U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OFFICE OF AUDITS Final Audit Report AUDIT OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYEES HEALTH BENEFITS PROGRAM OPERATIONS AT DEAN HEALTH PLAN Report Number 1C-WD-00-15-039 March 28, 2016 -- CAUTION -- This audit report has been distributed to Federal officials who are responsible for the administration of the audited program. This audit report may contain proprietary data which is protected by Federal Law (18 U.S.C. 1905). Therefore, while this audit report is available under the Freedom of Information Act and made available to the public on the OIG webpage, caution needs to be exercised before releasing the report to the general public as it may contain proprietary information that was redacted from the publicly distributed copy. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Audit of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program Operations at Dean Health Plan Report No. 1C-WD-00-15-039 March 28, 2016 Why Did We Conduct the Audit? What Did We Find? The primary objective of the audit We determined that the Plan did not use the correct FEHBP claims was to determine if Dean Health Plan data for the 2012 and 2013 MLR calculations. In addition, the (Plan) was in compliance with the Plan did not reduce the incurred claims totals for both years by the provisions of its contract and the change in Health Care Receivables, incorrectly included taxes on provisions of the laws and regulations investment income, and did not use the correct premium income. governing the Federal Employees As a result, we are questioning $537,762 for the Plan’s Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). overstatement of its 2013 MLR credit. There was no effect on the We verified whether the Plan met the 2012 MLR. Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) requirements established by the U.S. We also determined that the FEHBP rates were developed in Office of Personnel Management accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and OPM’s Rate (OPM). We also verified whether the Instructions to Community-Rated Carriers for contract years 2012 Plan developed the FEHBP premium and 2013. rates using complete, accurate and current data. What Did We Audit? Under Contract CS 1966, the Office of the Inspector General performed an audit of the FEHBP operations at the Plan. The audit covered the Plan’s 2012 and 2013 FEHBP premium rate build-ups and MLR submissions. Our audit fieldwork was conducted from May 11, 2015, through May 22, 2015, at the Plan’s office in Madison, Wisconsin. _______________________ Michael R. Esser Assistant Inspector General for Audits i ABBREVIATIONS ACA Affordable Care Act ACR Adjusted Community Rating CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Dean Health Systems FEHBAR Federal Employees Health Benefits Acquisition Regulations FEHBP Federal Employees Health Benefits Program HHS U.S. Department of Health and Human Services MLR Medical Loss Ratio OIG Office of the Inspector General OPM U.S. Office of Personnel Management Plan Dean Health Plan SSMWI SSM Health Care of Wisconsin SSSG Similarly-Sized Subscriber Group TCR Traditional Community Rating ii IV. MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................... i ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................................... ii I. BACKGROUND ..........................................................................................................1 II. OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY ..................................................3 III. AUDIT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................7 1. Overstated Medical Loss Ratio Credit.....................................................................7 2. Program Improvement Area ..................................................................................11 IV. MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT ..................................................13 Exhibit A (Summary of Overstated Medical Loss Ratio Credit) Exhibit B (Overstated Medical Loss Ratio Credit) Appendix (Dean Health Plan’s November 16, 2015 response to the draft report) REPORT FRAUD, WASTE, AND MISMANAGEMENT I. BACKGROUND IV. MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT This final report details the audit results of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) operations at Dean Health Plan (Plan). The audit was conducted pursuant to the provisions of Contract CS 1966; 5 United States Code Chapter 89; and 5 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Chapter 1, Part 890. The audit covered contract years 2012 and 2013, and was conducted at the Plan’s office in Madison, Wisconsin. The FEHBP was established by the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act (Public Law 86- 382), enacted on September 28, 1959. The FEHBP was created to provide health insurance benefits for federal employees, annuitants, and dependents, and is administered by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) Healthcare and Insurance Office. The provisions of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act are implemented by OPM through regulations codified in 5 CFR Chapter 1, Part 890. Health insurance coverage is provided through contracts with health insurance carriers who provide service benefits, indemnity benefits, or comprehensive medical services. In April 2012, OPM issued a final rule establishing an FEHBP-specific Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) requirement to replace the similarly-sized subscriber group (SSSG) comparison requirement for most community-rated FEHBP carriers (77 FR 19522). MLR is the proportion of FEHBP premiums collected by a carrier that is spent on clinical services and quality health improvements. The MLR for each carrier is calculated by dividing the amount of dollars spent for FEHBP members on clinical services and health care quality improvements by the total amount of FEHBP premiums collected in a calendar year. The FEHBP-specific MLR rules are based on the MLR standards established by the Affordable Care Act (ACA, P.L. 111-148) and defined by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in 45 CFR Part 158. In 2012, community-rated FEHBP carriers could elect to follow the FEHBP-specific MLR requirements, instead of the SSSG requirements. Beginning in 2013, the MLR methodology was required for all community-rated carriers, except those that are state mandated to use traditional community rating (TCR). State mandated TCR carriers continue to be subject to the SSSG comparison rating methodology. Starting with the pilot program in 2012 and for all non-TCR FEHBP carriers in 2013, OPM required the carriers to submit an FEHBP-specific MLR. OPM required that the FEHBP-specific MLR threshold calculation take place after the ACA-required MLR calculation, and that any rebate amounts due to the FEHBP as a result of the ACA-required calculation be excluded from the FEHBP-specific MLR threshold calculation. Carriers were required to report information related to earned premiums and expenditures in various categories, including reimbursement for clinical services provided to enrollees, activities that improve health care quality, and all other non-claims costs. 1 Report No. 1C-WD-00-15-039 If a carrier fails to meet the FEHBP-specific MLR threshold, it must make a subsidization penalty payment to OPM within 60 days of notification of amounts due. Community-rated carriers participating in the FEHBP are subject to various Federal, state and local laws, regulations, and ordinances. While most carriers are subject to state jurisdiction, many are further subject to the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973 (Public Law 93- 222), as amended (i.e., many community-rated carriers are Federally qualified). In addition, participation in the FEHBP subjects the carriers to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act and implementing regulations promulgated by OPM. The Plan reported 4,227 contracts and 8,765 members as of March 31, 2012, and 3,628 contracts and 7,177 members as of March 31, 2013, as shown in the chart below. In contracting with community-rated FEHBP Contracts/Members carriers, OPM relies on carrier compliance March 31 with appropriate laws and regulations and, consequently, does not negotiate base 9,000 rates. OPM negotiations relate primarily 8,000 to the level of coverage and other unique 7,000 6,000 features of the FEHBP. 5,000 4,000 The Plan has participated in the FEHBP 3,000 since 1985 and provides health benefits to 2,000 FEHBP members in south central 1,000 Wisconsin. A prior audit of the Plan 0 2012 2013 covered contract year 2011. There were Contracts 4,227 3,628 no findings or questioned costs identified. Members 8,765 7,177 The preliminary results of this audit were discussed with Plan officials at an exit conference and in subsequent correspondence. A draft report was also provided to the Plan for review and comment. The Plan’s comments were considered in preparation of this report and are included, as appropriate, as an Appendix to the report. 2 Report No. 1C-WD-00-15-039 II. OBJECTIVES, TO THIS REPORT SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY Objectives The primary objective of this performance audit was to determine whether the Plan was in compliance with the provisions of its contract and the laws and regulations governing the FEHBP. Specifically, we verified whether the Plan met the MLR requirements established by OPM and paid the correct amount to the Subsidization Penalty Account, if applicable. Additional tests were performed to determine whether the Plan was in compliance with the provisions of the laws and regulations governing the FEHBP. Scope We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing FEHBP Premiums Paid to the standards. Those standards require that we plan and Plan perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit $54 objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained $52 $50 Million provides a reasonable basis for our findings and $48 conclusions based on our audit objectives. $46 $44 This performance audit covered contract years 2012 $42 $40 and 2013. For contract years 2012 and 2013, the Revenue FEHBP paid approximately $50.5 million and $47.2 2012 $50.5 million in premiums to the Plan, respectively. 2013 $47.2 The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) audits of community-rated carriers are designed to test carrier compliance with the FEHBP contract, applicable laws and regulations, and the rate instructions. These audits are also designed to provide reasonable assurance of detecting errors, irregularities, and illegal acts. We obtained an understanding of the Plan’s internal control structure, but we did not use this information to determine the nature, timing, and extent of our audit procedures. However, the audit included such tests of the Plan’s rating system and such other auditing procedures considered necessary under the circumstances. Our review of internal controls was limited to the procedures the Plan has in place to ensure that: The rates charged to the FEHBP were developed in accordance with the Plan’s standard rating methodology and the claims, factors, trends, and other related adjustments were supported by complete, accurate, and current source documentation; and 3 Report No. 1C-WD-00-15-039 The FEHBP MLR calculation was accurate, complete, and valid; claims were processed accurately; appropriate allocation methods were used; and, that any other costs associated with its MLR calculation were appropriate. In conducting the audit, we relied to varying degrees on computer-generated billing, enrollment, and claims data provided by the Plan. We did not verify the reliability of the data generated by the various information systems involved. However, nothing came to our attention during our audit utilizing the computer-generated data to cause us to doubt its reliability. We believe that the available data was sufficient to achieve our audit objectives. Except as noted above, the audit was conducted in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. The audit fieldwork was performed from May 11, 2015, through May 22, 2015, at the Plan’s office in Madison, Wisconsin. Methodology We examined the Plan’s MLR calculation and related documents as a basis for validating the MLR. Further, we examined claim payments and quality health expenses to verify that the cost data used to develop the MLR was accurate, complete and valid. We also examined the methodology used by the Plan in determining the premium in the MLR calculation. Finally, we used the contract, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Acquisition Regulations (FEHBAR), and the rate instructions to determine the propriety of the Plan’s MLR calculation. To gain an understanding of the internal controls in the Plan’s claims processing system, we reviewed the Plan’s claims processing policies and procedures and interviewed appropriate Plan officials regarding the controls in place to ensure that claims were processed accurately. Other auditing procedures were performed as necessary to meet our audit objectives. The tests performed, along with the methodology, are detailed below by Medical and Pharmacy claims: Medical Claims Sample Selection Criteria/Methodology Results Medical Claims Universe Universe Universe Sample Criteria Sample Projected Review Area Criteria (Number) (Dollars) and Size Type to the Universe? All claims over Coordination of All medical $10,000 for Benefits (COB) – Judgmental No claims patients age 65+; Medicare 2012 resulted in 27 4 Report No. 1C-WD-00-15-039 claims totaling $593,064. All claims over $10,000 for Coordination of All medical patients age 65+; Benefits (COB) – Judgmental No claims resulted in 19 Medicare 2013 claims totaling $467,356. All claim lines with elective abortion CPT codes 59812, 59820, 59821, Non-Covered 59830, 59840, All medical Benefits (Abortion) 59841, 59850, Judgmental No claims 2013 59851, 59852, 59855, 59856, 59857, 59866; resulted in 2 claims totaling $322. All claims over $500 for dependent Dependent All medical members between Judgmental No Eligibility 2013 claims age 26 and age 27; resulted in 10 claims totaling $28,734. Pharmacy Claims Sample Selection Criteria/Methodology Results Pharmacy Claims Universe Sample Criteria Sample Projected Universe Universe Review Area Criteria and Size Type to the (Number) (Dollars) Universe? All claims for members that did not have an Dependent All pharmacy employee Judgmental No Eligibility 2013 claims relationship code listed; resulted in 6 claims totaling $917. 5 Report No. 1C-WD-00-15-039 We also examined the rate build-up of the Plan’s 2012 and 2013 Federal rate submissions and related documents as a basis for validating the Plan’s standard rating methodology. We verified that the factors, trends, and other related adjustments used to determine the FEHBP premium rate(s) were sufficiently supported by source documentation. Further, we examined claim payments to verify that the cost data used to develop the FEHBP rates was accurate, complete and valid. Finally, we used the contract, the FEHBAR, and the rate instructions to determine the propriety of the FEHBP premiums and the reasonableness and acceptability of the Plan’s rating system. In addition, we examined the Plan’s financial information and evaluated the Plan’s financial condition and ability to continue operations as a viable ongoing business concern. 6 Report No. 1C-WD-00-15-039 III. AUDIT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Overstated Medical Loss Ratio Credit $537,762 The Plan elected to participate in the 2012 MLR pilot program offered to certain FEHBP carriers. The MLR pilot program replaced the SSSG requirements with an MLR threshold. Simply stated, the MLR is the ratio of FEHBP incurred claims (including expenses for health care quality improvement) to total premium revenue determined by OPM. For contract year 2012, the MLR pilot program carriers must meet the OPM-established MLR threshold of 89 percent. Therefore, 89 cents of every health care premium dollar must be spent on health care expenses. If the carrier’s MLR is less than the 89 percent threshold, it will owe a subsidization penalty equal to the difference between the threshold and the carrier’s actual MLR. For contract year 2013, OPM adjusted the MLR threshold to 85 percent and created an MLR corridor. If carriers meet the MLR threshold, no penalty is due. If the MLR is over 89 percent, the carrier receives a credit equal to the difference between the carrier’s reported MLR and 89 percent, multiplied by the denominator of the MLR. This credit can be used to offset any future MLR penalty and is available until it is used up by the carrier or the carrier exits the FEHBP. The Plan calculated an MLR of percent for contract year 2012, and percent for contract year 2013. However, during our review of the Plan’s MLR submissions, we found the following issues. MLR Claims Data During our review of the Plan’s MLR submissions for contract years 2012 and 2013, we determined that the claims included in the MLR calculations did not adhere to OPM instructions, and did not represent the actual cost of the FEHBP’s incurred claims. OPM’s 2012 MLR Pilot Instructions state, “FEHB claims incurred in calendar year 2012 and paid through March 31, 2013 must be included in the MLR calculation; no other claims will be considered.” Similarly, OPM’s 2013 Community Rating Guidelines state, “FEHB claims incurred in calendar year 2013 and paid through June 30, 2014 must be included in the MLR calculation; no other claims will be considered.” The Plan’s 2012 and 2013 MLR claims represented claims paid during the respective calendar year, not the claims that were incurred. Additionally, we determined that the Plan’s claims did not accurately represent the actual cost of the FEHBP claims. Instead, the claim costs that were used represent an As described by the Plan, a service agreement was established between the Plan and related companies, Dean Health Systems (DHS) and SSM Health Care 7 Report No. 1C-WD-00-15-039 of Wisconsin (SSMWI), Consequently, use of this capitation allocation methodology to derive the claims portion of the MLR calculation does not represent the FEHBP’s actual incurred claims, and as such, circumvents the purpose of the MLR process. As part of our audit we determined the actual incurred FEHBP claims for contract years 2012 and 2013, which were used in our audited MLR calculation for each year. Our audited 2012 claims amount was $ , versus the Plan’s submitted amount of $ . Our audited 2013 claims amount was $ , versus the Plan’s submitted amount of $ . Plan Response: The Plan maintains that it complied with all applicable OPM and HHS MLR requirements and that its agreement with DHS and SSMWI was categorized as a capitated arrangement. The Plan explained that it In addition, the Plan stated that it obtained pre-approval from OPM’s Office of Actuaries for the MLR reporting treatment of its capitation payments. OIG Comment: We do not agree with the Plan’s position that it complied with all applicable MLR requirements. OPM’s Community Rating Guidelines specifically require the use of incurred claims in the MLR calculation. However, the Plan instead as its claims piece of the MLR calculation, which is a direct violation of the guidance provided by OPM. Furthermore, because of its use of to represent incurred claims, its MLR calculation can be easily manipulated. 8 Report No. 1C-WD-00-15-039 Moreover, the Plan’s adjusted community rating (ACR) methodology, used to develop the FEHBP’s rates in 2012 and 2013, used group specific claims experience. If claims experience was available to develop the FEHBP’s rates, we maintain that a consistent methodology should have been used for its MLR calculation. Additionally, while the arrangement between the Plan and DHS and SSMWI was categorized by the Plan as a capitated arrangement, the American Medical Association defines capitations as being paid to providers based on membership, rather than per service. Previous audit experience has also shown capitated rates to be agreed-upon rates between a carrier and a provider that are generally developed based on factors such as past utilization, demographics, and other factors. This is not the case with the arrangement between the Plan and DHS and SSMWI, where DHS and SSMWI are actually related companies to the Plan and Furthermore, it is important to note that even though the Plan had predictable claim expenses Consequently, this capitated arrangement is not an arm’s length transaction and lacks intent to make a profit or even break even. This arrangement also does not meet the expectation of a true capitated arrangement, as the Plan would not, in good faith, enter into a similar arrangement with a non-related third party. Finally, OPM’s Office of Actuaries never confirmed to us or the Plan that it accepted the Plan’s claims methodology and its deviation from the FEHBP MLR instructions. We cannot interpret this lack of acknowledgement as acceptance of the methodology. Healthcare Receivables The Plan did not include any healthcare receivables on the 2012 and 2013 MLR submissions. Pursuant to HHS instructions, health plans are required to include the impact of any change between prior year healthcare receivables and current year receivables in the MLR numerator. When we inquired why the receivables were not included in the MLR submissions, the Plan responded that it unintentionally excluded them. Our review of the Plan’s annual accounting statements showed there was a change in the healthcare receivables balance in both contract years 2012 and 2013. Consequently, we calculated the impact of the change applicable to the FEHBP using claim ratios. Based on our calculations, we included $58,398 and ($17,778), in the 2012 and 2013 audited MLR calculations, respectively. Plan Response: The Plan agrees with the healthcare receivables finding and reiterated that it was an unintentional error. 9 Report No. 1C-WD-00-15-039 Taxes on Investment Income Pursuant to the provision of 45 CFR §158.161(a)(2), health plans are allowed to reduce the premium used in the MLR calculation by taxes and regulatory fees paid, excluding Federal income taxes paid on investment income and capital gains. The Plan erroneously included taxes paid on investment income in its Federal income tax calculation. As a result, we removed $ and $ from the 2012 and 2013 audited MLR calculations, respectively. Plan Response: The Plan agrees with the taxes on investment income finding and stated that it was an unintentional error. Premium The 2012 OPM MLR Pilot Instructions required health plans to use OPM’s subscription income amount as the premium portion of the MLR calculation. However, OPM’s 2013 Community Rating Guidelines allowed health plans the option of using OPM’s subscription income amount or its own premium income amount, if it could be supported. For contract years 2012 and 2013, the Plan elected to use OPM’s subscription income amounts for its premium income. However, it made adjustments to these premium amounts in order to reconcile its premium figure to the OPM premium figure. The adjustments were unallowable under the OPM MLR instructions for plans that elected to use OPM’s subscription income amount. As a result, we removed the premium adjustments of $ and $ , from the 2012 and 2013 audited MLR calculations, respectively. Plan Response: The Plan agrees with the premium finding for contract year 2012. However, the Plan disagrees with the premium finding for contract year 2013. The Plan stated that the “Total 2013 Premium Income” amount (line 1.11 on the 2013 FEHBP MLR form) equaled its own premium income amount because it elected to use its own premium income instead of OPM’s subscription income. OIG Comment: In completing its 2013 FEHBP MLR form, the Plan opted to enter OPM’s premium income amount on Line 1.1, which is titled “OPM Provided 2013 Premium from the 2015 Rate Letter.” Had it intended to use its own premium income amount the Plan would have filled out Line 1.2, which is titled “Plan Provided 2013 Premium Income.” Filling out this line item would have also made that premium income amount subject to audit. However, because the Plan elected to use OPM’s provided premium amount, the Plan’s premium was not reviewed during our audit. Therefore, we used OPM’s provided premium and disallowed any other adjustments made by the Plan in our audited MLR calculation. 10 Report No. 1C-WD-00-15-039 Conclusion We recalculated the Plan’s 2012 and 2013 MLR submissions using incurred claims for the calendar year, adding the impact of changes in healthcare receivables, removing taxes paid on investment income, and using OPM’s subscription income amounts. Our audited MLR calculation resulted in an overstated MLR credit of $537,762 in contract year 2013. The audited MLR calculation in 2012 did not result in a penalty or overstated credit. Recommendation 1 We recommend that the contracting officer instruct OPM’s Office of the Actuary to reduce the Plan’s 2013 MLR carryover credit by $537,762. Recommendation 2 We recommend that the contracting officer require the Plan to follow OPM’s Community Rating Guidelines when developing the claims to be included on the MLR submission. 2. Program Improvement Area Procedural We determined that the Plan did not maintain documentation for all of its disabled dependent members we reviewed. Per the FEHBP Handbook, the employing office is responsible for determining if a dependent is incapable of self-support, maintaining necessary records, and notifying the Plan by letter. The Plan may continue coverage for a dependent over the age of 26, if it determines that the dependent had a disability that could cause them to be incapable of self- support during adulthood before reaching the age 26. If the Plan continues the dependent’s coverage, it must send an approval notice to the member and advise that member to send a copy of the notice to the employing office. While the Plan is not required by the FEHBP Handbook to maintain the supporting documentation for disabled dependents, for audit purposes, it is best practice for the Plan to maintain this type of documentation. We reviewed a sample of six pharmacy claims that did not contain an employee relationship code, which the Plan determined were disabled dependents. For three of the six claims, the Plan provided supporting documentation to verify that the member was a disabled dependent. For the remaining three claims, the Plan did not maintain sufficient supporting documentation. It is the Plan’s position that no purpose is served by retaining the supporting documentation since the employing office made the eligibility determination for the disabled dependents. 11 Report No. 1C-WD-00-15-039 However, by not maintaining this documentation, the Plan cannot support the edits within its system that denote the member is a disabled dependent. Consequently, the Plan could have dependent members erroneously marked as disabled dependents whose coverage should have terminated when the member turned 26 years old. Recommendation 3 We recommend that the contracting officer direct the Plan to maintain supporting documentation for disabled dependents. 12 Report No. 1C-WD-00-15-039 IV. MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT COMMUNITY-RATED AUDITS GROUP , Auditor-in-Charge , Lead Auditor , Auditor , Senior Team Leader , Group Chief 13 Report No. 1C-WD-00-15-039 EXHIBIT A Dean Health Plan Summary of Overstated MLR Credit Contract Year 2013 Overstated Medical Loss Ratio Credit $537,762 Total Overstated MLR Credit $537,762 Report No. 1C-WD-00-15-039 EXHIBIT B Dean Health Plan Overstated MLR Credit Per Audit Per Plan 2013 FEHBP MLR Lower Corridor 85% 85% 2013 FEHBP MLR Upper Corridor (a) 89% 89% Claims Expense Incurred Claims (Medical and Pharmacy) $ $ Less: Prescription Drug – Rebate Allowable Fraud Reduction Expense (the smaller of expense or recovery) $0 $0 Less: Change in Healthcare Receivables $0 Adjusted Incurred Claims Expenses to Improve Health Care Quality Total Adjusted Incurred Claims Premiums Earned Premium $47,162,718 $47,169,917 Less: Federal and State Taxes and Licensing or Regulatory Fees Adjusted Premiums Less: Defective Pricing Finding (Due OPM) $0 $0 Total Adjusted Premiums (b) Total Adjusted Incurred Claims (MLR Numerator) Total Adjusted Premiums less Defective Pricing (MLR Denominator) FEHB MLR Calculation (c) % % Penalty Calculation $0 $0 Credit Calculation ((c-a)*b) Overstated MLR Credit $537,762 1 This is the MLR credit calculation number that the Plan submitted to OPM. The math from this column will not calculate this credit correctly ($ difference) even though we used the exact numbers from the Plan’s supporting documentation. Report No. 1C-WD-00-15-039 Appendix August 7, 2015 November 16, 2015 U.S. Office of Personnel Management Office of the Inspector General 1900 E Street, NW Room 6400 Washington, DC 20415 Re: Draft Audit Report 1C-WD-00-15-039 Dear : Dean Health Plan (DHP) has reviewed the draft Audit Report on the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) operations at DHP for contract years 2012 and 2013 (the Draft Report). We disagree with several of the Draft Report’s findings and recommendations. DHP also objects to the phrasing used with respect to certain other findings and recommendations. Both our comments and report phrasing recommendations are to ensure that the final audit report reflects an accurate account and summary of DHP’s operations and compliance with Office of Personnel Management (OPM) requirements. I. Overstated Medical Loss Ratio Credit The Draft Report indicates that the audited medical loss ratio (MLR) calculation for contract year 2012 did not result in a penalty or overstated credit, although it contains findings with respect to DHP’s MLR calculation that are discussed below. For 2013, however, the Draft Report claims that DHP overstated its MLR credit by $537,762. In addition, the Draft Report contains a recommendation that DHP be directed to follow OPM’ s community rating guidelines in developing the claims included on the MLR submissions. A. MLR Claims Data The Draft Report contains preliminary findings that the claims included in DHP’s MLR submissions for 2012 and 2013 did not adhere to OPM instructions and did not represent actual performance of the FEHBP’s claims. These findings are simply incorrect. Furthermore, the Draft Report’s statement that DHP’s capitation methodology “circumvents the purpose of the MLR process” is not correct and reflects a core misunderstanding of capitation vs. fee- reimbursement-based claim liabilities. It also ignores OPM’s acceptance of capitation for MLR as well as premium rating purposes,2 conformity of DHP’s MLR calculation process with 2 OPM’s regulations expressly recognize capitation payments as cost or pricing data for the FEHBP: Report No. 1C-WD-00-15-039 Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) MLR reporting guidance, which guidance is applicable to the FEHBP per OPM’s own instructions,3 and DHP’s having obtained pre-approval from OPM’s Office of the Actuaries for the MLR reporting treatment of its capitation payments. The issue concerns DHP’s reporting for MLR purposes of the capitation payments it makes under its Service Agreement with Dean Health Systems, Inc. (DHS) and SSM HealthCare of Wisconsin, Inc. (SSMWI). 4 Deleted by OIG Not Relevant to the Final Report Consistent with the above instruction, DHP filed with the OPM Office of the Actuaries our methodology for valuing the FEHBP MLR numerator (claims) and received approval.5 The communication between DHP and OPM’s Office of the Actuaries including the methodology approval by OPM was provided to the auditors during our meeting on May 18, 2015, but it is not referenced in the Draft Report. Deleted by OIG Not Relevant to the Final Report DHP has complied with all applicable OPM and HHS requirements for the treatment and reporting of capitation payments for MLR purposes. The Draft Report’s findings and recommendations under “MLR Claims Data” should not appear in the final audit report. (a) Experience rated carriers. Cost or pricing data … includes: (1) Information such as claims data; (2) Actual or negotiated benefit payments made to providers of medical services for the provision of healthcare, such as capitation… (b) Community rated carriers. Cost or pricing data … include, but are not limited to, capitation rates….48 C.F.R. § 1602.170-5 (emphasis added). 3 OPM’s community rate instructions provide that “HHS MLR guidelines will apply for issues not covered in [the] instructions.” 2013 Community Rating Guidelines at p. 9. 4 5 See Exhibit 2 & 3. Report No. 1C-WD-00-15-039 B. Healthcare Receivables The Draft Report contains findings that DHP did not reduce the incurred claims total by the change in Health Care Receivables. DHP agrees with this finding, but requests that the final audit report reflect that this was an unintentional error. C. Taxes on Investment Income The Draft Report found that DHP did not exclude taxes paid on investment income and capital gains from the reduction to premium for taxes that is allowed under the HHS MLR rules. Deleted by OIG Not Relevant to the Final Report Thus, DHP agrees with this finding, but requests that the final audit report reflect that this was an unintentional error. Deleted by OIG Not Relevant to the Final Report D. Premium The Draft Report found that DHP did not use the correct premium income for 2012 and 2013 MLR reporting purposes. Deleted by OIG Not Relevant to the Final Report The “Total 2013 Premium Income” amount (line 1.11) equaled our own premium income amount evidencing our election to use our own premium income vs. OPM’s subscription income. Deleted by OIG Not Relevant to the Final Report DHP acknowledges that the OPM’s 2012 MLR instructions did not allow carriers to use their own premium income. In light of the foregoing, the audit finding related to use of OPM’s subscription income should be limited to contract year 2012 in the final audit report Deleted by OIG Not Relevant to the Final Report II. Disabled Dependent Support – Procedural Finding Deleted by OIG Report No. 1C-WD-00-15-039 Not Relevant to the Final Report Furthermore, no FEHBP purpose is served by carriers’ retaining such documentation since it is the responsibility of the Employing Office to determine employee and family member eligibility. Deleted by OIG Not Relevant to the Final Report If you have any questions regarding this document or any of the attachments, please contact me via phone or email. Sincerely, Randy Ruplinger Chief Financial Officer Dean Health Plan @Deancare.com Report No. 1C-WD-00-15-039 Report Fraud, Waste, and Mismanagement Fraud, waste, and mismanagement in Government concerns everyone: Office of the Inspector General staff, agency employees, and the general public. We actively solicit allegations of any inefficient and wasteful practices, fraud, and mismanagement related to OPM programs and operations. You can report allegations to us in several ways: By Internet: http://www.opm.gov/our-inspector-general/hotline-to- report-fraud-waste-or-abuse By Phone: Toll Free Number: (877) 499-7295 Washington Metro Area: (202) 606-2423 By Mail: Office of the Inspector General U.S. Office of Personnel Management 1900 E Street, NW Room 6400 Washington, DC 20415-1100 Report No. 1C-WD-00-15-039
Audit of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program Operations at Dean Health Plan
Published by the Office of Personnel Management, Office of Inspector General on 2016-03-28.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)