The Rule Making Process 11 pages pdf
2. Network adequacy (§156.230)
At §156.230, we established the minimum criteria for network adequacy that health and dental plan issuers must meet to be certified as QHPs, including stand-alone dental plans (SADPs), in accordance with the Secretary’s authority in section 1311(c)(1)(B) of the Affordable Care Act. Section 156.230(a)(2) requires a QHP issuer to maintain a network that is sufficient in number and types of providers, including providers that specialize in mental health and substance abuse services, to assure that all services will be accessible without unreasonable delay.
In recognition of the traditional role States have in developing and enforcing network adequacy standards, we propose to rely on State reviews for network adequacy in States in which an FFE is operating, provided the State has a sufficient network adequacy review process, rather than performing a time and distance evaluation. For the 2018 plan year, we propose to defer to the States’ reviews in States with the authority that is at least equal to the “reasonable access standard” defined in §156.230 and means to assess issuer network adequacy, regardless of whether the Exchange is a State-based Exchange (SBE) or FFE, and regardless of whether the State performs plan management functions.
We are also proposing a change to our approach to reviewing network adequacy in States that do not have the authority and means to conduct sufficient network adequacy reviews. In those States, we would, for the 2018 plan year, apply a standard similar to the one used in the 2014 plan year.11 As HHS did in 2014, in States without the authority or means to conduct sufficient network adequacy reviews, we would rely on an issuer’s accreditation (commercial or Medicaid) from an HHS-recognized accrediting entity. HHS has previously recognized 3 accrediting entities for the accreditation of QHPs: the National Committee for Quality Assurance, URAC, and Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care.12 We would recognize these same three accrediting entities for network adequacy reviews for the 2018 plan year. Unaccredited issuers would be required to submit an access plan as part of the QHP
Application. To show that the QHP’s network meets the requirement in §156.230(a)(2), the access plan would need to demonstrate that an issuer has standards and procedures in place to maintain an adequate network consistent with the National Association of Insurance
Commissioners’ Health Benefit Plan Network Access and Adequacy Model Act (the Model Act is available at http://www.naic.org/store/free/MDL-74.pdf). This approach would supersede the time and distance criteria described in the 2018 Letter to Issuers in the Federally-facilitated Marketplaces.18
We would further coordinate with States to monitor network adequacy, for example, through complaint tracking. As noted elsewhere in this rule, we intend to release a proposed timeline for the QHP certification process for plan year 2018 that would provide issuers with additional time to implement proposed changes that are finalized prior to the 2018 coverage year.
We seek comment on these proposals.
3. Essential community providers (§156.235)
Essential community providers (ECPs) include providers that serve predominantly lowincome and medically underserved individuals, and specifically include providers described in section 340B of the PHS Act and section 1927(c)(1)(D)(i)(IV) of the Social Security Act. Section 156.235 establishes requirements for inclusion of ECPs in QHP provider networks and provides an alternate standard for issuers that provide a majority of covered services through employed physicians or a single contracted medical group.
18 2018 Letter to Issuers in the Federally-facilitated Marketplaces (December 16, 2016). Available at https://www.cms.gov/CCIIO/Resources/Regulations-and-Guidance/Downloads/Final-2018-Letter-to-Issuers-in-theFederally-facilitated-Marketplaces.pdf.
In conducting reviews of the ECP standard for QHP and SADP certification for the 2018 plan year, HHS proposes to follow the approach previously finalized in the 2018 Payment Notice and outlined in the 2018 Letter to Issuers in the Federally-facilitated Marketplaces, with two changes as outlined below. States performing plan management functions in the FFEs would be permitted to use a similar approach.
Section 156.235(2)(i) stipulates that a plan has a sufficient number and geographic distribution of ECPs if it demonstrates, among other criteria, that the network includes as participating practitioners at least a minimum percentage, as specified by HHS. For the 2014 plan year, we set this minimum percentage at 20 percent, but, starting with the 2015 Letter to Issuers in the Federally-facilitated Marketplaces, we increased the minimum percentage to 30 percent.19 For certification for the 2018 plan year we propose to return to the percentage used in the 2014 plan year, and would instead again consider the issuer to have satisfied the regulatory standard if the issuer contracts with at least 20 percent of available ECPs in each plan’s service area to participate in the plan’s provider network. The calculation methodology outlined in the 2018 Letter to Issuers in the Federally-facilitated Marketplaces and 2018 Payment Notice would remain unchanged.
We believe this standard will substantially lessen the regulatory burden on issuers while preserving adequate access to care provided by ECPs. In particular, we believe this proposal would result in fewer issuers needing to submit a justification to prove that they include in their provider networks a sufficient number and geographic distribution of ECPs to meet the standard in §156.235. For the 2017 plan year, six percent of issuers were required to submit such a
19 2015 Letter to Issuers in the Federally-facilitated Marketplaces. Available online at https://www.cms.gov/CCIIO/Resources/Regulations-and-Guidance/Downloads/2015-final-issuer-letter-3-142014.pdf.
justification. Although none of their networks met the 30 percent ECP threshold, all of these justifications were deemed sufficient, and each network would have met the 20 percent threshold. We anticipate that issuers will readily be able to contract with at least 20 percent of ECPs in a service
We also propose to modify our previous guidance regarding which providers issuers may identify as ECPs within their provider networks. Under our current guidance, issuers would only be able to identify providers in their network who are included on a list of available ECPs maintained by HHS (“the HHS ECP list”). This list is based on data maintained by HHS, including provider data that HHS receives directly from providers through the ECP petition process for the 2018 plan year.13 In previous years, issuers were also permitted to identify ECPs through a write-in process. Because the ECP petition process is intended to ensure qualified ECPs are included in the HHS ECP list, we indicated in guidance that we would not allow issuers to submit ECP write-ins for plan year 2018. However, we are aware that not all qualified ECPs have submitted an ECP petition, and therefore have determined the write-in process is still needed to allow issuers to identify all ECPs in their network. Therefore, as for plan year 2017, for plan year 2018, we propose that an issuer’s ECP write-ins would count toward the satisfaction of the ECP standard only for the issuer that wrote in the ECP on its ECP template, provided that the issuer arranges that the written-in provider has submitted an ECP petition to HHS by no later than the deadline for issuer submission of changes to the QHP application. For example, issuers may write in any providers that are currently eligible to participate in 340B programs that are not included on the HHS list, or not-for-profit or state-owned providers that would be entities described in section 340B but do not receive federal funding under the relevant section of law referred to in section 340B, as long as the provider has submitted a timely ECP petition. Such providers include not-for-profit or governmental family planning service sites that do not receive a grant under Title X of the PHS Act. We believe this proposal would (1) help build the HHS ECP list so that it is more inclusive of qualified ECPs; and (2) better recognize issuers for the ECPs with whom they contract.
As in previous years, if an issuer’s application does not satisfy the ECP standard, the issuer would be required to include as part of its application for QHP certification a satisfactory narrative justification describing how the issuer’s provider networks, as presently constituted, provide an adequate level of service for low-income and medically underserved individuals and how the issuer plans to increase ECP participation in the issuer’s provider networks in future years. At a minimum, such narrative justification would include the number of contracts offered to ECPs for the 2018 plan year, the number of additional contracts an issuer expects to offer and the timeframe of those planned negotiations, the names of the specific ECPs to which the issuer has offered contracts that are still pending, and contingency plans for how the issuer’s provider network, as currently designed, would provide adequate care to enrollees who might otherwise be cared for by relevant ECP types that are missing from the issuer’s provider network.
We seek comment on these proposals.