Find Bill
Find Your Legislator
Legislative Deadlines
Oct. 23, 2020
RSS Feed Permanent URL -A +A

Minutes for HB2149 - Committee on Children and Seniors

Short Title

Requiring a timely determination of KanCare eligibility.

Minutes Content for Wed, Feb 13, 2019

An overview by Kyle Hamilton summarized the history of the situation and the significance of HB2149. (Attachment 1) The Kansas Division of the Budget sent a fiscal note for the bill.   (Attachment 2)

Proponent:

Rachel Monger spoke as a proponent of the bill. The delays are the fault of Maximus and they should be penalized for the situation they are creating.There is nothing different with nursing homes or applicants today than there was three years ago when we had a functioning application system. The only difference is Maximus.(Attachment 3)

Opponent:

Ami Hyten spoke in opposition of the bill because it is specific to people living in nursing homes. It penalizes other Medicaid applicants. She would support the bill if it were opened up to all Medicaid applicants.(Attachment 4)

Christine Osterlund submitted written opposition of the bill stating that Maximus works with 15 states doing the same sort of work that they do for Kansas Many tasks in the system are outside their scope to control or to correct. They stem from KanCare policy, Medicare rules and regulations or other conditions. They do work to influence change, but can only do so much. She listed changes that they have implemented to improve the process and identified some of the impediments to improvements. (Attachment 5)

Neutral:

Adam Proffitt spoke in neutral support of the bill. The State is actively working to take back Medicaid eligibility by the end of 2019. This bill may not be needed if there is no longer a Medicaid contractor. Indeed, it may create unintended consequences if it is passed and the target for the bill no longer exists.(Attachment 6)

Barbara Hickert spoke in neutral support of the bill. There is a problem for patrons who cannot find placement and cannot find placement in the facility they prefer. Ultimately it ties to funding and the delay in timely application processing creates a bigger issue. (Attachment 7

Sean Gatewood spoke in neutral support of the bill because it is not broad enough. His testimony includes new language to that purpose. The problem here is twofold. Maximus is at fault for improperly handling claims, but the State of Kansas is also at fault for not doing due diligence and verifying that Maximus could do the job before accepting their bid. We need to learn from this before we go this path again. (Attachment 8)

Mike Burgess spoke in neutral support of the bill giving stories of people who have lost needed services due to a coding errors, and of people who have had to wait for surgery because of delays in application processing. (Attachment 9)

Cindy Luxem presented written testimony as neutral support identifying more than just nursing homes are suffering from the Medicaid eligibility backlog. Assisted living communities, hospitals, clinic, home health care agencies and more are left holding the bag because eligibility is not determined in a timely manner. This bill doe not go far enough to protect the interests of all concerned. (Attachment 10) 

Mitzi McFatrich presented written testimony as neutral support stating that the bill as written may punish other, equally needy, applicants by pushing nursing home admissions to the top of the list so the providers can avoid penalties.(Attachment 11)

Matt Fletcher presented written testimony as neutral support stating that a survey of Interhab members showed high frustration with the Medicaid Clearinghouse and the competency of its staff and the answers they give. They report that they usually have to bypass the Clearinghouse to get issues resolved.  (Attachment 12)

Closed at 2:25 PM