Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Finance Cost Recovery topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fiscal court approves contract to pursue voluntary Medicaid-related cost collection
Summary
The Boyle County Fiscal Court authorized a contract with a consulting firm to perform a voluntary cost-collection audit that the county expects could return more than it pays in, while noting audit risk and a 10% consultant fee.
Boyle County Fiscal Court on a special-call meeting approved a contract to hire a consulting firm to pursue a voluntary Medicaid-related cost-collection program intended to recover county EMS revenue.
The agreement authorizes the firm identified in the agenda as Public consulting to perform required cost-auditing and revenue-collection work on a new voluntary program similar to the county's existing House Bill 8 Medicaid transport cost-recovery process. Mike Rogers described the program as voluntary and said the county would “pay in about 95,000, and then we would get all that back anywhere from 200 to $300,000.” Rogers also warned the court that the process exposes the county to potential audits and that the firm will take “a 10%” fee from recovered funds, per the contract language he cited.
The court's action authorizes signing the contract and using the firm's services to submit the cost collection; Rogers said payments should begin arriving in January. He added the contract allows an exit if the program does not perform as expected and suggested the county could consider doing the work internally in future years to avoid paying a fee.
Judge presided during the item. Commissioner (transcript: “master Gain”) moved to approve and authorize signing; the motion was seconded by Commissioner (transcript: “master Cohen”). The court voted in favor with no recorded oppositions; the motion carried.
Court discussion noted the program is voluntary (not mandatory like House Bill 8), that the initial payment to participate would be approximately $95,000, and that the county could be audited as part of the process. Rogers said that only a few jurisdictions nationally currently undertake this type of cost collection and that the firm retains 10% as compensation for its services. The deadline to complete enrollment or related filings was described as May 15 in the meeting.
The court did not adopt any ordinance, budget amendment, or policy change beyond authorizing the contract with the firm. Next steps identified were signing the agreement and beginning the consultant's work toward submitting the county's cost collection; Rogers said the county would reassess the approach in future years and consider internalizing the process.
Details on the contract's start date, precise fee timing, and audit scope were discussed but not further documented in the meeting record.
