Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ibhp Implementation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Behavioral health plan go‑live has produced payment and configuration follow‑ups; Magellan disputes addressed
Summary
DHW officials said the Idaho Behavioral Health Plan went live July 1 and that initial provider payment issues have been largely addressed by the vendor, but the department has imposed liquidated damages and continues system configuration work; committee members asked for follow‑up on provider payments and vendor performance metrics.
BOISE — Department of Health and Welfare officials told the Feb. 26 JFAC hearing that the Idaho Behavioral Health Plan (IBHP) went live July 1 and that implementation required additional system configuration and provider education.
Deputy Director Juliette Sharon said the IBHP contract scope was substantially larger than previous behavioral health contracts because it incorporated services previously delivered under fee‑for‑service and by the division of behavioral health. “These are costs that have already been incurred for system configuration changes made, and completed around the start of the new IBHP contract,” Sharon said, explaining why the department sought supplemental funding to cover onboarding and interface work.
Committee members raised several payment concerns. Senator Cook and others described provider reports of delayed payments in the first months after launch. Sharon and Director Alex Adams said the contractor (Magellan) addressed many initial payment problems, education and mailing issues, and that the department had imposed more than $100,000 in liquidated damages and put the vendor on corrective action plans. Sharon said Magellan was back in compliance with timeliness requirements and that the department continues to monitor payment denials, timeliness, and provider complaints.
Alex Williamson, the legislative analyst, noted vendor market signals tied to the external quality review procurement and said two RFPs failed to attract bidders; the department later issued an RFI that suggested a gap between historical payment levels and current market rates.
Ending — Committee members asked for ongoing reporting on provider payment timeliness, corrective actions, and any outstanding claims; department officials said they will continue monthly reporting and follow up with lawmakers individually as needed.
