 to describe pediatric practices that provide primary care and coordinate all care for CSHCN, it has evolved to the concept of a patient centered medical home with a whole person orientation. In 2007, the AAP, American Academy of Family Physicians, the American College of Physicians and the American Osteopathic Association released the "Joint Principles of the Patient-Centered Medical Home." The principles of this model include: a) personal physician; b) physician directed medical practice; c) whole person orientation; d) coordinated and/or integrated care; e) quality and safety; f) enhanced access; and, g) adequate payment. The model has been further adapted to include elements of chronic care management for treating individuals with chronic illnesses. Studies have shown savings from reduction in emergency room visits and hospital admissions. A number of experts, however, made the case that additional elements are needed for the care of patients with complex health care needs and high cost. This was particularly the case for the low-income Medi-Cal population many of whom also have serious mental health problems. Some of the additional elements in an "Enhanced Medical Home" include nurse care management, in-clinic, home and phone contacts, same day or next day access, smaller caseloads, patient education of self-management skills, and after- hours access. Many of the presenters also recommended risk stratification of patients according to need. The current HCCI counties were required to assign all enrollees to a medical home. According to the Interim Evaluation of the HCCI, the definition is did not include all the concepts of the ideal medical home model in the literature. The evaluation adds that the counties elected to implement multiple aspects of the ideal medical home concept, taking SB 208 Page 18 different approaches to this innovative strategy to provide primary and preventive care in the safety net. According to the Interim Evaluation, all of the counties have gone beyond the statutory requirement and provide aspects of a patient-centered medical home. For example, all of the counties are using a physician-directed team-based approach for care delivery. The counties also include case managers or health educators to assist with chronic care management and care coordination. While all of the counties assign HCCI enrollees to a medical home, only three counties monitor patient utilization of their assigned medical home. In the other seven counties, adherence is encouraged but not required. The HCCI authorizing statute required that participating counties provide care management to program enrollees, and the HCCI counties have introduced or expanded disease management services for program enrollees. Nine of the counties identify higher-risk enrollees with more severe chronic conditions and target them for disease and care management. 10)CURRENT SPD ENROLLMENT . The Legislature declined to adopt the Governor's proposal for mandatory enrollment of the SPD population in the 2005 waiver. DHCS has however, been conducting outreach and awareness activities to encourage the voluntary enrollment. As part of that effort, DHCS and the UC Berkeley, School of Public Health, Health Research for Action (HRA) are jointly working on SPD outreach activities. HRA developed a comprehensive guide, "What Are My Medi-Cal Choices?" which was tested in a phone survey and pilot study in Alameda, Riverside, and Sacramento Counties in 2008 HRA analyzed enrollment data for the six months following the dissemination of the pilot SPD guide and found that beneficiaries in pilot counties were more likely to change to managed care and less likely to change back to FFS. The analysis showed a significant difference between the comparison and pilot counties. The SPD guide is currently available online in English, Spanish, and Chinese and will be translated into additional languages. DHCS is exploring funding options for on-going printing and dissemination of the SPD guide, including designing and mailing a flyer to SPDs in FFS encouraging them to call and request a guide for more information about managed care. According to data supplied by DHCS, as of March 2010, over 148,000 SPDs have voluntarily enrolled in a managed care plan. SB 208 Page 19 11)CURRENT MEDI-CAL MANAGED CARE MODELS. a) Two-Plan Counties . The two-plan model covers about 2.7 million of the state's 7.6 million Medi-Cal recipients in 12 counties. DHCS contracts with two plans (one designated the LI and one the CP) and the beneficiary has a choice. Both plans are required to be Knox-Keene licensed through the DMHC. The 12 counties are Alameda, Contra Costa, Fresno, Kern, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Francisco, San Joaquin, Santa Clara, Stanislaus, and Tulare. Mandatory enrollment of families and children into a Medi-Cal managed care full risk plan was authorized as part of the budget of 1992. DHCS released a strategic plan in 1993 and in 1995, 12 counties were designated as two-plan counties. The counties were given the option of developing an LI. In nine of the 12 counties, the local government, community groups, and health care providers worked together to establish a community based LI. The design of the LI, a public entity, was intended to shift this population into managed care while preserving the role of the traditional safety net, including disproportionate share hospitals, county facilities and community clinics. In Fresno, Stanislaus, and Tulare counties one of the CPs is designated as the LI. (Fresno is in the process of transitioning to a locally-developed LI that will operate in Fresno, Kings, and Madera Counties, through an administrative services organization contract with Health Net). In Los Angeles, the LI is L.A. Care but L. A. Care enrollees can choose among L. A. Care, Anthem Blue Cross, Care 1st Health Plan, Community Health Plan, or Kaiser Permanente. In all counties, the second CP is selected by DHCS through a competitive request for proposal process. In most cases, families and children must enroll in one of the two plans. DHCS has established an enrollment process, Health Care Options (HCO) through a statewide contractor. A beneficiary in this mandatory category is mailed a packet of information about the two plans and participating providers. If no plan is selected after 30 days, the family and children are default enrolled using an algorithm. The original algorithm was weighted in favor of the plan that relied most on the safety net providers, SB 208 Page 20 (generally the LI) and was assigned a higher percentage of default enrollees. In 2005, the algorithm was revised to include a quality component using nationally recognized measures. It is calculated using a combination of superior scores and year over year improvement b) GMC . GMC covers about 400, 000 of the state's 7.6 million Medi-Cal recipients in Sacramento and San Diego. The GMC model allows many plans to operate in a designated area. In Sacramento, DHCS contracts with four commercial plans, Anthem Blue Cross, Health Net, Kaiser Foundation, and Molina Healthcare. In San Diego there are five plans; Care 1st Health Plan, Community Health Group, Health Net, Kaiser Foundation, and Molina Healthcare. The strategic plan developed by DHCS in 1993 for implementation of mandatory enrollment designated Sacramento as a GMC county allowing multiple plans to be competitively bid and selected. At one time there were six plans, currently there are four. San Diego proposed the GMC model as an alternative to the two-plan model in 1993 during the development of the proposed mandatory enrollment expansion. San Diego began operating as Healthy San Diego in 1998 and has had seven plans, now five. In most cases families and children must enroll in a managed care plan. In Sacramento, enrollment is through the statewide HCO that is used for the two-plan counties. San Diego County developed its own enrollment program, Healthy San Diego. When voluntary enrollment packets were mailed to SPDs in the two-plan counties, Sacramento was included. It now has the highest rate of voluntary enrollment of any of the voluntary counties. c) COHS . The six COHS plans are collectively known as the California Association of Health Insuring Organizations, which was formed in 1994. Together the six member plans (defined in federal law as "Health Insuring Organizations," and in California state law as "COHS") serve as the primary health delivery system for approximately 830,000 of the State's 7.6 million Medi-Cal recipients. The six existing plus one in formation, COHS plans administer the program for 12 counties: CalOptima - Orange County; CenCal (formerly Santa Barbara Health Initiative) - Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties; Central California Alliance SB 208 Page 21 for Health (Formerly Central Coast Alliance for Health) - Santa Cruz, Monterey, and Merced Counties; Health Plan of San Mateo - San Mateo County; Partnership HealthPlan - Solano, Napa, Sonoma, and Yolo Counties; Ventura (in formation-estimated implementation between Oct 2010 and Jan 2011) - Ventura County. All SPDs, low-income mothers and children, and pregnant women who are eligible for Medi-Cal are automatically enrolled in the COHS. Many of the plans have obtained Knox-Keene licenses to enroll children in the Healthy Families and Healthy Kids Programs. Some of the COHS also provide health coverage to IHSS workers and have established Medicare Advantage Plans that cover dual eligible persons. 12)COUNTY ALTERNATIVE OPTION . This bill and the state implementation plan envision a county developed alternative as an additional choice in the two-plan and the GMC counties. According to the CMS waiver submission, under this model the county may contract with the State to develop and administer a unique model of organized care and would be subject to essential standards and performance measures and may be required to obtain Knox-Keene licensure depending on the structure. DHCS is anticipating that counties will propose organizational structures that reflect and meet unique local needs and circumstances. 13)PLAN OVERSIGHT AND REGULATION . a) Knox-Keene . Knox-Keene is the regulatory framework that most managed care plans operate under in California. It is a comprehensive set of rules that includes mandatory basic services, financial stability, availability and accessibility of providers, review of provider contracts, administrative organization, and consumer disclosure and grievance requirements regulated by DMHC. Among the factors that led to its passage, including the selection at the time of the Department of Corporations as the regulatory entity, were a number of scandals associated with Medi-Cal prepaid health plans (PHP) and lax oversight by the Department of Health Services (now DHCS) in the early 70's when Governor Reagan expanded use of PHPs in the Medi-Cal program as a means of reducing costs. In 1999, comprehensive health plan reform legislation, led to the SB 208 Page 22 creation of DMHC. Responsibility for Knox-Keene regulation was transferred to the new department in July 2000. However, it continues to be under the Business and Transportation and Housing Agency, rather than the Health and Human Services Agency. DMHC conducts a licensing audit of each plan every three years. The audit is not specific to Medi-Cal. 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. b) Medi-Cal Managed Care . When expanded use of PHPs was again proposed as a means of reducing costs in Medi-Cal in 1993, a basic tenet was that the plans in the two-plan and GMC counties would be required to obtain Knox-Keene licensure. COHS continued to be exempted from this requirement. However many of the COHS obtained a Knox-Keene license in order to participate in the Healthy Families Program. In the most recent contracts, DHCS required each COHS to meet Knox-Keene requirements. Currently DHCS audits the plans regularly for contract compliance and audits the Knox-Keene plans jointly with DMHC. The general practice of DHCS is to require the plan to submit a corrective action plan if there are deficiencies. Financial and fraud investigation reviews are performed by the Controller's office. DHCS is also in the process of entering into an inter-agency agreement to train the Controller's staff to be able to perform medical audits. 14)DUAL ELIGIBLES. In California, 1.1 million 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 from multiple providers. According to the Center for HealthCare Strategies, Inc (CHCS), " Options for Integrating Care for Dual Eligibles," March 2010, many federal and state officials as well as those in the stakeholder community have become engaged in a lively SB 208 Page 23 and creative discussion of options for integrating care for the eight to nine million duals, whose care is now costing $250 billion annually-approaching half of all Medicaid expenditures and a quarter of Medicare outlays. According to DHCS, Medi-Cal spending on the 1.1 million dual eligibles in California was $7.6 billion in fiscal year 2007-08, representing 23% of total Medi-Cal expenditures. In 2007, Medi-Cal spending on Long Term Care (LTC) for duals was $3.2 billion, representing 75% of total Medi-Cal LTC expenditures. It is estimated that in 2007, total expenditures for dual eligible beneficiaries in California, for both Medicare and Medi-Cal spending, was $20.9 billion. 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 (HCBS) but these may be administered separately such as IHSS. 15)DUAL ELIGIBLE PILOT PROJECT WAIVER PROPOSAL . The Section 1115 Waiver proposal and this bill seek to implement pilot projects in up to four counties to test dual integration in COHS and other managed care plans that operate both Medi-Cal managed care 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 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. Section 1115 Waiver proposal states that California is seeking inclusion of this integrated approach in its Section 1115 Waiver application to ensure the necessary Medicaid authority and would like to discuss with CMS the necessary Medicare authority. 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 include SB 208 Page 24 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. The systems of care will use existing HCBS programs, such as IHSS, 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, behavioral, pharmacy, and long-term supports and services, including institutional care and HCBS. 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. According to the Section 1115 Waiver proposal the objectives are an integrated care model option for duals that: a) Creates one point of accountability for the delivery, coordination, and management of health care and long-term supports and services; b) Promotes and measures improvements in health outcomes; c) Maintains appropriate consumer involvement and safeguards; Uses performance incentives to encourage providers to improve coordination of care; d) Blends and aligns Medicare and Medicaid services and financing to streamline care, and through shared savings approaches, eliminates cost shifting; and, e) Slows the rate of cost growth in both Medicare and Medicaid. 16)MEDICARE ADVANTAGE SPECIAL NEEDS PLANS . The Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 gave CMS the authority to designate certain Medicare Advantage plans as SNPs. Medicare SNPs are designed for certain populations. For example, an SNP may SB 208 Page 25 limit its enrollment only to people in certain long-term care facilities (like a nursing home), people that 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. The Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008 facilitated greater SNP integration by requiring new plans or those expanding into new service areas to contract with state Medicaid agencies and established new standards relating to the provision of care. PPACA extended SNP authority through December 31, 2013, created a new payment adjustment for fully-integrated dual eligible SNPs and requires all dual-eligible SNPs, to have a contract with state Medicaid programs by January 1, 2013. According to the CHCS, March 2010 Report, enrollment in an SNP does not automatically translate into integrated care; the value is in the potential relationships between these health plans and state Medicaid agencies. 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 Health Plan of California. Enrollment is voluntary. According to CalOpitma, of the 64,000 dual eligible members, 10,400 or about 17% have enrolled. Another 11% are enrolled in other SNPs and Medicare Advantage Plans. As of May 2010, CalOptima reports that OneCare is the 3rd largest dual eligible SNP in California, after Kaiser-Southern California (57,395) and Health Net (13,437). The Health Plan of San Mateo reports 7,900 SNP members and the Partnership Health Plan 4,600. 17)PACE . PACE programs are a comprehensive community-based care model for frail, chronically ill older adults whose significant functional and cognitive impairments make them nursing home eligible. The first PACE program, On-Lok, started in the Chinatown section of San Francisco in 1971. Begun as an alternative to nursing home care in the Chinese community, where institutionalization was a culturally unacceptable option, it was eventually granted Medicaid and Medicare waivers to test a new financing system. In 1997, PACE became a permanent provider type under both Medicare and Medicaid. As of 2008, there were 61 PACE programs in 30 states. SB 208 Page 26 18)CCS . Originally established in 1927, CCS manages the care of CSHCN such as leukemia and other cancers, cleft palate, congenital heart disease, HIV, spina bifida, diabetes, cerebral palsy, sickle cell anemia, muscular dystrophy, premature birth, and other serious life-threatening conditions. CCS 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%of the family's adjusted gross income. Eligibility under this last criterion is at the discretion of the director of DHCS. Healthy Families covers children in families up to 250% 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 CCS Program is not a comprehensive health insurance program, but provides medical care, medical therapy and case management services related to a child's specific qualifying condition. CCS provides these children with a state-certified pediatric specialist provider network, highly specialized treatment plans and multi-disciplinary pediatric case management teams. The CCS Program will only pay for medical services provided by a CCS-approved provider. Less than 2% of California's children have special health care needs that fall within the jurisdiction of CCS. DHCS administers the CCS Program. Larger counties operate their own CCS programs, while smaller counties share the operation of their program with state CCS regional offices in Sacramento, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. Not all CCS-eligible children are eligible for Medi-Cal. In the two-plan and GMC counties, CCS children who are eligible for Medi-Cal, but are not disabled, receive their Medi-Cal services from a managed care plan and are mandated to enroll. Services for CCS-eligible conditions remain the responsibility of the CCS program or are "carved out." SB 208 Page 27 19)SUPPORT IN CONCEPT . The California Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems (CAPH) writes, in support in concept, 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 writes in support of 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 writes in support in concept but expresses concerns that the timeframe 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 of California also states that it is troubled by the lack of mention of Adult Day Health Care. 20)SUPPORT IF AMENDED . The Children's Specialty Care Coalition writes that although a number of their suggested amendments were incorporated, the foremost 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 be in the last phase of the enrollment so that additional work can be done to develop contract and reporting requirements. With regard to CCS pilots, they request additional amendments including a 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 AAP and additional specifications for the evaluation. The AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) supports the direction of the proposed Section 1115 Waiver, however states that the current version does not acknowledge or accommodate AHF's unique position, potentially forcing AHF out of the HMO 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 SB 208 Page 28 care county and that the definition include a person with a confirmed HIV positive test. 21)OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED . Western Center on Law and Poverty (WCLP) writes in opposition that the renewal of California's 1115 Medicaid waiver offers hope of investment in and improvement of our Medi-Cal Program as well as an opportunity to take early steps toward the promise of federal health reform. WCLP states that despite these opportunities, this bill does not go far enough to protect our most vulnerable Californians during the transition. WCLP states longstanding opposition to mandatory enrollment of SPDs into managed care and further argues that although many of the suggested consumer protections have been included additional protections are needed. These include more specific requirements for primary and specialty care providers as part of network adequacy, providing SPD beneficiaries 90 days to make a choice, a requirement of an in person assessment of new SPDs within 30 days, the inclusion of a specific standard of care for higher risk individuals, and a requirement to arrange transportation. WCLP, with regard to mandatory enrollment of dual eligibles argues that requiring dual eligibles to mandatorily 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 DHCS 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 minimal standards both on network adequacy and timely access to care. National Senior Citizens Law Center (NSCLC) writes in opposition that there are inadequate requirements for stakeholder involvement at the state level in the development of the dual eligible pilot projects. NSCLC proposes amendments to ensure that pilot enrollees do not lose access to any service or appeal right those dual eligibles not in the pilot have access to under Medi-Cal or Medicare and that a commitment to SB 208 Page 29 reinvesting savings in the delivery system is explicit. The Corporation for Supportive Housing (CSH) writes that data from DHCS indicates that over 28,000 Medi-Cal beneficiaries with disabilities were frequent users in 2007, with costs to Medi-Cal of almost $40 million. According to CSH the Frequent User Initiative that they housed oversaw funding for six projects. By receiving "health care home" services, the Frequent User Initiative participants who were Medi-Cal beneficiaries experienced a 60% decrease in emergency room visits and a 69% decrease in inpatient days, translating into hospital costs avoided of $3,841 per beneficiary after one year and $7,519 per beneficiary per year after two years. CSH argues that California's 1115 waiver is the best vehicle to support the interventions frequent user programs provide, but that this bill fails to include provisions that would improve health outcomes. 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 while some of their recommendations are reflected in this bill, they request additional amendments. 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) 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% of poverty becomes mandatory (and the federal government begins to pay 100% of the coverage). CPCA request similar protections should be included for the subsidized populations SB 208 Page 30 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 HCBS and objects to exceptions to the normal regulatory and contracting processes. 22)CONCERNS. The Local Health Plans of California (LHPC) have stated that while they have long supported the inclusion of SPD in Medi-Cal managed care, they have concerns with this bill. Specifically, LHPC states that the current language would impose requirements for accessibility surveys and standards for Medi-Cal providers that are unworkable and will ultimately force much needed specialists providers away form Medi-cal managed care. LHPC also expresses concerns with the language that would impose across the board 2% reductions in health plan rates for the entire health plan based upon non-compliance with reporting data of a single provider. The California Association of Health Plans (CAHP) also writes to express concerns. Specifically, CAHP is concerned with the provision that allows beneficiaries to request a specialist as their primary care provider stating that some specialist that are in high demand will be unable to provide the breadth of services without depriving other patients of needed diagnosis and treatment. CAHP also requests that the county alternative be requires to meet he same Knox-Keene licensure standards. Molina Healthcare also writes to express concerns. In particular Molina states that effective plan performance standards are already in place and that the enhanced standards are not needed as the existing infrastructure is sufficient. Molina also request the auto-assignment of SPD beneficiaries who do not choose a plan should be based on quality and use of safety net providers. The California Hospital Association (CHA) writes with concerns that transitioning dual eligibles to managed care plans will require beneficiaries to change providers and may interfere with timely access to care. CHA also adds that access to transitional and rehabilitative care is more available for patients covered by Medicare than Medi-Cal. CHA request that SB 208 Page 31 the pilots be limited to two COHS and two other Medi-Cal managed care program, excluding Los Angles County 23)RELATED LEGISLATION . AB 342 (John A. Perez and Monning) is identical to SB 208. AB 342 is in the Senate Health Committee and is set for hearing June 30th. AB 2025 (De La Torre) requires DHCS to submit to CMS any proposed amendments to the state plan that are necessary to continue the hospital waiver. AB 2025 is on the Assembly Appropriations Committee Suspense File. 24)PRIOR LEGISLATION . AB 6 X4 requires the state to apply for a Health Care Coordination, Improvement, and Long-Term Care Cost Containment Waiver or Demonstration Project to be approved no later than the conclusion of the current 1115 Medi-Cal Hospital/Uninsured Care waiver, including enrolling beneficiaries in mandatory managed care. SB 1332 (Negrete McLeod) of 2008, would have established a mandatory enrollment Medi-Cal managed care pilot program, and would have authorized 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. AB 1 X1 (Nunez) of 2008, among its many provisions, would have expanded eligibility for the Medi-Cal and Healthy Families Programs, and expressed intent that a portion of the financing for the bill's provisions would have come from a variety of sources, including revenues from counties. AB 1 X1 failed passage by the Senate Health Committee. AB 752 (Dymally), Chapter 544 Statutes of 2007, allows DHCS to continue distributing stabilization funding to designated public hospitals for the three remaining project years of the Medi-Cal Hospital/Uninsured Hospital Care Demonstration Project Act and sets forth a distribution methodology for stabilization funding that may be available in 2007-08 and subsequent project years for public hospital. SB 208 Page 32 AB 1920 (Chan), Chapter 270, Statutes of 2006, extends for a second year, the methodology for distributing stabilization funding to DPHs and makes other clarifying changes with respect to payments for DPHs. 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. 25)POLICY QUESTIONS . This bill and AB 342 (John A. Perez and Monning) are identical and incorporate the authors' revisions to the trailer bill language proposed by DHCS, based on written submissions and ongoing meetings with DHCS and various stakeholders. As this process proceeds additional amendments are expected. In addition, there are a number of issues that have not yet been addressed that are part of the waiver submission and may also require implementing legislation. The Schwarzenegger Administration has begun the process of obtaining CMS approval and CMS may also communicate SB 208 Page 33 requirements either as Special Terms and Conditions or other verbal or oral communications. There are a number of outstanding issues, controversies and areas needing further clarification. These include: a) A definition or set of criteria for a "Medical Home" in the CEED proposal. b) The proposal to pilot organized systems of care for dual eligibles has not been the subject of stakeholder or public input to the degree that other proposals have as the work group was convened on a later time line. There are also minimal details in the proposal, particularly with regard to the interaction with other long-term care and home and community based care services. The authority provided to DHCS is very broad and does not require termination if there are negative outcomes. c) The CCS pilot projects language does not clearly specify the number of pilots that are authorized. d) There is disagreement among stakeholders regarding the initial assessment of an SPD who is enrolled into a plan including who is responsible, when it is to be done and whether it must be in-person. e) There are no details regarding the financing mechanisms. f) There are no provisions relating to the behavioral and mental health needs of enrollees REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION : Support in concept Aging services of California California Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems Support if amended AIDS Healthcare Foundation Children's Specialty Care Coalition Amendments requested California Children's Hospital Association SB 208 Page 34 Oppose unless amended AARP Alzheimer's Association California Association of Public Authorities California Primary Care Association Congress of California Seniors Corporation for Supportive Housing Disability Rights California National Senior Citizens Law Center Western Center on Law and Poverty Concerns California Association of Health Plans Local Health Plans of California Molina Healthcare Private Essential Access Community Hospitals Analysis Prepared by : Marjorie Swartz / HEALTH / (916) 319-2097