109. Section 423.2410 is amended in paragraph (a) by removing the phrase “an MLR” and adding in its place the phrase “the information required under § 423.2460”.
Top Stories A Word About Costs HEALTH INSURER FEE. The health insurance provider fee was enacted through the ACA. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016 included a moratorium on the collection of the fee in 2017. Insurers removed the fee from their 2017 premiums, resulting in a premium reduction of about 1 to 3 percent, depending on the size of the insurer and their profit/not-for-profit status. Unless the moratorium is extended, the resumption of the fee in 2018 will increase premiums by about 1 to 3 percent.
FDRs have long complained of the burden of having to complete multiple sponsoring organizations' compliance trainings and the amount of time it can take away from providing care to beneficiaries. We attempted to resolve this burden by developing our own web-based standardized compliance program training modules and establishing, in a May 23, 2014 final rule (79 FR 29853 and 29855), which was effective January 1, 2016, that FDRs were required to complete the CMS training to satisfy the compliance training requirement. The mandatory use of the CMS training by FDRs was a means to ensure that FDRs would only have to complete the compliance training once on an annual basis. The FDRs could then provide the certificate of completion to all Part C and Part D contracting organizations they served, hence, eliminating the prior duplication of effort that so many FDRs stated was creating a huge burden on their operation.
GovDelivery sign up (3) Mention benefits or cost sharing, but do not meet the definition of marketing in this section; orStart Printed Page 56506 Can I get a health or drug plan?
Participants Latest Stock Picks Discover More Reasons Who Needs a License
We are proposing a change in how contract-level Star Ratings are assigned in the case of contract consolidations. We have historically permitted MAOs and Part D sponsors to consolidate contracts when a contract novation occurs or to better align business practices. As noted in MedPAC's March 2016 Report to Congress (https://aspe.hhs.gov/pdf-report/report-congress-social-risk-factors-and-performance-under-medicares-value-based-purchasing-programs), there has been a continued increase in the number of enrollees being moved from lower Star Rating contracts that do not receive a QBP to higher Star Rating contracts that do receive a QBP as part of contract consolidations, which increases the size of the QBPs that are made to MAOs due to the large enrollment increase in the higher rated, surviving contract. We are worried that this practice results in masking low quality plans under higher rated surviving contracts. This does not provide beneficiaries with accurate and reliable information for enrollment decisions, and it does not truly reward higher quality contracts. We propose here to modify from the current policy the calculation of Star Ratings for surviving contracts that have consolidated. Instead of assigning the surviving contract the Star Rating that the contract would have earned without regard to whether a consolidation took place, we propose to assign and display on Medicare Plan Finder Star Ratings based on the enrollment-weighted mean of the measure scores of the surviving and consumed contract(s) so that the ratings reflect the performance of all contracts (surviving and consumed) involved in the consolidation. Under this proposal, the calculation of the measure, domain, summary, and overall ratings would be based on these enrollment-weighted mean scores. The number of contracts this would impact is small relative to all contracts that qualify for QBPs. During the period from 1/1/2015 through 1/1/2017 annual consolidations for MA contracts ranged from a low of 7 in 2015 to a high of 19 in 2016 out of approximately 500 MA contracts. As proposed in §§ 422.162(b)(3)(i)-(iii) and 423.182(b)(3)(i)-(iii), CMS will use enrollment-weighted means of the measure scores of the consumed and surviving contracts to calculate ratings for the first and second plan years following the contract consolidations. We believe that use of enrollment-weighted means will provide a more accurate snapshot of the performance of the underlying plans in the new consolidated contract, such that both information to beneficiaries and QBPs are not somehow inaccurate or misleading. We also propose, however, that the process of weighting the enrollment of each contract and applying this general rule would vary depending on the specific types of measures involved in order to take into account the measurement period and Start Printed Page 56381data collection processes of certain measures. Our proposal would also treat ratings for determining quality bonus payment (QBP) status for MA contracts differently than displayed Star Ratings for the first year following the consolidation for consolidations that involve the same parent organization and plans of the same plan type.
Nondiscrimination notice | Language assistance | Terms & conditions | Privacy practices | The Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), which the Affordable Care Act or "ACA" created, will use this measure to determine whether it must recommend to Congress proposals to reduce Medicare costs. Under the ACA, Congress established maximum targets, or thresholds, for per-capita Medicare spending growth. For the five-year periods ending in 2015 through 2019, these targets are based on the average of CPI-U and CPI-M. For the five-year periods ending in 2020 and subsequent years, these targets are based on per-capita GDP growth plus one percentage point. Each year, the CMS Office of the Actuary must compare those two values, and if the spending measure is larger than the economic measure, IPAB must propose cost-savings recommendations for consideration in Congress on an expedited basis. The Congressional Budget Office projects that Medicare per-capita spending growth will not exceed the economic target at any time between 2015 and 2021.
Tips for Shopping for Health Coverage ++ Volume of requests. We also propose to add § 423.153(f)(16) to state that potential at-risk beneficiaries and at-risk beneficiaries are identified by CMS or the Part D sponsor using clinical guidelines that: (1) Are developed with stakeholder consultation; (2) Are based on the acquisition of frequently abused drugs from multiple prescribers, multiple pharmacies, the level of frequently abused drugs, or any combination of these factors; (3) Are derived from expert opinion and an analysis of Medicare data; and (4) Include a program size estimate. This proposed approach to developing and updating the clinical guidelines is intended to provide enough specificity for stakeholders to know how CMS would determine the guidelines by identifying the standards we would apply in determining them.
11. Preclusion List—Part C/Medicare Advantage Cost Plan and PACE Provisions Calendar In April 2010, we clarified our authority to deny contract qualification applications from organizations that have failed to comply with the requirements of a Medicare Advantage or Part D plan sponsor contract they currently hold, even if the submitted application otherwise demonstrates that the organization meets the relevant program requirements. As part of that rulemaking, we established, at § 422.502(b)(1) and § 423.503(b)(1), that we would review an applicant's prior contract performance for the 14-month period preceding the application submission deadline (see 75 FR 19684 through 19686). We conduct that review in accordance with a methodology we publish each year  and use to score each applicant's performance by assigning weights based on the severity of its non-compliance in several Start Printed Page 56441performance categories. Under the annual contract qualification application submission and review process we conduct, organizations must submit their application by a date, usually in mid-February, announced by us. We now propose to reduce the past performance review period from 14 months to 12 months.
By Walecia Konrad MoneyWatch August 28, 2017, 5:00 AM
Retirement Guide: 50s When you click the Continue button, you will leave the eHealth Medicare site and may see information not related to Medicare.
(2) CMS will reduce a measure rating to 1 star for additional concerns that data inaccuracy, incompleteness, or bias have an impact on measure scores and are not specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section, including a contract's failure to adhere to CAHPS reporting requirements.
If you have a question about your mail-order or speciality medication, please call the phone number on the back of your identification card or visit www.express-scripts.com.
To find out when you are eligible, you need to answer a few questions and learn how to calculate your premium.
Share This Page: Preventative Health State, Local, and Tribal Governments Board Election Center Joint
5. Physician Incentive Plans—Update Stop-Loss Protection Requirements (§ 422.208) We seek comment on whether this 6-month waiting period would reduce provider burden sufficiently to outweigh the additional case management, clinical contact and prescriber verification that providers may experience if a sponsor believes a beneficiary's access to coverage of frequently abused drugs should be limited to a selected prescriber(s). Comments should include the additional operational considerations for sponsors to implement this proposal.
Resources & Tools Overview FOREVER BLUE VALUE (PPO) (C) Adding additional instructions; or Close Comment Window
By REED ABELSON UMP Plus FAQs Free Preventive Services We considered multiple alternatives related to the SEP proposal. We describe two such alternatives in the following discussion:
59. See https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Prescription-Drug-Coverage/PrescriptionDrugCovGenIn/Downloads/Technical-Guidance-on-Implementation-of-the-Part-D-Prescriber-Enrollment-Requirement.pdf.
Virginia - VA 2018 STAR RATINGS Learn how it may impact you Contact the Medicare plan directly. Change impacting Minnesota >
11. Patient Protection and Affordable Act; Market Stabilization; Final Rule; Department of Health and Human Services; April 18, 2017.
Blue Cross Blue Shield Of Tennessee Jump up ^ "Kaiser health News, Medicare Revises Readmissions Penalties – Again". Kaiserhealthnews.org. March 14, 2013. Retrieved August 30, 2013.
Home » Where to Go World Aug 26 Under the current regulation at § 422.208(f)(2)(iii), stop-loss insurance for the provider (at the MA organization's expense) is needed only if the number of members in the physician's group at global risk under the MA plan is less than 25,000. The average number of members in the under 25,000 group estimated under the current regulation is 6,000 members. Ideally, to obtain an average, we should weight the panel sizes in the chart at § 422.208(f)(2)(iii) by the number of physician practices and the number of capitated patients per practice per plan. However, this information is not available. Therefore, we used the median of the panel sizes listed in the chart at § 422.208(f)(2)(iii), which is about 8,000. Since the per member per year (PMPY) stop-loss premiums are greater for a smaller number of patients, we lowered this 8,000 to 6,000 to reflect the fact that the distribution of capitated patients is skewed to the left. We use this rough estimate of 6,000 for its estimates.
§ 423.186 State-of-the-art technology has allowed researchers to discover a microstructure that forms in lymph nodes when the body is attacked by a known pathogen. Moving to Another State
a lowercase letter (ix) Drug Management Program Appeals (§§ 423.558, 423.560, 423.562, 423.564, 423.580, 423.582, 423.584, 423.590, 423.602, 423.636, 423.638, 423.1970, 423.2018, 423.2020, 423.2022, 423.2032, 423.2036, 423.2038, 423.2046, 423.2056, 423.2062, 423.2122, and 423.2126)
(6) Clear instructions that explain how the beneficiary can contact the sponsor, including how the beneficiary may submit information to the sponsor in response to the request described in paragraph (f)(5)(ii)(C)(4) of this section.
§ 422.2268 Editor’s Note: Journalist Philip Moeller is here to provide the answers you need on aging and retirement. His weekly column, “Ask Phil,” aims to help older Americans and their families by answering their health care and financial questions. Phil is the author of “Get What’s Yours for Medicare,” and co-author of “Get What’s Yours: The Revised Secrets to Maxing Out Your Social Security.” Send your questions to Phil; and he will answer as many as he can.
KMedicare Enrollment Articles Medicare Savings Program As the specialty drug distribution market has grown, so has the number of organizations competing to distribute or dispense specialty drugs, such as pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), health plans, wholesalers, health systems, physician practices, retail pharmacy chains, and small, independent pharmacies (see the URAC White Paper, “Competing in the Specialty Pharmacy Market: Achieving Success in Value-Based Healthcare,” available at http://info.urac.org/specialtypharmacyreport). CMS is concerned that Part D plan sponsors might use their standard pharmacy network contracts in a way that inappropriately limits dispensing of specialty drugs to certain pharmacies. In fact, we have received complaints from pharmacies that Part D plan sponsors have begun to require accreditation of pharmacies, including accreditation by multiple accrediting organizations, or additional Part D plan-/PBM-specific credentialing criteria, for network participation. We agree that there is a role in the Part D program for pharmacy accreditation, to the extent pharmacy accreditation requirements in network agreements promote quality assurance. In particular, we support Part D plan sponsors that want to negotiate an accreditation requirement in exchange for, for example, designating a pharmacy as a specialty or preferred pharmacy in the Part D plan sponsor's contracted pharmacy network. However, we do not support the use of Part D plan sponsor- or PBM-specific credentialing criteria, in lieu of, or in addition to, accreditation by recognized accrediting organizations, apart from drug-specific limited dispensing criteria such as FDA-mandated REMS or to ensure the appropriate dispensing of Part D drugs that require extraordinary special handling, provider coordination, or patient education when such extraordinary requirements cannot be met by a network pharmacy (as discussed previously). Moreover, we are especially concerned about anecdotal reports that allege such standard terms and conditions for network participation are waived, for example, when a Part D plan sponsor needs a particular pharmacy in its network in order to meet convenient access requirements, or even for certain pharmacies that received preferred pharmacy status.
Annualized Monetized Savings 13.80 13.82 CYs 2019-2023 Trust Fund. Fill Prescriptions (b) Minimum enrollment waiver. For a contract applicant that does not meet the applicable requirement of paragraph (a) of this section at application for an MA contract, CMS may waive the minimum enrollment requirement for the first 3 years of the contract. To receive a waiver, a contract applicant must demonstrate to CMS's satisfaction that it is capable of administering and managing an MA contract and is able to manage the level of risk required under the contract during the first 3 years of the contract. Factors that CMS takes into consideration in making this evaluation include the extent to which—
Jump up ^ http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12085/03-10-reducingthedeficit.pdf Understanding Health Care Costs
In identifying whether to add a measure, we will be guided by the principles we listed in section III.A.12.b. of the proposed rule. Measures should be aligned with best practices among payers and the needs of the end users, including beneficiaries. Our strategy is to continue to adopt measures when they are available, nationally endorsed, and in alignment with the private sector, as we do today through the use of measures developed by NCQA and the PQA, and the use of measures that are endorsed by the National Quality Forum (NQF). We propose to codify this standard for adopting new measures at §§ 422.164(c)(1) and 423.184(c)(1). We do not intend this standard to require that a measure be adopted by an independent measure steward or endorsed by NQF in order for us to propose its use for the Star Ratings, but that these are considerations that will guide us as we develop such proposals. We also propose that CMS may develop its own measures as well when appropriate to measure and reflect performance in the Medicare program.
Forgot password? | Guest Member Login | Register Since the mid-1990s, there have been a number of proposals to change Medicare from a publicly run social insurance program with a defined benefit, for which there is no limit to the government's expenses, into a program that offers "premium support" for enrollees. The basic concept behind the proposals is that the government would make a defined contribution, that is a premium support, to the health plan of a Medicare enrollee's choice. Insurers would compete to provide Medicare benefits and this competition would set the level of fixed contribution. Additionally, enrollees would be able to purchase greater coverage by paying more in addition to the fixed government contribution. Conversely, enrollees could choose lower cost coverage and keep the difference between their coverage costs and the fixed government contribution. The goal of premium Medicare plans is for greater cost-effectiveness; if such a proposal worked as planned, the financial incentive would be greatest for Medicare plans that offer the best care at the lowest cost.
Please log in. 20. Medicaid Drug Utilization Review State Comparison/Summary Report FFY 2015 Annual Report: Prescription Drug Fee-For Service Program (December 2016).
In addition to the aforementioned proposals, CMS proposes to amend existing data submission requirements for risk adjustment to require MA organizations to include provider NPIs as part of encounter data submissions; CMS intends to use the NPI data to identify individuals and entities that, depending on the results of CMS investigation, may be included on the preclusion list proposed in this section. Pursuant to section 1853(a)(1)(C) and (a)(3)(B) of the Act, CMS adjusts the capitation rates paid to MA organizations to account for such risk factors as age, disability status, gender, institutional status, and health status and requires MA organizations to submit data regarding the services provided to MA enrollees. Implementing regulations at 42 CFR 422.310 set forth the requirements for the submission of risk adjustment data that CMS uses to risk-adjust payments. MA organizations must submit data, in accordance with CMS instructions, to characterize the context and purposes of items and services provided to their enrollees by a provider, supplier, physician, or other practitioner (OMB Control No. 0938-1152). Currently, risk adjustment data is submitted in two formats: comprehensive data equivalent to Medicare fee-for-service claims data (often referred to as encounter data); and data in abbreviated formats (often referred to as RAPS data).
Call 612-324-8001 Medicare | Monticello Minnesota MN 55587 Wright Call 612-324-8001 Medicare | Monticello Minnesota MN 55588 Wright Call 612-324-8001 Medicare | Monticello Minnesota MN 55589 Wright Legal | Sitemap