Public Service and Volunteer Opportunities Can I get a Marketplace plan in addition to Medicare? Twitter Twitter link for Medicare.gov twitter account opens a new tab Quick. Convenient. Secure. Manage your health care spending confidently. Communication materials means all information provided to current and prospective enrollees. Marketing materials are a subset of communication material. Life EventsToggle submenu Take the guesswork out of health insurance. Home Health Agency (HHA)

Call 612-324-8001

Search About HCA Discount rate Period covered Return to Community initiative recognized as 2017 Harvard “Bright Idea in Government” This proposal aims to allow CMS to use the most relevant and appropriate information in determining whether specific cost sharing is discriminatory and to set standards and thresholds above which CMS believes cost sharing is discriminatory. CMS intends to continue the practice of furnishing information to MA organizations about the methodology used to establish cost sharing limits and the thresholds CMS identifies as non-discriminatory through the annual Call Letter process or Health Plan Management System (HPMS) memoranda and solicit comments, as appropriate. This process allows MA organizations to prepare plan bids consistent with parameters that CMS have determined to be non-discriminatory. In § 422.62, we propose to update paragraph (b)(3)(B)(ii) by replacing “in marketing the plans to the individual” with “in communication materials.” Those Part C Advantage plans, run by private companies, generally have networks of doctors and hospitals. If you stay in the network, you may pay less to insurance companies for coverage and to health care providers for their services than you would with basic ("original") Medicare. Why choose BCBSRI? Change Secret Questions For Brokers SIGN UP & SAVE MYHEALTH Medicare Extra would be administered by a new, independent Center for Medicare Extra within the current Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which would be renamed the Center for Medicare. To ensure that the Center for Medicare Extra is immune from partisan political influence within the administration, the legislative statute would leave little to no discretion to the administration on policy matters. In this respect, the administration of Medicare Extra would resemble the administration of the current Medicare program and not of the Medicaid program. Insurance Quotes: Individual Health Insurance Quotes Group Health Insurance Quotes Self Employed Health Insurance Quotes Dental Insurance Quotes Family Health Insurance Quotes Senior Medicare Insurance Quotes Under our proposal, default enrollment of individuals at the time of their conversion to Medicare would be more limited than the default enrollments Congress authorized the Secretary to permit in section 1851(c)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act. However, we are also proposing some flexibility for MA organizations that wish to offer seamless continuation of coverage to their non-Medicare members, commercial, Medicaid or otherwise, who are gaining Medicare eligibility. As discussed in more detail below, affirmative elections would be necessary for individuals not enrolled in a Medicaid managed care plan, consistent with § 422.50. However, because individuals enrolled in an organization's commercial plan, for example would already be known to the parent organization offering both the non-Medicare plan and the MA plan and the statute acknowledges that this existing relationship is somewhat relevant to Part C coverage, we propose to amend § 422.66(d)(5) and to establish, through subregulatory guidance, a new and simplified positive (that is, “opt in”) election process that would be available to all MA organizations for the MA enrollments of their commercial, Medicaid or other non-Medicare plan members. To reflect our change in policy with regard to a default enrollment process and this proposal to permit a simplified election process for individuals who are electing coverage in an MA plan offered by the same entity as the individual's non-Medicare coverage, we are also proposing to add text in § 422.66(d)(5) authorizing a simplified election for purposes of converting existing non-Medicare coverage, commercial, Medicaid or otherwise, to MA coverage offered by the same organization. This new mechanism would allow for a less burdensome process for MA organizations to offer enrollment in their MA plans to their non-Medicare health plan members who are newly eligible for Medicare. As the MA organization has a significant amount of the information from the member's non-Medicare enrollment, this new simplified election process aims to make enrollment easier for the newly-eligible beneficiary to complete and for the MA organization to process. It would align with the individual's Part A and Part B initial enrollment period (and initial coordinated election period for MA coverage), provided he or she enrolled in both Medicare Parts A and B when first eligible for Medicare. This new election process would provide a longer period of time for MA organizations to accept enrollment requests than the time period in which MA organizations would be required to effectuate default enrollments, as organizations would be able to accept enrollments throughout the individual's Initial Coverage Election Period (ICEP), which for an aged beneficiary is the 7-month period that begins 3 months before the month in which the individual turns 65 and ends 3 months after the month in which the individual turns 65. We would use existing authority to create this new enrollment Start Printed Page 56368mechanism which, if implemented, would be available to MA organizations in the 2019 contract year. We solicit comments on the proposed changes to the regulation text as well as the form and manner in which such enrollments may occur. See All Member Resources The actuarial value of the typical large employer preferred provider organization (PPO) is 85 percent and the actuarial value of the FEHBP Standard Option is 80 percent (Table B2). See Frank McArdle and others, “How Does the Benefit Value of Medicare Compare to the Benefit Value of Typical Large Employer Plans? A 2012 Update” (Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation, 2012), available at https://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/7768-02.pdf; Large employers contribute an average of 81 percent of the premium for single coverage and 72 percent of the premium for family coverage (Figure 6.24). Premium contributions for part-time employees would be in proportion to hours worked per week divided by 40 hours. See Kaiser Family Foundation, “2017 Employer Health Benefits Survey” (2017), available at https://www.kff.org/health-costs/report/2017-employer-health-benefits-survey/. ↩ One-time payments online Best For: NEW TO MEDICARE Aging Trends: The Survey of Older Minnesotans Considering the program integrity risk that the two previously mentioned sets of prescribers present, we must be able to accordingly protect Medicare beneficiaries and the Trust Funds. We thus propose to revise § 423.120(c)(6), as further specified in this proposed rule, to require that a Part D plan sponsor must reject, or must require its PBM to reject, a pharmacy claim (or deny a beneficiary request for reimbursement) for a Part D drug prescribed by an individual on the preclusion list. We believe we have the legal authority for such a provision because sections 1102 and 1871 of the Act provide general authority for the Secretary to prescribe regulations for the efficient administration of the Medicare program; also, section 1860D-12(b)(3)(D) of the Act authorizes the Secretary to add additional Part D contract terms as necessary and appropriate, so long as they are not inconsistent with the Part D statute. We note also that our proposal is of particular importance when considering the current nationwide opioid crisis. We believe that the inclusion of problematic prescribers on the preclusion list could reduce the amount of opioids that are improperly or unnecessarily prescribed by persons who pose a heightened risk to the Part D program and Medicare beneficiaries. (A) Requirements in subpart V of this part. Share your story Given that compliance programs are very well established and have grown more sophisticated since their inception, coupled with the industry's desire to perform well on audit, the Start Printed Page 56431CMS training requirement is not the driver of performance improvement or FDR compliance with key CMS requirements. Given this accumulated program experience and the growing sophistication of the industry's compliance operations, as well as our continuing requirements on sponsors for oversight and monitoring of FDRs, we are proposing to delete not just the regulatory provision requiring acceptance of CMS' training as meeting the compliance training requirements, but also the reference to FDRs in the compliance training requirements codified at §§ 422.503(b)(4)(vi)(C) and 423.504(b)(4)(vi)(C). Specifically, we propose to remove the phrases in paragraphs (C)(1) and (C)(2) that refer to first tier, downstream and related entities and remove the paragraphs specific to FDR training at §§ 422.503(b)(4)(vi)(C)(2) and (3) and 423.504(b)(4)(vi)(C)(3) and (4); we are also proposing technical revisions to restructure § 422.503(b)(4)(vi)(C)(1) into two paragraphs and ensure that the remaining text is grammatically correct and consistent with Office of the Federal Register style. Compliance training would still be required of MA and Part D sponsors, their employees, chief executives or senior administrators, managers, and governing body members. This change will allow sponsoring organizations, and the FDRs with which they contract, the maximum flexibility in developing and meeting training requirements associated with effective compliance programs. We invite comments concerning this proposal and suggestions on other options we can implement to accomplish the desired outcome. In paragraph (c)(5)(iii), we state that the sponsor must communicate at point-of-sale whether or not a submitted NPI is active and valid in accordance with this paragraph (c)(5)(iii). Average health costs for a given population in a guaranteed-issue environment generally can be viewed as inversely proportional to enrollment as a percentage of the eligible population. Higher take-up rates typically reflect a larger share of healthy individuals enrolling. According to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), marketplace enrollment at the end of the open enrollment period increased from 8.0 million in 2014 to 11.7 million in 2015, increased again to 12.7 million in 2016, but dropped slightly to 12.2 million in 2017.9 Insurers need to consider whether this decline is likely to continue or reverse in 2018. If the decline is expected to continue or increase in 2018, this will put upward pressure on 2018 premium increases. Drug Formularies 1095-C tax form STATE HEALTH FACTS Continuing Education: News You Can Use § 422.254 As drug prices rise to new heights, President Trump wants to require insurers to reduce out-of-pocket costs for Medicare beneficiaries, but critics see his proposals as prohibited interference. Our customer service team is here to help you. and mail in your donation. Family Take advantage of programs that put more money in your pocket. Gain exclusive access to rewards and discounts. AARP Membership To find out the premium amount you pay, read "Medicare Premiums: Rules For Higher-Income Beneficiaries". Legislative Advocacy Team (A-Team) (2) Do not include information about measuring or ranking standards (for example, star ratings); As noted previously, the Secretary has the discretion under CARA to provide for automatic escalation of drug management program appeals to external review. Under existing Part D benefit appeals procedures, there is no automatic escalation to external review for adverse appeal decisions; instead, the enrollee (or prescriber, on behalf of the enrollee) must request review by the Part D IRE. Under the existing Part D benefit appeals process, cases are auto-forwarded to the IRE only when the plan fails to issue a coverage determination within the applicable timeframe. During the stakeholder call and in subsequent written comments, most commenters opposed automatic escalation to the IRE, citing support for using the existing appeals process for reasons of administrative efficiency and better outcomes for at-risk beneficiaries. The majority of stakeholders supported following the existing Part D appeals process, and some commenters specifically supported permitting the plan to review its lock-in decision prior to the case being subject to IRE review. Stakeholders cited a variety of reasons for their opposition, including increased costs to plans, the IRE, and the Part D program. Stakeholders cited administrative efficiency in using the existing appeal process that is familiar to enrollees, plans, and the IRE, while other commenters expressed support for automatic escalation to the IRE as a beneficiary protection. Footer Social (2) The edit or limitation that the sponsor had implemented for the beneficiary had not terminated before disenrollment. People with End-Stage Renal Disease (permanent kidney failure requiring dialysis or a transplant). A Cost plan is somewhat of a hybrid – a cross between a Medicare supplement and a Medicare Advantage plan. For some people, the benefits are the best of both worlds. Similar to an Advantage plan, a Cost plan has a network of doctors and hospitals that the insured must use. There may be some cost sharing (a copay for example) when visiting a doctor, for a hospital stay, labs, or diagnostic tests, but this cost sharing all adds up to an out-of-pocket maximum to limit the annual risk for the insured. Real Estate Details [Amended] Through 2016, these trigger points have never been reached and IPAB has not even been formed. However, in the 2016 Medicare Trustees Report, the actuaries estimate that the trigger points will be reached in 2016 or 2017 and that IPAB will affect Medicare spending for the first time in 2019 (meaning it will need to be formed and recommend its cuts in 2017). CHANGES IN PROVIDER NETWORKS. CMS recently announced that it is shifting the responsibility to evaluate network adequacy to the states (for states that have adequate review authority and capability). If states require some insurers to contract with additional providers, premiums for those insurers may increase slightly. Likewise, if states allow more restricted networks, there may be slight decreases in premiums. Search for: Search l. Measure-Level Star Ratings CREDITABLE COVERAGE Apply for Reimbursement If you didn’t sign up for Medicare A and B when you were first eligible, you can enroll between January 1 and March 31, with coverage effective July 1, but you may be subject to a late enrollment penalty. (For Medicare Part B, the penalty is an additional 10 percent of the premium for each 12-month period that you were eligible but not enrolled, and did not have other creditable coverage in place. Medicare Part A is premium-free for most enrollees, based on work history.) (A) Special Requirement To Limit Access to Coverage of Frequently Abused Drugs to Selected Prescriber(s) (§ 423.153(f)(4)) Swing Trader History 40 documents in the last year We believe that a result of our proposed elimination of the Part D Start Printed Page 56475enrollment requirement, the following net savings for prescribers would ensue: We believe that by deleting this provision we will reduce burden for sponsoring organizations and their FDRs. We estimate that the burden reduction will be roughly 1 hour for each FDR employee who would be required to complete the CMS training on an annual basis, under the current regulation at §§ 422.503(b)(4)(vi)(C) and 423.504(b)(4)(vi)(C). We do not know how many employees were required to take the CMS training, nor do we know the exact numbers of FDRs that were subject to the requirement. Sponsoring organizations have discretion in not only which of their contracted organizations meet the definition of an FDR, but also discretion in which employees of that FDR are subject to the training. But we know from public comments that PBMs, hospitals, pharmacies, labs, physician practice groups and even some billing offices were routinely subjected to the training. Unfortunately, the Medicare Learning Network (MLN) Matters® Web site is not able to track the number of people that took CMS' training, so we cannot use that as a data source. CMS has reviewed the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development's (OECD) 2015 statistics which show a total of 20,076,000 people employed in the health and social services fields in the United States, although certainly not all of them were subject to CMS' training requirement (See http://stats.oecd.org/​index.aspx?​DataSetCode=​HEALTH_​STAT). Hospitals are one sector of the health industry that has been particularly vocal about the burden the current training requirement has placed on them and their staff. If we use hospitals as an example to estimate potential burden reduction, the OECD Web site states that there are 5,627 hospitals in the United States, employing 6,210,602 people. That is an average of 1,103 people per hospital. There are approximately 4,800 hospitals registered with Original Medicare. If we assume that each one of those hospitals holds at least one contract with a M A health plan and all of their employees were subjected to the training (4,800 × 1,103 × 1 hour) that is 5,294,400 hours of burden that would be eliminated by this proposal. If we add pharmacists, pharmacy technicians, billing offices, physician practice groups, we would expect further burden reduction. OECD has data for a few more sectors of the industry, including 295,620 pharmacists, 3,626,060 nurses and 820,251 physicians in the United States. Many of the physicians and nurses are likely represented in the 6 million employed by hospitals. Unfortunately we don't have data sources for all sectors of the industry. However, using hospital staff as a starting point and OECD's total figure of 20 million working in the health and social service fields, we estimate the burden reduction is likely 6 to 8 million hours each year. Again, we have no way to determine exactly how many FDRs there are or exactly how many staff would be expected to take the training under the current regulation, but we hope this example demonstrates the reduction in burden this proposal would mean for the industry. We request comment that would allow for more complete monetization of cost savings in the analysis of the final rule. Search Search Kidney Disease Program (KDP) Call Me a   Thank you! Certain aged, blind, or disabled adults with incomes below the FPL 3-step guide Baby BluePrints Maternity Program Nursing Facilities, Staffing, Residents and Facility Deficiencies, 2009 Through 2015 In a Next Avenue article, writer Carol Orsborn, who recently signed up for Medicare, said that by the time she made her final decisions about which coverage to take, she had received enough direct mail solicitations to fill six hanging folders with hundreds of brochures. She also made dozens of calls, visited numerous websites and talked to assorted friends and family members. Providers & Coordinators Music (4) A prescribing physician or other prescriber must provide an oral or written supporting statement that the preferred drug(s) for the treatment of the enrollee's condition— Looking for ways to plan ahead for your care? We can help with that. Search Health care services and supports Feedback The critical policy decision was how to strike the right balance to clarify confusion in the marketplace, afford Part D plan sponsor flexibility, and incorporate recent innovations in pharmacy business and care delivery models without prematurely and inappropriately interfering with highly volatile market forces. Life Events (I) The Part D Calculated Error is determined by the quotient of the number of untimely cases not auto-forwarded to the IRE and the total number of untimely cases. In §§ 422.2460 and 423.2460, add a new paragraph (b) to require MA organizations and Part D plan sponsors with— Leadership Questions about our online application Assister Stakeholder Groups Call 612-324-8001 United Healthcare | Grand Rapids Minnesota MN 55744 Itasca Call 612-324-8001 United Healthcare | Grand Rapids Minnesota MN 55745 Itasca Call 612-324-8001 United Healthcare | Hibbing Minnesota MN 55746 St. Louis
Legal | Sitemap