[House Hearing, 110 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] NECESSARY REFORM TO PEDIATRIC DENTAL CARE UNDER MEDICAID ======================================================================= HEARING before the SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOMESTIC POLICY of the COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ SEPTEMBER 23, 2008 __________ Serial No. 110-190 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/ index.html http://www.oversight.house.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 51-701 WASHINGTON : 2009 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402-0001 COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York TOM DAVIS, Virginia PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania DAN BURTON, Indiana CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland JOHN M. McHUGH, New York DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio JOHN L. MICA, Florida DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri CHRIS CANNON, Utah DIANE E. WATSON, California JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio BRIAN HIGGINS, New York DARRELL E. ISSA, California JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky KENNY MARCHANT, Texas BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina Columbia VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California JIM COOPER, Tennessee BILL SALI, Idaho CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland JIM JORDAN, Ohio PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland PETER WELCH, Vermont JACKIE SPEIER, California Phil Barnett, Staff Director Earley Green, Chief Clerk Lawrence Halloran, Minority Staff Director Subcommittee on Domestic Policy DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio, Chairman ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland DARRELL E. ISSA, California DIANE E. WATSON, California DAN BURTON, Indiana CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois JOHN L. MICA, Florida JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana BRIAN HIGGINS, New York CHRIS CANNON, Utah BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California JACKIE SPEIER, California Jaron R. Bourke, Staff Director C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Hearing held on September 23, 2008............................... 1 Statement of: Kuhn, Herb, Acting Director, Center for Medicaid and State Operations; and Alicia Cackley, Acting Director, Health Care Team, Government Accountability Office................ 36 Cackley, Alicia.......................................... 50 Kuhn, Herb............................................... 36 Tucker, Susan, MBA, executive director, Office of Health Services, Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene; Patrick Finnerty, director, Virginia Department of Medical Assistance Services; Mark Casey, DDS, MPH, medical director, North Carolina Division of Medical Assistance; Linda Smith Lowe, esq., public policy advocate, Georgia Legal Services Program; Jane Grover, American Dental Association; and Jim Crall, director, Oral Health Policy Center, professor and Chair, Section of Pediatric Dentistry, UCLA School of Dentistry........................ 86 Casey, Mark.............................................. 112 Crall, Jim............................................... 174 Finnerty, Patrick........................................ 95 Grover, Jane............................................. 143 Lowe, Linda Smith........................................ 124 Tucker, Susan............................................ 86 Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by: Cackley, Alicia, Acting Director, Health Care Team, Government Accountability Office, prepared statement of.... 52 Casey, Mark, DDS, MPH, medical director, North Carolina Division of Medical Assistance, prepared statement of...... 115 Crall, Jim, director, Oral Health Policy Center, professor and Chair, Section of Pediatric Dentistry, UCLA School of Dentistry, prepared statement of........................... 178 Finnerty, Patrick, director, Virginia Department of Medical Assistance Services, prepared statement of................. 98 Grover, Jane, American Dental Association, prepared statement of......................................................... 145 Kucinich, Hon. Dennis J., a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio: Prepared statement of.................................... 5 Prepared statement of Burton Edelstein................... 197 Kuhn, Herb, Acting Director, Center for Medicaid and State Operations, prepared statement of.......................... 38 Lowe, Linda Smith, esq., public policy advocate, Georgia Legal Services Program, prepared statement of.............. 126 Tucker, Susan, MBA, executive director, Office of Health Services, Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, prepared statement of...................................... 89 NECESSARY REFORM TO PEDIATRIC DENTAL CARE UNDER MEDICAID ---------- TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2008 House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Domestic Policy, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dennis J. Kucinich (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Kucinich, Cummings, Higgins, and Issa. Also present: Representative Higgins. Staff present: Jaron R. Bourke, staff director; Noura Erakat, counsel; Jean Gosa, clerk; Charisma Williams, staff assistant; Leneal Scott, information systems manager; Jill Schmalz, minority counsel; Molly Boyl, minority professional staff member; and Larry Brady, minority senior investigator and policy advisor. Mr. Kucinich. We have just been informed that the ranking member is en route and he urges us to start, so we will. The subcommittee will come to order. This is the Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Today is Tuesday, September 23, 2008. The hearing today is entitled, ``Necessary Reform to Pediatric Dental Care under Medicaid.'' Today's hearing is going to examine the progress of reform in Medicaid's pediatric dental entitlement. Without objection, the Chair and the ranking minority member will have 5 minutes to make opening statements, followed by opening statements not to exceed 3 minutes by any other Member who seeks recognition. Without objection, Members and witnesses may have five legislative days to submit an opening statement or extraneous materials for the record. Nearly a year and a half ago a 12-year-old boy named Deamonte Driver died of a brain infection caused by untreated tooth decay. Deamonte lived in Prince George's County, MD, and was a Medicaid beneficiary, and as such was en titled to dental care paid by the American taxpayers. But he hadn't seen a dentist for more than 4 years. Since then my subcommittee began an investigation into the adequacy of pediatric dental care under Medicaid. In May 2007 my subcommittee held a hearing to determine the circumstances that led to Deamonte's preventable death. Nine months later we examined what corrective actions the Center for Medicaid and State Operations, CMS, had taken since Deamonte's death to reform the dental program for Medicaid-eligible children. Today we seek to move beyond identifying problems with our pediatric dental program under Medicaid and start identifying the reforms necessary to fix a broken system. Moreover, we will have the opportunity to recognize Federal and State officials who have taken the lead in fixing this system by implementing some of those reforms. After our May hearing, I instructed our subcommittee staff to investigate the adequacy of the dental provider network available to Medicaid-eligible children enrolled in the same managed care company that was responsible for Deamonte. My subcommittee investigated United Healthcare's dental network and records of claims submitted for services rendered to United beneficiary children in 2006. What my staff found was appalling. Deamonte was far from the only child in Maryland who hadn't seen a dentist in 4 or more consecutive years. In fact, nearly 11,000 Maryland children enrolled in United had not seen a dentist in 4 or more consecutive years, putting them in the same precarious position that Deamonte was in at the time of his death. The investigation also revealed that United Health Care's dental provider network was not nearly as robust as they claimed. We discovered that only seven dentists provided 55 percent of all dental services rendered in 2000 in the county where Deamonte resided. Shortly after the release of our investigatory findings in October 2007 I instructed my subcommittee staff to expand its investigation into three managed care organizations in addition to United in three other States and counties. The survey, the results of which are made available to the Center on Medicaid and State Operations by letter last week, assessed United and Health Care Choice in Apache County, AZ; United and Amerigroup in Essex County, NJ; United and Keystone Mercy in Philadelphia County, PA; and Amerigroup in Prince George's County, MD. I ask unanimous consent to enter my letter into the record. The finding of this expanded investigation reveals that inadequate dental provider networks and poor utilization rates are not limited to any single MCO or to any single jurisdiction. The problems are system-wide. Our survey revealed that many, many thousands of children enrolled in Medicaid are not receiving dental care for up to 6 consecutive years. We have a chart up that is supposed to represent that. I don't know if anybody is going to be able to read it. I certainly can't from here. But this slide indicates how many children did not see a dentist in 4 or more consecutive years. The percentage of children enrolled in Medicaid without dental services for 4 consecutive years between 2003 and 2006 ranged between 25 and 31 percent across all States and MCOs. But percentages are one thing and numbers are another. This means that in Philadelphia County, for example, 34,947 children enrolled in Keystone Mercy did not see a dentist between 2003 and 2006. These are children who are entitled to this care. Are any of those children suffering from untreated tooth decay? If so, will it be caught before it leads to another tragic story? Our survey also revealed that dental provider networks are as woefully inadequate in these other jurisdictions and MCOs are as they were in Prince George's County in 2006. In all jurisdictions among all MCOs examined, only between two and nine dentists performed half of all services rendered to children enrolled in Medicaid in fiscal year 2006. This is in Prince George's County. United's provider network in Essex County, NJ, boasts of 203 dentists. At first glance, it appears that parents in Essex County can easily access a dentist to treat their child. But look a little closer and you will find that only 9 dentists of the 203 enrolled in United's provider network provided 50 percent of all services to children enrolled in the MCO. Why are large numbers of dentists enrolled in a managed care organization's network but not providing care? What will it take to change their status from inactive to active providers of dental care for Medicaid-eligible children? We began to explore answers to this question earlier this year. In February this subcommittee held a hearing to evaluate CMS's reforms in pediatric dental care under Medicaid since the death of Deamonte. The hearing revealed the inadequacy of the agency's reforms, prompting this subcommittee to press CMS to do more to achieve greater access to and utilization of pediatric dental care. My subcommittee made six policy recommendations to CMS in this vein. I ask for unanimous consent to enter my letter into the record. Since that time, CMS has come under new leadership. Today we will hear from CMS and learn that the agency has taken great strides in responding to these recommendations. CMS's accomplishments since our last hearing mark a significant and positive shift in its approach to providing dental care for our country's poorest children. We will also hear from representatives of several State Medicaid agencies whose programs provide instructive lessons for other States struggling to improve their pediatric dental program under Medicaid. We will hear about the positive impact of increasing reimbursement rates in Maryland, about the positive impact of a disease management model in North Carolina, and about the positive impact of creating a single vendor administrator for dental care in Virginia. The history of pediatric dentistry under Medicaid is deeply disturbing. The system of Government and private managed care companies that was entrusted by the American people to take care of children like Deamonte Driver has been in a shambles. According to the Government Accountability Office's most recent report on oral health, not much has changed over the past two and a half decades. GAO's report is the first of its kind since 2000, when the Surgeon General released a report on oral health in the United States and found that low-income children suffered twice as much from tooth decay than more affluent children. But our hearing today is going to show that over the past year and a half, through congressional oversight, the tireless work of advocates, and the dedication of State and Federal officials, lessons have been learned since Deamonte's death. Initiatives have been undertaken, and a Federal agency, long accustomed to a laissez-faire attitude toward Medicaid has finally awakened. I look forward to hearing the testimony from our witnesses and believe it will demonstrate to the American people that reform has come to Medicaid and society can be guardedly optimistic. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Hon. Dennis J. Kucinich and the information referred to follow:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.029 Mr. Kucinich. At this time I recognize the ranking member, who has worked with us throughout this entire matter, Mr. Issa of California. Thank you, sir, for being here. Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this is the fourth in a series of hearings. Unlike some of the hearings that often occur, not just in this committee but in other committees, where you have a hearing, you play ``gotcha,'' and then you move on, you have steadfastly stood to try to not only bring awareness to this problem, but, in fact, to go beyond that to bring and oversee changes. These hearings were, of course, first prompted by the tragic death and avoidable death of Deamonte Driver, who died of a brain infection as a result of tooth decay. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your efforts to prevent any event like this from happening in the future. It is very clear that, of all the areas of medical coverage that America does the least well, it is dentistry, not because we don't have the finest dentists or the finest dentistry in the world--we do, we lead the world--but programs such as Medicaid, which often talk in terms of preventative activities, certainly do a fine job on vaccines, but they fail to hit the most important part of the responsibility. Poor oral health is a leading cause of so many other diseases and, of course, leads to a lifelong inability to be healthy and to regain that health. Mr. Chairman, the fact that you have made it your mission to go after failures of Medicaid and CMS, failures to oversee the States who have the primary responsibility--as we both know, dentistry is not an entitlement, but where, in fact, States have agreed to do it, the Federal Government is a full partner in that. We need to make sure that is being delivered properly. As you said in your opening statement, it is very, very clear that just having a program is not of any value if you have no access because of an insufficient number of dentists available. Dentists react to the market faster than any other part of medicine. Dentists will immediately recognize if we are not paying a sufficient amount or not authorizing services for those they need. Dentists are, in fact, small businessmen, for the most part, and, unlike physicians, they can't rely on a hospital or other offsets. A dentist who is particularly pediatric and operates in a poor area or under-served area is going to find himself with patients who can't pay that he is trying to finance, patients who seek Medicaid, and a relatively small amount of patients who have full dental coverage. Mr. Chairman, your work has prompted the GAO report being released today, which will be discussed in the first panel, but which, in fact, is an opportunity for you and I together and others in Congress to take this challenge, which has not yet been met, into the next Congress. I look forward to the briefing here today. I also would like to thank you for the invitation you placed to the American Dental Association. You and I both know that Government has often failed to go to those who have the expertise and say, why is it we are failing? Why is it that dentists often choose not to take Medicaid patients? Today we are going to have an opportunity to see and hear what is still wrong, what has been improved, and, equally importantly, to talk to the professionals who we have to make future programs, both at the Federal and State level and particularly Medicaid, fit their needs or we will not have full access to coverage. Mr. Chairman, often one person gives their life and becomes a poster child for people to complain about the system. In this case you have done a great job, and I would like to commend you as we near the end of Congress, for using that tragic loss to bringing about permanent and profound change. I look forward to, for the rest of this Congress and into the next Congress, working with you on a bipartisan basis to find solutions that work for the children who today are not getting the dental care that will lead to a healthy adult life. I yield back and thank the chairman for his leadership. Mr. Kucinich. I want to thank the ranking member. For those of you who may not be aware of it, Mr. Issa and I both hail from Cleveland, although I am privileged to represent it in the Congress. Mr. Issa and I both understand from our childhood experiences the relevance of this pediatric dental issue. When you know that personally, you understand and become very involved in a way that can be constructive. So I want to say that the progress that we have been able to have here could not have happened without your participation and your support, because when you have a committee work and something gets done, it is not just one person that brings it about; you have to have a partner on it. Mr. Issa has been a terrific partner on these things, so I want to thank you as we move forward. I also want to recognize our staff of the subcommittee, because without it we wouldn't be able to get into the depth that we have been able to get into. There is still a long way to go, but we have had some progress. Let's start by introducing the first panel. Mr. Herb Kuhn is the acting director of the Center for Medicaid and State Operations. He is a nationally recognized expert on value-based purchasing and payment policy. Mr. Kuhn most recently served as director for the Center of Medicaid Management. As CMM director, Mr. Kuhn oversaw the development of regulations and reimbursement policies for the fee-for- service portion of Medicare, covering the universe of providers that care for 43 million elderly and disabled Americans under Medicare. Ms. Alicia Puente Cackley is an Acting Director at the U.S. Government Accountability Office. She currently directs several teams of analysts doing health policy research, including studies of Medicaid services for children and adults, and immigrant detainee health. Prior to joining the health care team, Ms. Cackley worked in GAO's education work force and income security team, where she managed teams analyzing Social Security reform, retirement and aging issues, as well as work force immigration issues. I want to thank you both for appearing before our subcommittee today. It is the policy of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to swear in all witnesses before they testify. I would ask that you rise and raise your right hands. [Witnesses sworn.] Mr. Kucinich. Let the record show that the witnesses have answered in the affirmative. I would ask each of the witnesses to now give a brief summary of their testimony, and to keep the summary under 5 minutes in duration. Bear in mind your complete written statement will be included in the hearing record. I want to thank Mr. Higgins from New York for joining us. Mr. Kuhn, let's begin with you. STATEMENTS OF HERB KUHN, ACTING DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR MEDICAID AND STATE OPERATIONS; AND ALICIA CACKLEY, ACTING DIRECTOR, HEALTH CARE TEAM, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE STATEMENT OF HERB KUHN Mr. Kuhn. Good morning, Chairman Kucinich and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to discuss pediatric dental care under Medicaid. CMS shares this subcommittee's conviction that we must improve dental care services for children with Medicaid. As I have personally shared with Chairman Kucinich, our agency is grateful for this subcommittee's leadership in this area. You have provided us with helpful information as we move forward on our efforts to improve care. In this regard, I wanted to take my time today to give you an update on where we are with our investigations and improvement efforts. First, CMS has completed its onsite reviews of 17 State dental programs. The States targeted for review were those States where less than 30 percent of the children on Medicaid were seen by a dentist in the previous year. CMS used 2006 as the benchmark year. When these reviews are completed, we plan to host a national town hall meeting to discuss our findings and ask for suggestions on policy options to improve the utilization of dental care for these vulnerable children. Once we complete the national town hall meeting, we plan to share our report through a State Medicaid director's letter to all States and the District of Columbia. We intend to complete this entire process by the end of this year. I want to assure the committee that we are not waiting to take actions with States on issues that are identified, however, during these reviews. Once each State review is completed, we are making a set of recommendations for each State and are initiating compliance actions on those recommendations. Second, CMS has asked all States to update and submit to us their dental periodicity schedules for review. As part of our review, we have found that some States were out of compliance with CMS requirements. Even more unfortunate, some States have still not responded to our request for these oral health schedules. Some of those States are represented by members on this subcommittee. We have shared with you the list of States that still have not provided us with these oral health schedules. As part of our ongoing partnership with this subcommittee on the Medicaid dental program, I would appreciate your assistance in contacting your own State to help us obtain those schedules. Third, in collaboration with the National Association of State Medicaid Directors, we have developed an oral health technical advisory group. They helped us update the policy questions and answers that you had inquired about, as well as helping us with improvements in the annual EPSDT reporting form. We all know we need to capture better data on dental services, and we are hopeful that by improving this reporting form it will help us identify areas of weaknesses on which we can focus our attention. We also are including dental activities in our State quality assessment reports, and we are working with the American Dental Association to create a dental quality alliance to help us develop evidence-based performance measures. Fourth, we have moved forward with the States on sharing best practices, convening a national call to discuss innovative State programs. I am excited about the growing collaborations that we are seeing in various events, including the National Oral Health Conference. Finally, I would like to share with the subcommittee that, since assuming the role as Acting Director of the Center for Medicaid and State Operations, I have met with State Medicaid Directors and discussed this issue at length. Furthermore, CMS staff have been in contact with every State, from State Medicaid directors to State dental officers to discuss these issues. I can assure you that every State understands the additional scrutiny we are putting them under. While our work is far from done, I am confident that we are moving in the right direction and look forward to continuing to work with this subcommittee and others on improved pediatric dental care. I would be happy to answer your questions. [The prepared statement of Mr. Kuhn follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.041 Mr. Kucinich. I thank the gentleman. The gentlelady may proceed. STATEMENT OF ALICIA CACKLEY Ms. Cackley. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Issa, members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to be with you today as you examine reform to pediatric care and Medicaid. This is an issue this committee has been focused on for some time, since the tragic death of Deamonte Driver. My comments this morning are based on a report we prepared for the subcommittee, which you are releasing today, entitled, ``Medicaid: Extensive Dental Disease in Children Has Not Decreased, and Millions Are Estimated to Have Untreated Tooth Decay.'' My remarks will cover three key questions that you asked us to investigate: the extent to which children in Medicaid experience dental disease, the extent of dental care they receive, and how these conditions have changed over time. In summary, dental disease and inadequate receipt of dental care remains a significant problem for children in Medicaid across the country. Our analysis of national data indicates that approximately one in three children on Medicaid age 2 through 18 had untreated tooth decay, and 1 in 9 had untreated decay in more than three teeth. Projecting these percentages on 2005 Medicaid enrollment levels, we estimate that 6.5 million children in Medicaid have had untreated tooth decay. This rate of dental disease for children in Medicaid was nearly double the rate for children who had private insurance, and very similar to the rate of children who are uninsured. Turning to national data on receipt of dental care, we found that nearly two in three children in Medicaid had not received any dental care. Again, projecting these percentages on 2005 enrollment levels, we estimate that 12.6 million children in Medicaid didn't see a dentist in the previous year. In addition, the data show that only about one in eight children ever see a dentist. As you may know, HHS has national health goals known as Healthy People 2010, which include the target of having two- thirds of low-income children receive a preventive dental service in a given year. Our analysis shows that as a nation we are way behind, since we found that only one-third of children in Medicaid received any dental care in the previous year. Looking over time, there is some good news to share with you. Comparisons of past and more recent survey data suggest that indicators of receipt of dental care, including the proportion of children who had received dental care in the past year and the proportion who had received dental sealants have shown some improvements over time. The percentage of children in Medicaid who received dental care in the previous year increased from 31 to 37 percent over approximately 10 years. In addition, the percentage of slightly older children, whose aged 6 through 18 with at least one dental sealant increased nearly three-fold. Despite these improvements, however, we found that rates of untreated tooth decay for children and Medicaid were largely unchanged. We look at data around two time periods around the early 1990's and compared it to the early 2000's. The proportion of children in Medicaid who experienced tooth decay, both treated and untreated, actually increased from 56 percent to 62 percent over this time period. In conclusion, the information provided by these national surveys regarding the oral health of our Nation's children on Medicaid raises serious concerns. Measures of access for dental care for this population remained far below our national health goals. Of even greater concern are data showing that dental disease is prevalent among children on Medicaid and is not decreasing over time. Millions of children on Medicaid are estimated to have dental disease and be treated. In many cases, this need is urgent. Given these conditions, it is important for all those involved in providing dental care to children in Medicaid, the Federal Government, States, providers, and others, to continue working to improve the oral health condition of these children and achieve stated national oral health goals. I am not making specific recommendations today, but expect to have more information for you once we have completed our ongoing work for this subcommittee. This work includes reviewing both State Medicaid programs ad CMS's efforts to monitor and ensure the children in Medicaid receive recommended dental services. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to respond to questions. [The prepared statement of Ms. Cackley follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.053 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.059 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.060 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.061 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.063 Mr. Kucinich. Thank you very much, Ms. Cackley. I would like to start with you. Why is the oral health condition in children with Medicaid not improving if receipt of dental care has improved? Ms. Cackley. That is a very good question. It seems counter-intuitive. I think part of the explanation in part can come from looking at the age differences in the children. When we look at tooth decay in younger children, we see a much larger increase, and that seems to be driving the overall trend that we see, whereas older children, who are the ones most likely to receive dental sealants, have no change, no increase in tooth decay over time. Mr. Kucinich. Well, in your testimony you say that children from birth to three are not among the population of children who are receiving greater treatment in the past 26 years. Please elaborate on this finding. Also, what policies would you recommend to Federal and State agencies to address lack of care for the youngest sector of children in our Nation. Ms. Cackley. The youngest children, in part, what we found was that younger children did not receive dental sealants, and partly that is it is not recommended for very young children. Dental sealants are for permanent teeth and not for the children who still have their primary teeth. We don't have recommendations of specific policies at this point, partly because we are still doing the work on looking at what State Medicaid programs and their dental programs do have in place, and I think our ongoing work will be able to give you more recommendations at a later time. Mr. Kucinich. Can you elaborate on how the condition of dental disease in Medicaid children compared to children with private health insurance and children without any insurance? Ms. Cackley. Absolutely. The children in Medicaid had much higher rates of tooth decay than children with private insurance, and over time we actually saw children with private insurance having lower rates of tooth decay, whereas children on Medicaid had higher rates, and uninsured children, basically their rates remained unchanged. Mr. Kucinich. So why do you think that is? Why do you think that children who have Medicaid have a higher rate of tooth decay? They have the coverage, right, but they are not getting the service? Is that it? Ms. Cackley. That is correct. They definitely have coverage. There are a number of reasons why they are not getting services. In previous work that we have done, we looked at the participants in our surveys who responded also to why they did not have access to dental care, and in many cases they responded that there were either cost issues or access issues in terms of ability to find a dentist or ability to travel to the dentist, so there are a number of different responses that were given as to what the problem could be. Mr. Kucinich. So in your model for further research, you are going to take into account the distance between providers and people who are clients? Ms. Cackley. Our ongoing work is looking more particularly at the State Medicaid programs and what they are doing, the initiatives that they are putting in place to improve access to care, which could include improving transportation or just increasing the provider network so that people don't have to go so far in order to find a dentist who will treat them. Mr. Kucinich. If you see in some provider networks that a few dentists are seeing half the patients, how do you explain that? Ms. Cackley. There are a number of reasons. In our previous work we learned that dentists gave for why they were not serving Medicaid children, and some of those included problems with payments, but also problems with missed appointments and administrative burden. Those are some of the reasons that we had learned about. Mr. Kucinich. Is there a point where GAO recommends that a health care provider should not list someone in their list of service providers if they are not willing to take Medicaid patients? But why should someone be listed as a service provider if they are not providing a service? Ms. Cackley. I think that we will be looking very specifically at the Medicaid State programs and how they go about creating their network of providers and how they monitor, how CMS monitors the provision of services so that we will be able to tell you more about what the State regulations are on that. We don't have information at this time. Mr. Kucinich. Mr. Kuhn, the very nature of people who find themselves on Medicaid, many of them are on the lower end of the economic scale. Many of them have found themselves in situations that have led to a certain amount of social disorganization. Would you agree with that? Mr. Kuhn. I would agree with that statement. Yes. Mr. Kucinich. So if that is the case, what is the thinking then of CMS, in looking at factors of social disorganization with respect to the delivery of service? For example, if, as Deamonte Driver's mother was faced with, you try and basically this service isn't available, even though you are told, how are people supposed to know how you keep proceeding? There is a certain amount of skill in maneuvering the system, which is required to be able to get this service. We want to provide dental services for children, and we are asking their parents to be able to be experts at maneuvering a system that most people who aren't burdened with the kind of problems that some of the poor may be burdened would have trouble negotiating. Transportation. You have a provider who might be on the other side of a county. People may not have even traveled over there before. There may not be adequate public transportation. I mean, when you look at the lower rates of utilization, as evidenced by the higher rates of tooth decay, it seems to me that the old models of service providing that are based on a society that has been a little bit less mobile than this one, that has been perhaps a little bit more stable in terms of economics than this one, that those old models are not as reliable for the provision of service. And that, notwithstanding the progress that you have made and are ready to make, that it may be that, in order to continue to provide services to a growing population of Medicaid clients, that you may have to look at changing the way that you serve this program population. Mr. Kuhn. Mr. Kuhn. Mr. Chairman, I would not only agree that we need to look at those; I think we need to challenge some of those old models. I think we are planning to challenge those in a number of different ways. I think the issues that you and the CBO have raised here in terms of the multi-factorial issues are all relevant that we have to look at when serving this population, and some of the challenges that we need to think about is, how good are these provider networks, whether they are MCOs or others, are reaching back out to the folks that are enrolled in the program and making sure that they are doing the appropriate followup, the proper education, the information that they need. I think you will hear about it from some of the innovations that we are hearing from some of the States that are here today in terms of really trying to capture the service of non- dentists and others that are delivering care that can provide care, because if you look at the data that certainly I have seen and others, children on Medicaid and children overall tend to see a primary care physician or someone else much more frequently than they see a dentist. And in some cases and in some States because of licensure they are able to deliver at least some kind of services in those areas. Likewise with hygienists and others. So I think we need to challenge some of the models that are out there and try to find better ways to do this. I couldn't agree more. Mr. Kucinich. I want to recognize that CMS, since our last meeting in February and since your becoming Acting Director, and indicated by your testimony, under leadership CMS has done a much better job in addressing our policy recommendations. Significantly, it has resuscitated the oral health tag and enabled State dental agency leaders to collaborate with CMS and one another to tackle oral health disease. I want to thank you for that, and I hope that you will continue with your efforts in new and innovative ways. I have a few questions that I wanted to ask of you in light of recent developments. Before I do that, I want to recognize Mr. Higgins for the purposes of asking some questions. Mr. Higgins, you may proceed. Mr. Higgins. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Just for context, Ms. Cackley, do all States provide children's dental services under the Medicaid program? Ms. Cackley. Yes, they do. Mr. Higgins. All do? Obviously, some do it better than others. Ms. Cackley. Yes. Mr. Higgins. What are the models that are particularly effective that meet or exceed the benchmarks that were outlined in your study? Ms. Cackley. The study that I just testified on was looking at the national data on receipt of dental services and prevalence of dental disease. It is the ongoing work where we will be able to talk about, across the State programs, what are some of the exemplary programs and where there are some places where we can make recommendations. I don't have that information yet. Mr. Higgins. Well, in assessing the problem, the period of study was between 2004 and 2005? Ms. Cackley. Yes. Mr. Higgins. Obviously, there are some that are more interesting and likely targets for further review based on the quality of these programs. I presume that these statistics are available on a State-by-State basis, as the Medicaid program is both funded by the Federal and the State governments. Ms. Cackley. The data that our study is based on are data sets that are provided by HHS, the National Health and Nutrition Examination and the Medical Expenditure Panel, so they are aggregate data nationally representative. Mr. Higgins. You are being too cautious with me. Ms. Cackley. I am sorry? Mr. Higgins. I am trying to understand this a little bit better. I mean, it would seem to me, at the request of Congress, if you have identified in your report a public health issue that addresses children in this Nation, and that the Medicaid program, again, is funded by both the Federal and the State governments, and in some States like New York by local governments--25 percent, which comes from the property tax--it would seem to me that a good place to start is within those States that are doing well, and why is it that they are doing better than everybody else, and then looking at that State or those States collectively as a basis from which to perhaps recommend to Congress specific recommendations as you acknowledge that you are not doing here today. Ms. Cackley. Right. You are absolutely right. What I am trying to say is that what we have done so far is to look at data that is not broken out State-by-State where the children live, so we can't give you that kind of information yet. The State-by-State kinds of information will come in the second phase. Mr. Higgins. I would think that information would be very valuable. Ms. Cackley. I am sure it will. Mr. Higgins. Yes. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Kucinich. Thank you, Mr. Higgins. Mr. Kuhn, you mentioned that you have finalized 4 of the 17 early periodic screening and diagnostic treatment reviews, and that you have completed a draft of an additional seven of them. Can you tell us what challenges that all these States have in common? Mr. Kuhn. That is a good question. You know, in our written testimony on page 4 we list some of the initial observations that we are making as a result of all of our reviews of the States, and so when you look at it across the board what we are seeing here is that one of the fundamental things is clear information for beneficiaries, particularly those with different languages, particularly some that are of different cultures. Seems to be a barrier that we are seeing in all States in all the 17 areas. Also, we see deficiencies in many of the States in terms of processes that would remind beneficiaries that recommended visits were due that are out there. Updated provider listings, everybody seems to be falling down in terms of making sure those are current and adequate and they are appropriate that are in place there. A process to track when recommended visits ought to be occurring seems to be a common theme we are seeing across the States. These are some of the commonalities that we are seeing across the board. Likewise, for providers we are seeing the same thing that I think this subcommittee has heard in the past--low provider payment rates, the issue of missed appointments that were mentioned earlier, and also sometimes with prior authorizations. Sometimes the dentists find those are burdensome. So we are seeing those kind of common themes across the board. Mr. Kucinich. Why have people missed appointments? Do you ever go into deep detail about missed appointments? Are there any patterns? Mr. Kuhn. In one of the reviews I read in one of the States it was interesting, I think it was North Dakota, where the issue of missed appointments, the dental providers in that State, when they book an appointment with a Medicaid beneficiary, they double booked all those appointments because they said there was a high likelihood that the patient might not show up that day, and they didn't want an empty chair that is there. So we see some work-arounds the providers are doing. So as part of our reviews with these 17 States we have done detailed discussions with the providers to try to understand those kind of issues, what they are doing in order to ameliorate that. I think the issue of double booking is an interesting one. It seems to me that if we were more effective at reminding people of visits and appointments and doing some other things we might be able to help work in that area, but these are some of the things that we are seeing. Mr. Kucinich. I want to go a little bit deeper into this discussion about CMS and, for that matter, any Federal service that is being provided, how service is being provided, other than dental. If you are dealing with a population that is suffering from poverty and social disorganization, time, there is a different awareness of time. Now, I am speaking about this because this is basically how I grew up. Appointments don't mean the same thing to some people as they mean to others. Once you are working you are on a clock, there is a regimentation to life, you are out with the rest of society, you are moving with the crowd. Time, you are looking at a watch, means one thing. Some people, life doesn't work that way. It is the awareness of that which I think is important to be able to deliver service, because in a way, when appointments are made, I think the followup, calling people, asking the providers to call people a day before an appointment, for example, reminding them there is an appointment, the day of an appointment reminding them there is an appointment, I mean, there is something about that I would like you to think about to take into account. You know, this might sound a little bit like sociology, but let me tell you there is a practical application to doing this. There is also a practical application to outreach, to continual outreach to make people aware of the provision of services to maximize the use of the Medicaid dollar, itself. I just would like your response to that, and then I want to move on. Mr. Kuhn. I think those are good questions to ask, and in one regard I am very grateful that this particular hearing you have asked experts from the individual States who are actually on the ground grappling with those very issues as they implement these programs, so I will be interested to hear what they say. But what we hear on our interviews is, in addition to the issue of missed appointments, one of the things that they said is absolutely right. People have work, and how does that integrate with their work schedule. They have babysitter issues that they have to deal with. They have transportation problems and issues that come up. So all of those are kind of multi- factorial things that I think we have to think about. Are there different things that we could do at CMS to help support the States in that regard or are there additional innovations that States can bring forward to help these Medicaid beneficiaries navigate the system with those kind of issues and challenges that they face. Mr. Kucinich. I appreciate that response. You indicated that CMS targeted States reporting dental screening rates below 30 percent for focused dental reviews. However, a large number of States reported screening rates in the 30 to 40 percent range. What is CMS doing to improve access to Medicaid dental services in States beyond the initial targeted 15 States? Mr. Kuhn. Yes. What we have done in that regard, while we did focus on those 17 States, we have been in contact with each and every State to talk with them about the issues that are out there. We talked to them about trying to understand better what are the actions they are taking to followup with children, or at least the provider networks are following up with children to make sure that they are getting the services that they need and, as you so rightly said, that they are entitled to and that they deserve, to make sure that we are following up with each and every State to get the periodicity schedules. We have almost got those all done. We are still missing a few States. As we have shared with the subcommittee, we have shared with you the ones that are still missing and we hope to get those soon. We want to hear more from the States what they are doing to recruit more dental providers, to make sure that they are there to service this population that is out there. Also, we are exploring with them a lot these other States, as well, that are in that other range, what are the barriers that they are seeing, and are they doing anything recently in terms of dealing with provider rates, and are they taking action, are they considering action, and what more can we provide them to help them think those issues through. Mr. Kucinich. Thank you. As we will hear from the second panel, there is an inherent problem associated with risk-based contracts. Risk-based contracts are those written between the State and the managed care organization that allots a certain amount of funding for the managed care organization and tells it if it doesn't use all of the funding for servicing children, it can keep the excess as profit. On the other hand, if the managed care organization spends more than it has been allotted, it has to shoulder those costs. This clearly creates an incentive for those MCOs to provide less service for children, and therefore make a profit. In fact, this was the case in Georgia, where MCOs faced, with loss of profits, shut down their provider networks, terminating existing contracts and limiting reimbursement for some of the most common dental procedures. So tell me, No. 1, does CMS plan on drafting policy guidelines for States on how to draft contracts with MCOs in order to ensure the maximum access and utilization. And, second, what did you learn specifically about Georgia during the course of your early periodic screening and diagnostic treatment review, and could CMS have done differently to prevent the managed care organizations from limiting reimbursement and shutting down a dental provider network for the sake of their profits? Mr. Kuhn. Mr. Kuhn. On the issue of managed care organizations and risk contracts, 19 States currently use risk contracting for coverage for dental services; 15 of the States do it Statewide, 4 or more are kind of geographically limited in terms of the State. Quite frankly, I think risk contracting has a role in health care and in this area. It is a chance for us to try to find incentives to drive greater efficiency in the systems and try to find ways for better coordination of care, so I think there is a role for risk contracting that is out there. Having said that, I think there are opportunities where we have seen where risk contracting has worked very good. I know I recently looked at a study out of Minnesota, as well as one out of New York, where they looked at their Medicaid programs under risk contracting and showed real good performance, particularly in the State of New York, for dental care. However, I recently looked at a study from the State of Kansas, where they showed better performance on fee-for-service side. So it is a mixed bag out there. I will be real candid with the subcommittee in that regard. It is a mixed bag. So what we are trying to do in terms of our review is look at those States where they are getting terrific performance through their managed care contracts and what kind of policy options can we put forward in that regard. I am not ready yet to commit to the subcommittee of what new guidance we might put out there for the States in terms of drafting contracts, because I don't think we are that far along in our evaluation. But one of the things I would like to do is that I am a big believer in greater transparency in health care, and I have been a very big advocate of what we have done at CMS in terms of our compare Web sites of getting data out on nursing homes and hospitals and others. I don't think there is enough information that is available to the public in terms of what is going on in dental care that is out there, and so I want us to be more transparent, and I think MCOs will be one area that I want to be transparent on as I go forward, so that I would say is one thing we are going to do in this area. The other is I think we need to finish our policy work. In terms of what is going on in Georgia, we haven't finished that report yet, but I will tell you what we have seen thus far is that we are concerned with the overall adequacy of providers in their network in terms of their managed care organizations. We have already begun talking to the State about potential improvements that they can make, and we want to have those further conversations with the State as we go forward. So basically that is where we are with that State. It looks like it is a pretty reasonable program they have put together, but they have hit some issues that we don't fully understand yet, and, as we finish our investigation, hopefully we will have more information we can share with you at that time. Mr. Kucinich. Well, as chairman of this subcommittee I just want to indicate to you that, with billions of Federal tax dollars involved in health care in this country, that I am very concerned about this issue of taxpayers' money going to provide services and then people not providing the services, having a structure where you actually incentivize not providing services so people can make a profit. Because it seems to me that, while you certainly want to promote the top utilization of services, you want to promote provider participation, people should be reimbursed at a rate that is sufficient enough to encourage the utilization instead of permitting a provider to capitalize on non-utilization. This is something I would like you to just give some thought to, because whenever there is money that hasn't been used that can be converted into profit, it really opens a door for service providers to just find a way to game the system, so I would like you to think about that in your deliberations about the regulations that you are doing now. Mr. Kuhn. Those are helpful comments for us, and we will. I think in that regard what we want to make sure is that, as we continue to move forward on our efforts here, that we don't be so prescriptive that we say one size fits all, that this is the only way that dental services will be delivered in a State; that we want to make sure States have a menu of options that are workable, but at the same time we need real accountability in all these programs, and so I heard you loud and clear, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Kucinich. In our May 2007 investigation the subcommittee uncovered significant deficiencies in availability of dentists to treat Medicaid patients. Our most recent survey revealed that such deficiencies are not unique to Prince George's County, MD. What has CMS done to monitor and insure that all CMS Medicaid programs have adequate dental networks, especially those using a managed care model? And, similarly, what have you done to ensure that State Medicaid payment rates for dental services are adequate to enroll sufficient numbers of dentists to provide services comparable to the general population? Mr. Kuhn. As part of our 17-State review, we have made a number of recommendations to States already in terms of what we think they ought to be doing to improve the adequacy of their networks. The other thing that we are looking at pretty hard is to make sure that we have some better reporting in terms of quality assessment reports that we get from States on an annual basis, those States that have managed care organization contracts for dental providers, and are there ways that we can improve that reporting, make that information publicly available so we can create greater accountability out there as we go forward. But one of the interesting things I noticed in the report that you all released on Friday, and, by the way, thank you for that report. That is going to be very helpful to us and I appreciate your leadership in doing that. Mr. Kucinich. Are you surprised by those findings, by the way? Mr. Kuhn. No, actually not. They are pretty consistent with what we are seeing. The one thing, though that was interesting in terms of that report was that, when you look at a maybe 1- year or 2-year spread of an individual Medicaid beneficiary in a program, the dental service access wasn't very great, but as you got over a longer length of time, 3, 4, 5 years, their access tends to improve. And so we would like to explore that more and would like to find some time when we can sit down perhaps with your staff and others who prepared and worked on the report to understand some of the dynamics and see if there is any hypothesis they can share with us in what we saw. When you look at the data, it looks like you are seeing better coordination of care over the length of time, and so those will be helpful things for us to explore with you on a go-forward basis. Mr. Kucinich. Thank you. So when you look at the findings, will you study the pediatric dental programs in Arizona, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, to help them improve their programs, as you are doing in at least 17 other States? Mr. Kuhn. We would be happy to go and look at those programs specifically. Certainly. Mr. Kucinich. Thank you. Now, what is your estimated budgetary request for next year? Mr. Kuhn. We haven't begun putting together the fiscal year 2010 budget yet, so I am not sure where we are on that at this time, but I can get back to you on that one, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Kucinich. Is it anywhere near $700 billion? Mr. Kuhn. I don't think so. Mr. Kucinich. Now, of the estimated budgetary requests that you will have, we would like to know how much you plan on allocating to oral health, if you can do that? Mr. Kuhn. I think we can break that down. I can tell you right now though that within the Medicaid program roughly 5 percent of Medicaid spending goes for oral health. That has been fairly consistent over the last several years, so as a rough gauge that is kind of where we are at this time. Mr. Kucinich. Well, as you are doing your planning and reviewing, we would like you to work with us with recommendations for a legislative agenda, and let us know how we can help CMS achieve the goals to reform the pediatric dental program. If we are looking at expanding the scope of providers, the dental work force has been in decline since the mid-1990's. Current projections estimate an absolute decline in the overall number of dentists beginning in 2014. Consider also that only 2 percent of dentists are trained as pediatric specialists. This projection will be especially detrimental to communities who bear the greatest dental disease burden, that is primarily low-income, inner-city, and rural communities. I would like to know how does CMS propose creating a more adequate distribution of professionals to meet the oral health needs of children. Mr. Kuhn. That is a good question to pose, and that really is something that we are looking at and how we can partner with other agencies like HRSA, the Health Resources and Services Administration, and others that actually provide training dollars to schools of medicine to help in the training factor who run the work force shortage area payment programs, and so it is our hope that they will be part of our effort as we do our evaluation, and that there are ways to partner with them to work with the States and others so we can deal with some of these distribution issues. Mr. Kucinich. So are you exploring the potential of expanding the scope of dental providers? Mr. Kuhn. Basically, what we are right now is we are really focused on the issue at hand, the challenge that this subcommittee laid before us and the challenge we have before us as an agency, to make sure that we have sufficiency, good coverage, and great access for children with Medicaid. The issue that you are raising is one that we have talked about that I think some time in the future we would like to explore with sister agencies, but it is not in the work plan now for what we want to do in the immediate future, but it is something that we will certainly think about in the future. Mr. Kucinich. On our second panel we are going to be talking about focusing on prevention and disease management and how that helps to create a positive result in a short amount of time. Will you consider adopting such a model and approach to addressing oral health? Mr. Kuhn. Tell me one more time the model, Mr. Chairman? Mr. Kucinich. The model is approaching oral health by focusing on prevention and disease management. Mr. Kuhn. That is certainly models we want to explore, and one of the witnesses---- Mr. Kucinich. How might you be able to do that? Mr. Kuhn. Well, one of the things that would be interesting to explore with the committee, like I said, we are not prepared yet, because we haven't finished our report, to give you any legislative recommendations. Mr. Kucinich. Right. Mr. Kuhn. But what I can share with you is that some of the innovations that are going on in the State are terrific, and you will hear about them on the second panel. I think the work for the folks in North Carolina, Into the Mouths of Babes, is just a terrific program. The seed money for that program was based on some grant funds that came from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Unfortunately, we don't have that authority right now, so I think working with you all in the future to look at some demonstrations designed to look at prevention programs for high-risk populations would be something that we could begin talking about now. I would assure you that my staff would provide any technical assistance your staff would need to help explore those options. Mr. Kucinich. I also, before I conclude with this round of questioning, Mr. Kuhn, I would also like you to think about another aspect of prevention and disease management, and that is with respect to parents, especially pregnant mothers. It is critical to provide dental care and education to child-bearing women and women of child-bearing age. In 2004, due to a lack of clinical guidelines, only one out of every five women who gave birth saw a dentist during pregnancy. What are your thoughts on this, and will you consider addressing outreach and care for pregnant mothers in a prevention and disease management model? Mr. Kuhn. I would hope that the actions that we are taking now on the pediatric side would have a great deal of portability throughout the entire Medicaid program for the entire dental benefit for everyone, so that what we are doing here would not be just focused in one aspect but it would cast the net far and wide and look at the entire enterprise of what the State does in terms of delivery of dental services. Mr. Kucinich. But you do get the connection between dental caries from mother to child? Mr. Kuhn. Absolutely. And we are focused on the pediatric side now, but I would hope that, again, what we do here as part of this effort is across the board with the States as they go forward. Mr. Kucinich. And just one final question. Are you going to be studying risk-versus non-risk-based contracts nationally to offer policy guidelines to States? Mr. Kuhn. We are going to be looking at the various payment models. Yes, sir. Mr. Kucinich. OK. Final question to Ms. Cackley. I had asked Mr. Kuhn about this situation where MCOs are getting funding for servicing children. They are not servicing children and they walk away with a profit. Have you been able to survey that in any quantifiable way to be able to address that? Ms. Cackley. That will part of our ongoing work. In our surveys to the States, we are looking at and asking them questions about their MCO contracts and how they are set up and how they are monitored. Mr. Kucinich. Let me tell you why that is important, because as CMS wants to be able to design a more effective model, it is important to be able to assess the degree to which the present model has not worked, and it is going to really be up to you to be able to delve deeply into this question of the providers who are gaming the system, who have found a way to be able to keep the so-called excess as profit. I would like you to look at the MCOs' internal documentation to see if there is any way in which they encourage that. I want to find that out, so if you would do that we would appreciate it. Ms. Cackley. We would be happy. That is part of our review, and we will be giving you more information soon. Mr. Kucinich. Because, Mr. Kuhn, if it is a policy to do that, that is something you ought to know about. Mr. Kuhn. You are absolutely right. You know, we want to make sure that we are looking at all aspects and that we give a State the options that they need to do their jobs, but also to make sure that we get accountability and we get the results that we all want. Mr. Kucinich. And when all is said and done, to both of you, this really is about children and making sure they get the dental health they need so that they have long and productive and healthy lives. I mean, that is what this is all about. Ms. Cackley. Absolutely. Mr. Kucinich. I want to thank both of you for the work that you are doing. Please continue. We look forward to following up on this. Thank you so much. Ms. Cackley. Thank you. Mr. Kucinich. The first panel is dismissed. We are going to call the second panel forward. Thank you very much for being here. We are fortunate to have an outstanding group of witnesses on our second panel, and I want to welcome all of you here. Ms. Susan Tucker is the executive director for the Office of Health Services for the Maryland Medicaid program. In this capacity she reports to the Deputy Secretary for the Health Care Financing Administration, which administers the Maryland Medicaid program within Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. Over the last 18 months, Ms. Tucker has been involved in developing and implementing initiatives aimed at improving access to dental services for low-income children in Maryland. Mr. Patrick Finnerty is Virginia's Medicaid director and has served in this position since 2002. He directs all aspects of Virginia's Medicaid and State Children's Health Insurance Programs and finance health coverage for more than 715,000 low- income persons. Mr. Finnerty has worked in State government for 30 years. Prior to his current appointment he worked for the Virginia General Assembly's Joint Commission on Health Care for 8 years, including 4 years as the executive director. Dr. Mark Casey is the dental director for the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services Division of Medical Assistance. He is the current secretary treasurer of the Medicaid S-CHIP Dental Association, also a member of the National Association of State Medicaid Directors Oral Health Technical Advisory Group, which has been formed to assist the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in oral health policy matters. Ms. Linda Smith Lowe has been the health policy specialist with Georgia Legal Services for the past 29 years. Georgia Legal Services serves 154 of Georgia's 159 counties, including small cities in rural areas of the State. Ms. Lowe's involvement with the organization is focused on Medicaid and PEACH care for kids, Georgia's State children health insurance program. She also serves on several boards and works with other nonprofits on these health-related issues. Dr. Jane Grover has been dental director and clinician for the Center for Family Health in Jackson, MI, since 2001. She is the first vice president of the American Dental Association. Between 1983 and 2001 Dr. Grover was in private practice as a general dentist. Prior to that she served as dental director of the Jackson County Health Department in Michigan. She is an adjunct faculty member of the University of Michigan School of Dentistry and of the Lutheran Medical Center in New York, and has taught at Indiana University at South Bend. Dr. Jim Crall is professor and Chair of Pediatric Dentistry and director of the National Oral Health Policy Center at the University of California Los Angeles [UCLA]. Dr. Crall has been actively involved in national, State, and professional policy development concerning oral health over the past 15 years. He was the principal author of Guide to Children's Dental Care in Medicaid, which was completed under contract awarded by CMS, then known as HCFA, to the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry. I want to thank each and every one of you for being here today. I am glad that you had the opportunity to listen to the two previous witnesses. I am sure that was instructive to you, as it was to me. It is the policy of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to swear in all the witnesses before they testify, so I would ask that you would rise and please raise your right hands. [Witnesses sworn.] Mr. Kucinich. Let the record show that the witnesses have answered in the affirmative. As I indicated to those who testified in panel one, each witness is asked to give a summary of his or her testimony. I would ask that you try to keep the summary under 5 minutes in duration. Your written statement will be included in the hearing record. Ms. Tucker, let's begin with you. I would ask that you please proceed. STATEMENTS OF SUSAN TUCKER, MBA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF HEALTH SERVICES, MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE; PATRICK FINNERTY, DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL ASSISTANCE SERVICES; MARK CASEY, DDS, MPH, MEDICAL DIRECTOR, NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF MEDICAL ASSISTANCE; LINDA SMITH LOWE, ESQ., PUBLIC POLICY ADVOCATE, GEORGIA LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAM; JANE GROVER, AMERICAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION; AND JIM CRALL, DIRECTOR, ORAL HEALTH POLICY CENTER, PROFESSOR AND CHAIR, SECTION OF PEDIATRIC DENTISTRY, UCLA SCHOOL OF DENTISTRY STATEMENT OF SUSAN TUCKER Ms. Tucker. Chairman Kucinich and members of the subcommittee, my name is Susan Tucker. I am Executive Director of the Office of Health Services for the Maryland Medicaid program. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today about Maryland's efforts to improve access to dental care for low- income children. In February 2007 this situation was brought into acute focus in Maryland with the tragic death of Deamonte Driver. Since that time Maryland Medicaid has re-energized efforts to improve dental care for children in Maryland. In the short term, we have conducted outreach to dental and primary care providers to remind them of the dental benefits package and encourage them to refer children to appropriate dental care. We instructed each managed care organization to verify and correct their dental provider directories, to directly assist enrollees in scheduling dental appointments, to submit weekly reports on enrollee requests for dental care, and we required MCOs to begin a series of outreach efforts to bring children in to dental care, including telephone calls, mailings, incentive plans, and dental education programs. Utilization of dental services increased from 46 percent in calendar year 2006 to 51 percent in calendar year 2007. These approaches were an immediate way to address this very complex problem; however, in order to develop long-term strategies to improve oral health for children, we needed significant efforts on the part of dental providers, public health programs, parents, Medicaid staff, and Federal and State policymakers. Governor O'Malley made this one of the first priorities of his administration by forming a Dental Action Committee, which included all of these key stakeholders. The committee met throughout the summer of 2007 to discuss public health strategies, Medicaid payment rates, alternative delivery models for the Medicaid program, education and outreach for parents and caregivers, provider participation, capacity, and scope of practice. The committee made 60 recommendations. They highlighted seven over-arching recommendations for immediate action, with the goal of establishing Maryland as a national model for children's oral health care. Major recommendations that have been or are in the process of being implemented include increased payment rates. The Governor's fiscal year 2009 budget included $14 million as a first installment of a 3-year effort to bring Maryland Medicaid dental rates up to the 50th percentile of the American Dental Association's South Atlantic Region. This multi-year effort is critical to attracting additional providers. The first year of the fee increase was approved by the Maryland General Assembly and was implemented on July 1, 2008. The first codes that we targeted were diagnostic and preventative codes. We paid very poorly in the past on these codes, but now compare very favorably with other State rates. Streamlined administration. In order to ease the administrative burdens for dental providers, the committee recommended that the Department carve dental services out of the seven managed care organization service packages and administer them through a single fee-for-service administrative services organization. Our long-term goal is to link every child with Medicaid coverage in Maryland to a dental home where comprehensive dental services are available on a regular basis. We do this for pediatricians for children, and we want to do this for dentists. We believe we will be the first State in the country to implement such a project. In the beginning of July 2008 the Department issued a request for proposals for a single State-wide vendor to coordinate and administer these benefits for Maryland Medicaid beneficiaries. Five entities recently submitted proposals, and we are now in the process of selecting a vendor. We will be implementing this by July 2009. Enhanced public health infrastructure. The Governor's budget included additional money for dental health public health clinics in under-served areas. We have opened two new clinics in areas that didn't have clinics in the past, and more are planned for the upcoming year. Increased scope of practice for dental hygienists. The legislature passed legislation during the last session to allow for increased scope of practice for dental hygienists working for public health agencies in Maryland and allowed them to provide those services offsites. The Dental Action Committee continues to meet regularly. This is a working, action-oriented committee. They have been asked by the Secretary not to write reports that will sit on a shelf, but instead to design practical, workable initiatives and to bring all parties in the State together to solve this difficult problem. They have the support of staff throughout the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. One key subcommittee is developing a unified oral health message to encourage oral health literacy for all Marylanders. No child should wait until they are in pain to seek and receive dental care. Another committee is developing a pilot program for dental screenings in schools. Still another is training general dentists on how to provide high-quality dental services to young children. We are also fortunate that Congressman Elijah Cummings has provided a constant Federal presence by working to ensure that children have access to dental care in Maryland. He included language in the State Children's Health Insurance Program to guarantee dental benefits and introduced Deamonte's Law, which would enhance the dental safety net and work force by increasing dental services in community health centers and training more individuals in pediatric dentistry. We value his leadership in this important public health arena. Maryland is committed to implementing the Dental Action Committee's recommendations to ensure access to oral health services for all children on Medicaid. We need to increase the number of dentists willing to see children with Medicaid and to increase the awareness of the benefits of basic oral health care among our enrollees. Although it is too early to report on the impact of these long-term initiatives, we will regularly evaluate their success, as indicated by utilization of services, provider network adequacy, and health outcomes. We will remain flexible and will seek innovative ideas for adjusting our strategies as we move forward. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Ms. Tucker follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.064 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.065 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.066 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.067 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.068 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.069 Mr. Kucinich. Thank you very much. Mr. Finnerty. STATEMENT OF PATRICK FINNERTY Mr. Finnerty. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. My name is Patrick Finnerty, and I serve as the Medicaid Director for the Commonwealth of Virginia. I am pleased to appear before you this morning to review the significant changes and resulting improvements in our Medicaid and SCHIP dental programs. In Virginia we serve about 450,000 children through our Medicaid and SCHIP programs. Soon after becoming the Medicaid Director it was clear to me that our dental program for children was not functioning very well. As seen on slide two, fewer than 24 percent of our children received any dental service in 2003. One of the key reasons for this was that our dental provider network was inadequate. Only about 13 percent of licensed dentists in Virginia were participating in our program. Of that number, only about one- half of them were actively seeing Medicaid and SCHIP children. While we had a pretty good idea what the problems were, we sat down with the leadership of the Virginia Dental Association and heard loud and clear that we needed to make some changes. First, our reimbursement was very low and far below what dentists were being paid by commercial carriers. Second, they identified a number of administrative hassles that needed to be removed, such as outdated billing procedures, overly burdensome prior authorization requirements, and poor responsiveness to provider concerns. They also felt our managed care program was not working for them. Overall, managed care has been a very successful program in Virginia; however, our dental providers had several concerns, including having to deal with multiple plan requirements, credentialing, and patients transferring between plans in the middle of treatment. Last, a significant concern was patient no-shows when patients fail to keep their scheduled appointments. After getting a clear understanding of the changes that were needed, we created an entirely new program and declared that it was a new day for dental in Virginia. We adopted a new program name, Smiles for Children, re-branded it with a new logo, and essentially started over. The new program was developed through ongoing and close collaboration with the Virginia Dental Association and the Old Dominion Dental Society. We were very fortunate to also have tremendous support from the Governor and the Legislature, who authorized us to implement a completely restructured program and approved an unprecedented 30 percent increase in fees. These actions did two things. First, it gave us the necessary authority and funding to implement our new program, but, equally important, it communicated to the dental community a commitment to work with them to improve access to dental care in Virginia. Smiles for Children was launched on July 1, 2005. Leading up to that date and ever since then, the support for the program from the dental community has been outstanding. Dr. Terry Dickenson, the Executive Director of the Virginia Dental Association, has been and continues to be a great champion and advocate of the program. Let me quickly review the major elements of our reform. First, we carved out dental services from the five managed care companies, and now all children have their dental services administered by one vendor, Doral Dental. Through our contractual relationship, we pay Doral an administrative fee to manage the program for us. It is a fee-for-service program wherein providers bill Doral and Doral pays the provider with funds that we make available. Neither Doral nor providers are paid on a capitated basis. In the old program, providers had to deal with multiple credentialing requirements in order to participate. With Smiles for Children there is one streamlined process. I mentioned earlier our providers had identified several administrative hassles in the old program. We now have industry standard administration. Prior to Smiles for Children, Virginia dentists had little involvement in program decisions. Now we have a Virginia Peer Review Committee and a Dental Advisory Committee. Last, by having all of the children in one dental services program, the potential for disruption of care that can result from children moving among different plans has been eliminated. We also established a dedicated dental unit within our agency to work with providers and monitor the program. Slide five summarizes the administrative improvements and other benefits that Smiles for Children provides for our participating dentists. I am not going to review each of them, but they represent important industry standard components of benefits administration that our dental partners were looking for. I would like to now focus on the results of our efforts. Following the start of our new program in July 2005, the number of participating dentists has increased 80 percent, and our network continues to expand each month. There are a handful of localities in Virginia which, prior to Smiles for Children, had no participating dentists, and now there is access to a dentist in their community. A key indicator of our success is that a higher percentage of providers are actively billing for treatment, and our provider and patient surveys show a high level of satisfaction with the program. More importantly, our program reforms have resulted in greater access to care for Medicaid and SCHIP children. As illustrated in slide seven, for children ages zero to 20 the percentage of eligible children receiving necessary dental services has increased 50 percent from 2005 to 2007. For children ages 3 to 20, we have seen a 55 percent increase. We believe that these increases are the result of the two major elements of our reform--the complete redesign of the program and the 30 percent increase in fees. Last, I just want to note that Virginia's reforms have received a good deal of national attention. Over the past few years, we have been asked to present at national meetings of the American Dental Association, the National Association of Dental Plans, the National Association of State Medicaid Directors, the Medicaid Managed Care Congress, the National Academy for State Health Policy, and the National Oral Health Conference. The successes we have achieved have come as a result of everyone working together for the same cause, that being increased access to dental care for low-income children. Organized dentistry has been very supportive and helpful, and they are a true partner in this. The Governor and General Assembly have given us the tools, resources, and support to make these improvements. We recognize that, while there have been marked improvements, far more children need to be receiving dental services, and we are working toward that goal. We continue to look for further enhancements to the program and will keep this issue as a high priority in Virginia. Mr. Chairman, that concludes my prepared testimony. I appreciate the invitation to be here today, and I am happy to answer any questions you may have. [The prepared statement of Mr. Finnerty follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.070 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.071 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.072 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.073 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.074 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.075 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.076 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.077 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.078 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.079 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.080 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.081 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.082 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.083 Mr. Kucinich. I thank the gentleman. We are going to declare a half hour recess. There are votes on right now. I ask the witnesses to please return in a half hour. If there are any difficulties with that, check with my staff. This committee stands in recess for a half hour. Thank you. [Recess.] Mr. Kucinich. Thank you very much. We are going to continue the hearing. The only need for a break will be if there are more votes. I want to thank you for your patience. I would ask, with the committee now having come to order again, if Dr. Casey would proceed with your testimony. STATEMENT OF MARK CASEY Dr. Casey. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify about reforms to pediatric oral health care in Medicaid. My name is Dr. Mark Casey, and I am the Dental Director for the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services Division of Medical Assistance. I am proud to highlight the Into the Mouths of Babes or IMB program, one successful strategy to improve oral health for low-income children in the State of North Carolina. About 40 percent of all children enrolled in kindergarten in North Carolina have experienced tooth decay, and this figure can reach as high as 70 percent in some counties. As we know from the tragic death of Deamonte Driver, untreated dental disease in children can have devastating systemic consequences. In addition, there are tremendous societal costs to families and others involved in the care of children that cannot be easily estimated--missed time at work, missed school time, time and money spent trying to find care for a child with dental problems. The lists of these costs is potentially endless. In North Carolina we found that there were not nearly enough dental resources available to address the problem of Medicaid preschool children through traditional delivery methods, so we turned to non-dental health care professionals for a preventive strategy to manage the chronic and widespread problem of early childhood caries or cavities. Preventive oral health care services are easily integrated into practices of primary care medical practitioners during well child visits, which occur at frequent intervals in the very first few years of life. The network of Medicaid enrolled primary care physicians in North Carolina was robust and distributed throughout all the counties of the State. All the elements of sustainability were present to translate this approach into success for a preventive program in primary care medical settings. After demonstration and pilot projects in limited areas which were supported by Federal funds, IMB was launched State- wide in 2001. To date we have trained more than 3,000 pediatricians, family physicians, nurses, and other types of health care professionals to conduct oral evaluations and detect oral pathology, assess risk for oral disease, counsel parents and/or caregivers about oral hygiene and nutrition, and apply fluoride varnish, the safest and most effective form of topical fluoride for the target population of children. More than 400 primary medical practice sites are currently participating providers in the IMB. From the inception of the program, the goals of the IMB have been to increase access to preventive dental care for low-income children zero to 3 years of age, reduce the incidence of early childhood caries in low- income children, reduce the burden of treatment needs on a dental care system stretched beyond its capacity to serve young children. As it has matured, IMB has increasingly emphasized effective dental referrals for recipients, particularly those children at elevated risk for disease. The IMB program has resulted in a substantial increase, about 30-fold, in access to preventive oral health care services. Even in the early implementation phase of IMB, children from every County in North Carolina were receiving these services. In as many as one-third of the State's counties, no child received any preventive care in dental offices before implementation of the program. The IMB has had a positive effect on overall access for Medicaid children of all ages in North Carolina during any 1 year. The IMB research team has conducted systematic analyses to assess the effectiveness of the program. This research has demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in restorative treatments for anterior teeth that increased with age. By 4 years of age, the estimated cumulative reduction in the number of restorative treatments was 39 percent for anterior teeth. IMB has led to an increase of access to treatment services to the effect of referral of children with pre-existing disease at the time of the initial physician visit to a dentist. Children who are identified by their physician as having dental caries, when provided with a referral to the dentist, saw the dentist sooner than children with no dental caries who were not referred. We have gathered evidence that physician services are not a substitute for care in the dental office but supplement preventive care being rendered by dentists for Medicaid infants and toddlers. Taken together, these findings suggest that the IMB program both prevents early occurrence of dental disease and promotes earlier entry into the dental care system for those children in greatest need. It is important to note that Federal funding played a very vital role in the success of the IMB program. Funding from the Appalachian Regional Commission, CMS, the Health Resources and Services Administration, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention allowed Medicaid and partners in North Carolina to further develop our innovative approach to the prevention of early childhood caries. In particular, the funding provided for staff to develop the curriculum for training, conduct the training, and generally oversee the substantive aspects of the program and generate the science supporting the innovative program. In our opinion, the one-time funding initiative from CMS and other Federal agencies provides an excellent model for one strategy that could stimulate innovative thinking about new approaches to increasing children's access to dental care. Renewal of this funding program would result in new approaches beyond the medical model developed in North Carolina and would yield oral health benefits to children enrolled in public insurance nationwide. Federal sources of funding continue to make a difference in the sustainability of IMB. Treatment services provided in the program are supported through the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage FMAP funds, matching State appropriations. Current evaluation and research efforts are supported by HRSA and the National Institutes of Health. Initial achievements and the continued success of the IMB would not be possible without the active financial support the Federal agencies have provided over the life span of the program. The IMB partnership has moved beyond the original blueprint for the program to consider methods to improve the quality of program treatment services and extend the preventive model. Current expansion strategies focus on refining caries risk assessment tools used by both dentists and physicians and training them in their use, training general dentists to provide care for infants and toddlers, improving communication between primary care medical providers and dentists to facilitate referral when necessary due to elevated risk for dental disease, coordinating patient care to ensure parents and/or caregiver compliance with treatment regiments, and formulating oral health education initiatives targeted to parents and/or caregivers. The IMB team believes that the future looks bright for the program as we develop new ways to extend its success. IMB advocates are also encouraged by reports of the adoption of a similar model to provide preventive services for Medicaid children in many States throughout the country. We are proud to be at the forefront of this movement and stand ready to assist other States as they plan, develop, and implement similar programs. On behalf of the many partners in the IMB collaborative, I thank you for allowing me to bring well-deserved national attention to this important North Carolina dental public health initiative. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [The prepared statement of Dr. Casey follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.084 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.085 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.086 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.087 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.088 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.089 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.090 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.091 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.092 Mr. Kucinich. Thank you very much, Dr. Casey. Ms. Lowe, please proceed. STATEMENT OF LINDA SMITH LOWE Ms. Lowe. Good morning, Mr. Kucinich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Linda Lowe. I really appreciate the fact that you are having these hearings on this critical topic of our children. Like children in most States, Georgia's low-income children have poor dental health. In 2005, 56 percent of our third graders had tooth decay, and 27 percent of the children had untreated decay. School officials continue to say that a major reason for students' absences from school and their poor academic performance has to do with their lack of dental care. Getting oral health care right under Medicaid could make an enormous difference for this generation of children. In 2005, 63 percent of Georgia's children had either Medicaid or PEACH Care, which is our State child health insurance program. Many other children were eligible but not enrolled. Your staff asked me to highlight Georgia's experience with dental care for children over the last decade. Georgia's story is one of somewhat successful multi-year efforts that saw some dentists accept Medicaid patients and produced noteworthy increases in utilization rates for children. Unfortunately, it also shows that budget cutbacks can too easily reverse such advances, and that moving to capitated managed care is no panacea. Just a little history: in 1999 advocates and dentists raised an alarm about Georgia's poor and diminishing access to oral health care for children. Medicaid dental reimbursement was about 30 to 40 percent of average customary fees. A Statewide referral hotline had located only 257 dentists willing to take new Medicaid patients, far too few to meet the need in our State, which is the largest geographically east of the Mississippi. In response, the State very wisely enacted a rate increase, raising reimbursement to about $0.50 on the dollar. It also took concrete steps to simplify billing. Two years later, the State raised rates to the 75th percentile, and afterward provided an inflationary increase. Also at that time Georgia moved to more electronic claims processing with instant online information about patient eligibility and claim status. During this period, more dentists began to accept Medicaid patients. Between 2000 and 2005, the number filing at least one claim per week increased by 57 percent to over 1,000. Also, a mobile dental service, which was the innovation of a Georgia practitioner, started operations and now serves children at school in 76 counties. Over 5 years, our children's utilization rates, as shown on the CMS 416, made steady progress. The proportion of children receiving any dental service, preventive dental services, and treatment services rose from below 20 percent to about one- third of all children, and it really seemed that children's oral health care was on the right track. Then in fiscal year 2004 a State budget crisis led officials to eliminate reimbursement for a number of restorative dental services, cutting a total of 7.5 percent from the dental budget. In 2005, although the proportion of children receiving preventive dental services continued improving slightly, the proportion receiving treatment plunged from 34 percent to 19 percent and went down again the next year to 17 percent. In mid-2006, announcing its intention to save money and to improve access, Georgia required most Medicaid and all PEACH Care children to enroll in one of three capitated managed care organizations that we call CMOs. The CMOs would be responsible for almost all of their services, including dental care. At first the CMOs kept fees where they were, but that soon changed when they saw higher than expected utilization eating into their profits. They required more prior approvals, adjusted fees, and began closing networks. Two of them terminated their contracts with the dental organization that had served over 40,000 children. Dentists complained that the CMOs and their subcontractors have added new levels of administrative difficulty, not to mention cost. In addition, some dentists say it is harder to find specialists who will accept referrals. Although the CMOs list large networks of dentists, data from the State show that large number of the CMOs' dentists have not filed a single claim. It is too soon to know whether CMOs are making a difference in children's health care one way or the other. The first year of implementation is the latest for which we have data. The utilization rates remain close to the same as the year before CMOs began operation when treatment rates had dived. It will take systematic data collection and analysis to see how well children are actually doing. It would be worth evaluating the mobile school-based approach which claims 65 to 70 percent of their Medicaid children complete treatment, which they say is far more than the children in their office practice, which includes children with other kinds of insurance. While it is not the traditional model of a dental home, it helps solve the problems of inadequate transportation, a parent having to forego a day of earnings to take children to the dentist, and the no-shows that hinder efficient operations in a dentist's office. My testimony that is written lists a number of recommendations, some of which address issues I haven't had time to talk about here, but, once again, I want to thank you for your attention and for your concern about the problem with children's oral health. [The prepared statement of Ms. Lowe follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.093 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.094 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.095 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.096 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.097 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.098 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.099 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.100 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.101 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.102 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.103 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.104 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.105 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.106 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.107 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.108 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.109 Mr. Kucinich. Thank you for your testimony and your complete testimony, as well. Dr. Grover. STATEMENT OF JANE GROVER Dr. Grover. Good afternoon, Chairman Kucinich and members of the subcommittee. My name is Dr. Jane Grover. I am very pleased to be here today representing the American Dental Association. In addition to being an ADA officer, I serve as the Dental Director for the Center for Family Health in Jackson, MI, a federally qualified health center. I also serve as a Medicaid reviewer for the Michigan Department of Community Health. As the Dental Director in an FQHC and as an experienced private practitioner before that, I understand the problems with the dental component of the Medicaid program. In my opinion, we need to take three actions to properly care for the Medicaid population. First, get many more dentists into the system, which is the primary focus of this hearing. Second, influence the geographic distribution of those dentists to make sure they can serve the Medicaid population in a timely fashion. Third, support other oral health initiatives that strengthen the oral health delivery system. I address all of these points in my written testimony; however, in the interest of time I am going to focus primarily on the first point, attracting dentists to the Medicaid program. A March 2008 study funded by the California Health Care Foundation confirmed what the ADA has been saying for some time: to improve dentists' participation in Medicaid, the States must improve fees, ease administrative burdens, and involve dentistry as an active partner. The Foundation's report examined six States where the number of participating dentists and patients seen in the Medicaid program rose significantly. For purposes of my testimony, I will focus on the Michigan Healthy Kids Dental Program, which is essentially the same as the private sector Delta Dental Plan used by many people with coverage provided by their employers. Dentists are paid at a PPO rate, which might be less than the usual rate charged, but is still widely accepted. The claims processing is identical to the private sector plan, except that beneficiaries have no co-pays and there is no annual maximum. From the dentists' perspective, there is no difference between the Healthy Kids Dental Program and the widely accepted Delta Dental private plan. For patients, the stigma associated with being on Medicaid has been removed. Families cannot be differentiated into Medicaid and non-Medicaid groups. And the Healthy Kids Dental Plan has been a resounding success. Dentists' participation shot from 25 percent to 80 percent 1 year after the program was introduced and now stands at 90 percent. The travel time to a dental office was cut in half, equaling that of the private sector Delta Dental Plans. The number of children with a dental home under the program far exceeds those with a dental home under the traditional Medicaid program in Michigan. Unfortunately, about two-thirds of the Medicaid eligible children remain in the traditional Medicaid program in Michigan. More needs to be done to bring all of the eligible children into the Healthy Kids Program. We believe CMS can help by issuing guidance outlining how such collaborative activities have effectively worked in Michigan, Alabama, Tennessee, and other States. In addition, a letter from CMS to State Medicaid directors requiring them to report on steps they are taking to improve their dental Medicaid programs would also help. The ADA also believes passing H.R. 2472, the Essential Oral Health Care Act, is important because the bill provides enhanced Federal matching funds if a State is willing to increase Medicaid fees, address administrative barriers, and reach out to the dental community. Finally, regarding initiatives that strengthen the oral health delivery system, Mr. Chairman, we agree with the Congressional Research Service where, in its September 18, 2008, letter to this subcommittee, the agency identified barriers affecting the use of dental service among children. Those barriers include navigating government assistance programs, finding a dentist willing to accept Medicaid, locating a dentist close to home, transportation to a dental office, cultural and language barriers, lack of knowledge about the need for pediatric oral health care. The ADA is seeking funding to conduct demonstration projects for a potential new dental team member, the community dental health coordinator, designed to address those barriers. We describe the CDHC fully in our written testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to testify. I would be pleased to answer any questions. [The prepared statement of Dr. Grover follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.110 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.111 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.112 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.113 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.114 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.115 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.116 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.117 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.118 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.119 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.120 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.121 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.122 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.123 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.124 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.125 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.126 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.127 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.128 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.129 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.130 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.131 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.132 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.133 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.134 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.135 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.136 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.137 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.138 Mr. Kucinich. Thank you very much. Dr. Crall, you may proceed. Thank you. STATEMENT OF JIM CRALL Dr. Crall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to participate in this hearing. My comments today largely focus on the impact of Medicaid reimbursement rate increases on dentist participation and children's utilization of dental services in Medicaid, and the benefits of no-risk contractual arrangements that separate or carve out Medicaid dental benefits from global Medicaid managed care arrangements. Access to an ongoing source of comprehensive dental care is a critical component for maintaining good oral health in children. Access to a dental home or regular source of dental care is especially important for children who are at elevated risk for tooth decay, predominantly children in low-income families and children with special health care needs, children typically covered by Medicaid. National surveys showing an increase in tooth decay in young children, what we now call early childhood caries, combined with the already large and growing numbers of children on Medicaid underscore the need for engaging substantial numbers of dentists as Medicaid providers across the United States. However, chronically low reimbursement to dentists for services rendered has been acknowledged by several private and governmental reports to be a major, if not the greatest, barrier to dentist participation in Medicaid. Access to dental services for children covered by Medicaid is a significant and chronic problem. Studies conducted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in 1996 reported that, A, relatively few children covered by Medicaid received recommended dental services; and, B, inadequate reimbursement is the most significant reason why dentists do not participate in Medicaid. The GAO's April 2000 Report to Congress indicated that the level of Medicaid dental reimbursement in 1999 nationally and in most States was about equal to or less than the 10th percentile of respective fees; that is, at least 90 percent of dentists charged more, and usually substantially more, than the Medicaid fee. A subsequent assessment conducted in 2004 by myself and Dr. Don Schneider, former Chief Dental Officer at CMS, found that in 41 States the majority of dental Medicaid reimbursement rates for common children's dental procedures remained below the 10th percentile, and frequently were below even the first percentile of dentists' fees, meaning that the Medicaid rates were lower, and often substantially lower, than the fees charged by any dentist in the respective States. Beginning in the 1990's, following a series of Oral Health Policy Academies organized by the National Governors Association, several States moved to increase Medicaid reimbursement levels to considerably higher levels consistent with the market-base approached advanced in the NGO Oral Health Policy Academy. As shown on the table on this slide, subsequent evaluations suggest that, similar to the findings by the GAO, Medicaid payments that approximate prevailing private sector market fees do contribute to increased participation by dentists in Medicaid. Other States, including Virginia, Texas, and Connecticut, also have taken steps to raise their Medicaid dental reimbursement rates to what are considered reasonable, market- based rates. Unfortunately, as in the case of Connecticut and Texas, these changes often follow years of protracted litigation in Federal courts. The table on the next slide provides a comparison of Texas Medicaid payment rates for selected procedures and fees charged by dentists within the State of Texas. This chart basically illustrates comparisons that are typical of many other States. You can see that in 2004, for example, for a periodic oral examination, or Code D-0120, that the Texas payment rate of $14.72 was roughly half of what the 50th percentile or average rate fee that dentists charge. More strikingly, if you look at the far right column on this table you will see that for 11 of the procedures that we normally monitor to try to assess adequacy of payment levels in Medicaid, that the Texas rates, as is true in many, many other States, was below the first percentile, or below what any dentist considers a reasonable charge for those services. In September 2007, however, following a settlement in the Federal court case of Frew v. Hawkins, Texas EPSTD dental Medicaid reimbursement rates for 35 common procedures were raised by 100 percent, effectively to the 50th percentile of Texas dentists' fees. This action followed more than a decade of essentially stagnant dental Medicaid rates in the face of steady modest increases in the cost of dental care, typically between 4 and 5 percent per year. Significant increases also were provided for approximately 20 additional relatively common dental procedures. Information obtained from individuals involved in the Frew case indicates that following Medicaid reimbursement rate increases in Texas the State has issued approximately 500 new Texas Medicaid dental provider numbers. The actual number of new dentists in the program is not clear at this time because in Texas a dentist may have more than one provider number if they operate in multiple locations. The entire section of the document that the AAPD submitted to the Health Care Financing Administration, now CMS, on program financing and payments, Section C in the submitted table of contents, was deleted from the published version of the Guide to Children's Dental Care in Medicaid. Topics addressed within that section are delineated within my written testimony. Additional information provided in the Guide showed that roughly $14 to $17 per enrolled beneficiary, often referred to as PMPM, or per member per month, would be necessary to pay for dental services for children enrolled in Medicaid at market rates comparable to those used by commercial dental benefit plans for employer-sponsored groups. Typical benefits administration rates would raise those levels to $17 to $20 PMPM. A subsequent actuarial analysis commissioned by the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry in 2004 generally affirmed those findings; however, available information suggests that many States allocate only a small fraction of the financial resources suggested by these actuarial studies, oftentimes on the order of $5 to $7 per beneficiary per month. Now, shifting to the impact of Medicaid rates on increases in children's use of dental services, perhaps more directly to the point, the table on the next slide shows data from CMS 416 annual reports illustrating significant increases in utilization of dental services by children covered by Medicaid in five States following significant reimbursement rate increases. The increased use of dental services demonstrated in this slide also constitutes a significant positive impact of Medicaid dental reimbursement rate increases. The rate increases, which have been implemented in these and a handful of other States, were not done in isolation; they are generally part of a broader combination of actions designed to address issues which have been identified as chronic barriers to dentist participation and access to dental care in Medicaid. Although addressing these other issues is viewed as an important element of comprehensive dental Medicaid program reform, increasing Medicaid rates to reasonable, market-based levels is critical to obtaining adequate levels of dentist participation in Medicaid. Finally, commenting on the topic of the advantages of no- risk contractual arrangements or carve-outs for dental Medicaid benefits, in addition to the essential step of raising Medicaid dental reimbursement rates to reasonable, market-based levels, many States also have taken steps to implement no-risk or administrative services only, ASO, contracts that separate or carve out dental Medicaid benefits from global Medicaid managed care arrangements. Examples include Michigan's Healthy Kids Dental Program and Medicaid dental programs in Connecticut, Maryland, Tennessee, and Virginia. Such arrangements eliminate the need for subcontracting between global Medicaid managed care organizations, which often are not in the business of providing dental benefits, and dental benefits managers. This change not only helps to simplify program administration and reduce confusion among dentals and Medicaid beneficiaries, alike; the no-risk aspect also helps to eliminate the inherent incentive in risk-based contractual arrangements for managed care organizations and/or dental benefit managers to reduce payments to dentists in order to enhance the intermediary's profits. In addition to simplifying the administration of Medicaid dental benefits, these arrangements allow States to retain greater control in establishing reimbursement rates while affording reasonable profits for dental benefits managers. Additional advantages of the single vendor approach, as was mentioned for Virginia, from the dentists' perspective include more streamlined enrollment procedures, because dentists do not need to fill out multiple enrollment forms and undergo credentialing by multiple dental benefits management organizations, and less confusion about program policies governing allowable services and billing processes, which often results from having multiple intermediaries. Moreover, contracting with a single dental Medicaid intermediary or a single vendor simplifies the contracting process, improves the ease of program monitoring, and has the potential for better contract enforcement on the part of State Medicaid programs. So, in summary, several States have taken significant steps to increase dentist participation and access to dental services in their Medicaid ETSDP programs over the past decade. Successful efforts generally have involved the necessary step of raising Medicaid dental reimbursement rates to reasonable, market-based levels, combined with additional steps to make Medicaid dental program administration more dentist friendly. Streamlining provider enrollment and implementation of no-risk, contractual arrangements that separate or carve-out Medicaid dental benefits contracting from global Medicaid managed care arrangements have been prominent parts of these strategies. In my opinion, promoting the adoption of these strategies by other States would help to substantially improve children's access to dental care and Medicaid. Overall, basically we need to give credit for the States that have demonstrated leadership in reforming their dental Medicaid programs for children; however, clearly more systematic efforts are necessary, and additional congressional and regulatory assistance, whether it be in the form of an increase in the FMAP rates, loan repayment or loan forgiveness for dental school faculty and new dentists entering practice, or demonstration programs are needed and would be welcome. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [The prepared statement of Dr. Crall follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.139 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.140 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.141 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.142 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.143 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.144 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.145 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.146 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.147 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.148 Mr. Kucinich. Thank you very much, Dr. Crall. I would like to go to questions of members of the panel. We will begin with Ms. Tucker. In conversation with my staff, you mentioned that the number of dentists in Maryland is so limited that, even if they all enrolled in the Medicaid provider network, you still would not have enough dentists to service the State's Medicaid population. What are you doing to increase the number of dentists in Maryland, or what are you thinking of doing? Ms. Tucker. What have we been doing and what are we going to be doing? Mr. Kucinich. Yes. Ms. Tucker. We have entered into dialog with our Maryland chapter of the Dental Association and other dental associations in Maryland, and we have asked them to come to the table and participate in the Medicaid program. We have told them that we will increase payment rates, and we did in July. They just had their annual meeting. At their annual meeting, we had all our dental vendors there and helped them enroll in the program, so we actually had people there and assisted with that. In the long run, we are moving toward a single vendor, which is one administrative service organization that is fee- for-service. The dentists have said that they will be more likely to participate, and many have said they won't participate until that move is made. So we have kind of been working on short-run efforts. We did enroll people during the last week at the convention, but we are also looking at the long-term changes. Mr. Kucinich. Well, you have obviously made some great strides in your pediatric dental program. Ms. Tucker. Right. Mr. Kucinich. What has provided the political will for such a change? Ms. Tucker. Which provided what? Mr. Kucinich. What has provided the political will for the strides that you have made in improving pediatric dental care? Ms. Tucker. I think the fact that it is a new Governor. This terrible tragedy occurred in our State. He made it a major priority of his administration. He pulled together all of the important stakeholders throughout the State, and our Secretary chaired the Dental Action Committee. We had everybody at the table making recommendations. Everybody was committed. They made very concrete recommendations that we could actually carry out. Mr. Kucinich. And could you tell me what have you learned about having multiple MCOs providing pediatric dental care to Medicaid enrollees? Ms. Tucker. Well, one thing that we learned, during the time when we had implemented the health choice program we actually had seen increases in utilization of services for children, but it wasn't enough. What we did learn was that this provider community is not willing to accept any administrative burdens. It is a provider community that actually doesn't like insurance as a whole, and is very able to survive with patients that are private fee-for-service patients. So one thing that we learned was that any administrative burdens caused by having multiple organizations was a real problem for this provider community. That was one thing that we definitely learned, and we are moving forward with this single vendor because of that. Mr. Kucinich. Thank you very much. Dr. Grover, the New York Times reported that the number of dentists in the United States has been roughly flat since 1990 and is forecast to decline over the next decade. Can you tell us how many dentists graduate each year and how many retire? Also, what is the total number of dentists? Is there a dentist shortage? How do we meet the growing public need for oral health services with the population of dentists remaining static? Dr. Grover. Well, the particulars of the number that graduate from the 57 dental schools that we have now I don't have with me right now, but I would be happy to provide that. I can say that there are seven new dental schools that are opening, and the number of dentists in this country, some may say that there is a maldistribution of dentists. Clearly, there are dentists needed in areas where there are currently no access to oral health services. And there are States that are experimenting with loan forgiveness and other incentives to attract providers to those areas. The exact number of dentists that are retiring is a fuzzy number. There are some that retire and then come back into practice. We have had a private practitioner retire and came and joined our staff at our health center. It is a fluid number. Mr. Kucinich. Thank you. In your testimony you discuss a community dental health coordinator who would be responsible for such dental procedures as fluoride and sealant applications, as well as performing temporization on dental cavities with materials designed to stop the cavity from getting larger. What is the difference between a community dental health coordinator and a dental hygienist, and if a difference exists, why can't a dental hygienist perform these procedures? Dr. Grover. Well, a dental hygienist can do the duties that we have outlined with the community dental health coordinator. The difference is that a hygienist is most effective and most productive in performing clinical services with a dentist. The community dental health coordinator is meant to be a community worker with oral health skills. That is a person who helps these wonderful people navigate a very complicated system, helps get families enrolled, helps patients keep their appointments, and helps with transportation issues, which in my personal experience is one of the biggest barriers that this population faces. So the community dental health coordinator is certified, not licensed, and can perform procedures, but primarily functions as a navigator and oral health educator. Mr. Kucinich. You mention that one of the reasons dentists are not interested in participating in Medicaid is because of the administrative burdens. Do you believe that carving out dental from managed care structure would work to ease those burdens and therefore attract more dentists? Dr. Grover. Well, I can only speak from the Healthy Kids perspective. I know what a success it has been in Michigan. I know that in my health center we have had great success with helping our community become more involved. Healthy Kids dental has been a success story in Michigan because of the streamlining that they have done. Other MCO organizations I can't really speak for. Mr. Kucinich. Thank you very much. Dr. Crall, in your testimony you suggest that risk-based contracts have a built-in incentive to reduce payments to dentists who provide dental services to Medicaid beneficiaries. Why is that? Dr. Crall. Well, basically if the organizations are paid on a capitated basis it creates an incentive to reduce their payout. That contributes to their bottom line. There are multiple ways in which that can be done. If reimbursement rates or payments to dentists are kept low, that will suppress the supply of services. If administrative burdens are put in place that require preauthorization that isn't consistent with what dentists experience in other commercial plans nor plans that are not risk-based, then those are ways in which the supply of dental services will be constrained, which contributes directly to the bottom line of the organization. Mr. Kucinich. So why do States continue to enter into risk- based contracts in MCOs? Dr. Crall. States, certainly over the period of the last decade or so and in the current clime, are faced with some fiscal pressures, budgetary pressures. Mr. Kucinich. That is why you would maintain---- Dr. Crall. And the global managed care arrangement is a way to sort of try to cap the increases in the health care costs. Mr. Kucinich. Do you have any opinion on whether States should enter into non-risk-based contracts? Dr. Crall. I will reiterate the opinion in my testimony, which is, in fact, I think, that non-risk-based approaches such as was used in Tennessee in a global managed care arrangement that was very much risk-based, when the dental piece was carved out in Tennessee there were substantial and very rapid sort of increases in dentists' willingness to participate, and in the State's ability to manage that program more effectively. Mr. Kucinich. Well, you kind of answered part of this previously, but States have a limited amount of funding, have to make difficult decisions on how to allocate. If States were considering increasing reimbursement rates for a limited number of procedures, which ones would you recommend be prioritized? Dr. Crall. Without getting into too much detail, I was involved both with some of the workings in the State of Texas as well as the State of Connecticut recently, and there are a relatively small number, 50 to 60 perhaps, set of procedures when you are talking about pediatric dental care that cover the vast gamut of common procedures that children need. If States concentrate on making those rates attractive to dentists, they can both be fiscally responsible and improve access to care. Mr. Kucinich. I would really appreciate it if, for this committee, if you would, as a followup, give us a letter that would recommend, based on your experience, kind of a prioritization. Dr. Crall. I would be happy to do that, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Kucinich. That would be helpful. I would like to go to Dr. Casey. How has adopting a preventive disease model both improved the oral health of children and helped North Carolina reduce Medicaid costs? Dr. Casey. As of this time, Mr. Chairman, we have not been able to demonstrate cost savings, but additional research is ongoing. We are looking at pay claims over a long period of time, up to 7 years of age. So you have to understand that it is a complex research issue, and we hope in the future to demonstrate cost savings to our program. Mr. Kucinich. Did you have any plans to enhance that program model? Dr. Casey. I am sorry? Mr. Kucinich. Do you have any plans to enhance the preventive model? Dr. Casey. Yes, we do. We are actually working on a pilot model--and I address this a little bit in my written testimony--a pilot model to facilitate referrals from participating physicians to general dentists who have been trained to see kids in this age group, zero to 3\1/2\ years of age. Mr. Kucinich. So if States were interested in creating a prevention and disease control model, how would they go about doing that? What would you recommend? Dr. Casey. Well, I would recommend modeling their program after something similar to ours. Other States have addressed the issue, as well. Mr. Kucinich. Now, did you get support from CMS when you did that? Dr. Casey. We did. Mr. Kucinich. And so, from your experience, if the States contact CMS at this point they would be ready to assist them, based on your experience? Dr. Casey. I think that CMS in disseminating information of best practices, we plan to apply for a promising practices designation for CMS to help them spread the word about our program. Mr. Kucinich. Thank you. Mr. Finnerty, you mentioned that one of the reforms adopted by Virginia was strengthening its relationship with the State's dental community. Can you describe what that entailed and how it worked to improve access and utilization of pediatric dental care? Mr. Finnerty. Mr. Chairman, I think that is probably the most important thing that we did. Before we put into place any of the reforms that we were able to achieve, the first thing that I did as a Medicaid Director was to sit down with the Executive Director of the Virginia Dental Association and say, ``what do we do to fix this program?'' We started a dialog actually 2 years before our reform program actually went into effect, and the relationship that we have developed not only helped to develop the program, but once we had the program in place they were one of our biggest advocates in trying to go out to their membership to say, Look, the State has done what we have asked for. Now you all need to step up and join this program and treat these kids. It has been absolutely essential to it. Mr. Kucinich. Why did you decide to increase reimbursement rates? Did you think increasing reimbursement rates would have been enough to improve access and utilization? Mr. Finnerty. We increased the rates because they were very, very low, particularly on some codes. They were less bad, if that is the proper English, in some areas, but very, very bad in others. In terms of whether or not that would have been enough to get increased participation, I think it would have helped, but I really don't think that it was sufficient. I think that it was a necessary part of the reforms, but without making the administrative changes to the program I really don't think it would have had the impact that the combined effect has had or the combined effect of both administrative reforms and fee increases. Mr. Kucinich. So how did carving out dental out of the MCO model impact access and utilization? Mr. Finnerty. That, along with the fee increases, as I mention in my testimony, has increased our utilization quite significantly for children 3 to 20. We have seen a 55 percent increase in utilizations from just prior to the start of our new program, 2 years hence from that point in 2007. So it has had a major effect. We would not have seen those increases without the changes, I am very confident. Mr. Kucinich. Now, in your testimony you mention that the disruption of enrollment can disrupt care. Why is that the case? Mr. Finnerty. Well, when a child is receiving ongoing dental care in Virginia, children can move between managed care organizations. We have five of them that we contract with. If a child is receiving ongoing care, if the child moved from one plan to another and the dentist that was treating the child initially is not a participating dentist in the other plan, then that child is going to have to find another provider, and so that is transitioning the care to another provider and that type of thing. Under our streamlined program, all of the dentists participate and contract with one vendor, so, regardless of what health plan they are in, they get their dental care through one plan, and that has virtually been eliminated, the problem of transitioning. Mr. Kucinich. Thank you, Mr. Finnerty. Ms. Lowe, according to your testimony, utilization of dental care in Georgia did a turn-around between 2001 and 2007. What do you think CMS could have done to stop this deleterious trend? Ms. Lowe. What could CMS have done, sir? I am sorry, I didn't hear the last part. Mr. Kucinich. What could CMS have done during that period? Ms. Lowe. I think that the State was actually making progress during that period because of the changes in the fees, which went up, and also the changes in the administrative approach to things, which greatly simplified how things were going. That was over the period of 1999 to 2004. Then, when the State eliminated those 11 dental codes from payment, things crashed, and it crashed in the treatment area. So possibly if CMS had said, sorry, you can't eliminate payments or reduce payments for those codes, that would have made a difference. Mr. Kucinich. Well, did increasing reimbursement rates by 33 percent have any impact on access and utilization? Ms. Lowe. Yes, it did. I think that was a major contributor to the improvements that we saw over a period of years, but it was pretty shocking how fast it could crash just because of the budget cuts that subsequently took place. Mr. Kucinich. So tell us what Georgia did to reform its pediatric dental program under Medicaid, in a nutshell. Ms. Lowe. In a nutshell, what they did over several years was to raise the fees quite substantially until they were at the 75th percentile. They also initially, when we were still operating our payment system under the old EDS, which was actually a DOS-based system and quite antique, at least standardized the forms and used standard dental codes, which had not been done before. Those two things together made a big difference. And then the State also changed to ACS from EDS and brought the State into a Windows-based system for processing claims, and that made a big difference eventually. It was a rocky start, but eventually it made a big difference in the way providers were able to file claims. They were able to check out claims online. They were able to check eligibility online. After that, after those improvements actually led to increases in utilization and in the number of dentists participating, the State did the budget cut, which eliminated payment for some of the codes, and then decided that they would require the children to enroll in capitated managed care. So we have had those two disruptions. Mr. Kucinich. Thank you very much. I don't have any further questions of the panel. Does Mr. Cummings have any questions? Mr. Cummings. I just have a few questions, Mr. Chairman. I apologize. It has been a very hectic day. I apologize to our witnesses, but I am glad you are here. Ms. Tucker, I have said many times that, in light of Deamonte Driver's death, I was glad to see that Governor O'Malley convened the Dental Action Committee to try to improve children's access to dental care. Out of Deamonte's death--I am sure it has been mentioned already--a lot of what we are doing now came out of that. His death has had a profound impact. I was further pleased to learn that the Dental Action Committee adopted all of the recommendations that I provided to the Governor, which is very unusual. I think the Governor took this situation very seriously. And, of course, we will be closely watching to see what goes on from here. One of the changes that is currently in progress is the move to a single vendor for providing Medicaid dental services in the State of Maryland. Where are we in that process? Ms. Tucker. We issued the RFPs in the early part of the summer, and all of the proposals were due at the beginning of September. We received five huge responses. Currently there is a RFP Procurement Committee process going through to analyzes all of the different vendors. It was a very, very complex RFP. The requirements were quite extensive. So that committee is going through and is in the process of picking the best of the five people or groups that applied. The goal will be to have that whole process done by the beginning of December so it can go to our Board of Public Works in January and be awarded so that we can begin the transition to the new vendor starting March 1st. Mr. Cummings. What kind of oversight do you anticipate there being with regard to the vendor once they are chosen? Ms. Tucker. The deliverables are quite extensive and incredible, so there will be a lot, and there will be a lot of oversight for this particular project. The Dental Action Committee didn't go away after they put forth their proposals. They are still an action committee. They are still going to be involved. But the State, the Health Department will be extremely involved in the day-to-day monitoring of that contract. Mr. Cummings. Now, Dr. Grover, again, I want to thank you for your testimony also and thank you for all that you are doing for children in Michigan, but I think your work is truly an example of what dentistry has the power to achieve. I am pleased also with many of the things that the American Dental Association has done to improve children's access to dental care across the country. I am concerned, however, that some actions by the ADA may have the opposite effect. You mention in your testimony the ADA's recognition that a work force shortage exists in the dental field and that alternate models need to be explored, and I appreciate that recognition. But you also describe the ADA's recognition for such a position as the community dental health coordinator. I think this model is a solid concept and it ought to be tested, but I do think other models ought to also be tested. Do you agree with this concept that other models of an alternate dental provider should be tested? Dr. Grover. I think that alternate models of providing dental services, if they involve irreversible procedures, could be potentially dangerous. In my experience as a dental director, where I see the need to be the greatest is in helping families work through the system and helping families keep appointments, have transportation, and handle some of the cultural and language barriers. Those models--and we have three sites which are going to be piloted--will help the dental team be more productive. I think the challenge is in working with the families not only to prevent disease but to navigate the system, which can be quite burdensome for families to understand. Mr. Cummings. Well, we saw that in the case of Deamonte Driver. The mother of Deamonte, as you are, I am sure, well aware, when trying to get services for his brother contacted over 40 doctors who said that they would take patients on Medicaid, and they weren't able to accomplish that. They even went to a lawyer type person to try to help them, like a legal type clinic, and still had problems. It is interesting. I notice that what you just said, you brought up something that I have heard dentists bring up over and over again, and I never thought of it until we got involved in this issue, and that is the issue of people keeping appointments. The dentists tell us that one of the reasons why they are not that interested sometimes in doing this kind of work is because the population that they deal with, of course, don't show up for appointments. Time is money, and they have but so many appointments they can set in a day, and of course when people don't show up they don't make money. So the pilots that you are talking about, how do they address that issue? Dr. Grover. Well, the pilot program, for example, in Jackson County, would help families that have appointments at my dental clinic in my health center and would help us track people who miss appointments. There is a variety of reasons why people miss appointments. But confirming those appointments and calling and, in fact, visiting the home of the family where there is a missed appointment can help us track those children more effectively and get them the care that they need. I think that would complete the puzzle, because, quite honestly, I see that as a huge barrier to folks. And it is not enough just for my health center, which has a van, and my health center, which confirms appointments, but to have somebody go to the home, to have somebody work with the mom. There are some community health workers in California that do that, to help track these kids and make sure nobody falls in between the cracks. There are too many that is happening to. Mr. Cummings. Well, you know, it is interesting that when you look at the way mothers take care of newborns, there are certain things that seem to be clear that they must do, and they do them. I think when you look at things like crib death, things of that nature, the word has gotten out that you do certain things to make sure that your babies survive. I am just wondering, could we do a better job with regard to dental education? I am sure you may all have gone over this. It seems to me that a lot of people don't have a clue about how significant the relationship is between the teeth and the rest of the body. Not a clue. So I would think that a mother and father, if they really had a clear understanding of this relationship, that might be helpful in, one, them staying on top of their dental appointments and making sure that they made them, because I don't think that when you get that well baby appointment--is that what it is called? Dr. Grover. Yes. Mr. Cummings. I don't think a lot of people go about missing those appointments. They know that they have to do these things. But it seems to me that if people really know that the health and perhaps the life of their child is dependent upon them taking certain actions, it seems to me that you might get some results there. One of the things that we try to do in the SCHIP bill, which the President vetoed twice, was a provision in it whereby mothers would be exposed and fathers exposed to information about dental care from the very beginning, from before the child is born. They would be educated on that and provided pamphlets, things of that nature. I am just wondering what do you all do in that regard, and what is ADA's position in that regard? Dr. Grover. Well, the ADA position, you are absolutely correct on many points. The ADA's position is to encourage a dental home, and the first dental exam by 12 months of age. What we are doing in Michigan, in particular, is we are having a pediatric oral health summit where physicians and dentists are coming together so that the physicians know what they can talk and discuss with the mom. We at our health center do have OB visits, particularly scheduled in special slots, because we know that a significant factor in children receiving oral health care is if the mom receives oral health care. That is a big component. I have also recently worked on a DVD for Delta Dental on infant oral health care, and we would look forward to Delta distributing that nationwide. Education is key, as you have pointed out correctly. Mr. Cummings. And what does the ADA want the Congress to do? I am sure you have testified. What would you like to see us do? Dr. Grover. Well, we have an Essential Oral Health Care Act, H.R. 2472, which we feel is key, but also to encourage CMS to adopt some guidance for States that are making some headway, that are making some successes, and encourage States to develop similar models. I think the rising tide lifts all the boats, and I think what goes on in one State could go on in another. I think we need to work at making oral health part of our cultural conversation, and I don't know that is totally up to Congress, but I am sure that would be a big help. Mr. Cummings. All right. I don't have anything else. Mr. Kucinich. I thank Mr. Cummings for the excellent work that he has done on this matter from its inception, so thank you very much for your presence here. I want to thank the witnesses. This has been a meeting of the Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The title of today's hearing has been: Necessary Reforms to Pediatric Dental Care under Medicaid. We have had two panels, and I want to thank the members of the second panel for your contributions. Each of you has helped to sharpen this committee's awareness of where we have been, where we are headed, and what can be done to improve pediatric dental care for the Nation's children. Thank you for your own individual commitments in that regard and the work that you have done in your respective capacities on not only practice but in the States, as well. I want to thank the Members and the staff who have participated, and the staff, in particular, for the excellent work they have done in researching this from the beginning. Without any further comments, and finally with the unanimous consent request to insert the testimony of Burton Edelstein into the record, this committee stands adjourned. [The prepared statement of Mr. Edelstein follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.149 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.150 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.151 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.152 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.153 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.154 [Whereupon, at 1:25 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] [Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.155 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.156 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.157 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.158 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.159 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.160 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 51701.161