regional network

Regional Network

Table of Contents

Articles of Incorporation Page 3

Organizational Structure Page 9

Proposed Work Plan Page 14

ACA's Medicaid Expansion - Michigan Impact Page 16

MI Medicaid Managed Care & Advantage Enrollment 4

Draft Budget Page 27

Fee Options Page 28

3 of 28

4 of 28

5 of 28

6 of 28

7 of 28

8 of 28

Network Organizational Structure – Key Decision Items for Michigan Implementation with Timetable

Date: October 15, 2012 Model Action Items/ Issues for Clarification

1. Name of Network TBA Senior Care Network TBD

2. Mission

3. Steering Committee Charge and Purpose

Charge and Purpose The Aging Services of Michigan Regional Network Collaborative supports not-for-profit member providers by providing shared services and coordination activities in three areas of the state. The network will assist members in improving health by facilitating and structuring the sharing of best practices, develop consistent standardized care pathways, and provide access to advanced care practitioners and improved business strategies. The network will reduced costs through providing member shared services, such as shared electronic record systems, Managed Care Contracting, billing and other back office services, information technology, and billing. The Regional Network Collaborative includes nine (9) Aging Services of Michigan members and partners who will work to guide the development of the business model including:

Corporate Documents and by-laws

Establishing a financing plan and interim budget

Establish a Board of Directors

Identifying/refining the business structure

Potential staffing models

Provide guidance and input to BPI and CMMI initiatives.

9 of 28

4. Purpose a. Establish network as sole health plan contracting entity for enrolled member facilities and programs.

b. Maximize rate reimbursement for services under contracts with Medicare Advantage Plans and Medicaid Health plans in applicable regions and/or health systems, where appropriate;

c. Negotiate pay for performance incentives with selective plans.

d. Develop collaborative relationships with key provider groups and systems, including hospitals, physicians, ancillary providers etc;

e. Educate member staff on managed care contracts (i.e. Rates/prior authorization, billing, data reporting)

f. Develop and/or share best practices for care management, care coordination, cost effectiveness, etc

g. Collect and analyze cost and performance data to improve members’ performance under the health plan contracts; develop uniform set of quality and cost effectiveness metrics and standards;

Summarize in member contract 1. Question: Does Network contract for Medicare Advantage

as well as Medicaid Services?

2. Put together listing of Medicare Advantage plans and compare with Medicaid plans

3. Main role is to contract and provide education.

5. Governance structure

a. Formed as separate not for profit-501 c 4

b. Executive, Credentialing and Managed care/quality committee structure

c. Officers: Chair, Past Chair, Chair Elect, VP/Chair of Managed care committee, Treasurer and Sec.

Structure already created. Need Bylaws: Does it have a managed care committee?

10 of 28

6. Application for Membership

a. Members with voting/board membership: Members with nursing homes that offer skilled Medicare (SNF-A) nursing home care, other Medicare services (home health care, and/or Medicaid type services i.e. elderly waiver/adult day care). Members include governmental not for profit nursing homes. PACE providers

1. Does ASM have credentialing to join its network or can any member join? Are there minimum quality requirements?

2. Are not for profits who are not members of ASM eligible to

join? 3. Possible application requirements

Nursing Homes a. An average Score of 3 or better Nursing Home Compare report over a period of two years is preferred; if less than that, submit documentation of quality improvement program to improve score;

b. Adequate insurance coverage to meet health plans’ requirements

c. Current state Medicaid license and federal Medicare certification.

d. Copy of last state survey/corrective action plan

Residential Care Facilities/ALF

State License

Home Health Care State License or state/federal certification to provide services under Medicare/Medicaid

Adult Day/Other State License or state/federal certification to provide services under Medicare/Medicaid

11 of 28

7. Member Fee /Two Tier Structure

a. The operating budget is supported by member dues within Network;

b. All members pay a base fee to cover the administrative costs.

c. Remaining budget is paid by voting members benefiting under the managed care contracts from both reimbursement rates and performance incentives. Dues could be based on per bed/licensed occupancy.

1. What is fee structure to support operating budget?

2. Are there other Networks already established that members use for contracting for their Medicare Advantage programs?

3. How detailed is your member profile--- do you know how many TCU beds you have?

8. Member responsibility

a. Adhere to contracts negotiated by network, including compliance with billing, payment and data reporting responsibilities.

b. Submit necessary credentialing information to be set up as health plan provider; also meet or exceed network own credentialing requirements.

c. Submit claims pursuant to health plan requirements.

d. Submit cost and performance data to Network as approved by committee.

e. Participate on Network’s board/committee structure as needed.

f. Attend educational and training sessions.

g. Implement best practices.

Part of Member Contract

9. Staffing Model a. Executive Director/CEO (1 FTE) b. Clinical Contract (1

FTE)Manager/Quality and Training

c. Data/Office Support (.8) d. Contract for data/web

Hire CEO and data/administrative Support: Clinical Director until be one half and FTE until membership grows. 12 of 28

e. Contract for financial/HR/ (Indirect cost charge from ASM)

f. Communications/PR –newsletters (contracted)

10. Budget a. Office Set Up (One time costs) - Share space with ASM

b. Operating budget -staff (salaries/benefits/or contract) -legal –office rent/utilities/telephone -meeting expenses -travel/training -website development/charge -office supplies -Indirect cost for HR/Accounting/auditing

Share space with ASM; If separate entity, contract back with ASM for management of Network, employees and benefits package; use office resources efficiently. Proposed budget: $350,000 estimate only 1.8 FTE’s: 1 CEO .8 Administrative support Contract dollars for clinical consultation.

11. Timetable: October 31th: Steering Committee meeting November l st. Regional Collaborative Seminar: Oct- Dec :

After Board approval send out educational packets/Letter of Intent to individual members:

Conduct Webinars for members to explain network/respond to questions: Letter of Intent due back Dec 31st

Dec: 1: Start Recruitment for CEO:

Finalize Network: January 1, 2013:

Operations start-up target date April 1, 2013

13 of 28

Nellie Johnson and Associates - Consulting Services Proposal for Aging Services of Michigan (ASM)

Activity/Request Deliverables : Timing/Due

1. Workshop/Seminar on

Managed care

Workshop to brainstorm issues on managed care contracting;

organizational network model/structure; credentialing; any

work plan/timetable.

November l, 2012.

Cy 2013: Presentations at

Institutes

2. Phase I (a): Business Plan

Development Section:

1. Prepare written report that includes:

a. Summarize /Highlight status of current ASM

efforts; identify issues and questions; comment on

any reports completed over past year;

b. Summarize Medicare Advantage Plan coverage

within state;

c. Summarize Medicaid/Dual status and status of state

discussions;

d. Identification of CMS designated ACOs;

e. Review member profile data available from ASM;

prepare survey to collect (e.g... TCU beds) if

necessary;

f. Identification/analysis of any competing networks

that members and others are using for health plan

contracting;

g. Review status of performance data collection and

analyze gaps.

Complete and present to

ASM CEO /present at

November seminar

3. Phase I (b): Organizational

Structure- section

1. Prepare separate written report that includes:

a. Review of current proposed organizational structure

under 501.(c) (4) and status of implementation (i.e.

Bylaws, governance structure)

b. Recommend organizational model, mission,

purpose/responsibilities of entity;

c. Propose organizational staffing model with

preliminary budget (contracted versus paid staff);

Discuss operating costs; e.g. office space, legal and

financial services;

d. Discussion of proposed fee structure for members

e. Recommend process to solicit interested members

through (MOA)/educational packet on benefits,

costs etc; determine when to send out;

Review with ASM CEO

and with Steering

Committee: November lst:

14 of 28

f. Identify capitalization/investment by members

4. Phase II (a): Business Plan

Implementation Preparation

1. Corporate structure resolved: finalize legal

structure as required; implement Board and

committee structure;

2. Finalize name and office space arrangements;

3. Finalize Operating budget for approval by Board;

4. Based on staffing model, prepare draft job

descriptions for network staff;

5. Identify/propose credentialing requirements for

membership

6. Identify/propose best practices/quality

requirements/care management strategies; (e.g.

implementation of Interact II)

7. Identify/propose reporting requirements /outcome

measures/cost data;

8. Send out MOA (Memorandum of Agreement) to

confirm interest and commitment to participating

in Network:

Steering Committee meeting

first week of Dec, 2012:

Obtain necessary approvals

and/or recommendations;

Final decisions by 1/1/2013

5. Phase II (b)- Assist with

Business Plan/Operational

Plan Implementation

1. Set up Network Board meeting/committee

meeting calendar for Cy2013.

2. Review returned MOA’s to confirm initial

member participation in Network: return by Feb

1st; date or date determined by Steering

Committee;

3. Support solicitation of members to join

network through webinars, etc.

4. Assist with hiring staff/training of staff as

approved per model;

5. Finalize and begin implementing

reporting/tracking of performance/cost data;

best practices/quality improvement.

Dec-March, 2013.

Board Members /Committee

members appointed; set up

calendar of meeting for year.

6. Phase IV. Ongoing

Business Implementation

1. Consult with staff as needed on contracting

strategy/meetings with health plans/review of

contract proposals;

2. Participate/present educational seminars as

scheduled and requested;

1. Operations start-up

target date: April 1,

2013.

2. Ongoing- Cy2013

3. Annual Institute in

August for updates

15 of 28

C E N T E R F O R H E A L T H C A R E R E S E A R C H & T R A N S F O R M A T I O N

The Center for Healthcare Research & Transformation (CHRT) illuminates best practices and opportunities for improving health policy and practice. Based at the University of Michigan, CHRT is a non-profit partnership between U-M and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan to promote evidence-based care delivery, improve population health, and expand access to care.

Visit CHRT on the Web at: www.chrt.org

The ACA’s Medicaid Expansion: Michigan ImpactState Budgetary Estimates and Other Impacts

While the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on June 28, 2012, largely upheld the constitutionality of the

Affordable Care Act (ACA), one provision was not upheld: penalties for states that opt out of the law’s Medicaid expansion. This left the decision to expand Medicaid—or not—to individual states, and as a result, it is now uncertain whether or not Medicaid will be available to all individuals below 138 percent of poverty in 2014 as the law intended.

Policy makers in each state must analyze the implications of the Medicaid expansion and determine whether or not the expansion makes sense for their state, taking into account state budgetary considerations, federal financial incentives, human service priorities, and the anticipated effects of the expansion on the general economy and population health.

This issue brief is intended to provide Michigan policy makers and the public at large with a useful tool to consider this question by projecting the likely 10-year economic impacts in our state. Wherever possible, the issue brief uses publicly available and independently validated information and sources; the analysis was based on conservative assumptions. A companion paper to this issue brief models three different scenarios: high, medium, and low rates of Medicaid enrollment as a result of the expansion. The paper is available online at www.chrt.org. This issue brief reports on the middle scenario.

Key Impacts of Medicaid Expansion

Coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Financial Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Other Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Suggested citation: Udow-Phillips, Marianne; Fangmeier, Joshua; Buchmueller, Thomas; Levy, Helen. The ACA’s Medicaid Expansion: Michigan Impact. October, 2012. Center for Healthcare Research & Transformation. Ann Arbor, MI.

Issue Brief October 2012

16 of 28

http://www.chrt.org/

http://www.chrt.org

2014 2020# % # %

Newly eligible, uninsured 204,732 36.30% 409,464 72.60%

Newly eligible, privately insured 83,496 14.20% 208,740 35.50%

Currently eligible, uninsured (due to expansion) 1,160 1.04% 1,658 1.48%

UninsuredOther Public CoverageMedicaid EnrolledPrivate Coverage

2010 2020

4,086,00067%

769,00012%

192,0003%

1,086,00018%

4,246,26069%

290,9605%

192,0003%

1,403,78023%

2 • CHRT Center for Healthcare Research & Transformation

In August 2012, 1.9 million Michigan residents had Medicaid coverage.1 According to the Urban Institute and the State Health Access Data Assistance Center (SHADAC), if Michigan opts to expand Medicaid, another 1.2 million will become eligible in 2014, about half of whom are currently uninsured.2

Not everyone who is eligible for a public program actually enrolls. Of the potential Medicaid pool (those newly eligible in 2014 under the expansion), our middle scenario assumes that 36.3 percent (204,732) of those who are uninsured and 14.2 percent (83,496) of those who are privately insured would actually enroll (“take-up rates,” based on Urban Institute analyses). We also assume that over time, as information about the Medicaid expansion becomes more widely disseminated, these percentages would increase—to 72.6 percent (409,464) and 35.5 percent (208,740), respectively, by 2020.3

Figure 1

Whether or not it implements the Medicaid expansion, Michigan should see an increase in enrollment among those who are already eligible for Medicaid resulting from publicity about the Affordable Care Act, the individual mandate, and eligibility simplification. If Michigan implements the Medicaid expansion, this “woodwork effect” should be even stronger, increasing enrollment among those who are currently eligible but not enrolled by one percentage point (1,160) in 2014 and growing to 1.5 percentage points (1,658) by 2020.

Overall, we estimate that if Michigan does opt for the Medicaid expansion, the state will have an additional 289,000 Medicaid recipients in 2014; and 620,000 over current enrollment by 2020. Figures 2 and 3

Coverage

1 Michigan Department of Human Services. Green Book Report of Key Program Statistics. August 2012. http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dhs/2012_08_GreenBook_397962_7.pdf

2 Kenney, G., et al. Opting in to the Medicaid Expansion under the ACA: Who are the Uninsured Adults Who Could Gain Health Insurance Coverage? Urban Institute. August 2012. Available at: http://www.urban.org/publications/412630.html. SHADAC analysis of private coverage in Michigan via its data center at shadac.org

3 Take-up rates from the Urban Institute’s June 2012 report on the ACA Medicaid Expansion in Washington State, available at http://www.urban.org/health_policy/url.cfm?ID=412581.


Figure:1Projected Adult Medicaid Take-up Rates, 2014 and 2020

Figure:2Michigan Non-Elderly Adult Coverage, 2010 v. 2020 Projection

17 of 28

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dhs/2012_08_GreenBook_397962_7.pdf

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dhs/2012_08_GreenBook_397962_7.pdf

http://www.urban.org/publications/412630.html

http://www.shadac.org/

http://www.urban.org/health_policy/url.cfm?ID=412581

2010 2014 2020# % # % # %

Private Coverage, Total 4,086,000 66.60% 4,371,504 71.30% 4,246,260 69.20%

Private Coverage, Existing

4,086,000 66.60% 4,002,504 65.30% 3,877,260 63.20%

Eligible for Private Coverage Tax Credits

-

0.00% 369,000 6.00% 369,000 6.00%

Medicaid Enrollment, Total

769,000 12.50% 1,068,831 17.40% 1,403,780 22.90%

Medicaid Enrolled, Existing4 769,000 12.50% 769,000 12.50% 769,000 12.50%

Medicaid Enrolled, Due to Expansion

-

0.00% 289,388 4.70% 619,862 10.10%

Medicaid Enrolled, Not Due to Expansion

-

0.00% 10,443 0.20% 14,918 0.20%

Other Public,5 Total 192,000 3.10% 192,000 3.10% 192,000 3.10%

Uninsured, Total 1,086,000 17.70% 500,665 8.20% 290,960 4.70%

Uninsured but Medicaid Eligible

112,000 1.80% 100,397 1.60% 95,424 1.60%

Other Uninsured 974,000 15.90% 400,268 6.50% 195,536 3.20%

Total 6,133,000 100.00% 6,133,000 100.00% 6,133,000 100.00%

Subsidy Eligible (Between 100% and 138% FPL)

Not Subsidy Eligible (Less than 100% FPL)

134,00024%

430,00076%

Issue Brief: The ACA’s Medicaid Expansion: Michigan Impact, October 2012 • 3

It is important to note that if the state decides not to expand Medicaid eligibility, uninsured adults with incomes between 100 and 138 percent of the federal poverty level would be eligible for federal subsidies to purchase private health coverage on the health insurance exchange; however, only 24 percent of the uninsured who would be newly eligible under the expansion have incomes in this range. The other 76 percent have incomes below 100 percent of the federal poverty level; the ACA does not provide subsidies for purchase of private coverage for those below 100 percent of poverty. Figure 4

4 Approximately 57% of those covered by Medicaid are children or elderly dual eligibles. Those coverage numbers are not reflected in this table.

5 Other public includes those with other public coverage that will not be directly affected by the Affordable Care Act (e.g. Tricare, VA, pre-65 Medicare). For purposes of this analysis, enrollment in those programs was kept constant.


Figure:3Michigan Non-Elderly Adult Coverage, 2010 Actual, 2014 and 2020 Projected

Figure:42014 Subsidy Eligibility Without the Expansion

18 of 28

First 5 Years (2014-2018)

Second 5 Years (2019-2023)

Total 10 Years (2014-2023)

Increase in Provider Tax Revenue $183 $262 $444

Elimination of Adult Benefit Waiver Program $188 $207 $395

Reduction in Non-Medicaid Mental Health $885 $977 $1,861

Reduction in Prisoner Inpatient Medical Services $234 $271 $504

Savings in State Employee Health Care Costs $9 $13 $23

Total State Budget Savings due to Expansion $1,499 $1,730 $3,228


Financial Impacts

Increased Federal MatchThe federal government provides 100 percent of the funding for the newly eligible Medicaid population in the first three years of the expansion. Starting in 2017, the federal share of funding begins to drop, and states are expected to provide matching funds for the expansion population. In 2020 and all subsequent years, the federal match is 90 percent and the state share is 10 percent.

Unlike the current Medicaid program, the Affordable Care Act provides a stable 90 percent federal match rate on an ongoing basis, regardless of a state’s financial circumstances. In the existing program, the federal match rate varies from year to year based on the state’s per capita income. Fiscal year 2013 federal matching rates range from a low of 50 percent (the lowest match rate allowed under federal law) to a high of 73.43 percent (for Mississippi). Michigan’s 2013 federal match rate for those in the existing Medicaid program is 66.39 percent, a rate far lower than the rate that would apply to the newly covered population under the ACA.

Cost SavingsThere will also be savings resulting from the ACA’s broader scope of Medicaid eligibility. If the state chooses to go forward with the Medicaid expansion, many people will become eligible for Medicaid coverage (and the attendant federal financing) who today receive some or all of their health care through state-funded programs. This includes many who receive mental health care through the community mental health system, prisoners who receive inpatient medical care in non-correctional facilities, and adults who are covered today under the Adult Benefit Waiver program. In addition, the state is expected to receive revenues for the newly eligible Medicaid population from various provider taxes in existence today.

Finally, the state, like other employers that provide health coverage to employees, is projected to realize savings in health care premiums. With a reduction in the number of uninsured individuals and attendant uncompensated care hospital costs, there should be a reduction in the transfer of such costs to employers who provide health coverage (often referred to as the “cost shift”). Figure 5

6 Savings amounts may not add up to total savings due to rounding.


Figure:5Cost Savings to the State from the Medicaid Expansion, 2014-20236, in Millions

19 of 28

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Cumulative 2014-2023

Gross Costs $ millions $3 $4 $5 $173 $216 $259 $378 $390 $402 $414 $2,245

Budget Offsets $271 $288 $302 $315 $323 $330 $338 $346 $354 $362 $3,228

Net Costs (Savings) $(268) $(283) $(297) $(142) $(106) $(71) $41 $44 $48 $52 $(983)

Net Costs (Savings) per Expansion Enrollee $(925) $(653) $(553) $(232) $(172) $(115) $65 $71 $77 $83

$-5,000

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

State Match for Expansion

Federal Match for Expansion

State O�sets from Expansion

Net State Costs for Expansion

-$983$2,245

$30,465

-$3,228


Net CostThe net cost, not costs or savings in isolation, is the most important number for policy makers to understand in deciding whether or not to expand Medicaid under the provisions of the Affordable Care Act. In our projections:

• The state would save money every year from 2014 through 2019 for a total of $1.17 billion in net savings through 2019.

• In 2020, when the federal match goes to 90 percent, the state begins to experience a net cost rather than net savings. The net cost to the state in 2020 is projected to be approximately $41 million ($65 per covered individual per year), growing to $52 million by 2023 ($83 per covered individual per year).

• The total impact of the Medicaid expansion to the state of Michigan over 10 years is a net savings of approximately $1 billion. Figure 6 and 7

These estimates are based on a set of assumptions that seem most likely to occur, based on research and prior experience. As a sensitivity test, we also calculated the expected net cost under alternative scenarios, which vary primarily according to assumptions regarding enrollment behavior. In our low take-up scenario, the net savings to the state are even greater ($1.4 billion) because the state’s direct cost of covering the newly insured is lower. By the same logic, a higher take-up rate yields yields smaller net savings over the 10-year period ($840 million). The full analysis with all three scenarios is available at CHRT.org.

7 Gross costs and budget offsets may not add up to net costs due to rounding.


Figure:6Net Cost Impacts to the State of the Medicaid Expansion, 2014-20237

Figure:7Summary of Fiscal Impacts of Medicaid Expansion, 2014-2023, in Millions

20 of 28

http://www.chrt.org/


Other Impacts

When it comes to important policy decisions, policy makers and the public are interested in more than budget impacts. When deciding whether or not to expand the Medicaid program, policy makers will also want to consider health impacts, impacts to the broader economy, and impacts to particular sectors of the economy.

Health ImpactsFirst and foremost, the public and policy makers will want to consider the health benefits of expanding Medicaid. A substantial body of research confirms what would seem to be common sense: not having health insurance is bad for your health. This work is summarized in a 2009 study by the Institute of Medicine.8

A more recent study analyzed outcomes in Oregon, which in 2008 made Medicaid benefits available to a group of approximately 10,000 previously uninsured, low-income adults, chosen by lottery from among almost 90,000 who applied for coverage.9 One year later, the study group was compared with a control group of applicants who did not gain coverage through the lottery. The results were clear: those who gained Medicaid coverage enjoyed significantly better physical and mental health than the control group. In addition to health benefits, Medicaid coverage also conferred financial benefits on the newly enrolled, who had lower medical debt—including fewer bills sent to collection—than the control group.

The population of very low-income adults covered in Oregon’s expansion is similar to the population that would be affected by the expansion decision facing Michigan today. The evidence is clear and convincing, therefore, that the Medicaid expansion would significantly improve the health of low-income Michiganders.

Policy makers may also want to weigh whether the state’s investment in the Medicaid expansion could be used in other ways to improve health and reduce mortality; there is less clear evidence on the effectiveness of alternative approaches to improving the health of low-income adults.

8 Institute of Medicine. America’s Uninsured Crisis: Consequences for Health and Health Care. February 2009. Available at http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2009/Americas-Uninsured-Crisis-Consequences-for-Health-and-Health-Care.aspx

9 Finkelstein, A., et al. The Oregon Health Insurance Experiment: Evidence from the First Year. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. Vol. 127, Issue 3. August 2012. Available at: http://economics.mit.edu/files/8139


21 of 28

http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2009/Americas-Uninsured-Crisis-Consequences-for-Health-and-Health-Care.aspx



http://economics.mit.edu/files/8139

http://economics.mit.edu/files/8139


Economic ImpactsThe Medicaid expansion would have direct economic effects on hospitals, and on employers who offer health coverage.

In 1986, Congress passed the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. This law requires most hospitals to treat or appropriately transfer any patient presenting at its emergency department until the patient is stable, regardless of insurance status. Most health plans provide some payment to hospitals to offset the costs of treating the uninsured. Some of this cost is transferred—through higher premiums—to employers who provide (and individuals who purchase) health insurance coverage. While there is much debate about the extent of these costs, an analysis of one large payer’s hospital payment policies indicates the Medicaid expansion—by reducing the amount of uncompensated care hospitals must provide—is likely to result in savings to employers and individuals who purchase health coverage. On a statewide basis, 10-year aggregate savings in the range of $640 to $985 million could accrue to employers and individuals who purchase private health insurance as a result of the expansion of the state’s Medicaid program.

Finally, the state’s decision will have considerable impact on hospitals. In 2010, Michigan hospitals provided nearly $2.4 billion in uncompensated care, a 33 percent increase since 2007.10 Under current hospital reimbursement policy, hospitals that treat high rates of uninsured and publicly insured patients receive extra compensation called disproportionate share hospital (DSH) adjustment payments. The Affordable Care Act includes provisions to reduce DSH payments from the federal Medicare program. to hospitals nationally by $17.1 billion between 2014 and 2020, based on the assumption that the number of uninsured patients would decline during this period. The state-specific formula for that reduction has not yet been published; however, if Michigan opts out of the Medicaid expansion, Michigan hospitals would likely experience both an increase in uncompensated care costs, and a reduction in the DSH payments that have helped many hospitals mitigate that loss.

10 Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan


22 of 28

Center for Healthcare Research & Transformation2929PlymouthRoad,Suite245•AnnArbor,MI48105-3206Phone:734-998-7555•[email protected]•www.chrt.org


Our analysis of the impacts on the state of Michigan shows a 10-year savings to the state under all scenarios. In our middle scenario, the state would save almost $1 billion net of the cost of the Medicaid expansion over 10 years. In that scenario, the Medicaid expansion would bring an additional 620,000 people—most of whom are uninsured today—into the state’s Medicaid program, at an average annual savings of $176 per enrollee, with no net costs to the state until the year 2020. In 2020, the net cost to the state would be $65 per covered enrollee.

Other effects are harder to quantify with reliable data, but the Medicaid expansion is likely to have a favorable impact on the economy in general and hospital finances in particular.

Finally, compelling research tells us that having health insurance significantly improves health, quality of life, and mortality rates. Human costs may be harder to measure than budgetary impacts, but they are likely to be the most important reasons for the state to consider moving forward on the Medicaid expansion as enacted in the Affordable Care Act.

Conclusion

23 of 28

http://www.chrt.org

Snapshot of Michigan Medicaid Managed Care and Medicare Advantage Enrollment

Plan Name Ownership Profit Status Enrollment Medicaid Service Area

Blue Cross Complete of Michigan (formerly BlueCaid of Michigan)

Independent: an affiliate of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association

Non-profit Medicaid: 22,295 (including 493 duals)

Counties of: Livingston

Washtenaw Wayne

CoventryCares of MI (formerly OmniCare Health Plan)

Subsidiary of National Plan: Coventry


Counties of: Cass Kalamazoo

Oakland St. Joseph Wayne

HealthPlus Partners, Inc.

Independent; subsidiary of HealthPlus of Michigan


Counties of: Bay Genesee Lapeer

Saginaw Shiawassee Tuscola

McLaren Health Plan (now includes CareSource and counties served by that plan as well)

Hospital-Owned: McLaren Health Care

Non-profit Medicaid: 114,935 (including 1,461 duals) SNP: 559

Counties of: Alcona Allegan Alpena Antrim Arenac Bay Berrien Branch Calhoun Cass Charlevoix Cheboygan Clare Clinton Eaton Emmet Genesee Gladwin Grand Traverse Gratiot Hillsdale Huron Ingham Ionia Iosco

Isabella Kalamazoo Kent Lapeer Leelanau Macomb Mason Mecosta Midland Monroe Montcalm Montmorency Muskegon Newaygo Oakland Ogemaw Oscoda Otsego Ottawa Presque Isle Roscommon Saginaw St. Clair St. Joseph Sanilac Shiawassee Tuscola Van Buren

Meridian Health Plan of Michigan

Physician-owned and physician-managed

For-profit Medicaid: 289,122 (including 3,517 duals) SNP: 245

Counties of: Alcona Allegan Alpena Antrim Arenac Barry Bay Benzie Berrien Branch Calhoun Cass Charlevoix Clare Clinton Crawford

Lake Lapeer Lenawee Livingston Macomb Manistee Mason Mecosta Midland Missaukee Monroe Montcalm Montmorency Muskegon Newaygo Oakland Oceana

24 of 28



Eaton Emmet Genesee Gladwin Grand Traverse Gratiot Hillsdale Huron Ingham Ionia Iosco Isabella Jackson Kalamazoo Kalkaska Kent

Ogemaw Osceola Oscoda Otsego Ottawa Presque Isle Roscommon Saginaw St. Clair St. Joseph Sanilac Shiawassee Tuscola Van Buren Washtenaw Wayne Wexford

Midwest Health Plan Hospital-Owned: Henry Ford Health System (recently acquired)

For-profit Medicaid: 77,687 (including 1,347 duals) SNP: 538

Counties of: Livingston Macomb Oakland

St. Clair Washtenaw Wayne

Molina Healthcare of Michigan

Subsidiary of National Plan: Molina Healthcare, Inc.

For-profit Medicaid: 206,533 (including 8,567 duals) SNP: 7,831

Counties of: Alcona Allegan Alpena Antrim Arenac Bay Benzie Berrien Clare Crawford Genesee Gladwin Counties of: Grand Traverse Gratiot Huron Ingham Ionia Iosco Isabella Kalkaska Kent Lake Lapeer

Macomb Manistee Mason Mecosta Midland Missaukee Monroe Montcalm Montmorency Muskegon Newaygo Oakland Oceana Ogemaw Osceola Oscoda Otsego Ottawa Presque isle Roscommon Saginaw Sanilac Washtenaw Wayne Wexford

PHP of Mid-Michigan FamilyCare

Hospital-Owned: Sparrow Health System


Counties of: Clinton Eaton

Ingham Ionia Shiawassee

Priority Health Government Programs, Inc.

Hospital-Owned: Spectrum Health Care

Non-profit Medicaid: 65,410 (including 1,252 duals)

Counties of: Allegan Grand Traverse Hillsdale Jackson Kent

Mason Mecosta Montcalm Muskegon Newaygo Osceola Ottawa

25 of 28



Leelanau Manistee

Van Buren

Pro Care Health Plan Independent For-profit Medicaid: 2,159 (including 28 duals)

Wayne County

Total Health Care Independent Non-profit Medicaid: 55,046 (including 637 duals)

Counties of: Genesee Macomb

Oakland Wayne

UnitedHealthcare Community Plan (formerly Great Lakes Health Plan)

Subsidiary of National Plan: UnitedHealthcare

For-profit Medicaid: 235,979 (including 6,084 duals) SNP: 3,902

Counties of: Allegan Berrien Branch Calhoun Cass Hillsdale Huron Jackson Kalamazoo Kent Lenawee Livingston

Macomb Monroe Muskegon Oakland Oceana Ottawa Saginaw St. Clair St. Joseph Sanilac Tuscola Van Buren Wayne

Upper Peninsula Health Plan

Hospital-Owned: Marquette General Hospital

Non-profit Medicaid: 29,167 (including 534 duals) SNP: 219

Counties of: Alger Baraga Chippewa Delta Dickinson Gogebic Houghton

Iron Keweenaw Luce Mackinac Marquette Menominee Ontonagon Schoolcraft

Medicaid: August 2012 Medicare SNP: June 2012

26 of 28

27 of 28

Draft Oct 10th: Michigan DRAFT: DISCUSSION ONLY FEE OPTIONS TO COVER ADMINSTRATIVE COSTS

Example Only

I. Assumptions: Options: Difference in budget and % participation OPTION 1: Full Option 1A: Full

total operation budget for network $300,000 $300,000

% Member participation in network 25% 50%

II. Total Membership

Type of Member #

CCRC Campuses 0 0 Fill in Column D with Number of members

Skilled Nursing Facilities not included in CCRC's 0 0

Skilled Nursing/ALF 0 0

Misc Multi-Level Skilled/market rent/alf 0 0

home Health Care 0 0

Hospice 0 0

Adult Day Centers 0 0

Affordable Housing 0 0

total Total # of Members: Charge flat fee Part 1 88 22 44

II: Calculation/Part Two of Management Fee: User fee OPTION 1: Full 0 Option 1A: Full

Example

Units 25% 50%

insert total

Nursing home beds 8,800 2,200 4,400 How many beds are there in Member profile

Licensed ALF units 3,000 750 1,500 Does Medicaid pay for ALF out of waiver program

Adult day/Home health? Didn't add in at this time

Total 11,800 2,950 5,900

Option 1: Full operations

III. Fee Options for budget Budget $300,000 $300,000

A. members participating 25% 50%

Base fee of $1,000 $1,000 $22,000.00 $44,000.00

B. Fee based for Tier One/based on beds/ $278,000.00 $256,000.00

Per bed/per year 94.24 $43.39

Calculate Network Costs: Insert your bed numbers

Flat fee: $1,000.00

User per bedfee: $9,423.73 based on 25% membership

Number of Beds 100 insert number of total beds

total user fee

TOTal member Fee $10,423.73

28 of 28

regional network

Documents

network contract

managed care contracts

care coordination

managed care contracting

medicaid services

care management

organizational structure

medicaid health plans