ACA employer mandate penalty notices: Don't panic!

Read this if you are at a Medicaid agency.

After attending this year’s NASHP Conference, I realized Seattle wasn’t the only gem I found. The city welcomed a record number of NASHP attendees, including many first timers, who brought with them a passion for the vital work they do to support Medicaid and health and human services agencies across the nation. Executive Director Tewarson led her first conference with finesse, and the entire conference exemplified her team’s passion and dedication to state health policy. 
 
The 35th annual conference was full of fresh ideas and a collaborative spirit. As I reflect over the three days of the conference, some ideas I am taking back to my team include:

• Workforce challenges are here to stay—and are only becoming more severe, requiring states to rethink hiring, training, and staffing among healthcare providers at all levels. Actions to consider:
  • Work to help ensure we allocate appropriate funding for behavioral health and clinical staff. 
  • Encourage more diversity in the field. This means having more representation in the workforce for new hires to identify with, including recruiting and training staff, so they feel welcome and encouraged to join.
  • Increase support for highly skilled jobs like CNAs and childcare workers. Our system cannot work without these staff, and the skills they bring to the table are crucial to the field, developed over time, and indispensable.
  • Start planning now to address the potential loss of childcare dollars to avoid exacerbating the workforce shortage challenges.
  • Identify other ways to help the workforce with benefits and support that can go a long way toward recruiting and retaining experienced caregivers. 
• Disparities in health equity were always there, and the pandemic laid them bare. 
  • We need to assess the impact of all initiatives to help ensure they aren’t creating additional health inequities and develop strategies to rectify existing barriers.
  • We should bring those experiencing health inequities to the table, listen to their struggles, and let them lead us to solutions.
  • We need to build a diverse workforce that will bring more voices and ideas into the room in this arena.
• There is a lot of innovative work going on in child behavioral health that can impact outcomes:
  • Providing youth mental health first-aid training and trauma-informed training to school-based, nonclinical staff is crucial to addressing the children’s behavioral health crisis. Children spend so much time at school and build trust in teachers, bus drivers, custodians, and administrative staff.
  • Training school staff on the use of mobile crisis units to avoid children inappropriately becoming involved in the juvenile justice system or being treated in emergency rooms.
  • Putting clinical staff in schools, even via telehealth or part-time, has shown positive outcomes for child behavioral health.
• We may not know when the Public Health Emergency will end. Still, we can spend this time developing and improving our plans for unwinding, setting consistent expectations with our members and meeting them where they are, developing strategies to make successful emergency provisions permanent, and engaging our legislatures now to prepare for the upcoming federal funding gap.
• The most significant success factor in every session I attended was breaking down silos across health and human services agencies. We need to continue working across programs, agencies, and states to help ensure we are innovating, growing, and providing the best care for those our policies and programs serve.
• Lastly, as a foster-adopt mom, I was heartened to hear the speakers consistently bring the topic back to focus on some of our most vulnerable youth: children in foster and kinship care and our justice-involved youth. The call to collaboration and partnerships across child welfare, juvenile justice, public health, county health departments, and Medicaid agencies to impact change was not lost on me, and I found my passion for improving our foster care system invigorated by the passion of those around me.

I am thankful for organizations like NASHP that help us come together to innovate and collaborate on the biggest problems facing our industry today. NASHP’s mission to support the development of policies that promote and sustain healthy people and communities, advance high-quality and affordable health care, and address health equity is needed now more than ever. The 2022 conference allowed us to collaborate and share innovations that can be used to help propel us in our essential work to improve the health and lives of the individuals we serve.
 
My biggest takeaway was that we are stronger when we work together. I’m excited to hear what your biggest takeaways were this year. It has energized me to continue this critical work to help Medicaid agencies improve the health and lives of our residents. I do not doubt that this group will take back all the lessons and work to improve the lives of the residents of their states, and we will all gather in Boston next year, excited to hear of all the new successes. See you next year!

Read this if you are a Chief Financial Officer, Chief Compliance Officer, FINOP, or charged with governance of a broker-dealer.

The results of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board’s (PCAOB) 2020 inspections are included in its 2020 Annual Report on the Interim Inspection Program Related to Audits of Brokers and Dealers. There were 65 audit firms inspected in 2020 by the PCAOB and, although deficiencies declined 11% from 2019, 51 firms still had deficiencies. This high level of deficiencies, as well as the nature of the deficiencies, provides insight into audit quality for broker-dealer stakeholders. Those charged with governance should be having conversations with their auditor to see how they are addressing these commonly found deficiencies and asking if the PCAOB identified any deficiencies in the auditor’s most recent examination. 

If there were deficiencies identified, what actions have been taken to eliminate these deficiencies going forward? Although the annual report on the Interim Inspection Program acts as an auditor report card, the results may have implications for the broker-dealer, as gaps in audit quality may mean internal control weaknesses or misstatements go undetected.

Attestation Standard (AT) No. 1 examination engagements test compliance with the financial responsibility rules and the internal controls surrounding compliance with the financial responsibility rules. The PCAOB examined 21 of these engagements and found 14 of them to have deficiencies. The PCAOB continued to find high deficiency rates in testing internal control over compliance (ICOC). They specifically found that many audit firms did not obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence about the operating effectiveness of controls important to the auditor’s conclusions regarding the effectiveness of ICOC. This insufficiency was widespread in all four areas of the financial responsibility rules: the Reserve Requirement rule, possession or control requirements of the Customer Protection Rule, Account Statement Rule, and the Quarterly Security Counts Rule.

The PCAOB also identified a firm that included a statement in its examination report that referred to an assertion by the broker-dealer that its ICOC was effective as of its fiscal year-end; however, the broker-dealer did not include that required assertion in its compliance report.

AT No. 2 review engagements test compliance with the broker-dealer’s exemption provisions. The PCAOB examined 83 AT No. 2 engagements and found 19 of them to have deficiencies. The most significant deficiencies were that audit firms:

• Did not make required inquiries, including inquiries about controls in place to maintain compliance with the exemption provisions, and those involving the nature, frequency, and results of related monitoring activities.
• Similar to AT No. 1 engagements, included a statement in their review reports that referred to an assertion by the broker-dealer that it met the identified exemption provisions throughout the most recent fiscal year without exception; however, the broker-dealers did not include that required assertion in their exemption reports.

The majority of the deficiencies found were in the audits of the financial statements. The PCAOB did not examine every aspect of the financial statement audit, but focused on key areas. These areas were: revenue, evaluating audit results, identifying and assessing risks of material misstatement, related party relationships and transactions, receivables and payables, consideration of an entity’s ability to continue as a going concern, consideration of materiality in planning and performing an audit, leases, and fair value measurements. Of these areas, revenue and evaluating audit results had the most deficiencies, with 45 and 27 deficiencies, or 47% and 26% of engagements examined, respectively.

Auditing standards indicate there is a rebuttable presumption that improper revenue recognition is a fraud risk. In the PCAOB’s examinations, most audit firms either identified a fraud risk related to revenue or did not rebut the presumption of revenue recognition as a fraud risk. These firms should have addressed the risk of material misstatement through appropriate substantive procedures that included tests of details. The PCAOB noted there were instances of firms that did not perform any procedures for one or more significant revenue accounts, or did not perform procedures to address the assessed risks of material misstatement for one or more relevant assertions for revenue. The PCAOB also identified deficiencies related to revenue in audit firms’ sampling methodologies and substantive analytical procedures. Other deficiencies of note, that were not revenue related, included:

• Incomplete qualitative and quantitative disclosure information, specifically in regards to revenue from contracts with customers and leases.
• Missing required elements from the auditor’s report.
• Missing auditor communications:
  • Not inquiring of the audit committee (or equivalent body) about whether it was aware of matters relevant to the audit.
  • Not communicating the audit strategy and results of the audit to the audit committee (or equivalent body).
• Engagement quality reviews were not performed for some audit and attestation engagements.
• Audit firms assisted in the preparation of broker-dealer financial statements and supplemental information.

Although there have been improvements in the amounts of deficiencies found in the PCAOB’s examinations, the 2020 annual report shows that there is still work to be done by audit firms. Just like auditors should be inquiring of broker-dealer clients about the results of their most recent FINRA examination, broker-dealers should be inquiring of auditors about the results of their most recent PCAOB examination. Doing so will help broker-dealers identify where their auditor may reside on the audit quality spectrum. If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to reach out to our broker-dealer services team.

Read this if you are at a rural health clinic or are considering developing one.

Section 130 of H.R. 133, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (Covid Relief Package) has become law. The law includes the most comprehensive reforms of the Medicare RHC payment methodology since the mid-1990s. Aimed at providing a payment increase to capped RHCs (freestanding and provider-based RHCs attached to hospitals greater than 50 beds), the provisions will simultaneously narrow the payment gap between capped and non-capped RHCs.

This will not obtain full “site neutrality” in payment, a goal of CMS and the Trump administration, but the new provisions will help maintain budget neutrality with savings derived from previously uncapped RHCs funding the increase to capped providers and other Medicare payment mechanisms.

Highlights of the Section 130 provision:

• The limit paid to freestanding RHCs and those attached to hospitals greater than 50 beds will increase to $100 beginning April 1, 2021 and escalate to $190 by 2028.
• Any RHC, both freestanding and provider-based, will be deemed “new” if certified after 12/31/19 and subject to the new per-visit cap.
• Grandfathering would be in place for uncapped provider-based RHCs in existence as of 12/31/19. These providers would receive their current All-Inclusive Rate (AIR) adjusted annually for MEI (Medicare Economic Index) or their actual costs for the year.

If you have any questions about your specific situation, please contact us. We’re here to help.

Read this if you are a state Medicaid Director, State Medicaid Chief Information Officer, State Medicaid Project Manager, State Procurement Officer, or work in a State Medicaid Program Integrity Unit.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a Payment Error Rate Measurement (PERM) Final Rule on July 5, 2017, that made several changes to the PERM requirements. One important change was the updates to the Medicaid Eligibility Quality Control (MEQC) requirement. 

The Final Rule restructures the MEQC program into a pilot program that requires states to conduct eligibility reviews during the two years between PERM cycles. CMS has also introduced the potential for imposing disallowances or reductions in federal funding percentage (FFP) as a result of PERM eligibility error rates that do not meet the national standard. One measure states can use to lessen the chance of this happening is by successfully carrying out the requirements of the MEQC pilot. 

What states should know―important points to keep in mind regarding MEQC reviews:

• Each state must have a team in place to conduct MEQC reviews. The individuals responsible for the MEQC reviews and associated activities must be separate from the state agencies and personnel responsible for Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) policy and operations, including eligibility determinations.
• States can apply for federal funding to help cover the costs of the MEQC activities. CMS encourages states to partner with a contractor in conducting the MEQC reviews.
• The deadline to submit the state planning document to CMS is November 1 following the end of your state’s PERM cycle. If you are a Cycle 2 state, your MEQC planning document is due by November 1, 2019. 
• If you are a Cycle 1 state, you are (or should be) currently undergoing the MEQC reviews.
• There are minimum sample size requirements for the MEQC review period: 400 negative cases and 400 active cases (consisting of both Medicaid and CHIP cases) over a period of 12 months.
• Upon conclusion of all MEQC reviews, states must submit a final findings report along with a corrective action plan that addresses all error findings identified during the MEQC review period.

CMS encourages states to utilize federal funding to carry out and fulfill MEQC requirements. BerryDunn has staff with experience in preparing Advanced Planning Documents (APD) and can assist your state in submitting an APD request to CMS for these MEQC activities. 

Check out the previously released blog, “PERM: Prepared or Not Prepared?” and stay tuned for upcoming blogs about specific PERM topics, including the financial impacts of PERM, and how each review phase will affect your state.   

For questions or to find out more, contact the team. 

Federal contractors with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) have begun performing Payment Error Rate Measurement (PERM) reviews under the Final Rule issued in July 2017—a rule that many states may not realize could negatively impact their Medicaid budgets.

PERM is a complex process—states must focus on several activities over a recurring three-year period of time—and states may not have the resources needed to make PERM requirements a priority. However, with the Final Rule, this PERM eligibility review could have financial implications. 

After freezing the eligibility measurement for four years while undergoing pilot review, CMS has established new requirements for the eligibility review component and made significant changes to the data processing and medical record review components. As part of the Final Rule, CMS may implement reductions in the amount of federal funding provided to a state’s Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) programs based on the error rates identified from the eligibility reviews. 

Since the issuance of the Final Rule in July 2017, Cycle 1 states are the first group of states to undergo a PERM cycle, including reviews of the data processing, medical record, and eligibility components. These states are wrapping up the final review activities, and Cycle 2 states are in the early stages of their PERM reviews.

How can your state prepare?

Whether your state is a Cycle 1, Cycle 2, or Cycle 3 state, there are multiple activities your Medicaid departments should engage in throughout each three-year period of time during and between PERM cycles: 

• Analyzing prior errors cited or known issues, along with the root cause of the error
• Identifying remedies to reduce future errors
• Preparing and submitting required questionnaires and documents to the federal contractors for an upcoming review cycle
• Assisting federal contractors with current reviews and findings
• Preparing for and undergoing Medicaid Eligibility Quality Control (MEQC) planning and required reviews
• Corrective action planning

Is your state ready?

We’ve compiled a few basic questions to gauge your state’s readiness for the PERM review cycle:

• Do you have measures in place to ensure all eligibility factors under review are identifiable and that all federal and state regulations are being met? The eligibility review contractor (ERC) will reestablish eligibility for all beneficiaries sampled for review. This process involves confirming all verification requirements are in the case file, income requirements are met, placement in an accurate eligibility category has taken place, and the timeframe for processing all determinations meets federal and state regulations. 
• Do you have up-to-date policy and procedures in place for determining and processing Medicaid or CHIP eligibility of an individual? Ensuring eligibility policies and procedures meet federal requirements is just as important as ensuring the processing of applications, including both system and manual actions, meet the regulations. 
• Do you have up-to-date policy, procedures, and system requirements in place to ensure accurate processing of all Medicaid/CHIP claims? Reviewers will confirm the accuracy of all claim payments based on state and federal regulations. Errors are often cited due to the claims processing system allowing claims to pay that do not meet regulations.
• Do you have a dedicated team in place to address all PERM requirements to ensure a successful review cycle? This includes staff to answer questions, address review findings, and respond to requests for additional information. During a review cycle, the federal contractors will cite errors based on their best understanding of policies and/or ability to locate required documentation. Responding to requests for information or reviewing and responding to findings in a timely manner should be a priority to ensure accurate findings. 
• Have you communicated all PERM requirements and updates to policy changes to all Medicaid/CHIP providers? Providers play two integral roles in the success of a PERM review cycle. Providers must understand all claims submission requirements in order to accurately submit claims. Additionally, the medical record review component relies on providers responding to the request for the medical records on a sampled claim. Failure to respond will result in an error. Therefore, states must maintain communication with providers to stress the importance of responding to these requests.
• Have you begun planning for the MEQC requirement? Following basic requirements identified by CMS during your state’s MEQC period, your state must submit a case planning document to CMS for approval prior to the MEQC review period. After the MEQC review, your state should be prepared to issue findings reports, including a corrective action plan as it relates to MEQC findings.

Need help piloting your state’s PERM review process?

BerryDunn has subject matter experts experienced in conducting PERM reviews, including a thorough understanding of all three PERM review components—eligibility, data processing, and medical record reviews. 

We would love to work with your state to see that measures are in place that will help ensure the lowest possible improper payment error rate. Stay tuned for upcoming blogs where we will discuss other PERM topics, including MEQC requirements, the financial impacts of PERM, and additional details related to each phase of PERM. For questions or to find out more, please email me. 
 

A penalty letter doesn’t mean the IRS is correct, but it’s important you know what to do to avoid paying an erroneous penalty. 

The IRS has sent out penalty letters to businesses, non-profits, and government agencies indicating they are not in compliance with the ACA employer mandate for 2015.

The letters usually take the position that the employer owes a penalty based on information examined by the IRS, unless the employer can prove otherwise. This puts employers on the defensive, often based on incorrect facts.

Letters we’ve reviewed all assessed significant penalties against the employers. In two of the cases, penalties were more than $500,000. In these cases it appears that companies incorrectly stated that they didn’t offer health insurance coverage to at least 70% of full-time employees. Given the potential penalties involved, you cannot risk a sub-standard response to the IRS.

Because the process is new and there are many unknowns, including IRS errors in processing and interpretation of the forms, be prepared. If your company receives a penalty letter, here’s what we recommend to get you on the right track for working through the process:

1. Find and review your original 2015 Forms 1094-C and 1095-C that you or your payroll company submitted to the IRS.
2. Determine when you must respond to the IRS. You have 30 days from the date on the penalty notice letter to file a response.
3. The employer penalties and how to address them are a tax matter. Get qualified tax advice from an outside expert who understands both tax and the ACA. Fortunately, we meet those criteria and would be delighted to help you. 

Even if you don’t receive one of the first penalty notices, it’s wise to keep abreast of the ACA issues.

Questions?
Contact Bill Enck for more information.