August 25, 2015
The following is a summary of the key points of the meeting requested by VNPP & VACSB and attended by representatives from DMAS, DBHDS, Magellan, VACSB & VNPP. Thank you to Kimberly White for the Summary Notes below!
- QMHP-E: DMAS Representative thinks it was an oversight that QMHP-Es are not able to provide MHSS although they are able to provide IIH. He checked while were there and said he does not see where this is a regulation so it is rather a manual oversight and that he feels strongly it will be updated.
- Definition of new service: We suggested that this be taken out altogether as it is confusing. t said it is a leftover from IIH and the VICAP and can just be taken out.
- Description of VICAP timeframes which are contrary: DMAS Representative explained what the timeframes actually are and took down our suggestions on how to make those more clear. We were all fine with the timeframes once they were described but told him they need to be made more clear/understandable.
- Use of the word at-risk – Group came up with an alternative word/definition for the use of at-risk to separate out “imminent harm” from “harm happening in the very near future should this service not be put into place.”
- Care/Coordination – Magellan/DMAS both agreed the terms are very confusing as DBHDS, DMAS, and Magellan all use different terms. Part of this can be cleared up by taking out a descriptor on pg. 11 which confuses the issue further. Also we suggested that it all be called the same thing but that we as providers have the understanding that how Magellan, DMAS, providers etc…implement such coordination will vary depending on their roles on the member’s care.
- Supervision component by LMHPs being taken out of the requirements for IIH and MHSS: This will be taken out but was not driven by DHP (which was my concern) and rather by DBHDS. DBHDS rep stated this was actually just a guidance doc given out before she was even hired and that DBHDS should not be giving out those type of documents as it is too confusing. This is actually a huge deal as all providers have been operating under this as it is (was) in the manual apparently not backed up by regs. Of NOTE: I expressed concern about feeling that if DMAS gains the help from DHP and DHP does not have a good grasp on the services we provide and the role of LMHPs in those services that it could greatly impact the use of LMHPs and the provisions surrounding them with regards to implementation of DMAS services. Furthermore, I stated that I feel they should have no role in that part of regulations only how LMHPs perform and under what provisions with regards with their supervision toward staff who are seeking licensure. Not in any other capacity. DMAS Representative said that in all of his experiences with them they take no voice in those other areas and always explicitly state that they can only speak to what LMHPs do with regards to supervising others toward licensure.
Other issues addressed:
- Training: Some of the items DMAS Representative feels a provider training needs to occur around because the manual may still never be fully clear was with regards to the VICAP and the timeframes and with how providers should understand their role in service coordination.
- MHSS rate: This WILL not change. No 15 minute increments and no changing units to hours.
Check new information in the post re MHSS below!