Meeting Minutes / Conducted: 10/24/12
Page 1 of 5
Topic / Discussion / Action / Decision
SSIS staff: Kate Stolpman, Stacey Alsdurf, Janel Heath, Theresa Hill, Mary Klinghagen, Woody Rasmussen,
Sue Nelson
County staff: Shannon Bode (Pope/4), Sheila Ellingboe & Jerry Vyskocil (Kandiyohi & Nobles/6), Dona Pederson (Stearns/7),Gwynne Roadfelt (Roseau/1,2), Kathy Ryan (Aitkin (3,5), Janet Nilsen (St. Louis/3),
Ken Lewis (Hennepin/12), John Glisczinski (Scott/11), Chris Ziegler (Faribault/Martin/ 8,9), Janelle White (Ramsey/13), Mary Wacek (Steele/10)
Absent:Beth Sahr
Topic / Discussion / Action / Decision
7/18/12 Minutes / Motion made by Gwynne Roadfelt, seconded KathyRyan, to approve the minutes ofthe 7/18/12 meeting. The motion carried unanimously. / Approved
New members / Ken Lewis, Hennepin County Region 12
Mary Wacek, Steele County, Region10
Jerry Vyskocil, Nobles County, Region 6 & 8
SSIS Update / Health Care Claim Proofing changes:
V12.4: see PowerPoint
Note: Release dates for V12. 4 changed to Dec. 10 and 11.
V13.2 or later: Ability to mark proofing records as not claimable, mark time and payments claimed in another system, add option to run proofing outside of the batch/state report, and add Health Care Claimed Payment and Claimed Time Proofing
MA Elig Expansion Changes in V12.4: Tree Viewchanges (similar to IV-E), added several new screens and fields, changes to other screensand updated reports
SBAR submissions:see PowerPoint
HCBS Waiver Provider Standards (formerly known as PEPSI):see PowerPoint
IFSpi – Eleven counties still have not converted from IFS to IFSpi. As of January1, 2013, TriMin will not be making any software changes to the old IFS system. TriMin has not made any software changes to (old) IFS for several years now.
IV-E:SSIS is switching to use FOD Provider file for facility rates in V13.2. There are problems with using the rates bulletin file; updates are not versioned. There’s a possible expansion to LNDX in the future. V12.4 includes new tab on the report, IV-E Claimed Payment Proofing. Training will be provided.V13.1 or later will add proofing messages and updatesome edits. / Link to Meeting PowerPoint
LTCC & DD screening Funding – DiAnn Robinsonand Pam Erkel / MnCHOICES:There will be one screening for all services including LTCC,DD, PCA (done by Public Health), and eventually Private Duty Nurse.
Spring 2013 – Fourteen counties and two tribes will be doing beta testing (first implementers).
MnCHOICES is figuring out what do lead agencies do as administration and what are case management services?Cannot distinguish between these with the existing claims process.
MnCHOICES is asking lead agencies to administer and will pay them as administrativereimbursement through one of the Time Studies (SSTS, LCTS or MATTS). By making the assessments an administrative function, can include clients not on MA. If paying by service, you can only bill for services for people already on MA.
FOD will be adding new codes to time studies specific to MnCHOICESand ending the ability tobill for assessments through MMIS.
Counties expressed concernsabout using Random Moment for funding of providing assessment services:
- Assessments are done outside of the normal Random Moment hours (24/7). Sampling schedules will need to be looked at and maybe set up specifically for each county?
- Supervisors do assessments and are not in the time study.
- County shared resources, Public Health, third party contractors and assessors, and payments to these vendors can no longer be reimbursed. There is potentially a big loss of revenue.
- Some counties contract with health plans and get paid by health plans (double dipping issues).
- In small counties where Public Health and Social Services are not combined, the PHN is part of a hospital and the county bills Social Services, who is the certified assessor? Each county should have one certified assessor and let MnCHOICESknow who that is.
- PCAs are being contracted. Will that need to stop? Pam Erkel:7/1/13 is the plan to add PCAs to this time study, but would have to be countyemployees.
- Counties would like FOD to share information to assist counties in determining if workers are choosing the right codes and what their estimated revenue would be. Pam Erkel: Training is available and we will work to ensure this is clear for workers. DiAnn Robinson:FOD will look at that in the first year and try to help where they can. There are too many unknowns right now to assist counties with estimates. FOD does need to consider the integrity of the time study when considering specific requests for information.
Pam Erkel:Make sure to spread the word to the counties you represent, include directors, fiscal, managers, and supervisors.
Feel free to email comments and concerns to Pam or DiAnn. Keep in mind that they are still working through issues, but will answer questions as they can. Let them know if you want them to present at a regional meeting. / Link to MnCHOICES Handout
Pam and DiAnn to keep SSIS informed. SSIS will inform FAC Reps
Link to subscribe to DSD Provider Updates
Pam - send list of county admin contacts to Kate
Link to MnCHOICES website
Healthcare Eligibility Reports Changes / Do Not Claim Report changes: see handout
Should some of the reports be removed from SSIS?
Additional research is needed.
Should SSIS provide additional training on some of the reports?Workers maybe have forgotten what kinds of reports are out there. SSIS -write tips and hints in the SSIS Update.
Should SSIS enhance some of the reports to make them more useful?If you think of enhancement or ideas, send them in.
Does anyone use the Revenue Account Codes? If so, how are you using them?No one in the group uses them. Onlyfourcounties have added more than 20 Revenue Account Code records since 1/1/11.
Other feedback on Healthcare Eligibility Reports usage survey?Some members did not send in their input gathered,so the numbers should be a little higher. / Link to Healthcare Eligibility Reports handout
Training Survey / We will presentthe attached survey at the 11/20/12 Fiscal Mentor Meeting. Please add any other topics you think should be included at the end of this survey. This is your opinion only; there’s no need to get feedback.
Please complete the survey and return to us by 11/2/12. / Link to Training Survey
Interface Scheduling / Two main points from the input received:
•Counties need to be able to run interfaces more than once a day.
•Counties must be able to run the interfaces manually.
This issue is still being discussed and we do not know what capabilities will be available. Your input will be forwarded to the Architecture team working on Server Centralization.
Review FAC Roster revisions / Kathy Ryan was listed as representing regions 3 and 5 it should be just 5. Chris Ziegler was listed as representing 8 and 9; he should be just 9. Jerry Vyskocil was listed as representing just 6, but he should be listed for 6 and 8.
Ken Lewis moved to approve; Mary Wacek seconded. / Link to Current Roster / Approved
Outstanding Projects / The group discussed each item on the Outstanding Projects list and voted on each item to determine if it should be removed from the list.
Projects Removed from list:
# 3 - TPL Billing
#13 - Add functionality to SEAGR revenue lines to sum
within the line
#14 – State report background submission
#16 – Help available for all reports in SSIS
#17 – Ability to predefine Service Arrangement descriptions
for consistency in naming conventions / Link to
Priority List Definitions
MCO Billing Survey Results / See PowerPoint for MCO Billing Survey results and details about county SBAR submissions. Dave Haugen of the AUC has asked AUC Executive Committee to respond on whether or not to form a TAG.
If no TAG is formed, SSIS would need to negotiate with each MCO to be able to bill.TAG is just the first step. The content is the next step to standardize and there is no guarantee that all will agree. Having a TAGmakes the possibility of billing MCO’s more doable than without a TAG.
It would be important for SSIS to include proofing if developing a method to submit claims to MCO’s.
Question: Who serves on the AUC?
Answer:The AUC is supported by the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH). The Minnesota Administrative Uniformity Committee (AUC) is a voluntary, broad-based group representing Minnesota health care public and private payers, hospitals, health care providers and state agencies, working to standardize, streamline, and simplify health care administrative processes.
Comment: Health plans get money from thestate to administer. How can they require something that MA does not require? This causes more issues and frustrations. Who can counties contact to voice their concerns?
- If the AUC creates a TAG, what is your recommendation on MCO billing?
- If the AUC does not create a TAG, what is your recommendation on MCO billing?
No, legislation may not solve the issue and we cannot be sure what would be decided. Then we would be stuck with it. Keep pursuing the way we are. / Link to
MCO Billing Survey
Link to
Survey Results
Kate will attempt to find contact info for people regarding MCOs / Still #1 priority
Will come back and decide if no TAG is created.
Do Not Claim changes / SSIS would like to make changes to the Do Not Claim Determination screens and Do Not Claim Reports to assist counties in MCO billing. The attached handout summarizes
the proposed changes.
Are any additional Plan codes needed?
- Southern Prairie Community Care (Chippewa)
Add a third field to further break down reason.
Kathy asked if MSHO and MSC+ could be split into Community Well and Elderly Waiver. Field name of “Client Status” was suggested.
Plan Prior Auth – Group consensus was that the Plan Prior Auth should be a tab on the Do Not Claim where you can enter multiple prior authorizations with effective dates for each.
Other items to be added to the DNC record?
- Number of units
FAC Member Fiscal Updates / Kathy Ryan: Time tracking piece of MnCHOICES is a concern.
Ken Lewis: Hennepin is reviewing best practices with child and adult protection. They’restill in transition stages with adults and claiming in SSIS.
Jerry Vyskocil: He’s totally enlightened after today. Also concerned about the time tracking for assessments. They’re adding a full time account tech position.
Shannon Bode: She heard good comments on the IV-E report. It’s simple to use!
Janet Nilsen: Regarding claiming issues, she wondered how long to wait before contacting SSIS if claims are not getting fixed?
Answer: 1-1.5 weeks.
They’re moving to eDocs and scanning in SSIS vouchers instead of keeping the paper copies after they are audited.
Concerned about the big changes in counties’ rolesfor HIX.
John Glisczinski: TheIV-E report was well received.Scott Works imaging system being pushed out to Social Services.
Mary Wacek: MnCHOICES is huge; Public Health is not integrated with social services in Steele County.
Originally 12 counties were in discussion to collaborate the delivery of Human Services. Now only Waseca, Dodge, Mower, and Steele are moving forward. They’re still working through the issues with board and other decisions. There are a lot of differences and things to iron out between them, so conversion will take months with no definite plans yet.
Chris Ziegler: Concerned about MnCHOICES. PHN and social services are combined, but not on SSTS and do both assessments and case mgmt.
Gwynne Roadfeldt: Also concerned with MnCHOICES and revenue and how that will affect them. They may need to hire another Social Worker for mental health.
Note: Assessment BRASS codes will still be available and countiescould pull reports to track time and payments to compare to admin revenue received through the time studies.
They are getting an additional full-time acct tech.
Janelle White: Ramsey County is:
- Converting Adult workgroups into SSIS
- Working on a web payment system
- Making a cleaner split with corrections cases between Corrections (more serious offenders) and Social Services (truancy). Ramsey still has a IV-E maintenance agreement with Corrections.
- Very concerned about the lost revenue for assessments with MnCHOICES.
Next Meeting / January 16, 2013