Hello August! New and established health plans are waiting for the 2020 Medicare Communications and Marketing Guidelines (MCMG) to come out. Over the past few years, the final MCMG, formerly known as the Medicare Marketing Guidelines, were dated as follows:
2019 MCMG dated July 20, 2018
2018 MMG dated July 20, 2017
2017 MMG dated June 10, 2016
2016 MMG dated July 2, 2015
2015 MMG dated June 17, 2014
2014 MMG dated June 28, 2013
See a pattern? I could go on, but the history shows more of the same. The industry has come to expect these guidelines be released around June or July, and health plans often schedule their marketing material initiatives around this time. With additional dependencies on third party reviews (such as state agency reviews or outside consultant reviews) and print vendors, this important sub-regulatory reference is necessary to finalize materials for submission (if needed), printing, and finalization.
I outlined some key changes in my post regarding the draft 2020 MCMG. Industry comments were due to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) by April 4. Like most of my colleagues, I’ll be hitting refresh on CMS’ MMG webpage until I see that magic term “CY2020” on a document!
While most everyone I speak with these days relies on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Program Audit Protocol to review their compliance program effectiveness (CPE), it is imperative to review a compliance program through another lens.
The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) recently updated their guidance for prosecutors on the evaluation of a compliance program’s effectiveness. The three fundamental questions are as follows:
Is the corporation’s compliance program well designed?
Is the program being applied earnestly and in good faith (implemented effectively)?
Does the corporation’s compliance program work in practice?
For anyone new to reviewing a compliance program, or if you are a compliance professional performing a self evaluation, the DOJ provides key considerations and questions to ask in order to make solid determinations on these questions. Tracer samples are one way to identify patterns, and that is core to CMS’ current methodology. However, I have discussed many of these DOJ-identified additional factors with clients recently:
Risk Assessment: are resources devoted disproportionately to low-risk issues?
Third Party Management: What are the actions and consequences of third party (vendor or delegate) misconduct?
Culture: Do top leaders set the tone to encourage compliance? Does Compliance have sufficient seniority and autonomy to perform their duties, and has the organization allocated sufficient funds for the function?
I mentioned in a previous post that “we are most comfortable in roads we’ve traveled over and over, and therefore might be more susceptible to distraction.” If you are using the CMS CPE protocol every year, consider revising your methodology with some frequency. The industry’s methods and recommendations are evolving; make sure you change with the times. Enforcement actions will tell a story soon enough – do not become part of that story.
About a year and a half ago, some colleagues and I authored a white paper titled Accessible Communications: Standing Tall in Service. We realized the importance of this topic as the agency had released frequently-asked questions related to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504) and Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (Section 1557). I’m happy to report many of our recommendations and best practice concepts are also found in the IMPAQ piece, such as cultural competency training, leveraging qualified readers, tracking/maintaining beneficiary requests, analysis of complaint data, and auditing/monitoring of vendors. IMPAQ covers more in the arena of web accessibility, whereas I respectfully believe we covered more from a delegation oversight standpoint.
The reason we wrote this piece was because our number one priority was beneficiary access to care and service. I know for a fact the piece was not as popular as anything related to CMS program audits or marketing materials. Now that CMS has released these best practices, plans and delegates should sit up and take more notice of this topic. This could be a harbinger of things to come.
Today I share two articles and my thoughts on key concepts. Keep these in the back of your mind as you prepare for 2020.
This morning, the Nevada Independent published an article referencing a sponsored bill requiring all hospitals in the state to accept Medicare and Medicaid. The legislation, according to the authors, is targeted at one hospital, Elite Medical Center, which is not enrolled in those two programs, and is also not in any private provider network.
This should be an interesting one to follow, with a state proposing to mandate participation in a federal program. (Rhode Island, an insurance market which is arguably one of the most difficult to enter, has seen its share of bills targeted towards one insurer, one hospital, one university, under the guise that “everyone has to do it”.) Nevadans may need to be careful of what they wish for, and determine if there is a true undue burden on the other facilities in the area.
In other news, Anthem told Managed Care magazine they had a 14% enrollment growth in Q1 in Medicare Advantage, pointing to their new benefit offerings targeting Social Determinants of Health (SDOH).
CMS’ rule change opened doors to insurers to give chronically ill patients with Medicare Advantage the option of accessing a range of benefits that are not necessarily health-related, but can improve or maintain their overall health, and Anthem jumped on that opportunity. The organization spent quite a bit of time in acquisition-mode, and in 2019 will now focus on the employer group markets and the dual eligibles of their current service areas, according to CEO Gail Boudreaux in an earnings call.
Watch for the Anthem (and other industry innovators) to get very creative with service offerings, but don’t expect insurers to provide transportation or home carpet cleaning themselves. Vendors entering this space will need to be mindful of the contractual obligations pushed down from a payer. Furthermore, expect a bumpy road in the implementation of these relationships until CMS provides additional oversight guidance.
A site any compliance or operations professional should be monitoring regularly is the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) listing. This page is a gold mine if you are looking to shape what you need to implement later. If I could change PRA to stand for something else to illustrate the importance, it would be Please Read, then Act!
Typically, this is where the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) posts proposed changes and requests for information or comment. For example, when the agency proposes to change Part D reporting technical specifications, the changes and supporting statements are posted on this site. This gives the public (you!) the opportunity to review and provide comment within a comment period. And it is not just Part D; you will find documents related to other programs such as Fee For Service Medicare, PACE, Exchange and Medicaid.
Let’s walk through an example. CMS posted their proposed changes and supporting statement for the Notice of Denial of Medical Coverage (or Payment) (NDMCP – those pesky denials). Upon review of the proposed changes, I identified two areas of opportunity. In one instance, there is room to further clarify language directed at a beneficiary filing an appeal, and in the other instance, there is opportunity to clarify the instructions to the plan. To submit comments electronically, I went to regulations.gov and found the document in question, hit the “Comment Now!” button and voilà – submitted.
Implementation is not simple. Do not get caught in a situation where you struggle with something confusing, arguably unreasonable, or impossible to complete. Take the opportunity to review this site often, or subscribe to the RSS feed to be notified more quickly. You may often find something the agency missed, or you may provide an improved solution that reduces burden on you, your organization, and your beneficiaries.
On March 21, 2019, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released the draft Medicare Communications and Marketing Guidelines for contract year 2020. The agency notes most changes and updates are clarifications based on feedback from stakeholders. Regulatory citations were also updated throughout the document.
Notable clarifications are outlined below. This year, CMS is seeking feedback on nine specific questions (outlined below the key changes). Circulate this summary to your key stakeholders so they can properly evaluate the impact of these draft changes. Comments are due on April 4, 2019 at 5:00 PM Eastern and must be entered through this link.
30.3 Non-English Speaking Population: When translations are required for templates or model documents, the variable data must also be translated. For example, a coverage determination notice template cannot be in a non-English language and the custom denial populated in English.
30.7 Prohibited Terminology/Statements: Clarification was made to provisions regarding what is prohibited for a Dual Eligible Special Needs Plan.
60.1 Provider-Initiated Activities: CMS clarifies the list in this section are considered outside of the definition of marketing.
70.1.3 Required Content: CMS requires a link to the provider directory on the Medicare Advantage landing page.
80.1 Customer Service Call Center Requirements and Standards: CMS proposes hold time messages that’s promote the plan or include benefit information be submitted via HPMS, and clarifies hold time messages may not be used to sell other products.
80.2 Customer Service Call Center Hours of Operations: CMS proposes separate phone lines or call centers established for the sole purpose of selling Plan products or enrollment are not required to comply with the customer service call center hours of operation standard. The standard is outlined in this section and is unchanged.
90.1 Material Identification: MS provides clarification and notes if a third party, such as a PBM, creates member specific materials such as explanations of benefit on behalf of multiple organizations, it is acceptable to use the material ID for only one organization.
Point to ponder: This clarification would allow a PBM or other first tier, downstream or related entity (FDR) working with 15 plan sponsors to use the approved template of one plan sponsor. This may cause concern with confidentiality, whereby a plan sponsor may not want their contract number used as the template for all other FDR clients.
90.2 Material Replacement: Clarification provided noting materials submitted as replacement files are subject to the same review period as the original material.
100.3 Changes and Corrections to Existing Documents: Additional language has been added regarding delivery of hardcopy directories. Furthermore, CMS added the following: All providers listed in hardcopy or online provider directories must have current contracts with the organization to participate in the plan network. Directories provided during the AEP for the upcoming plan year must accurately and fairly represent the network for the upcoming plan year. If a provider is listed in a directory prior to the effective date of the contract, then the directory must note the effective date. Similarly, if a provider is confirmed to leave the network, then the directory must note the termination effective date.This is in addition to the organization’s responsibilities to provide individual, written notice under 42 CFR § 422.111(e) to patients when a provider is terminated from the network.
Point to ponder: Should organizations choose to list providers before their effective date, this could prove to be operationally burdensome as systems would require placement of a new date field. Furthermore, it is unclear how the agency would determine when a provider is “confirmed to leave the network”, therefore requiring a sponsor to note the termination effective date.
110.7.1 Rapid Disenrollment: CMS clarified rapid disenrollment compensation recovery applies when a beneficiary uses OEP to make an enrollment change.
110.8 Payments other than Compensation: CMS provides additional clarification on administrative payments, including examples of mileage or materials, but expects organizations to pay actual expenses when possible. Paid expenses must reflect a fair market value.
Specific Stakeholder Questions
CMS is seeking feedback on marketing, as it relates to using the term “free” in marketing materials. CMS is also seeking comments on Plan/Part D Sponsor experience with product endorsements and testimonials.
CMS is seeking comments on Plan/Part D Sponsor experience, as it relates to Plan Comparisons.
CMS seeks your feedback on the changes made last year regarding Plan-initiated provider activities and marketing in a health care setting. Do you believe the current flexibilities are broad enough to allow beneficiaries to receive information about their plan choices while not disrupting health care services being provided?
CMS seeks your feedback on the required disclaimers associated with the use of Star Ratings. Are there barriers associated with the current disclaimers that have prevented your organization from using the Star Ratings in your marketing materials in a manner you had desired?
CMS has received feedback that our current marketing submission requirements may unduly impact organization that have a high degree of provider-plan integration. CMS welcomes your comments on provider-based activities and whether changes to our guidance are needed to better support co-branding relationships.
CMS seeks comment on subsection 110.8 – Payments other than Compensation. Please provide comment on how our organization determines and pays the fair market value (FMV) of administrative costs to agents. CMS understands that a certain level of flexibility is needed in reimbursing administrative costs; however, we are concerned that too much flexibility may result in a rapid escalation of FMV amounts and/or result in administrative payment that are close to compensation levels. We welcome your feedback on how to address this potential outcome.
CMS seeks comment on the impact, if any, of the January through March 31 Open Enrollment Period (OEP), on enrollment/disenrollment; the recoupment of agent/broker compensation based on rapid disenrollment; and if current guidance was clear regarding what marketing activities were allowable during the OEP.
CMS seeks comment on the appropriateness of current Call Center timeliness requirements in subsection 80-1 – Customer Service Call Center Requirements and Standards. Specifically, CMS seeks feedback on the standards for average hold time, availability of TTY services, answering of incoming calls, and interpreter services.
CMS seeks feedback on the Pre-enrollment checklist and welcomes any suggested changes.
If you are like most people I encounter these days, you don’t have a free moment to catch up on items which do not have a deadline of “TODAY”. Understandable, because there is a lot going on this quarter from financial audits to program audits to timeliness monitoring to everything else on your plate.
On March 15, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released their revised Civil Money Penalty calculation methodology for comment (bottom of this page). The proposed changes include:
Clarifying how per determination standard penalties are calculated for Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly organizations (which is “consistent with our statutory and regulatory authority”)
Proposing to add an aggravating factor for enrollees who never received their Part C services or Part D medications due to violation of program requirements
The section used to refer to delay/denial of drugs, but now includes reference to enrollee never receiving their Part C service or Part D medication. It makes sense as it steps up the severity of access to Part C services.
Changes to existing aggravating factors
Proposing to remove aggravating factors previously identified as common conditions in audit and enforcement reports
Proposing to remove the reference to Evidence of Coverage from an aggravating factor
Proposing to change reference from 24 hours to one day relative to the aggravating factor for delay/denial of prescription drugs for acute conditions
Proposing a method for increasing penalty amounts, whereby the agency tracks the accrual of penalty amounts each year, but updates the standard penalty amount no more often than every three years.
Additional nuanced changes not included in the introductory memo include:
A note confirming the agency is also applying this new methodology to Medicare Medicaid Plans, Cost Plans, and PACE organizations and inclusion of regulatory authority references
A note reserving the right to use different methodology as permitted by law depending on various circumstances
A change in reference to regulation for “a complete list of the reasons that may lead to a determination” to “examples of bases that may lead to a determination”
Clarification that CMS may calculate a per determination penalty if the per enrollee impact cannot be analyzed (meaning, you provided the Impact Analysis but CMS cannot analyze it)
Reference to access to enrollee rights under Beneficiary Impact, namely the appeals process, has been included in examples of a sponsor’s deficiency which could adversely affect the enrollee physically
This could be seen as a significant change, or as further clarification of what is meant by Beneficiary Impact. The section includes the more direct examples of not receiving a medication or service. However, if a beneficiary is not aware a service has been denied, in general, the provider simply does not provide or order the service. In the case of a claim denial, the member may be inappropriately billed. Appeal rights are warranted in both cases, and plans should be prepared to demonstrate delivery of these rights come audit time.
A proposal to take into account whether sponsor substantially mitigated adverse impact to beneficiaries; in those cases, CMS may remove those where impact was substantially mitigated
An example is provided, when the beneficiary receives medication within one day of initial rejection.
Per enrollee aggravating factors now includes reference to inappropriate delay/denial of “appeal rights”
Think about how multiple aggravating factors will be taken into account using the example provided in the document. For example: if there was a delay in completing a Part D coverage determination, appeal rights were not communicated, but the drug does not generally require access within one day, yet this was a prior offense… if it is not clear to you, then request additional examples or further clarification.
If your organization plans on providing feedback, asking clarifying questions, or providing general comment, make sure you do so in an organized fashion. Don’t have three different people emailing CMS – collaborate, collect, and submit to email@example.com with the subject line 2019 CMP Methodology Comments. The due date/time is April 15, 2019 at 11:59PM Eastern.
So what happened? News outlets and social media were quick to focus on presenters Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway. However, as the layers of onion were peeled, the public learned about the root causes: prohibited social media use, mistaken envelope delivery, and a significant delay in addressing the issue, which allowed the wrong producers about two minutes to give thanks in a bubble of blissful ignorance.
PwC had been the firm of choice of the Academy for over 80 years when this happened, and though this issue had only occurred one other time, it proves even established, reputable systems can break down. From the outside looking in, you might think handing the right envelope to the right person at the right time is a seemingly simple task. You would think the same about driving close to home, which according to many surveys and insurance data, is where most accidents occur. How are these two situations connected? Because we are most comfortable in roads we’ve traveled over and over, and therefore might be more susceptible to distraction.
So often, corrective action plans (CAPs) do not address the true root causes. In this example, the public was made aware of a few factors, but PwC may have identified even more. Was there a relaxed culture around adherence to protocol? Were there outside factors that distracted the two PwC partners onsite? Whatever was found, PwC took full responsibility for the issue and created a CAP, outlining a multi-step plan to avoid this type of issue from recurring. In addition, the Academy took ownership and will regularly review PwC’s policies and procedures to make sure something like this never happens again.
Compliance professionals will see correction, detection, and prevention controls all over this. If any Tinseltown executives are reading, I am happy to provide my services to do some CAP validation during the big day.