BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 187 Page 1 Date of Hearing: April 22, 2015 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Jimmy Gomez, Chair AB 187 (Bonta) - As Amended March 4, 2015 ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Policy |Health |Vote:|16 - 0 | |Committee: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: NoReimbursable: No SUMMARY: This bill prohibits services covered through the California Children's Services (CCS) program from being incorporated into Medi-Cal managed care contracts, until the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) completes an evaluation of specified CCS AB 187 Page 2 pilot programs. FISCAL EFFECT: There is no direct increase in state costs, as this continues the current practice of "carving out" CCS services. However, this bill prohibits the incorporation of CCS services into managed care contracts for an open-ended period of time, and could result in foregone cost savings, potentially in the millions of dollars (GF/federal funds) if it hampers the state's ability to make program improvements. Cost savings could potentially come from administrative streamlining, better care coordination, reduced utilization or duplication, or other program improvements. COMMENTS: 1)Purpose. The author states extending the sunset on prohibiting the integration of CCS services into managed care contracts maintains CCS as a separate, organized system that meets the needs of eligible children. They contend without extending the January 1, 2016, sunset on this prohibition, CCS-eligible children with catastrophic and chronic medical conditions will not be protected from potential disruption of services. This measure is sponsored by the Children's Specialty Care Coalition, a coalition of providers of pediatric specialty medical care. 2)Background. Originally established in 1927, the CCS Program provides diagnostic and treatment services, medical case management, and physical and occupational therapy services to children under age 21 with CCS-eligible medical conditions. AB 187 Page 3 Examples of CCS-eligible conditions include, but are not limited to, serious and chronic medical conditions such as cystic fibrosis, hemophilia, cerebral palsy, heart disease, cancer, traumatic injuries, and certain infectious diseases. 3)CCS Carve-out. During the 1990s, as California began enrolling increasing numbers of Medi-Cal beneficiaries (including children) into managed care plans, providers and children's advocates became concerned that CCS-eligible children would fail to receive the same quality of care as they did through CCS. As a result, in 1994, a "carve-out" for CCS-eligible children, who are enrolled in Medi-Cal managed care, became law, requiring these children to continue receiving highly specialized care for their CCS-eligible condition through CCS, while receiving preventive and general care through a managed care plan. The law contained a sunset that has since been extended several times. Most recently, AB 301 (Pan), Chapter 460, Statutes of 2011, extended this sunset until January 1, 2016. 4)CCS Redesign. While the CCS carve-out has been effective in providing access to high-quality pediatric specialty care for eligible children, it has also been identified by stakeholders as a barrier to effective care coordination because children are forced to seek care through two separate systems. Furthermore, independent reviews have identified a broad array of other program challenges, including significant program variation across counties, a complex and burdensome financial structure, various access problems, and an inefficient authorization process for services. The 2010 "Bridge to Reform" Medi-Cal waiver authorized pilot programs to test new models of care in CCS. Due to myriad challenges, only two pilots have gone forward: those proposed by San Mateo Health Plan and Rady Children's Hospital. This bill would continue the carve-out until these pilots have been evaluated. Meanwhile, DHCS, with support from UCLA, convened stakeholders in 2014, to further discuss ways to improve the CCS program. At a December 2, 2014 stakeholder meeting, DHCS stated, AB 187 Page 4 "without regard to sunset of the CCS "carve-out," DHCS is not predisposed to mandatorily enroll CCS eligible children into managed care for CCS services." 1)Related Legislation. SB 586 (Ed Hernández), scheduled to be heard today in the Senate Health Committee, removes the CCS carve-out sunset date and creates a new health plan, the Kids Integrated Delivery System (KIDS) plan. The KIDS plan is required to coordinate, integrate, and provide or arrange for the full range of Medi-Cal and CCS services. 5)Prior Legislation. In addition to AB 301, discussed above, AB 2379 (Chan), Chapter 333, Statutes of 2007, extended the sunset date from August 1, 2008, to January 1, 2012, on the CCS carve-out. Several other bills prior to AB 2379 have also extended the sunset. SB 208 (Steinberg), Chapter 714, Statutes of 2010, required DHCS to seek proposals for the CCS pilots whose evaluations are the trigger of this bill. 2)Staff Comments. This bill raises three issues. First, it is unclear when the evaluations will be completed, making it difficult to ascertain the true effect of the bill. Second, it may hamper the state's ability to pursue improvements to the program until such evaluations have been completed. For example, the current stakeholder process may identify program improvements that necessitate incorporating some CCS services into managed care contracts. If this bill became law, however, this would be prohibited. Third, it is unclear that waiting until the pilots are evaluated is an appropriate trigger for removing the prohibition. As there are only two pilot programs going forward, it is unclear whether even the evaluation will be sufficiently robust to offer meaningful conclusions that can inform the potential design of the AB 187 Page 5 program statewide. For example, there may be local factors that influence the success or failure of aspects of the pilot in the two specific areas. Instead of tying the prohibition to evaluation of the pilots, the author may wish to consider an alternate way to balance the intent to preserve the current protections offered by the carve-out with flexibility to pursue improvements that may otherwise be prohibited for years. Analysis Prepared by:Lisa Murawski / APPR. / (916) 319-2081