Strategy to Address Early Benchmarks. Although many early benchmarks appear more relevant to the development of an SBM than to the development of an SPM, Arkansas did address these benchmarks during our early planning phase. We submitted a Benchmark application in December 2012 when requesting SPM conditional approval. As discussed earlier in this document, AHCD conducted an extensive operational gap analysis of the “as-is” services and capacity of existing state activities compared to the activities required for Marketplaces. We also conducted an In 2011 and 2012, AHCD conducted an actuarial and market analysis. We continue to do market research through our Plan Management and ACHI consultants. We engaged in an intense research effort led by Manatt Health Solutions and their subcontractor Optumas to look at continuity of care/coverage issues and assist in identifying potential strategies to minimize the impact of churning. That led to Arkansas’s Health Care Independence Act and planning for the Private Option (Medicaid premium assistance) implementation through the SPM. Evidence of our early and continued engagement with a wide range of stakeholders is illustrated throughout this document. Our Stakeholder Engagement Model assures adequate representation from consumers, health providers and the insurance industry as we debate to consensus the preferred methods to implement Arkansas’s Partnership role in Plan Management and Consumer & Stakeholder Engagement & Support. Regarding long-term operational costs, in November 2012, CMS notified states that they would charge up to 3.5 percent in issuer fees to pay for Marketplace operation, including the Plan Management and Consumer Assistance functions operated by the SPMs. We anticipate these fees will exceed costs of operation of SPM functions and will advocate continued federal funding at levels that sustain quality operations. Further evaluation will be conducted by the Arkansas Health Insurance Marketplace Board in anticipation of a possible transition to an SBM, as discussed earlier in this document. We fully anticipate that Arkansas’s existing 2.5 percent issuer fee will cover SBM operational costs.
Strategy to Address Early Benchmarks. Although many early benchmarks appear more relevant to the development of a state-based exchange than to the development of an FFE Partnership, Arkansas did address these benchmarks during our early planning phase. As discussed earlier in this document, HBEPD conducted an extensive operational gap analysis or the “as-is” services and capacity of existing State activities compared to the activities required for Exchanges. We also conducted an IT gap analysis of the “as-is” systems. Subsequent to these activities the decision was made to pursue the FFE Partnership model rather than a state-based exchange. Likewise, in 2011, HBEPD conducted an actuarial and market analysis. As noted earlier, we continue to do market research through an MOU with the University of Central Arkansas (UCA) and through our Plan Management and ACHI consultants. We plan to expand our market analysis through this requested funding by studying provider capacity and expected costs of the newly insured populations based on health status (Optumas via Manatt). Evidence of our early and continued engagement with a wide range of stakeholders is illustrated throughout this document. Our Stakeholder Engagement Model assures adequate representation from consumers, health providers and the insurance industry as we debate to consensus the preferred methods to implement Arkansas’s Partnership role in Plan Management and Consumer & Stakeholder Engagement & Support. The one benchmark where there has been little activity is long-term operational cost analysis and the development of a sustainability plan. We await guidance from CCIIO/CMS needed to identify what the state’s long-term operational cost responsibilities will be.
Strategy to Address Early Benchmarks. The proposal to meet program requirements, below, reflects the requirements for a state-based exchange.
Strategy to Address Early Benchmarks. (Section I.4)
