1 / 7

Simplifying Medi-Cal Specialty Mental Health Reimbursement

Simplifying Medi-Cal Specialty Mental Health Reimbursement. Short Doyle 3 Governance Counsel Committee Meeting October 30, 2013. Current System. County MHPs reimbursed based on Certified Public Expenditures (CPE) incurred providing Medi-Cal Specialty Mental Health Services

lily
Download Presentation

Simplifying Medi-Cal Specialty Mental Health Reimbursement

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Simplifying Medi-Cal Specialty Mental Health Reimbursement Short Doyle 3 Governance Counsel Committee Meeting October 30, 2013

  2. Current System • County MHPs reimbursed based on Certified Public Expenditures (CPE) incurred providing Medi-Cal Specialty Mental Health Services • County MHPs are reimbursed an interim amount throughout the fiscal year based on approved Medi-Cal services and interim billing rates • County MHPs and DHCS reconcile the interim amounts to actual expenditures through the year end cost report settlement process • DHCS audits the cost reports to determine final Medi-Cal entitlement • Multiple sources of funding used for CPE • 1991 Realignment, Mental Health Services Act (MHSA), 2011 Realignment, County General Fund

  3. Current System • Services are defined, reported and tracked by California-specific service function codes • County MHPs required to track and report majority of outpatient services based on minutes of service • County MHP claims processing systems have to translate service function codes into HCPC codes • Vendors required to develop California specific claims processing systems to accommodate service function codes • State required to develop specific system for processing Medi-Cal Specialty Mental Health claims • Most County MHPs cannot reconcile approved claims with services provided and entered into claims processing system, or with payments from the state

  4. Current System • Some of the California-specific requirements were created to minimize exposure to the State General Fund • Results in managed care approach to service delivery with a quasi fee-for-service reimbursement system • Limited flexibility in contracting • Complex contract monitoring • More services=more revenue

  5. Opportunities • Opportunity for reimbursement simplification as a result of recent changes to state funding of Medi-Cal Specialty Mental Health services • Interim payments based on Certified Public Expenditures • County MHPs incur CPEs in the form of payments to providers and costs incurred by county operated providers • Interim payment should represent the best approximation of actual costs in providing services • Not necessarily a state adjudicated claim based on state business rules • 42 CFR Section 413, OMB Circular A-87 and the Provider Reimbursement Manual key factors in determining CPE • Focus on identification and allocation of allowable and non-allowable costs • Focus on identification and allocation of direct and indirect costs

  6. Opportunities • CPEs under the Low Income Health Program • Quarterly claims based on County CPEs • County MHP retains service data used for reimbursement • County MHP submits encounter data to state for performance outcomes • State audits County MHP service and encounter data • Simplified cost reporting

  7. Considerations for Simplified Reimbursement Policy • Supported by information technology, not driven by information technology • Reimbursement not tied to submission and adjudication of individual service level claim data • Consistent with federal requirements • Foster better quality of service and performance outcomes rather than quantity of service • Continuous quality improvement • Reduced state and County MHP administration • Eye towards future federal reimbursement • Case rates and/or capitation • Intergovernmental Transfers

More Related