MDA PRIORITIES PASSED


Despite the dramatically shortened session, the MDA legislative priorities fared well. We normally need the full 4½ months to pass our legislative package, but we were able to navigate it with a session cut short by five weeks. In the final days of session, the MDA legislative team was able to add its entire agenda (overpayments, locum tenens and retroactive payments) to HB 1682 which was passed. That bill has now been signed into law by the Governor.


Overpayments — This bill was sponsored by Representative Mike Henderson and Senator Wayne Wallingford, who both have been great supporters of the dental community throughout the years. We are sad to see Sen. Wallingford term out as a senator. He is running for the House, as he did not serve a full 8 years during his initial tour as a State Rep. This bill received some opposition late in session from insurance companies. The bill requires the health carrier to inform the provider which service and for which patient the recoupment is being made, in addition to prohibiting recoupments being made from providers other than the one who was overpaid.


“An amount a health carrier claims was overpaid to a provider may only be collected, withheld, or recouped from the provider, or third party that submitted the provider’s claim under the third party’s provider iden- tification number, to whom the overpaid amount was originally paid. The notice of withholding or recoupment by a health carrier shall also inform the provider or third party of the health care service, date of service, and patient for which the recoup- ment is being made.” (page 54)


Credentialing — This bill was sponsored by Representative Jeff Coleman and Sena- tor Bob Onder. We met with the insurance lobbyists throughout the C-19 break and reached a deal. The insurers were attempting to get to a middle ground on a prompt pay issue, and in exchange were willing to give us the changes we sought in the credentialing law, with one modification related to the locum tenens provision. The bill was nearly derailed by the KC Blues in the final hours of session. Their opposition, however, was


ISSUE 4 | JUL/AUG 2020 | focus 13


not enough to block the bill. We did have to make one final concession on the locum tenens provision, which gave providers a 60-day exemption from the third party pay- ers credentialing requirement. For example, if a dentist needed to go on leave from the practice, a “substitute” dentist could be hired to continue to provide services to that prac- tice’s patients without the need to complete the credentialing process. The insurers were nervous that allowing a 60-day exemption would be abused, and therefore we modi- fied the provision to make this section apply only to providers who need coverage in their office due to illnesses recognized by the Family Medical Leave Act. The bill also required insurers to pay providers who do not meet the 60-day exemption noted in the previous sentence BUT have applied for credentialing with the health carrier, during the credentialing process, which can some- times take months. Current law allows an insurer to drag out the credentialing process, leaving providers with no reimbursement for treating patients.


OTHER LEGISLATION OF INTEREST


Representative Grier’s licensing reciprocity bill passed. This bill requires boards to issue licenses to practitioners if they are licensed in another state with the same or higher edu- cational requirements and have no disquali- fying disciplinary issues. No opposition.


Prescription Drug Monitoring Program passed the House and passed the Senate, but not in the same form, and when it returned to the House for one final vote, the conser- vatives and democrats (for other reasons) opposed the bill to a degree that it could not clear that one final hurdle. The democrats pulled several of their votes due to an issue that became a non-issue, which sent the bill back to the Senate where it never recovered.


SB689 passed because of a couple licensed professions objecting to their regulatory boards using licensing fees to provide CE workshops. Under this act, no board, com- mission, or committee within the Division of Professional Registration shall utilize oc- cupational fees, or any other fees associated


CONTINUED NEXT PAGE


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32