SENATE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON THE OREGON HEALTH PLAN
June 10, 2003 Hearing
Room C
4:00 P.M. Tapes
30 - 31
MEMBERS PRESENT: Sen. Peter Courtney, Co-Chair
Sen. Jackie Winters, Co-Chair
Sen. Kate Brown
Sen. Margaret Carter
Sen. Bill Fisher
Sen. Lenn Hannon
Sen. John Minnis
Sen. Bill Morrisette
STAFF PRESENT: Marjorie Taylor, Committee
Administrator
Megan Jensen, Committee
Assistant
MEASURE/ISSUES HEARD: HB
3624 A - Work Session
These minutes are in
compliance with Senate and House Rules.
Only text enclosed in quotation marks reports a speaker’s exact
words. For complete contents,
please refer to the tapes.
|
TAPE/# |
Speaker |
Comments |
|
TAPE 30, A |
||
|
005 |
Co-Chair
Winters |
Calls
the meeting to order at 4:15 p.m. and opens a work session on HB 3624 A. |
|
HB 3624 A – WORK SESSION |
||
|
008 |
Marjorie
Taylor |
Committee
Administrator. Provides a summary of
amendments before the committee (EXHIBIT
A), a section-by-section description of how the amendments fit into HB
3624 A (EXHIBIT B), a packet of
the proposed amendments (EXHIBIT C),
a section-by section description of HB 3624 (EXHIBIT D), and a staff analysis of HB 3624 A (EXHIBIT E). |
|
017 |
Holly
Robinson |
Legislative
Counsel. Provides a section-by-section
overview of the proposed amendments to Section 2 of HB 3624 A (EXHIBIT B). |
|
044 |
Robinson |
Explains
proposed amendments to Section 3 of HB 3624 A (EXHIBIT B). |
|
067 |
Robinson |
Explains
proposed amendments to Section 4 of HB 3624A (EXHIBIT B). |
|
080 |
Sen.
Fisher |
Ask
for a clarification of mental health services by primary care physicians for
at least prescriptions, if not services. |
|
085 |
Robinson |
Suggests
the proponents of the amendment speak to the question. |
|
090 |
Robinson |
Continues
explanation of the amendments to Section 4 of HB 3624 A (EXHIBIT B). |
|
105 |
Robinson |
Explains
amendments to Section 5 of HB 3624 A (EXHIBIT
B). |
|
116 |
Robinson |
Explains
amendments to Sections 6 and 6a of HB 3624 A (EXHIBIT B, page 2). |
|
126 |
Robinson |
Explains
amendments to Section 10 of HB 3624 (EXHIBIT
B, page 2). |
|
156 |
Robinson |
Explains
amendments to Section 11 of HB 3624 A (EXHIBIT
B, page 2). |
|
182 |
Robinson |
Explains
amendments to Section 12 of HB 3624 A (EXHIBIT
B, page 3). Notes that the HB
3624-A12 amendments are not listed. |
|
225 |
Robinson |
Explains
amendments to Section 13 of HB 3624 A (EXHIBIT
B, page 3). |
|
241 |
Robinson |
Advises
that no amendments have been proposed to Section 14 of the bill. |
|
242 |
Robinson |
Explains
amendments to Section 15 of HB 3624 A (EXHIBIT
B, page 3). |
|
247 |
Robinson |
Explains
amendments to Section 18 of HB 3624 A (EXHIBIT
B, page 3). |
|
254 |
Robinson |
Explains
amendments to Section 20 and the addition of new sections to HB 3624 A (EXHIBIT B, pages 3 and 4). |
|
265 |
Co-Chair
Courtney |
Announces
that it is not his intent to take action on the amendments today, but will
review the amendments and try to reach closure on the amendments tomorrow. |
|
270 |
Sen.
Fisher |
Refers
to the HB 3624-A17 amendments to Section 4 on mental health services provided
by a mental health organization, and asks if the amount of prescribing that
is being done by the primary care physician is considered to be something
that can only be done under a mental health organization, or if it can
continue to be done under the primary care physician. |
|
288 |
Sen.
Minnis |
Comments
he believes the question is whether or not the language is restrictive—that a
primary care physician could not prescribe or do any sort of mental health
work. |
|
296 |
Robinson |
Replies
that there is overlap in services by the mental health organizations and services
provided by a fully capitated health plan provides, and prescription drugs is
one of the overlaps. States she does
not believe the amendment would restrict that. |
|
311 |
Sen.
Minnis |
Comments
that the amendments seem rather restrictive because it says “all” and “shall
be.” |
|
312 |
Robinson |
Explains
that there is no definition of mental health services in the bill or in
statute but believes the contracts have a definition. |
|
325 |
Sen.
Minnis |
Suggests
that the language should be clear because if it is litigated the courts will
look at it what it actually says. |
|
314 |
Gina
Firman |
Director,
Association of Community Mental Health Programs. Advises that Jim Russell will be arriving t 5:00 p.m. and can
probably answer the questions much better.
States her response is that the intention of this section. It is an attempt to describe what an MHO
would provide. In talking with DHS,
they thought a change in this language might help. Suggests it could say, “Mental Health Organizations will still
provide mental health services under ORS 414.” States their intention was definitely to not restrict primary
care physicians from doing mental health services. Most primary care physicians do not want to deal with severely
and persistently mentally ill. Adds that
they would be open to any language. |
|
368 |
Sen.
Fisher |
Comments
he just wants to make sure we are not setting up something that would vastly
change practices that are going on now.
|
|
371 |
Co-Chair
Courtney |
Comments
that the HB 3624-A17 amendments need work. |
|
386 |
Co-Chair
Courtney |
Recesses,
and then reconvenes the meeting. |
|
394 |
Rep.
Alan Bates |
Refers
to the HB 3624-A6 amendments (EXHIBIT
C) and states that presently nurse practitioners are paid by the OHP
under Medicaid. Under federal law, a
nurse practitioner usually has to be signed off on by a physician. It is not true in the commercial market
but it is for Medicare and believes it is for Medicaid. Believes this has something to do with
nurse practitioners practicing in a rural area and not being signed off on by
a physician. Asks if that is correct. |
|
|
Unknown
voices |
Respond
that Rep. Bates is not correct. |
|
406 |
Rep.
Bates |
Asks
what the purpose is of the HB 3624-A6 amendments. |
|
421 |
Robinson |
Explains
it involves a situation where there is a fully capitated health plan in a
rural area and there is a rural health clinic in the area. The practitioners at the clinic are not
allowed to participate in the fully capitated health plan so in order to see
OHP clients had to get their own supervising doctor. This would allow them to get paid as one
way of resolving the situation. |
|
437 |
Rep.
Bates |
Asks
if federal law requires they have a physician sign the charts in order to get
paid. |
|
440 |
Robinson |
Responds
affirmatively. |
|
442 |
Rep.
Bates |
States
that somebody has to pay the physician, either the nurse practitioners at the
clinic or someone inside the OHP. |
|
|
Robinson |
Responds
affirmatively. |
|
451 |
Sen.
Fisher |
Comments
he believes they have physicians that take care of their records but they do
not have a method of billing because they are not allowed to practice in the
hospital. Thinks this is a situation
where they have to run through the doctor and the doctor takes a cut out of
their pay. Adds that he doesn’t think
it is a necessary thing they have to do to match federal law. |
|
480 |
Sen.
Morrisette |
Comments
it is difficult to get health care in rural areas and the nurse practitioners
should not have to split their fee with the physician 15 miles or more away,
and he supports the HB 3624-A6 amendments. |
|
489 |
Sen.
Minnis |
Asks
if this violates federal law. |
|
493 |
Robinson |
Responds,
no. |
|
TAPE 31, A |
||
|
038 |
Robinson |
Explains
provisions of the the HB 3624-A10 amendments (EXHIBIT C). |
|
050 |
Sen.
Brown |
Asks
for clarification between the HB 3624-A10 and HB 3624-A15 amendments. |
|
052 |
Robinson |
Explains
there are two changes. The blank in
the HB 3624-A10 amendments has filled in to be “80 percent of Medicare
charges.” The second change is the
sentence of “80 percent of Medicare” in the HB 3624-A15 amendments has a
period at the end. It gets rid of the
reference to the “diagnosis related groupings (DRG) rates” in the HB 3624-A10
amendments, which makes it applicable to in-patient and out-patient
rates. DRG rates are in-patient rates
only. |
|
066 |
Sen.
Carter |
Asks
why there would be arbitration if it is non-binding arbitration. |
|
062 |
Robinson |
Responds
the language is there because the proponents requested it. Thinks they thought it would help them if
there was a neutral recommendation made and they could accept or not
accept. |
|
071 |
Sen.
Carter |
Asks
why Type A and B hospitals were exempted. |
|
|
Robinson |
Responds
they should have been exempted all along.
There are statutory provisions that direct A and B hospitals be
reimbursed at full cost. |
|
076 |
Sen.
Morrisette |
Comments
he believes that nonbinding arbitration is an oxymoron and mediation would be
a better term. |
|
075 |
Robinson |
Responds
that the proponents wanted nonbinding arbitration and did not want mediation. |
|
087 |
Sen.
Minnis |
Asks
if the Federal Arbitration Act plays a role when the word “arbitration” as
opposed to “mediation” is used. |
|
|
Robinson |
Responds
that she does not believe so. |
|
092 |
Robinson |
Explains
the HB 3624-A11 amendments (EXHIBIT C). |
|
093 |
Sen.
Brown |
Asks
if there is a fiscal impact or if the amendment would reduce the savings
anticipated by the bill. |
|
096 |
Robinson |
Replies
that she does not know. |
|
100 |
Sen.
Fisher |
Clarifies
that they are individual packages and medications are handled differently
than bulk medications. |
|
107 |
Sen.
Carter |
Asks
the proponents to explain the HB 3624-A11 amendments. |
|
115 |
Paul
Cosgrove |
Explains
that the institutional pharmacies supply people who are in institutional
residential care nursing facilities, adult foster; they do not do a retail
pharmacy business. As such they have
special requirements including 24-hour-7 day week, multiple deliveries,
bubble and blister packs. The care of
people in those facilities is outside of OMAP, except for the pharmacy
services. This just recognizes the
totally different system. |
|
159 |
Robinson |
Explains
the HB 3624-A12 amendments (EXHIBIT C). |
|
161 |
Sen.
Morrisette |
Asks
if those persons listed on page 2 of the HB 3624-A12 amendments would not be
covered because they are already covered.
|
|
167 |
Robinson |
Explains
that the HB 3624-A12 amendments were written as a gut and stuff of the
bill. The new language regarding
Native Americans shows up in two places, page 2, lines 12 and 13 and it is
further defined on page 3, lines 2-9.
|
|
178 |
Sen.
Morrisette |
States
that they are already covered. |
|
179 |
Robinson |
Explains
there are duplications in HB 3626 A and the HB 3624-A12 amendments. When the bill came to the Senate the
department had authority, by rule, to exempt them from the mandatory
enrollment requirements. |
|
183 |
Sen.
Morrisette |
Asks
why they are exempt. |
|
|
Robinson |
Explains
these were individuals whom the department and others believed should remain
in the fee-for-service payment system. |
|
193 |
Robinson |
Explains
the HB 3624-A13 amendments (EXHIBIT C).
|
|
205 |
Sen.
Minnis |
Comments
that Robinson may want to address some of the discussions in Legislative
Counsel Committee with respect to the administrative rule drafted by the DHS
with respect to SB 819 (2001) and prior authorization. States that Legislative Counsel agrees
that the rule adopted by DHS is contrary to the law adopted in SB 819. To some degree, by including this
amendment in the bill would clarify by law what the law is There is embedded
in the HB 3624-A13 amendment a concept knows as the Muse study from the 2001
session. This is a codification of
what was in SB 819 and hopefully the department will move to write their
administrative rules consistent with it.
States that soon information will be provided to this committee that
will show that the Muse study as written in this bill will save up to $28
million. |
|
240 |
Sen.
Brown |
Comments
she agrees with the concept and would like to see verification of savings
gained from the provision. |
|
|
Robinson |
Explains
the HB 3624-A14 amendments (EXHIBIT C). |
|
259 |
Rep.
Bates |
Clarifies
that it takes away the ability for the managed care plan to manage
antidepressants and moderate tranquilizers and opens it up for
fee-for-service. States that in
commercial plans, the drugs are managed and on OHP we have not, and thinks
there might be some significant cost savings in managing the drugs, other
than antipsychotics. |
|
250 |
Robinson |
Responds
that this section retains the status quo.
|
|
273 |
Rep.
Bates |
States
it is a significant change from the original bill and it takes the plan away
from looking like a commercial plan back to the old way of doing things. |
|
277 |
Sen.
Minnis |
States
that the HB 3624-A14 amendments are consistent with SB 819 (2001). |
|
|
Robinson |
Comments
that she does know that mental health diagnoses were specifically carved out
in SB 819. There was a catch-all
phrase that talked about chronic, on-going, and serious conditions. There was also a nonexclusive list. Mental illness is not on that list but it
would qualify as a condition under which SB 819 would apply. |
|
|
Robinson |
Reviews
the differences in the HB 3624-A15 and HB 3624-A10 amendments (EXHIBIT C). |
|
304 |
Sen.
Morrisette |
Asks
why the figure is 80 percent and not 75 percent. |
|
|
Robinson |
Responds
that the requestors asked for 80 percent. |
|
313 |
Sen.
Minnis |
Asks
what the effect is of putting in 80 percent as opposed to leaving a blank. |
|
|
Robinson |
Responds
that she thinks someone wanted a target to start the conversation. |
|
323 |
Sen.
Minnis |
Comments
the question is whether or not 80 percent is wise choice and whether this
committee wants to entertain the discussion, or whether it is better suited
for Ways and Means. |
|
323 |
Sen.
Carter |
Asks
what the current law is on payment. |
|
328 |
Robinson |
Explains
that DHS has developed rates with assistance of their actuary. There are two rates. One is a fee-for-service rate of something
under 60 percent. They have a rate
they have calculated and some FCHPs and hospitals have it individually and
for other rates. Does not believe the
rates are set by administrative rule; they are out there and are just used by
the department. There is nothing in
statute regarding hospital or other rates. |
|
342 |
Sen.
Carter |
Requests
information on rates. |
|
343 |
Co-Chair
Winters |
States
that she would like to further discuss the percentage of the rate because we
may or not be able to fulfill a full percentage rate. States she is concerned about having
something come to Ways and Means that cannot be implemented. |
|
330 |
Co-Chair
Courtney |
Asks
if Sen. Winters would like to have a blank. |
|
|
Co-Chair
Winters |
Responds
that she wants a blank. |
|
358 |
Co-Chair
Courtney |
Asks
if there is a relationship between 10 and 15. |
|
363 |
Sen.
Minnis |
Comments
he facilitated drafting of this amendment with the 80 percent and asks the
proponents to share their rationale for the 80 percent. |
|
345 |
Jeff
Heatherington |
Representing
the fully capitated health plans. Explains it changes HB 3624-A by putting in
a payment methodology for paying hospitals. It is different than using the OMAP fee-for-service rates. They use the 80 percent because that was a
target figure based on calculations and if they need to redo them, they would
say use the blank for Ways and Means because there are some significant
differences in what it does to various plans. With Family Care, it will probably cost one-quarter million
dollars. In independent practice, it
would cost $3.5. The HB 3625-A15
amendments maintain the mandate that hospitals have to see all Medicaid
patients, and the HB 3624-A10 amendments do not. That is fairly significant as far as they are concerned because
at this point they have not been able to reach any agreements with other
parties about making sure they can get their patients into the hospitals,
particularly in the Portland area. |
|
412 |
Ken
Rutledge |
President,
Oregon Association of Hospitals and Health Systems. States they have a problem with the mandate to treat. They have done an analysis of the 80
percent. It is still 20 percent less
than the Medicare program, which does not pay costs, but they would have no
objection to working with the blank so the committee can understand the
ramifications of what it means in dollars. |
|
426 |
Sen.
Brown |
Comments
that the HB 3624-A15 amendments also applies to in-patient and out-patient
rates, not just in-patient. Asks why
that is important. |
|
432 |
Rutledge |
Explains
that when one looks at hospital services, out-patient probably represents 30
to 40 percent of all utilization.
There is now a Medicare “prospected” payment system along the lines
they have for in-patient. It makes
sense if the committee is going to take a look at an equitable payment rate,
they should look at it for both in-patient and out-patient because it represents
such a significant portion of business. |
|
447 |
Rep.
Bates |
Comments
that the committee has heard from both sides of the question with
Heatherington talking about the FCHPs and Rutledge talking about the hospital
position. States they were trying to
bring the two parties together to get them to talk to each other on
capitation and thereby provide better access to patients at the best cost we
can get. The language is bits and
pieces of that. They show the
Medicate rates because the Medicare rates are set by the federal government
and are commonly accepted across the United States and by each individual
hospital. Some hospitals will argue
they barely cover costs. |
|
467 |
Rep.
Bates |
Further
explains that the fee-for-service rates set by OMAP are about 50 or 60 percent
of the true cost of seeing those patients, which they feel is an unfair
burden and results in cost shifting.
On the other hand, the plans feel they cannot live with higher rates
unless their capitation rates change and reflect that also. The two forces are fighting and the result
is we do not get contracts signed. The
language is designed to force the two groups together and work together
instead of fighting with each other. |
|
TAPE 30, B |
||
|
036 |
Co-Chair
Courtney |
Comments
that there are obvious problems with the HB 3624-A15 amendments. |
|
038 |
Sen.
Morrisette |
Asks
about a disadvantage in Lane County with the 80 percent. |
|
043 |
Heatherington |
States
that in figuring the difference between a percentage of Medicare against what
is current practice of using the OMAP fee-for-service rate by the plans, in
the Portland area, you can come in at about78 percent of Medicare on average
for all the hospitals. However, in
Eugene they are currently using 58 percent of Medicare. That is the OMAP fee-for-service
schedule. It is complicated to try to
figure out how to tie this to Medicare or to a percentage of OMAP fee-for-services. They need more time to figure out the
number because they are trying to make sure they do not tip over a plan. Eighty percent would probably work for
everyone in Portland, but they would put Lane Independent Physicians
Association (LIPA), a fully capitated health plan, out of business in
Eugene. |
|
067 |
Sen.
Minnis |
Asks
if it is a choice between the HB 3624-A10 and HB 3624-A15 amendments, or if
it is something else. States he is
sensing the committee agrees there ought to be a blank with respect to the
figure on line 15 in the HB 3624-A15 amendments, but there are other issues
with respect to the mandate. Asks if
the committee wants to decide on the mandate today. |
|
073 |
Co-Chair
Courtney |
Responds
that the committee will not make the choice today. |
|
075 |
Co-Chair
Courtney |
Comments
that the committee has issues with the HB 3624-A17 amendments and that he has
red-lined it. |
|
077 |
Robinson |
Explains
the HB 3624-A18 amendments (EXHIBIT C).
|
|
088 |
Robinson |
Explains
the HB 3624-A19 amendments (EXHIBIT C).
|
|
|
Robinson |
Explains
the HB 3624 A20 amendments (EXHIBIT C). |
|
|
Sen.
Carter |
Asks
if other companies do mail order drugs for clients of the OHP. |
|
128 |
Robinson |
Responds
that the department has one contract to provide the services. |
|
|
Sen.
Carter |
Ask
if it is legal because it sounds like protectionism to her. |
|
133 |
Robinson |
Responds
that she will research the issue. |
|
143 |
Rep.
Bates |
States
that three of the FCHPs at the present time are doing 90 prescriptions
through their PBMs, not through this organization. This is aimed at WellPartner, which is a good organization and
has done a good job. They are in
danger of losing lot of business if
we move to managed care. Understands
the issue Sen. Carter brought up because it ties the hands of the FCHPs so
they have to break the contracts they already have and it makes it difficult
for both parties. Also believes the
issue needs to be researched. |
|
158 |
Sen.
Fisher |
Asks
how long the contract is. |
|
|
Rep.
Bates |
Discusses
the contracts and replies that they run for one to two years. |
|
168 |
Sen.
Fisher |
Comments
he is not as concerned about the existing contracts as he is with the one
with the state, and how long that runs.
Adds that it may be that we would need to have something that would
extend until all contracts have been satisfied. |
|
178 |
Paul
Nielsen |
WellPartner. Explains that WellPartner is an Oregon-owned
and Oregon-based mail order pharmacy, which wanted to bid for fee-for-service
Medicaid mail order delivery. States
that WellPartner is apparently integrated with many, if not all of the PBMs
that are likely to be doing business.
Mail order in general is a very under utilized, if utilized at all as
a tool for prescription drugs. Either
the mail order is not working, and it would seem to be unlikely there would
be an entanglement because of that.
This is one of the aspects of a transitional policy that they would
hope the committee would think about; it is one policy that could work a lot
better than it does. It was started
in the present environment under the fee-for-service and that is why they put
in the transition to have a sunset on 2008 date; that is the demise date of
the contract with WellPartner. |
|
195 |
Sen.
Brown |
Asks
if there are other mail order companies in Oregon. |
|
197 |
Nielsen |
Replies
there are no other mail order companies that are free and independent in
Oregon. Believes there is a mail
order through one of the chain stores and is run by the chain store. Kaiser has a fairly sophisticated mail
order operation but it is not free standing. |
|
222 |
Sen.
Minnis |
Asks
when the contract terminates. |
|
208 |
Nielsen |
Replies
the contract expires in 2008 and for performance objectives, it is reviewed
yearly.. |
|
210 |
Sen.
Minnis |
Ask
Robinson if there is any exposure in terms of breach of contract. |
|
234 |
Robinson |
Replies
they cannot sue, the contracts probably have the ability to bring in change
and probably have an, escape clause for both parties to get out of it. |
|
|
Sen.
Minnis |
Says
that a major policy change that adversely affects a company with an existing
contract. That is different than a
company that asks for a book of business or privilege they previously did not
have. Thinks the committee should
consider there is a business that does have a contract and there is an
expectation that the business would continue. Thinks it is important that the state honor the contract to the
extent it is practical to do so. |
|
240 |
Nielsen |
Replies that this is not just an issue of volume of
business. Because of exemptions in
the bill for psychotropic drugs, it dramatically changes the mix that they bid
on in the first place. There are
calculated losses within the contact on drugs that they cannot get the
discounts on. If the bill should pass
and if the psychotropic drugs are
exempted, that flaws the contract in terms of the ways they can get the
discounts. |
|
278 |
Sen.
Carter |
Speaks
in support Oregon companies, but she would not want to do that had there been
another Oregon company in the same business. |
|
286 |
Co-Chair
Courtney |
States
there are issues with the HB 3624-A20 amendments. |
|
287 |
Robinson |
Explains
the HB 3624-A21 amendments (EXHIBIT C).
|
|
308 |
Sen.
Minnis |
Notes
the explanation that says the amendments require DHS to ensure that organizations
provide certain services to enrollees.
Asks what services are being referred to. |
|
312 |
Robinson |
Explains
these are considered access standards.
They would be contract requirements and they are also required under
the federal Medicaid Act. |
|
320 |
Robinson |
Explains
the HB 3624-A22 amendments (EXHIBIT C). |
|
334 |
Sen.
Brown |
Asks
why we would exempt DHS while they purchase medical supplies under the public
contracting law. |
|
340 |
Robinson |
Responds
that her understanding is they wanted a sole source bid for certain
supplies. Their belief was that it
would be cheaper. |
|
352 |
Tina
Kitchen |
Medical
Director, Department of Human Services, Seniors and People with Disabilities.
States she is not the proponent of the amendment and may be the source of the
confusion around the contracting rules.
Clarifies that the issues is the ability to bid for a sole source, not
sole source bidding. |
|
375 |
Co-Chair
Winters |
Asks
if the department has the ability to do that with this being in the
statute. |
|
|
Kitchen |
Responds
she believes they do. |
|
384 |
Rep.
Bates |
Comments
that Section 10 was designed to deal with the cost of durable medical goods
which they found were being purchased at extremely high prices compared to
the commercial market. This language
is designed to take care of that.
There is also language in the amendment to exempt certain individuals
from the department rules. This was a
way of helping contain the costs. The
FCHPs did a good job of managing this.
They have put language in to exempt certain individuals. The department would decide who the
medically fragile people were so they would not come under this
restriction. |
|
412 |
Sen.
Fisher |
Comments
on discussions a couple years ago surrounding sole sourcing durable medical
goods and the problems involved, and states he would still oppose the
provision unless they can show things are different than they were a couple
of years ago. |
|
TAPE 31, B |
||
|
006 |
Jacqueline
Zimmer |
Area
Agencies on Aging and Disabilities. Explains
that all people with disabilities are not on Medicare. They are only on Medicare if they have a
work history and established a practice or pattern where worked and paid into
the system; therefore they do not fall under the category of exemptions for
this bill. States that she does not
know where the first part of the amendment came in but the second part is
their amendment. The reason they are
asking to maintain the existing system of exemptions for things like durable
medical equipment is because familiarity breeds good service and fragmenting
the system does not. States she is
not sure there is any guarantee that an ASO will do a better job of serving
the client than the system already does.
Suggests the existing system should be strengthened instead of
outsourcing it to someone who may not be familiar with Oregon’s model of long
term care. |
|
043 |
Rep.
Morrisette |
Asks
if the HB 3624-A22 amendments conflict with the HB 3624-A10 amendment, and if
so, how. |
|
047 |
Zimmer |
Responds
that she thinks the amendments conflict with the first line in the HB 3624-A19
amendments. |
|
056 |
Co-Chair
Winters |
Comments
there are problems with the HB 3624-A22 amendments. |
|
061 |
Robinson |
Explains
the HB 3624-A23 amendments (EXHIBIT C).
|
|
065 |
Sen.
Carter |
Asks
if this would be an appropriate place to use the 15-mile rule. |
|
074 |
Robinson |
Discusses
the definition of reasonable access in the rural health context. States a decision for the committee is
whether they want to apply the 15-mile rule across the board to every
situation.. |
|
087 |
Robinson |
Explains
the HB 3624-A25 amendments (EXHIBIT C). |
|
095 |
Sen.
Carter |
Asks
for further explanation of lines 6-8 on page 1 of the HB 3624-A25 amendments. |
|
098 |
Robinson |
Explains
that “any willing provider” provision is a provision that has been,
historically, in a commercial insurance market. If the provider is willing to meet the terms and conditions,
you have to let them in. That has
been heavily litigated and resolved by the U. S. Supreme Court in April,
2003. This provision applies that
same principal of conflict to FCHPs. |
|
124 |
Sen.
Fisher |
Notes
the language in Lines 3 and 4 of the HB 3624-A25 amendments and asks if there
is a statutory definition of “residential facility.” |
|
122 |
Robinson |
Explains
that the definition of residential facility encompasses residential care
facilities, assisted living facilities, residential training facilities,
basically, any congregate living situation of less than five. This is the definition used in the
licensing statute and is probably as broad as it can be. |
|
146 |
Sen.
Fisher |
Comments
that he wants to make sure it covers all those groups. |
|
148 |
Sen.
Brown |
Asks
if there is any reason why anything in the HB 3624-A25 amendments can not be
done by rule, or it they must be done by statute. |
|
152 |
Robinson |
Responds
she will complete the review then answer Sen. Brown’s question. Continues discussing provisions in the HB
3624-A25 amendments. Explains which provisions
should be done by statute instead of rule. |
|
185 |
Sen.
Fisher |
Comments
on distrust at the state level of OMAP in the past. That is a good reason to support the HB 3624-A25 amendments. |
|
191 |
Rep.
Bates |
Asks
if any one provider applies to Medicaid and Medicare plans whether Robinson
thinks the Supreme Court will apply that to all plans. |
|
195 |
Robinson |
Responds
she will research the issue. |
|
200 |
Rep.
Bates |
Comments
that he would like to hear from the plans what this might do to them. |
|
205 |
Heatherington |
Representing
the fully capitated health plans.
Expresses concern that it seems to take away their ability to
supervise the providers on the panel. In the first reading, it seems to be an odd combination of
provisions. If some like some of the
provisions, suggests that those be reviewed and put into the HB 3624-A26
amendments. States this is a goulash
they have not been able to make sense out of and it doesn’t seem to set
right. Their concern is being able to
manage their providers. |
|
230 |
Sen.
Minnis |
Asks
if the court case applies to commercial insurance. |
|
|
Robinson |
Responds
affirmatively. |
|
232 |
Sen.
Minnis |
States
if there is a subsequent case and there were an application to Medicaid
program, the department would have to
honor it. |
|
239 |
Robinson |
Affirms
and clarifies that any willing provider language has to expand your panel of
providers but still supervise them the same way as the current panel. |
|
246 |
Sen.
Morrisette. |
Asks
what is meant by the language in the explanation of the HB 3624-A25
amendments (EXHIBIT A) that says,
requires annual reporting of an aggregate amount of pharmaceutical rebates by
the FCHPs…” |
|
235 |
Tom
Holt |
Oregon
State Pharmacists Association. States that the HB 3624-A25 amendments are
their amendments. Clarifies the
rebate language, which will require the plans on an annual basis to report to
the state how much in rebates, in total, that they are expecting to receive
or have received for that year’s business.
At the same time it says the plans would not have to report the
particular rebate agreement with a certain manufacturer for a certain product
because those individual agreements are contractual matters that are worked
out with a great deal of confidentiality.
However, they think it is important for the state to be able to
evaluate what rebates the plans are getting under their contracts and look at
how that plays into the capitation rate and how it compares to
fee-for-service costs. In the
fee-for-service arena generally there are the highest rebates possibly
available—a minimum of 15.1 percent by federal law. |
|
285 |
Holt |
In
response to Sen. Brown’s question on whether these amendments could be done
by rule, states they technically a number of them could be, however, there is
a lack of confidence that these things would be carried out by rule. |
|
301 |
Holt |
In
response to Sen. Carter’s concern regarding any willing provider language,
states that the contentious issue in any willing provider for a number of
years has been mainly dealing with the question of ERISA and where the
federal government’s regulation of insurance takes place versus state-level
of insurance. From their perspective
any willing provider is important for a couple of reasons, mainly to make
sure we maintain community access to services. In some areas of the state it is not unusual to have 40 or 50
percent of a pharmacy’s book of business be OHP. Under this bill that will all go to managed care. If a managed care plan decides they are
going to exclude a pharmacy, in effect that is a death sentence for the
pharmacy because they would lose so much business. They want to protect against that risk in the health plan. |
|
331 |
Sen.
Fisher |
States
that Section 18 of HB 3624-A12 amendments speaks to, the time the waiver
would go into effect. States that he
understands we must have a plan in place on September 1 in order to get the
maximum amount of return from the new program as a continuation of what we
have been doing. Asks if that needs
to be included in this bill, perhaps in Section 18. |
|
346 |
Robinson |
Responds
that she understands the question is whether we have to tie together what the
state will be doing in order to be eligible for the new federal money and the
provisions of this bill. States she
believes the answer is no, the department will do certain things in
anticipation of the money, but this bill is not directly tied to it. |
|
356 |
Sen.
Fisher |
Comments
we won’t find ourselves out on a limb and getting only a portion of what we
would have coming from the federal dollars because somebody did not have
everything done by September 1. Asks
if it should be n another bill. |
|
|
Robinson |
Replies
that the state does not have to do anything to be eligible for the money so
there is no bill necessary to address the issue. |
|
378 |
Sen.
Carter |
Asks
if there will be more amendments. |
|
382 |
Co-Chair
Courtney |
Asks
if there are other concerns to be brought before the committee today. |
|
389 |
Sen.
Minnis |
Comments
that the only part of the HB 3624-A25 amendments that appear rational is the
reporting requirement issues. |
|
370 |
Co-Chair
Courtney |
Requests
that Robinson prepare an amendment to address the last bullet on the HB
3624-A25 amendments (EXHIBIT A). |
|
405 |
Sen.
Brown |
Comments
that the committee needs to fix the Jacqueline Zimmer problem. |
|
428 |
Co-Chair
Courtney |
Advises
members that the committee will consider the amendments tomorrow and try to
adopt some of them, closes the work session on HB 3624 A, and adjourns
meeting at 6:15 p.m. |
EXHIBIT
SUMMARY
A
– HB 3624, summary of amendments, staff, 3 pp
B – HB 3624, section-by-section
description of how the amendments fit into HB 3624 A, staff, 4 pp
C – HB 3624, HB 3624-A6, HB
3624-A10, HB 3624-A11, HB 3624-A12, HB 3624-A13, HB 3624-A14, HB 3624-A15, HB
3624-A17, HB 3624-A18, HB 3624-A19, HB 3624-A20, HB 3624-A21, HB 3624-A22, HB
3624-A23, HB 3624-A25 proposed amendments, staff, 38 pp
D
– HB 3624, section-by-section description of HB 3624-A, staff, 2 pp
E
– HB 3624, staff analysis of HB 3624-A, staff, 2 pp