LEGISLATION FAILS TO LOWER IMPROPER PAYMENTS IN GOVERNMENT-FUNDED PROGRAMS

Legislation like the Improper Payments Information Act (IPIA P.L. 107-300) and Executive Order 13520 looked to address improper payments in government-funded programs. IPIA ordered federal agencies to report on the number of improper payments occurring and lay out what measures are being taken to lower them. Order 13520 worked to pinpoint high-priority programs and increase transparency. Agencies were required to submit projected reduction estimates and specifics on how they would work to obtain them. Despite these pieces of legislation, government-funded programs continue to lose billions of dollars due to payments made in error.

According to the GAO, federal entities estimated about $141 billion in improper payments in 2017. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) also reported and discovered that the 20 high-priority programs identified as a result of Order 13520, accounted for 96% of the $141 billion. In the years ahead, the CRS anticipates that these programs will account for 90% of all improper payments.

STATUTE COMPLIANCE ISSUES

In their improper payment reporting, the GAO has regularly brought up the following four compliance issues:

• Federal entities struggle to collect accurate eligibility data.

• Agencies do not have reliable methods for identifying improper payments.

• Entities fail to steer resources towards compliance efforts mandated by law.

• Agencies go through the motions and see the compliance measures as a way to keep oversight at bay.

Surprisingly, while agencies struggle to comply with statues to report on improper payments, none of them require that agencies decrease payments made in error. Consequently, improper payment rates continue to rise and agencies engage in costly measures to report.

The CRS report specified, "nearly half of the high-priority programs have shown no improvement. Specifically, the error rates for seven programs have increased since they first began reporting data, and the error rate for one program has remained unchanged. Moreover, while the error rates for twelve programs have decreased, the decline has been less than 10% for five programs. In some cases, program error rates have not improved."

IMPROPER PAYMENTS LOWERED WITH QUALITY DATA

To reduce improper payments, the federal government will need to make a focused effort in targeting the root causes for these payments within high priority programs while at the same time implementing technology solutions.

CMS is one agency in particular that successfully implemented existing initiatives and innovative processes, such as its Fraud Prevention System, to deal with improper payments within its programs. Following the compliance efforts established in the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act of 2010 (H.R. 3393), last year CMS reported its lowest improper payment rate in eight years.

The agency's Fraud Prevention System is an IT solution that takes advantage of data analytics to detect when mistakes or intentional behavior may result in improper payments or indicate fraud. CMS says that the system will yield a 20% savings increase.

According to the agency, "CMS employs multi-faceted efforts to target the root causes of improper payments, with an emphasis on prevention-oriented activities. Actions to prevent and reduce improper payments include: policy clarifications and simplifications; prior authorization initiatives that ensure applicable coverage, payment, and coding rules are met before services are rendered; a targeted probe and educate medical review strategy that focuses on outlier providers, limits the number of medical records requested, and puts emphasis on education and assistance in correcting claims errors; and provider education on Medicare policy."

Legislation has helped to bring the problem of improper payments into focus for agencies and government officials. Having said that, the statues directed by legislation are costly and primarily revolve around compliance and reporting as opposed to reducing improper payments. In order to stop improper payment rates from rising further, agencies need to look to innovate quality data solutions to identify and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse.

Click here and read more.

HB 3388 SEES SIGNIFICANT CHANGES

2019 has been a busy year for healthcare legislation in Texas and one proposal, in particular, intended to carve out PBM's altogether. House Representative J.D. Sheffield (R) introduced HB 3388 on March 6th in an attempt to reform the delivery of prescription drugs to a fee-for-service model for Medicaid and various other public benefit programs. However, during its time in the House, it went through a series of significant changes.

INTRODUCED HB 3388

Initially, HB 3388 was directed toward the delivery of outpatient prescription drug benefits. It proposed extreme changes such as:

• Replacing the vendor drug program with a fee-for-service delivery model.

• HHSC would eliminate any requirement to pay fees included in the capitation rate or other amounts paid to MCOs related to the provision of outpatient prescription drug benefits.

• If HHSC contracts with a claims processor to administer the outpatient prescription benefit program, HHSC would then reimburse the claims administrator for the prescription drugs and a contracted administrative fee.

• HHSC would apply clinical prior authorization requirements state-wide and use prior authorizations to regulate unnecessary utilization.

• HHSC contracts with MCOs would be changed to prohibit the MCO from providing outpatient prescription drugs by December 31, 2019, and would restrict an MCO from developing, implementing, or maintaining an outpatient pharmacy benefit plan for recipients beginning on the 180th day after the date HHSC begins providing outpatient prescription drug benefits.

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE

During its time in the House, the bill's focus shifted and the committee's substitute did not include any provisions from the original. CSHB 3388 changed course and focused on the reimbursement of prescription drugs under Medicaid and CHIP rather than the delivery of drug benefits. Under the revised version:

• MCOs providing services under Medicaid or CHIP would be mandated to reimburse retail and specialty pharmacies a minimum of the lesser of the reimbursement amount for the drug in the vendor drug program, including a dispensing fee that is not less than the dispensing fee under the vendor drug program, or the amount claimed by the pharmacy or pharmacist, including the gross amount due or the usual and customary charge to the public for the drug.

• MCOs would be required to reimburse pharmacies that dispense a prescription drug at a discounted price under Section 340B of the Public Health Service Act not less than the reimbursement amount for the drug under the vendor drug program, including a dispensing fee that is not less than the dispensing fee under the vendor drug program.

• HHSC would perform a study every two years to analyze Texas pharmacies' actual acquisition costs and dispensing cost.

• Bill 3388 would take effect on March 1, 2020.

Supporters of the bill believe that pharmacies would get fairer reimbursement of prescriptions filled for Medicaid and CHIP. They point out that the bill would improve transparency since it would use NADAC as a pricing benchmark. It would also not affect which drugs the programs covered.

On the other hand, opponents say that the bill has the potential to raise state costs by changing reimbursement methodology. Their position is that PBMs help to negotiate the best possible deals and protect patients from being prescribed unnecessary medications. They are concerned that the bill would negatively affect patient outcomes while increasing ER visits and opioid prescription rates and decrease medication adherence.

HB 3388 was voted on in the House on May 4th and it has been referred to the Health and Human Services Committee. If the bill is approved it will surely impact healthcare within the state. While the revised bill does not include a pharmacy carve out, it's a clear indication that lawmakers are focused on rising healthcare and prescription drugs costs and what they can do to remedy the problem.

Click on the link and read more.