HealthLawProf Blog

Editor: Katharine Van Tassel
Akron Univ. School of Law

A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

Sunday, December 12, 2004

Three New Reports from GAO

On Dec. 8 the Government Accountability Office released three new reports on health-care topics:

  • Medicaid Managed Care: Access and Quality Requirements Specific to Low-Income and Other Special Needs Enrollees GAO-05-44R, December 8, 2004
    PDF 
    • ABSTRACT: The use of managed care within Medicaid, a joint federal-state program that finances health insurance for certain low-income families with children and individuals who are aged or disabled, increased significantly during the 1990s. By 2003, 59 percent of Medicaid beneficiaries were enrolled in managed care, compared with less than 10 percent in 1991. Medicaid managed care, under which states make prospective payments to managed care plans to provide or arrange for all services for enrollees, attempts to ensure the provision of appropriate health care services in a cost-efficient manner. However, because plans are paid a fixed amount regardless of the number of services they provide, managed care programs require safeguards against the incentive for some plans to underserve enrollees, such as by limiting enrollees' access to care. Access is also affected by other factors, such as physician location and willingness to participate in managed care plans. Safeguards to ensure enrollees have access to care could include requiring plans to maintain provider networks that provide enrollees with sufficient geographic access to providers or requiring managed care plans to develop and monitor certain quality indicators, such as enrollee satisfaction surveys or grievances. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) gave states new authority to require certain Medicaid beneficiaries to enroll in managed care plans and also required the establishment of consumer protections for Medicaid managed care enrollees in areas such as access to and quality of care. In June 2002, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued final regulations for Medicaid managed care organizations (MCO) to implement these BBA requirements. The BBA directed us to examine the access and quality requirements applicable to MCOs operating under the Medicare program and to private sector MCOs to determine their relevance to the Medicaid MCOs. As discussed with the committees of jurisdiction, we examined the extent to which Medicaid MCO requirements specifically address the needs of enrollees who are low income, have special cultural needs (such as language differences), or have special health care needs (such as chronic illnesses or disabilities) in comparison to similar requirements applicable to Medicare and private sector MCOs.

      Medicaid MCO access and quality requirements specifically address the needs of managed care enrollees who are low income or have special cultural or health care needs, to an equal or greater extent than requirements applicable to Medicare and private sector MCOs. Regarding low-income enrollees, neither Medicare nor private sector requirements specifically address their needs as distinct from those of other enrollees. However, we identified one area that is key to access for low-income enrollees--transportation. Medicaid regulations and Medicare guidelines require that when developing their provider networks MCOs take into account the means of transportation--such as public transportation--enrollees use to access health care providers. No such explicit requirement applies to private sector MCOs. Regarding the cultural and language characteristics of enrollees, Medicaid regulations are more specific than Medicare and private accreditation requirements. While all requirements broadly state that services must be delivered in a "culturally competent manner," only the Medicaid regulations require that the primary language spoken by each individual be identified at the time of enrollment and that each managed care enrollee be provided with the names of and non-English languages spoken by contracted health care providers in the enrollee's service area. Additionally, Medicaid regulations require states to make oral interpretation services available and require that each MCO make these services available free of charge to each enrollee and potential enrollee. Regarding enrollees with special health care needs, Medicaid requirements are generally comparable to Medicare and private accreditation requirements. All require that individuals with special health care needs--such as chronic illnesses or disabilities--be identified and provided with appropriate services for managing these conditions.

  • Medicare: Accuracy of Responses from the 1-800-MEDICARE Help Line Should Be Improved GAO-05-130, December 8, 2004 Highlights-PDF PDF 
    • ABSTRACT: In March 1999, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) implemented a telephone help line--1-800-MEDICARE--to provide information about program eligibility, enrollment, and benefits. The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) directed GAO to examine several issues related to this 24-hour help line and the customer service representatives (CSRs) who staff it. In this report, GAO evaluated (1) the accuracy of the information the help line provides, (2) the training given to CSRs, and (3) CMS's efforts to monitor the accuracy of information provided through the help line.

      The 1-800-MEDICARE help line provided accurate answers to 61 percent of the 420 calls we made and inaccurate answers to 29 percent. We were not able to obtain any answers for the remaining 10 percent of our calls at the time we placed them. Most of these calls were not answered because they were transferred to other contractors responsible for processing Medicare claims that were not open for business at the time we called or these calls were inadvertently disconnected. To facilitate accurate responses, the 1-800-MEDICARE help line provides CSRs with written answers--called "scripts"--that CSRs use during a call. When CSRs provided inaccurate information, it was largely because they did not seem to access and effectively use a script that answered our questions. CMS and its contractor do not routinely pretest the scripts to ensure that they are understandable to CSRs or potential callers. The training for CSRs meets CMS's requirements, but it is not sufficient to ensure that CSRs are able to answer questions accurately on the help line. Before handling calls, CSRs must complete about 2 weeks of classroom training; accurately answer two simulated calls consecutively out of six; and score at least 90 percent on a written exam. In addition, all CSRs receive ongoing training. However, the results from our calls indicate that the testing and simulated call answering did not sufficiently measure whether CSRs were prepared to answer questions accurately. CMS delegates most accuracy monitoring to one of its contractors and reviews the results. The bulk of the monitoring focuses on how accurately individual CSRs answer questions. However, this monitoring does not systematically track questions answered inaccurately by CSRs as a group, which could help target training and script improvement. Through two smaller studies that measured how accurately specific questions were answered, CMS was able to identify areas to improve scripts and training.

  • Medicare: Advisory Opinions as a Means of Clarifying Program Requirements GAO-05-129, December 8, 2004 Highlights-PDF PDF
    • ABSTRACT: Health care providers are concerned about the quality of Medicare guidance issued by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), an agency within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Specifically, they have reported that (1) they receive unclear guidance on program requirements and (2) because policies and procedures change frequently, they may rely on obsolete guidance, resulting in billing errors. Some government agencies issue advisory opinions in response to specific questions from requesters. These opinions permit agencies to apply law and regulation to a particular set of facts and provide requesters with specific guidance. The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 directed GAO to determine the appropriateness and feasibility of establishing in the Secretary of Health and Human Services authority to issue legally binding advisory opinions to interpret Medicare regulations. GAO (1) identified factors relevant in establishing an advisory opinion process and (2) assessed the role such a process could play in clarifying program requirements. GAO examined four federal agencies' advisory opinion processes and interviewed officials from organizations representing Medicare stakeholders to learn how such a process might address their concerns.

      GAO identified five common elements in the way four agencies--CMS, the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) of the Department of Labor, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and HHS's Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG)--set up their advisory opinion processes. While the processes at the four agencies reflected differences in the agencies' respective constituencies and responsibilities, each agency cited five key factors as critical. These were (1) establishing criteria for submitting advisory opinion requests, to define the scope of their processes, (2) developing alternative ways of responding to advisory opinion requests, such as providing other forms of written communication, (3) determining the time frame for issuing advisory opinions, (4) considering anticipated workload, staffing requirements, and user fees as a means of offsetting expenses incurred by the government, and (5) creating internal review and external coordination procedures with other federal agencies with a stake in the outcome of an issued opinion. These five factors and lessons learned from other agencies that issue advisory opinions may be useful in structuring a process for Medicare. Most of the representatives of provider organizations GAO contacted agreed that an advisory opinion process would partially address their concerns, for example, by providing them with reliable, written responses to their Medicare-related questions. However, they recognized that an advisory opinion process would not address all their concerns and that it is one of several approaches that could improve Medicare guidance. For example, refining existing forms of guidance would also be of value. In commenting on a draft of this report, HHS stated that a more formal advisory opinion process for Medicare would be costly to implement, not provide quick answers to providers' questions, and have limited applicability. HHS acknowledged that the Medicare program and its implementing regulations are inherently complex and underscored its efforts to improve stakeholders' understanding of the program's complexities.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/healthlawprof_blog/2004/12/three_new_repor.html

| Permalink

Comments

Post a comment