Medicaid Managed Care - U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging

Medicaid Managed Care - U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging Medicaid Managed Care - U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging

aging.senate.gov
from aging.senate.gov More from this publisher
29.07.2013 Views

516 experience with special populations. (Volume II contains more information on the use of outcomes measures.) With Whom will the State Contract? ong>Medicaidong> agencies use a variety of contractors to serve vulnerable populations, including commercial HMOs, county-based plans, community-based providers, and HMO/specialty center partnerships. Selected examples are shown in the table below. Type ong>Specialong> Population Contractors: State Examples Commercial HMOs Arizona AHCCCS (CIGNA) Colorado (Rocky Mountain HMO) Oregon (Providence Health Plans) Tennessee (Prudential) Examples ong>Medicaidong> Plans, Arizona ALTCS (Maricopa County Health Plan) including County Plans Oregon (ong>Careong> Oregon) Sister State Agency Arizona ALTCS (Department of Economic Security, for people with developmental disabilities) Community-based Massachusetts (Community Medical Alliance) Providers Wisconsin (Partnership) HMO/ong>Specialong>ty Ohio (ABC) Center Partnerships Wisconsin (Iong>Careong>) A quick glance at the table shows that states are not limiting themselves to one approach. In fact, in order to meet HCFA's two-plan requirement for mandatory programs, states may need to encourage the development of multiple contracting arrangements. Factors states consider when selecting an approach include the following. Purchasing Philosophy and Market Conditions A state's purchasing philosophy and the market conditions within the state can affect its contractor selection process in a number of ways. * Commercial Market. Those states with a well-developed and competitive commercial HMO marketplace may find that these existing HMOs offer the best opportunity to obtain the highest quality health care at the best price. Commercial HMOs already have the infrastructure needed to manage care and so can generally afford to offer the 'best deal'-although some states have also found that what a plan can provide does not always match what a plan is willing to offer. Generally speaking, Massachusetts fall into this category, and Arizona The National Academy for State Health Policy e © 8/97 IV-13

517 is moving in this direction now that its managed care program (and managed care marketplace) has matured. 12 * Large Risk Pools. In general, a large portion of the total cost of caring for vulnerable populations is due to the cost of caring for a small number of people within these populations. Some states have found that spreading the risk of subpopulations across the broader ong>Medicaidong> population better accommodates this situation. The more 'average' costing enrollees a plan has, the less likely it is that a few enrollees with very expensive conditions will cause financial difficulties (with its potential effect on access and quality of care). These states tend to use large, usually commercial, plans instead of small specialty plans. * Existing Relationships. Most states began their managed care programs with TANF beneficiaries and expanded their programs (or plan to expand them) to special populations. Some states find it practical to build on successful relationships with existing contractors, rather than developing separate relationships for special populations. * Preserving a Role for Traditional Providers. Many states wish to preserve a role for traditional-providers generally, and this issue becomes more significant when special populations are involved. Community-based long term care providers, developmental disability services providers, and county mental health systems may all be valued as critical to the success of any managed care program. Target Group and Services Purchased The type of contractor desired will also depend on the target population and services included in the program. A state will want any potential contractor to demonstrate experience working with the target group and network adequacy in all services included in the capitation. If a state is including long term care in its program, commercial HMOs may not be able to show network adequacy, especially in terms of home- and 'community-based LTC services. Subpopulations may need very specialized services currently available only through traditional providers. States constructing risk-based programs may want to consider combining the insurance expertise of an HMO with the service expertise of a specialty provider. Availability Even if the state is willing to do business with certain contractors, those contractors may not be interested in taking on the perceived risk of special populations, 12 It is interesting to note that in at least one state (Minnesota) the managed care marketplace has become so consolidated that this State is considering moving away from purchasing from commercial HMOs and instead purchasing from county-based or network models. The National Academy for State Health Policy * 0 8/97 IV-14

516<br />

experience with special populati<strong>on</strong>s. (Volume II c<strong>on</strong>tains more informati<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> the<br />

use of outcomes measures.)<br />

With Whom will the State C<strong>on</strong>tract?<br />

<str<strong>on</strong>g>Medicaid</str<strong>on</strong>g> agencies use a variety of c<strong>on</strong>tractors to serve vulnerable populati<strong>on</strong>s,<br />

including commercial HMOs, county-based plans, community-based providers, and<br />

HMO/specialty center partnerships. Selected examples are shown in the table below.<br />

Type<br />

<str<strong>on</strong>g>Special</str<strong>on</strong>g> Populati<strong>on</strong> C<strong>on</strong>tractors: State Examples<br />

Commercial HMOs Ariz<strong>on</strong>a AHCCCS (CIGNA)<br />

Colorado (Rocky Mountain HMO)<br />

Oreg<strong>on</strong> (Providence Health Plans)<br />

Tennessee (Prudential)<br />

Examples<br />

<str<strong>on</strong>g>Medicaid</str<strong>on</strong>g> Plans, Ariz<strong>on</strong>a ALTCS (Maricopa County Health Plan)<br />

including County Plans Oreg<strong>on</strong> (<str<strong>on</strong>g>Care</str<strong>on</strong>g> Oreg<strong>on</strong>)<br />

Sister State Agency Ariz<strong>on</strong>a ALTCS (Department of Ec<strong>on</strong>omic Security, for people with<br />

developmental disabilities)<br />

Community-based Massachusetts (Community Medical Alliance)<br />

Providers Wisc<strong>on</strong>sin (Partnership)<br />

HMO/<str<strong>on</strong>g>Special</str<strong>on</strong>g>ty Ohio (ABC)<br />

Center Partnerships Wisc<strong>on</strong>sin (I<str<strong>on</strong>g>Care</str<strong>on</strong>g>)<br />

A quick glance at the table shows that states are not limiting themselves to <strong>on</strong>e<br />

approach. In fact, in order to meet HCFA's two-plan requirement for mandatory<br />

programs, states may need to encourage the development of multiple c<strong>on</strong>tracting<br />

arrangements. Factors states c<strong>on</strong>sider when selecting an approach include the<br />

following.<br />

Purchasing Philosophy and Market C<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s<br />

A state's purchasing philosophy and the market c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s within the state can<br />

affect its c<strong>on</strong>tractor selecti<strong>on</strong> process in a number of ways.<br />

* Commercial Market. Those states with a well-developed and<br />

competitive commercial HMO marketplace may find that these<br />

existing HMOs offer the best opportunity to obtain the highest quality<br />

health care at the best price. Commercial HMOs already have the<br />

infrastructure needed to manage care and so can generally afford to<br />

offer the 'best deal'-although some states have also found that what a<br />

plan can provide does not always match what a plan is willing to offer.<br />

Generally speaking, Massachusetts fall into this category, and Ariz<strong>on</strong>a<br />

The Nati<strong>on</strong>al Academy for State Health Policy e © 8/97<br />

IV-13

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!