BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                     SB 296


                                                                    Page  1





          SENATE THIRD READING


          SB  
          296 (Cannella)


          As Amended  August 28, 2015


          Majority vote


          SENATE VOTE:  40-0


           ------------------------------------------------------------------ 
          |Committee       |Votes|Ayes                  |Noes                |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
          |Health          |18-0 |Bonta, Maienschein,   |                    |
          |                |     |Bonilla, Burke, Chiu, |                    |
          |                |     |Gomez, Gonzalez,      |                    |
          |                |     |Roger Hernández,      |                    |
          |                |     |Lackey, McCarty,      |                    |
          |                |     |Nazarian, Patterson,  |                    |
          |                |     |Ridley-Thomas,        |                    |
          |                |     |Rodriguez, Steinorth, |                    |
          |                |     |Thurmond, Waldron,    |                    |
          |                |     |Wood                  |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
          |Appropriations  |17-0 |Gomez, Bigelow,       |                    |
          |                |     |Bloom, Bonta,         |                    |
          |                |     |Calderon, Chang,      |                    |
          |                |     |Nazarian, Eggman,     |                    |
          |                |     |Gallagher, Eduardo    |                    |








                                                                     SB 296


                                                                    Page  2





          |                |     |Garcia, Holden,       |                    |
          |                |     |Jones, Quirk, Rendon, |                    |
          |                |     |Wagner, Weber, Wood   |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
           ------------------------------------------------------------------ 


          SUMMARY: Requires the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS)  
          to clarify and simplify documentation requirements when  
          conducting an audit of claims and reimbursements for  
          expenditures for specialty mental health services provided by  
          mental health plans to Medi-Cal eligible individuals, with  
          consultation from various entities as specified, for the  
          provision of specialty mental health (SMH) services by January  
          1, 2017, for use commencing July 1, 2017.


          FISCAL EFFECT:  According to the Assembly Appropriations  
          Committee, potential administrative staff costs to DHCS in the  
          range of several hundred thousand dollars in staff costs for at  
          least one to two years. 


          COMMENTS:  According to the author, this bill is necessary  
          because it would address concerns of mental health officials and  
          the community agencies they contract with that the state's  
          interpretation of the guidelines in audits might disallow some  
          services if the additional documentation were not included.  The  
          author further states that while the state guidelines on billing  
          are not much different from other states, counties have added so  
          many requirements that it takes up to 20 minutes of  
          documentation to prepare progress notes on things like  
          psychotherapy, while in other states it takes five minutes.   
          This costs manpower and money to the state and counties.  The  
          author concludes that this bill would end this pattern by  
          creating a single set of documentation requirements developed by  
          the state, in consultation with counties and providers, that  
          should limit audit disallowances and is designed to be the  








                                                                     SB 296


                                                                    Page  3





          minimum documentation requirements necessary to comply with  
          federal law and other applicable state laws.


          Specialty Mental Health 1915(b) waiver.  Specialty Medi-Cal  
          mental health services are provided under the terms of the  
          federal Medicaid Medi-Cal Specialty Mental Health Services  
          Consolidation 1915(b) waiver program.  The waiver established a  
          managed care program for specialty mental health services  
          separate from the overall Medi-Cal program.  Medi-Cal  
          beneficiaries must receive specialty mental health services  
          though county-operated mental health plans (MHPs).  County MHPs  
          provide services directly or through contracts in the local  
          community using a combination of county funds, realignment  
          revenues and Mental Health Services Act funds.  Counties pay for  
          services locally, incurring certified public expenditures, which  
          the state then uses as the state match to claim federal Medicaid  
          reimbursement and the state, in turn, returns the federal funds  
          to the county MHPs.  


          During regular monitoring and in ongoing communications, the  
          Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has asked  
          questions on specific areas of the SMH waiver. CMS reviews MHP  
          triennial and External Quality Review Organization reports and  
          raised concern about the findings and continued noncompliance  
          with specific waiver requirements.  CMS believes that  
          significant improvement is needed in identified areas and  
          expects the state to closely monitor, ensure, and provide  
          evidence of compliance. In addition to a number of identified  
          areas of focus, CMS has expressed concern about the ongoing  
          elevated inpatient and outpatient disallowance rates resulting  
          from chart reviews (i.e., disallowed claims under the Medi-Cal  
          program).  Due to past deficiencies, CMS is requiring the state  
          to provide oversight to ensure that the Medi-Cal claims  
          submitted by MHPs for SMH services meet medical necessity  
          criteria for reimbursement and that the documentation in the  
          medical records provided contains the required evidence of  
          medical necessity. CMS has requested that DHCS explore  








                                                                     SB 296


                                                                    Page  4





          establishing a process to enact fines, sanctions and penalties,  
          or corrective actions as a way to ensure compliance.




          The sponsors of this bill, California Council of Community  
          Mental Health Agencies, state that paperwork reduction is one  
          great way of increasing the efficiency of our health care system  
          while actually helping to improve outcomes.  The sponsors state  
          that this bill achieves that by requiring DHCS to develop a  
          single set of service documentation requirements for the  
          provision of SMH services.  The California Chapter of the  
          American College of Emergency Physicians state in support of  
          this bill that individual counties across the state have their  
          own documentation requirements, adding substantially to the  
          amount of time Medi-Cal providers spend documenting their  
          services.  The American Association for Marriage and Family  
          Therapy California Division argues that paperwork overload  
          contributes to workplace fatigue and that this bill will improve  
          the morale of mental health workers.


          There is no known opposition.


          Analysis Prepared by:                                             
                          Paula Villescaz / HEALTH / (916) 319-2097  FN:  
          0001953


















                                                                     SB 296


                                                                    Page  5