Effective Budget Tactics
for
Agency Budget Officials
by Arvy Smith
May 13, 2008
Table of Contents
Section Page
Introduction 2
Literature Review 3
Methods 7
Results and Discussion
Importance to Legislators 10
Rankings and Scores by Respondent Types 15
Comparison of Importance to Legislators and Agency Impact 27
Narrative Comments 31
Conclusion 32
References 35
Appendix
Cover Letter and Survey Document - Legislators 2
Cover Letter and Survey Document - Analysts 5
Cover Letter and Survey Document - Budget Officials 8
Acknowledgements
I would especially like to thank Dr. Jason Jensen, Ph.D., MPA Director, UND Department of Political Science and Public Administration who provided guidance in strategy and statistical analysis and reviewed the report. I would also like to thank Sheila Peterson, Director of Finance, North Dakota Office of Management and Budget, Allen Knudson, North Dakota Legislative Council, Representative Al Carlson, and Representative Bob Skarphol who piloted the survey tool and provided guidance to its contents.Introduction
Every two years North Dakota state agency directors, accountants and program managers shift their focus from their routine duties to the important process of budget strategy and preparation. Agency personnel, governor and legislator’s analysts and special interest groups spend many hours developing, discussing and reviewing budget requests and detailed data, supporting proposals for consideration by the state legislature. Despite their efforts, often times the legislature approves funding for programs that state agency officials never requested or even envisioned, the governor never considered or was made aware of, and powerful interest groups and lobbyists did not represent. What then impacted legislators to approve these proposals? This study seeks to identify the factors that are most important to legislators in approving budget proposals and which of these factors agency personnel can impact.
There are many important budget issues that the governor and the legislature consider and address each biennial legislative session in North Dakota. Constituents and interest groups are organizing now more than ever to get their budget issues addressed. These are often powerful actors that can be a part of agency budget success. But often, even one constituent can make a difference. For instance the 2005 Legislative Assembly passed smoke-free workplace legislation when interest groups mobilized and a 7-year old asthmatic boy testified about how unfair it is that he could not go to the bowling alley because of the effect second hand smoke has on him. An appropriation of $150,000 was passed by the 2005 Legislature because of efforts by one family impacted by a disease known as Russel Silver Syndrome. And in the 2007 session, one woman, whose child had died of a heart attack in high school, succeeded in getting funding for automated external defibrillators in schools. But should it have to take a personal crisis in someone’s life to make appropriate change? How can agency budget officials bring the most appropriate and meaningful information to legislators for consideration?
Studies note that the economy, the budget process itself, and the relationships between the governor and the legislature all have great impact on whether budget proposals are favorably considered by the legislature.[1] State agency personnel have little or no control over these factors. Identifying the factors that are most important to legislators in approving budget proposals and which of these factors agency personnel can impact most will lead to identification of effective strategies that agency budget officials can use to get favorable consideration of their budget proposals. Training of public administration students and practitioners on this topic will not only help them perform a very important part of their job, ensuring that they have adequate resources to accomplish their mission, but will result in better government as well.
Using the results of a survey of legislators, legislative fiscal analysts, Office of Management and Budget analysts and agency budget officials I conducted, I will identify those factors that are most important to legislators in approving budget proposals and those that agency personnel can impact most. I will determine the most important factors to each group of respondents, determine if there are significant differences between the groups, and analyze reasons for any differences. I will then compare the importance of factors to legislators with the amount of impact budget officials feel they can have on each factor to determine the level of agency impact on the most important factors to legislators.
Literature Review
Published literature regarding effective budget techniques is limited. In Stillman II’s “Public Administration” she indicates that budget decisions are greatly impacted by the variety of different actors (agency officials, legislative and executive analysts, interest groups, individuals and courts), as well as the budget process itself and the economic environment. The budget actors must consider the budget process and environment and their most effective strategies are to document need and the ability to save money[2]. The most pertinent work was done by Irene S. Rubin in 2006. In her book “The Politics of Public Budgeting” Rubin provides further detail on agencies’ strategies including ways to make agency requests more urgent or necessary than other requests, tactics to make requests seem cheap or cost effective, linking proposals to priorities of powerful players or legislators themselves, and finally tactics to lessen the competition for funding[3]. This work provides detailed guidance to agency budget officials to get budget proposals passed. However, I could find no evidence that she referenced any studies asking legislators what they consider as important when reviewing budget proposals.
Additional work was done by Sydney Duncombe and Richard Kinney in 1987 when they interviewed 100 officials from five western states[4]. The study used both qualitative and quantitative techniques to determine how agency officials, executive budget analysts and legislative analysts define agency budget success. Findings indicated that respondents thought that obtaining sufficient funds to meet agency needs and maintain agency programs, maintaining good relationships with legislative and executive budget staff, gaining flexibility in using funds, and good budget implementation were the most important indicators of success. The appropriation amount compared to the previous budget or the budget request were not the most important indicators as suggested in earlier studies. Economic and fiscal conditions have a great impact on how agencies approach the budget process and define success.
Based on my background as an executive budget analyst for 12 years and an agency budget official for six years, Duncombe and Kinney’s findings are consistent with what I’ve experienced over the past 18 years. This research does not, however, address successful techniques agency officials can use to achieve budget success; it focuses on how budget success is defined. It was also admittedly conducted during tougher state economic conditions which are speculated to have an impact on how successful agencies can be.
Although there are limits in agency officials’ ability to lobby, I find many of the suggestions in Wolpe and Levine’s “Lobbying Congress” relevant to state agency budget success. Their five commandments for lobbyists – tell the truth, never promise more than you can deliver, know how to listen, work with staff, and don’t spring any surprises – can certainly apply to bureaucrats’ work with the executive office and legislators in getting their budget proposals approved[5]. Most of the fundamentals of lobbying presented can also be applied to state agency strategies for budget success. But again it does not ask the individuals that make the final decisions – the legislators themselves – regarding which factors are most important to get a proposal passed in the legislature
In “Memos to the Governor”, Second Edition (2004), Dall W. Forsythe advises governors that there are four things that consistently affect budget dynamics – the economy, the extent of changes proposed, incentives for cooperation or competition among leaders, and the political calendar or timing of elections of the involved players. Forsythe’s advice to governors is that there are no “iron laws” but only rules of thumb when it comes to state budgeting[6]. His perspectives are general and do not relate to effective methods agencies can use to get budget proposals passed.
In 1968 Ira Sharkansky looked at 592 major agency budgets for one budget period in 19 different states between 1963 and 1969. He used the percentage of the agency’s request for the upcoming budget period appropriated by the legislature and the percentage of current expenditures appropriated by the legislature for the upcoming period as measures of budget success. Sharkansky concluded that the Governor was more powerful than the legislature on budget matters and considered the Governor’s potential tenure in office, Governor’s veto powers, party competition, the number of elected state executive officials, and several other factors to contribute to gubernatorial power. Sharkansky also finds that the Governor’s support appears to be a critical ingredient in budget success of individual agencies and that the more agencies request the more they receive. Finally he notes that various economic factors also affect the Governor’s recommendations and legislative action on budgets[7]. This study looked at only one period for each state and did not consider the respective parties of the Governor and each house in the Legislature. In addition although it looked at several agencies in each state, the study was conducted at a total state budget level in which case one agency’s large increase could be offset by several medium sized agency decreases. It also did not look at funding sources, the availability of those resources, changes in the budget process and state requirements for a balanced budget.
In 1987 Joel A. Thompson replicated Sharkansky’s work and assessed the impact of recent executive and legislative reform efforts, the changing intergovernmental environment, and the impact of various funding sources. Thompson specifically noted that state governments’ professionalism has increased. Thompson also noted that his period of study was a period of higher inflation than Sharkansky’s. With greater revenues available and greater inflation, agencies are likely to be more acquisitive (ask for more) and were also more likely to receive more. He indicated that increments from the base, not the size of the base are more important for decision-makers and that there was a significant decline in gubernatorial influence in budget proposals[8]. Factors included in my survey include agency professionalism and gubernatorial influence. My survey was conducted during a period of state revenue surpluses, similar to the period of Sharkansky’s study. This factor must be considered in determining generalizability of study findings.
Early literature focused on the competing powers of the governor and the legislature, measured budget success by comparing the appropriation to the previous period’s budget and the requested budget, and suggested that the more an agency asks for, the more they will get. More recent literature considers other measures of agency budget success and factors that impact legislative and gubernatorial budget decisions by surveying legislative and executive fiscal analysts. Additional literature provides fundamentals for lobbying Congress, some of which may apply to state agency budget efforts. But nowhere in the published literature were legislators themselves asked about the factors that affect their decisions to approve budget proposals. This study uses the information from this literature review, as well as my own experience, to develop a survey of legislators, fiscal analysts and agency budget officials and determine the most important factors to legislators in approving budget proposals.
Methods
In order to understand this study, it is important for the reader to understand the budget process in North Dakota. The executive branch, through the governor and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), is responsible for developing the budget process and submitting the governor’s budget plan to the North Dakota legislature. Legislators, by law, spend up to 80 days reviewing the governor’s proposal, as well as many other budget proposals included in bills submitted to the legislative assembly. Approval of final budget appropriations for state agencies often occurs in the final hours of the last legislative day. In North Dakota, the budget must be balanced, meaning that although they are able to incur debt for long term assets, they cannot approve a budget that ends with a negative general fund balance.
Budget guidelines are provided to state agency budget officials in April of each even numbered year and, unless an extension is approved, budgets are to be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget by July 15 of that year. After nine months of budget preparation and OMB fiscal analyst review and analysis for inclusion in the governor’s budget plan, agency budget officials present their budget proposals to the North Dakota Legislative Assembly.
I approached the research question by developing and administering a survey to a sample of North Dakota legislators, analysts and agency budget officials. Based on my review of available literature, my discussions with key budget players, and my own twelve years of experience as an executive budget analyst with the Office of Management and Budget and six years as an agency budget official, I identified 27 factors potentially influencing legislative budget decisions. Survey participants were asked to rate the importance of each factor to legislators in approving budget proposals, on a Likert scale from 1 to 6, based on the respondents’ own observations and experiences. In addition, agency budget officials were asked to rate each of these 27 factors as to agency budget officials’ ability to impact or control these factors. These 27 factors are the variables used for this study. Refer to the Appendix for copies of the survey containing the 27 factors or variables and cover letters sent to each of the three types of respondents – legislators, analysts, and agency budget officials.
In completing the survey, respondents were to assume that North Dakota was not experiencing a budget shortfall and that the overall state budget would tolerate a moderate (5% per year) general fund increase in expenditures. The survey was conducted in March and April of 2008. My intent was to include a full population of factors in the survey, including those that I thought were more important and less important to legislators, and those that agency budget officials have both more control over and less control over. This allowed me to compare responses and gauge the reliability of the information I received from the survey.
The survey was sent to all North Dakota legislators that have served on appropriations committees during the last three legislative sessions. In addition it was sent to legislative fiscal and executive budget analysts, and to agency budget officials that have served in their position within the last three legislative sessions. Legislators were limited to those serving on appropriations committees because these committees make recommendations to the full legislative body regarding passage of appropriations bills and, for the most part, their recommendations are generally accepted by their respective chamber. The Legislative Council employs around five full time legislative fiscal analysts who provide information to legislators regarding agency budgets and all appropriations bills. The Office of Management and Budget employs around five full time executive budget analysts to analyze agency budget proposals and appropriations bills and make recommendations to the governor. Agency budget officials are defined as the person in the state agency who is most responsible for the budget strategy for the agency. In smaller agencies this may be the agency director; in others it could be the deputy or assistant director, the chief financial officer or a separate legislative liaison that approves all budget testimony of the agency.
I had anticipated that survey response rates could be an issue, particularly for legislators, for a variety of reasons, including politics. This is why I developed the survey process in a way that it provided total anonymity to respondents. I also piloted the survey with two legislators, a legislative fiscal analyst, and a budget analyst, which addressed any concerns they had. Finally, I obtained support for the survey from the chair of the Legislative Council interim committee and was able to indicate that support in the cover letter for the survey of legislators. As a result I obtained a good overall response rate of 64% (77 of 121 surveyed). I received a good response rate of 59% (29 out of 49 surveyed) from legislators and in fact, received positive feedback from a number of legislators who responded to the survey. In only two cases did a legislator fail to indicate political party affiliation. My response rate for other respondents was good as well, with 67% of analysts responding (8 out of 12 surveyed) and 67% of agency budget officials (40 of 60 surveyed) responding.
The purpose of this study was to identify 1) the factors that are most important to legislators in approving budget proposals and 2) which of these factors agency personnel can impact the most. In the survey, legislators were asked to identify how important each of the 27 factors is to them in approving budget proposals. In addition, analysts and state agency budget officials were asked to identify how important they think each of the 27 factors are to legislators in approving budget proposals. Finally state agency budget officials were asked to indicate how much impact they feel they can have on the 27 factors. The budget officials were also asked to provide any additional comments regarding effective budget tactics.
This study used descriptive statistics to analyze and rank the mean and standard deviation of each of the 27 factors both as to legislative importance and agency impact. ANOVA or Analysis of Variance was used to evaluate whether there were differences in how important subsets of the respondents think each factor is to legislators. Subsets of respondents included legislators, analysts, and budget officials. Legislators were further stratified to House legislators, Senate legislators, Republican legislators and Democratic legislators. In addition I presented descriptive statistics comparing the mean of these 27 factors of legislative importance by respondent type to the mean of agency impact on these 27 factors to determine if there was consistency between legislative importance and the ability of an agency to have an impact.
Results and Discussion
Importance to Legislators
The mean and standard deviation of the 27 factors of importance to legislators are presented in Table 1. Each respondent type is presented – legislators, analysts, and agency budget officials. They are presented in order of rank by total respondents with the rank number for each respondent type also presented.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Notes: The Total column contains the mean for the aggregate ranking of the three respondent types based on a Likert scale from 1 to 6. The value of n varied for each factor and respondent type as “Don’t Know” was allowed as a response and was eliminated from the sample. For Total n varied from 62 to 77; for Legislators n was 28 to 29; for Analysts n was from 6 to 8 with only one factor rated < n =" 29;" n =" 9;" n =" 18;" n =" 18;" n =" 9." n =" 29;" n =" 9;" n =" 18;" n =" 18;" n =" 9." title="" style="mso-endnote-id: edn1" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=5860132984087433256#_ednref1" name="_edn1">[1] Rubin Irene S., 2006. The Politics of Public Budgeting. Fifth Edition. CQ Press.
[2] Stillman II, Richard J., 2005. Public Administration Concepts and Cases, Eighth Edition, Houghton Mifflin Company.
[3] Rubin, Irene S., 2006. The Politics of Public Budgeting. Fifth Edition. CQ Press.
[4] Duncombe, Sydney and Kinney, Richard. Spring 1987. Agency Budget Success: How it is Defined by Budget Officials in Five Western States. Public Budgeting & Finance.
[5] Wolpe, Bruce C. and Levine, Bertram J. 1996. Lobbying Congress. Second Edition. Congressional Quarterly, Inc.
[6] Forsythe, Dall W., 2004. Memos to the Governor. Second Edition. Georgetown University Press.
[7] Sharkansky, Ira. 1968. Agency Requests, Gubernatorial Support and Budget Success in State Legislatures. The American Political Science Review, Vol. 62, No. 4, Dec 1968.
[8] Thompson, Joel A.1987. Agency Requests, Gubernatorial Support, and Budget Success in State Legislatures Revisited.
The Journal of Politics, Vol. 49, No. 3 Aug 1987.
Professor Emeritus -- Dr. Tom Seymour from West Fargo, North Dakota -- Professor, Minot State University, MSU Faculty Regents Award (2015) -- PAST Peer Reviewer (Higher Learning Commission - Chicago); - Author and Presenter Board of Directors, SRT Communications, Inc and Minot City Alderman - Ward 5 (2010-June, 2016) PAST - Editor-in-Chief (North Dakota State Senator (2002-2010) 2017-Cass County Electric Cooperative- Board of Directors
Monday, October 6, 2008
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Monday....October 6 ...... www.thlaw.net/about.html --- Case Law
Home: www.thelaw.netAbout: http://www.thelaw.net/about.htmlCase Law: http://www.thelaw.net/caselaw.htmlSoftware: http://www.thelaw.net/software.htmlFAQs: http://www.thelaw.net/faqs.htmlReferences: http://www.thelaw.net/references.htmlSubscribe: https://fog.he.net/~lawnet/subscription_list.htmlRecently, a medical malpractice suit that was removed from Mercer County Pennsylvania Common Pleas Court to Federal court was sent back to Mercer County. Plaintiffs Sonual and Ruth Williams are represented in this litigation by Attorney Regis M. McClelland in connection with circumstances related to an alleged ill-advised knee replacement surgery.See, http://www.sharonherald.com/local/local_story_266152556.htmlUNANTICIPATED TIME AND EXPENSEHere's a suit that originates in state court only to be removed to Federal court. The removal is automatic. Any objections are litigated in Federal court. This additional procedure and time ups the ante for Attorney McClelland who presumably has to underwrite these unanticipated litigation expenses; including legal research costs.JUSTICE STARTS HEREThis is a job for TheLaw.net Equalizer 7.0. See, http://www.thelaw.net/software.htmlAll subscribers to TheLaw.net enjoy unfettered access to a national plan.See Coverage: http://www.thelaw.net/caselaw.htmlIf Attorney McClelland is burdened with an outmoded, expensive Pennsylvania Slice from Westlaw, he's only going to find TWO published state cases since 1950 containing the phrases "medical malpractice" and "knee replacement". But, as a subscriber to TheLaw.net, in one click he can "go national" and find 118 matching opinions from among our 315 Federal and state jurisdictions.Moreover, since he has to litigate the removal issue, as our subscriber, he can go beyond his primary Federal districts and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. With TheLaw.net, subscribers search all 97 Federal districts, all bankruptcy, all 12 Federal appellate courts and the U.S. Supreme Court. Done.The difference isn't only coverage and price. As our subscriber, Attorney McClelland would do this for $48 a month annualized. He would also receive:EXPEDITED RESULTS ANALYSIS--One Click To Most Cited Opinion--One Click To Most Recently Cited Opinion--One Click Sort By Relevancy--One Click Soft By JurisdictionONE SEARCH BOX FITS ALL SEARCHES--Boolean Search: and, or, not, near, within--Search By Statute, Rule, Regulation or Case Citation--Natural Language--One Click Citation and Multiple Citation LookupYOUR NEW LEGAL RESEARCH PLAN FROM THELAW.NET--Every plan is SUPER-SIZED to include all 315 Federal and State Jurisdictions!--One lawyer and a paralegal search from Portland ME to Portland OR for $575 annually!--Two lawyers and two paralegals search from Jacksonville to Juneau for $995 annually!--Five lawyers and their non-lawyer assistants search from Denver to D.C. for $1995 annually!--A 25 lawyer enterprise searches from Mt. Washington to Mt. Whitney for $8,995!--30 Day Unconditional Money Back Guarantee!--Install at work, at home and on your laptop!>>>SUBSCRIBE INSTANTLY ONLINE: https://fog.he.net/~lawnet/subscription_list.htmlAs a subscriber to TheLaw.net www.thelaw.net - you search from coast-to-coast. You get: 1 U.S. 1 to date; 1 F.2d 1 to- date; 1 F.Supp. 1 to date; 1 B.R. 1 to date; the 50 states and D.C.See, http://www.thelaw.net/caselaw.htmlYou get: official pagination throughout; official citations throughout; one-click, automatic dual-column printing; a built-in citatory; opinions cited within an opinion are hyperlinked; search terms are highlighted and bolded. TheLaw.net also includes a search term navigation utility that allows you to instantly jump to each instance of any portion of any search term.See, SOFTWARE: http://www.thelaw.net/software.htmlCASE STUDIES: NO CHAINS. NO RESTRICTIONS. NO OUTSIDE THE PLAN MESSAGES!1. alternate bid http://www.thelaw.net/case_study_01.html2. negligent referral http://www.thelaw.net/case_study_02.html3. Managing Information Overload: http://www.thelaw.net/case_study_03.htmlPOWER SEARCH1. Find opinions citing your case for any opinion you specify.2. When validating a citation, easily restrict your search only to those courts that actually have the power to overrule your case.3. When your best argument is persuasive, Go National in one mouse click.4. TheLaw.net indexes opinions from all 315 Federal and state jurisdictions. This gives you complete flexibility. Run a primary jurisdiction search in one mouse click by isolating your state, Federal districts and bankruptcy courts, Federal circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court. (Try that with Westlaw!)YOU'RE FIVE MINUTES AWAY FROM USING THELAW.NET!Take advantage of America's #1 Legal Research Value Proposition!For instant access, subscribe online via our secure site:https://fog.he.net/~lawnet/subscription_list.html >>>$48 a month annualized for one attorney and one paralegal installing at work, at home and on their laptop! All subject to a 30-day, unconditional money-back guarantee! >>>Flat-rate, unlimited access! >>>No surcharges to print, cut, copy, paste, view, download. No surprises! >>>The only way you pay us more money is when you renew! >>>Subscribe in October and your renewal rate is GUARANTEED not to be higher than your original subscription rate for TWO RENEWAL TERMS!TheLaw.net Corporation is in its tenth year of making it affordable and easy for local practitioners to do their job at the highest possible level!That said, price is no longer the best reason to go with TheLaw.net. It's our search engine. It's just the best, easiest, most intuitive legal research tool available.Tech, reference and research support are included at no extra charge via TheLaw.net Virtual Assistant. It's a great free search and retrieval service for whenever you stumble or get confused.TheLaw.net Equalizer 7.0 is NOT an alternative to Westlaw. It's the solution!www.thelaw.netWe look forward to being of service!Regards,MARK WHITNEYTheLaw.net CorporationSan Diego - Chicago, USAToll Free: 1.877.4.LAWNETwww.thelaw.netmwhitney@thelaw.netJustice starts here.****************************************************************PRIVACY STATEMENT: TheLaw.net Corporation respects your time. We believe this advertisement is the fastest, least intrusive method of originating contact with busy professionals.However, we've always provided several free mechanisms allowing recipients to remove themselves easily and at no cost. This message was sent to: tseymour@state.nd.us. To remove this email address go to: http://www.thelaw.net/remove.htm or send an email to remove@thelaw.net and enter tseymour@state.nd.us or call toll free 1.877.452.9638 or write TheLaw.net Corporation, 6640 Lusk Blvd., Suite A205, San Diego, CA 92121.**************************************************************** >RESOURCES SORTED BY STATE:Alabama: www.thelaw.net/alabama.htmlAlaska: www.thelaw.net/alaska.htmlArizona: www.thelaw.net/arizona.htmlArkansas: www.thelaw.net/arkansas.htmlCalifornia: www.thelaw.net/california.htmlColorado: www.thelaw.net/colorado.htmlConnecticut: www.thelaw.net/connecticut.htmlDelaware: www.thelaw.net/delaware.htmlDistrict of Columbia: www.thelaw.net/dc.htmlFlorida: www.thelaw.net/florida.htmlGeorgia: www.thelaw.net/georgia.htmlHawaii: www.thelaw.net/hawaii.htmlIowa: www.thelaw.net/iowa.htmlIdaho: www.thelaw.net/idaho.htmlIllinois: www.thelaw.net/illinois.htmlIndiana: www.thelaw.net/indiana.htmlKansas: www.thelaw.net/kansas.htmlKentucky: www.thelaw.net/kentucky.htmlLouisiana: www.thelaw.net/louisiana.htmlMassachusetts: www.thelaw.net/massachusetts.htmlMaryland: www.thelaw.net/maryland.htmlMaine: www.thelaw.net/maine.htmlMichigan: www.thelaw.net/michigan.htmlMinnesota: www.thelaw.net/minnesota.htmlMissouri: www.thelaw.net/missouri.htmlMississippi: www.thelaw.net/mississippi.htmlMontana: www.thelaw.net/montana.htmlNorth Carolina: www.thelaw.net/north_carolina.htmlNorth Dakota: www.thelaw.net/north_dakota.htmlNebraska: www.thelaw.net/nebraska.htmlNevada: www.thelaw.net/nevada.htmlNew Hampshire: www.thelaw.net/new_hampshire.html New Jersey: www.thelaw.net/new_jersey.html New Mexico: www.thelaw.net/new_mexico.html New York: www.thelaw.net/new_york.htmlOhio: www.thelaw.net/ohio.htmlOklahoma: www.thelaw.net/oklahoma.htmlOregon: www.thelaw.net/oregon.htmlPennsylvania: www.thelaw.net/pennsylvania.html Rhode Island: www.thelaw.net/rhode_island.html South Carolina: www.thelaw.net/south_carolina.htmlSouth Dakota: www.thelaw.net/south_dakota.htmlTennessee: www.thelaw.net/tennessee.htmlTexas: www.thelaw.net/texas.htmlUtah: www.thelaw.net/utah.htmlVermont: www.thelaw.net/vermont.htmlVirginia: www.thelaw.net/virginia.htmlWashington: www.thelaw.net/washington.htmlWisconsin: www.thelaw.net/wisconsin.html West Virginia: www.thelaw.net/west_virginia.htmlWyoming: www.thelaw.net/wyoming.html >ALL 315 FEDERAL AND STATE JURISDICTIONSAlabama Supreme CourtAlabama Court of Civil AppealsAlabama Court of Criminal AppealsCalifornia Supreme CourtCalifornia Court of AppealsArizona Supreme CourtArizona Court of AppealsArkansas Supreme CourtArkansas Court of AppealsCalifornia Supreme CourtCalifornia Court of AppealsColorado Supreme CourtColorado Court of AppealsConnecticut Supreme CourtConnecticut Appellate CourtD.C. Court of AppealsDelaware Supreme CourtFlorida Supreme CourtFlorida District Court of AppealsGeorgia Supreme CourtGeorgia Court of AppealsHawaii Supreme CourtHawaii Intermediate Ct. of AppealsIdaho Supreme CourtIdaho Court of AppealsIllinois Supreme CourtIllinois Appellate CourtIndiana Supreme CourtIndiana Court of AppealsIowa Supreme CourtIowa Court of AppealsKansas Supreme CourtKansas Court of AppealsKentucky Supreme CourtKentucky Court of AppealsLouisiana Supreme CourtLouisiana Court of AppealMaine Supreme Judicial CourtMaryland Court of AppealsMaryland Court of Special AppealsMass. Supreme Judicial CourtMassachusetts Appeals CourtMichigan Supreme CourtMichigan Court of AppealsMinnesota Supreme CourtMinnesota Court of AppealsMississippi Supreme CourtMississippi Court of AppealsMissouri Supreme CourtMissouri Court of AppealsMontana Supreme CourtNebraska Supreme CourtNebraska Court of AppealsNevada Supreme Court of NevadaNew Hampshire Supreme CourtNew Jersey Supreme CourtN.J. Superior Court, App. Div.New Mexico Supreme CourtNew Mexico Court of AppealsNew York Court of AppealsN.Y. Supreme Court, App. TermNew York Supreme Court, App. Div.North Carolina Supreme CourtNorth Carolina Court of AppealsNorth Dakota Supreme CourtOhio Supreme CourtOhio Court of AppealsOhio Supreme CourtOhio Court of Criminal AppealsOhio Court of Civil AppealsOregon Supreme CourtOregon Court of AppealsPennsylvania Superior CourtPennsylvania Commonwealth CourtRhode Island Supreme CourtSouth Carolina Supreme CourtSouth Carolina Court AppealsSouth Dakota Supreme CourtTennessee Supreme CourtTennessee Court of AppealsTennessee Ct. of Criminal AppealsTexas Supreme CourtTexas Court of Criminal AppealsTexas Court of AppealsUtah Supreme CourtUtah Court of AppealsVermont Supreme CourtVirginia Supreme CourtVirginia Court of AppealsWashington Supreme CourtWashington Court of AppealsW. Virginia Supreme Ct. of AppealsWisconsin Supreme CourtWisconsin Court of AppealsWyoming Supreme CourtALL FEDERAL APPELLATE COURTSU.S. Supreme CourtD.C. U.S. Court of Appeals1st Cir. U.S. Court of Appeals1st Cir. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel2nd Cir. U.S. Court of Appeals2nd Cir. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel3rd Cir. U.S. Court of Appeals4th Cir. U.S. Court of Appeals5th Cir. U.S. Court of Appeals6th Cir. U.S. Court of Appeals6th Cir. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel7th Cir. U.S. Court of Appeals8th Cir. U.S. Court of Appeals8th Cir. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel9th Cir. U.S. Court of Appeals9th Cir. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel10th Cir. U.S. Court of Appeals10th Cir. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel11th Cir. U.S. Court of AppealsFederal Cir. U.S. Court of AppealsMISCELLANEOUS FEDERALU.S. Court of ClaimsU.S. Court of International TradeU.S. Customs CourtU.S. Tax CourtBoard of Immigration AppealsForeign Intelligence Surveillance CourtJudicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation Special Court, Reg. Rail Reorg. ActALL BANKRUPTCY COURTSAlabama Middle Bankruptcy CourtAlabama Northern Bankruptcy CourtAlabama Southern Bankruptcy CourtAlaska Bankruptcy CourtArizona Bankruptcy CourtArkansas Eastern Bankruptcy CourtArkansas Western Bankruptcy CourtCalifornia Central Bankruptcy CourtCalifornia Eastern Bankruptcy CourtCalifornia Northern Bankruptcy CourtCalifornia Southern Bankruptcy CourtColorado Bankruptcy CourtConnecticut Bankruptcy CourtDC Bankruptcy CourtDelaware Bankruptcy CourtFlorida Middle Bankruptcy CourtFlorida Northern Bankruptcy CourtFlorida Southern Bankruptcy CourtGeorgia Middle Bankruptcy CourtGeorgia Northern Bankruptcy CourtGeorgia Southern Bankruptcy CourtGuam Bankruptcy CourtHawaii Bankruptcy CourtIdaho Bankruptcy CourtIllinois Central Bankruptcy CourtIllinois Northern Bankruptcy CourtIllinois Southern Bankruptcy CourtIndiana Northern Bankruptcy CourtIndiana Southern Bankruptcy CourtIowa Northern Bankruptcy CourtIowa Southern Bankruptcy CourtKansas Bankruptcy CourtKentucky Eastern Bankruptcy CourtKentucky Western Bankruptcy CourtLouisiana Eastern Bankruptcy CourtLouisiana Middle Bankruptcy CourtLouisiana Western Bankruptcy CourtMaine Bankruptcy CourtMaryland Bankruptcy CourtMassachusetts Bankruptcy CourtMichigan Eastern Bankruptcy CourtMichigan Western Bankruptcy CourtMinnesota Bankruptcy CourtMississippi Northern Bankruptcy CourtMississippi Southern Bankruptcy CourtMissouri Eastern Bankruptcy CourtMissouri Western Bankruptcy CourtMontana Bankruptcy CourtNebraska Bankruptcy CourtNevada Bankruptcy CourtNew Hampshire Bankruptcy CourtNew Jersey Bankruptcy CourtNew Mexico Bankruptcy CourtNew York Eastern Bankruptcy CourtNew York Northern Bankruptcy CourtNew York Southern Bankruptcy CourtNew York Western Bankruptcy CourtN. Carolina Eastern Bankruptcy CourtN. Carolina Middle Bankruptcy CourtN. Carolina Western Bankruptcy CourtN. Dakota Bankruptcy CourtN. Mariana Islands Bankruptcy CourtOhio Northern Bankruptcy CourtOhio Southern Bankruptcy CourtOklahoma Eastern Bankruptcy CourtOklahoma Northern Bankruptcy CourtOklahoma Western Bankruptcy CourtOregon Bankruptcy CourtPA Eastern Bankruptcy CourtPA Middle Bankruptcy CourtPA Western Bankruptcy CourtPuerto Rico Bankruptcy CourtRhode Island Bankruptcy CourtSouth Carolina Bankruptcy CourtSouth Dakota Bankruptcy CourtTennessee Eastern Bankruptcy CourtTennessee Middle Bankruptcy CourtTennessee Western Bankruptcy CourtTexas Eastern Bankruptcy CourtTexas Northern Bankruptcy CourtTexas Southern Bankruptcy CourtTexas Western Bankruptcy CourtUtah Bankruptcy CourtVermont Bankruptcy CourtVirgin Islands Bankruptcy CourtVirginia Eastern Bankruptcy CourtVirginia Western Bankruptcy CourtWashington Eastern Bankruptcy CourtWashington Western Bankruptcy CourtW. Virginia Northern Bankruptcy CourtW. Virginia Southern Bankruptcy CourtWisconsin Eastern Bankruptcy CourtWisconsin Western Bankruptcy CourtWyoming Bankruptcy CourtALL FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTSAlabama Middle District CourtAlabama Northern District CourtAlabama Southern District CourtAlaska District CourtArizona District CourtArkansas Eastern District CourtArkansas Western District CourtCalifornia Central District CourtCalifornia Eastern District CourtCalifornia Northern District CourtCalifornia Southern District CourtCanal Zone District CourtColorado District CourtConnecticut District CourtDC District CourtDelaware District CourtFlorida Middle District CourtFlorida Northern District CourtFlorida Southern District CourtGeorgia Middle District CourtGeorgia Northern District CourtGeorgia Southern District CourtGuam District CourtHawaii District CourtIdaho District CourtIllinois Central District CourtIllinois Northern District CourtIllinois Southern District CourtIndiana Northern District CourtIndiana Southern District CourtIowa Northern District CourtIowa Southern District CourtKansas District CourtKentucky Eastern District CourtKentucky Western District CourtLouisiana Eastern District CourtLouisiana Middle District CourtLouisiana Western District CourtMaine District CourtMaryland District CourtMassachusetts District CourtMichigan Eastern District CourtMichigan Western District CourtMinnesota District CourtMississippi Northern District CourtMississippi Southern District CourtMissouri Eastern District CourtMissouri Western District CourtMontana District CourtNebraska District CourtNevada District CourtNew Hampshire District CourtNew Jersey District CourtNew Mexico District CourtNew York Eastern District CourtNew York Northern District CourtNew York Southern District CourtNew York Western District CourtN.C. Eastern District CourtN.C. Middle District CourtN.C. Western District CourtN. Dakota District CourtNo. Mariana Islands District CourtOhio Northern District CourtOhio Southern District CourtOklahoma Eastern District CourtOklahoma Northern District CourtOklahoma Western District CourtOregon District CourtPA Eastern District CourtPA Middle District CourtPA Western District CourtPuerto Rico District CourtRhode Island District CourtSouth Carolina District CourtSouth Dakota District CourtTennessee Eastern District CourtTennessee Middle District CourtTennessee Western District CourtTexas Eastern District CourtTexas Northern District CourtTexas Southern District CourtTexas Western District CourtUtah District CourtVermont District CourtVirgin Islands District CourtVirginia Eastern District CourtVirginia Western District CourtWashington Eastern District CourtWashington Western District CourtW. Virginia Northern District CourtW. Virginia Southern District CourtWisconsin Eastern District CourtWisconsin Western District CourtWyoming District Court
Medicare and Medicaid Information From Denver, CO
Hello Everyone,
Please enjoy the information contained in this edition of Frontier Focus. Please be sure to share it with your members, colleagues, providers and office billing staff. Thank you for your continued efforts to broadcast Medicare information to the providers in Region VIII.
Table of Contents
1. New From the Medicare Learning Network
2. Your Latest NPI Update!
3. Physician Quality Reporting Initiative Self Serve Look-Up Tool is Now Available!
4. Important Information about the Reporting Hospital Quality Data for Annual Payment Update Program
5. Medicare Solicits Nominees for Advisory Panel for Next Phase of DMEPOS Competitive Bidding Program
6. CMS Provides Guidance on DMEPOS Accreditation for Pharmacy Suppliers
7. Medicare Publishes Billing Edits to Reduce Payment Errors
8. CMS Issues Final Rule to Empower Medicaid Beneficiaries to Direct Personal Assistance Services
9. SNF PC Pricer for FY 2009
10. CMS Issues New Resources on ESRD Conditions for Coverage
11. CMS-1390-N on Display at the Federal Register
12. Your October Flu Shot Reminder
13. Extra Help for Beneficiaries Paying for Prescription Drugs
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1. New From the Medicare Learning Network
Medicare Part B Drug Competitive Acquisition Program (CAP): 2009 CAP Postponement Article
A Medicare Learning Network (MLN) Matters Special Edition article on the 2009 CAP postponement is now available on the CMS website. This article contains billing, drug ordering, claims processing, and other information for Participating CAP Physicians on the transition from CAP to the ASP “buy and bill” methodology for 2009. This article is available on the CMS website at: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MLNMattersArticles/downloads/SE0833.pdf.
Additional information on the CAP and the program’s postponement for 2009 is available on the CMS CAP website at: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/CompetitiveAcquisforBios/01_overview.asp.
# # # # #
ICD-10-CM/PCS Article Now Available
A new MLN Matters Special Edition Article entitled, “SE0832 – The ICD-10 Clinical Modification/Procedure Coding System (CM/PCS)—The Next Generation of Coding,” has recently been released. Go to
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MLNMattersArticles/downloads/SE0832.pdf to view it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2. Your Latest NPI Update!
The NPI Registry option to search by ‘Doing Business As’ (DBA) name has been temporarily removed from the NPI Registry search page while we make enhancements to the system. The DBA search option is expected to be available by Friday, October 10, 2008.
Need More Information?
Providers can apply for an NPI online at https://nppes.cms.hhs.gov or can call the NPI enumerator to request a paper application at 1-800-465-3203. Having trouble viewing any of the URLs in this message? If so, try to cut and paste the URL into your web browser to view the intended information.
Note: All current and past CMS NPI communications are available by clicking "CMS Communications" in the left column of the www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalProvIdentStand CMS webpage.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
3. Physician Quality Reporting Initiative Self Serve Look-Up Tool is Now Available!
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is pleased to announce that a new self-service look-up tool is now available on the PQRI Portal at, http://www.qualitynet.org/pqri on the internet, which allows an eligible professional at the Tax Identification Number (TIN) level to see if their 2007 PQRI Feedback Report is available. Once on the site, go to the "Verify TIN Report Portlet" which is located at the bottom left of the page. Enter the TIN and a message appears that indicates if a 2007 PQRI Feedback Report is or is not available.
This self-service look-up tool does not allow the eligible professional to view their 2007 PQRI Feedback Report. The availability of the 2007 PQRI Feedback Report is helpful for the eligible professional to know because it enables them to decide if they need to register for an IACS account at this time so that they can log into the PQRI Portal and view their 2007 PQRI Feedback Report. Additional information can be found in MLN Matters Special Edition articles SE0830-- Steps for Individual Eligible Professionals to Access Their 2007 Physician Quality Reporting Initiative (PQRI) Feedback Reports Personally (http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MLNMattersArticles/downloads/SE0830.pdf) and SE0831-- Steps for Organizations to Access Their 2007 Physician Quality Reporting Initiative (PQRI) Feedback Reports (http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MLNMattersArticles/downloads/SE0831.pdf) .
In addition, the eligible professional can call the QualityNet Help Desk in order to determine if a 2007 PQRI Feedback Report is available. The representatives at the QualityNet Help Desk can only inform the provider if a 2007 PQRI Feedback Report is available; they are unable to disclose the information on the 2007 PQRI Feedback Report. The QualityNet Help Desk can be reached via telephone at 1-866-288-8912 from the hours of 7am-7pm CST or via email at Qnetsupport@ifmc.sdps.org.
NOTE: The TIN must be the one used by the eligible professional to submit Medicare claims and valid PQRI quality data codes for dates of service July 1 – December 31, 2007.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
4. Important Information about the Reporting Hospital Quality Data for Annual Payment Update Program
Because of the recent hurricanes’ devastating impact, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will grant a data submission waiver to Prospective Payment System (PPS) hospitals. Due to the hurricanes, some hospitals are unable to meet the submission of quality data requirements for the Reporting Hospital Quality Data for Annual Payment Update (RHQDAPU) for Fiscal Year 2010. The CMS is exercising its authority to waive data submission requirements under Section 1886(b) (3) (A) (vii) (II) of the Social Security Act, in the following states: * Louisiana * Texas Process:The submission waiver for Hospital Quality Alliance Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI), Heart Failure, Pneumonia, and Surgical Care Improvement Project (SCIP) clinical process measures is granted for the second calendar quarter 2008 for all hospitals in counties designated as directly affected by the storm(s) (see Appendix A for a list of counties as designated by FEMA). The submission waiver for Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey measure is granted for the third calendar quarter 2008 for all hospitals in counties designated as directly affected by the storm(s) (see Appendix A for a list of counties as designated by FEMA). In addition, hospitals in other counties in these states are authorized to submit requests for a data submission waiver to their CMS Regional Division of Quality Improvement office based on individual circumstances.
Clinical Process Measure Data Submission ScheduleDischarges Due to Clinical Warehouse2Q-08 Apr-Jun 08 Nov-15-08 HCAHPS Data Submission ScheduleDischarges Due to Clinical Warehouse3Q-08 July-Sept.08 Jan-14-09The rationale for waivers for the clinical process measures listed above for second quarter 2008 is that hospital medical records were destroyed due to the storm, and hospitals are unable to report data for this period. The rationale for waivers for the HCAHPS survey measure for third quarter 2008 is that hospitals ability to contact and survey patients may have been impaired during and after the storm, and hospitals may be unable to report data for this period. Additionally, the validation waiver for Hospital Quality Alliance Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI), Heart Failure, Pneumonia, and Surgical Care Improvement Project (SCIP) clinical process measures is granted for the first calendar quarter 2008 for all hospitals in counties designated as directly affected by the storm(s) (see Appendix A for a list of counties as designated by FEMA). In addition, hospitals in other counties in these states are authorized to submit requests for a data submission waiver to their CMS Regional Division of Quality Improvement office based on individual circumstances. Under Section 1886(b) (3) (A) (vii) (II) of the Social Security Act that hospitals shall submit data in a form and manner, and at a time, specified by the Secretary, CMS has authority to modify the submission requirements for hospitals.
Hospitals that have questions about this process should contact their local Quality Improvement Organization (QIO). A list of QIO contacts for each state/territory is available online at http://www.qualitynet.org/dcs/ContentServer?cid=1138900297541&pagename=QnetPublic%2FPage%2FQnetTier3&c=Page.
Appendix A:List of Counties by State Designated Disaster Counties
LouisianaAll parishesTexasAngelina, Austin, Brazoria, Chambers, Cherokee, Fort Bend, Galveston, Grimes, Hardin, Harris, Houston, Jasper, Jefferson, Liberty, Madison, Matagorda, Montgomery, Nacogdoches, Newton, Orange, Polk, Sabine, San Augustine, San Jacinto, Trinity, Tyler, Walker, Waller, and Washington Counties.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
5. Medicare Solicits Nominees for Advisory Panel for Next Phase of DMEPOS Competitive Bidding Program
MEMBERS TO PROVIDE GUIDANCE ON OPERATIONAL ISSUES
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is soliciting nominations for individuals to serve on the Program Advisory and Oversight Committee (PAOC) that advises CMS on various issues relating to the competitive bidding program for durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics and supplies (DMEPOS).
The PAOC was initially established in 2004, as required by the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA), to advise CMS on the design and implementation of a competitive bidding program for DMEPOS that would build on the successes of two pilot projects that had shown that competitive bidding could reduce prices of DMEPOS without adversely affecting beneficiary access or compromising quality.
Because the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008 (MIPPA) delayed implementation of and made certain changes to the competitive bidding program, and extended the PAOC for two years through December 31, 2011, CMS is ending the term of service for current PAOC members.
The PAOC will be comprised of 10 and 12 members from the following broad categories:
· Beneficiary/consumer representatives;
· Physicians and other practitioners;
· Suppliers;
· Professional standards organizations;
· Financial standards specialists (that is, economist/certified public accountant); and
· Association representatives.
· CMS may consider nominees for additional categories if it finds that their expertise will help to ensure the successful implementation of the program
Nominations are due to CMS by November 3, 2008. For more information, please see the CMS Web site at: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/center/dme.asp
To read the CMS press release issued on October 1, 2008, click here: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/apps/media/press_releases.asp
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
6. CMS Provides Guidance on DMEPOS Accreditation for Pharmacy Suppliers
On September 3, 2008, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced a list of Durable Medical Equipment Prosthetics/Orthotics, and Supplies (DMEPOS) providers that were exempt from meeting the quality standards for DMEPOS accreditation. CMS would like to clarify that pharmacists and pharmacies were not included in this provider exemption; therefore, pharmacists and pharmacies do need to obtain accreditation. For example, if a pharmacy is providing DMEPOS supplies to Medicare beneficiaries, such as diabetic supplies and enteral/parenteral nutrition, they would need to be accredited by the September 30, 2009 deadline. For more information about DMEPOS Accreditation, please visit the web page at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/medicareprovidersupenroll/.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
7. Medicare Publishes Billing Edits to Reduce Payment Errors
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) recently announced that, beginning October 1, 2008, it will publish most of the edits utilized in its Medically Unlikely Edit (MUE) program to improve the accuracy of claims payments.
“It is always our aim to ensure that CMS pays for appropriate services, at the same time protecting the Medicare Trust funds and the American taxpayer,” said CMS Acting Administrator Kerry Weems. “This program is going to help us dramatically reduce costly payment errors.”
CMS established the MUE program to reduce payment errors for Medicare Part B claims. Claims processing contractors utilize these edits to assure that providers and suppliers do not report excessive services. The edits are applied during the electronic processing of all claims. These edits check the number of times a service is reported by a provider or supplier for the same patient on the same date of service. Providers and suppliers report services on claims using HCPCS/CPT codes along with the number of times (i.e., units of service) that the service is provided.
Prior studies, including one by the U.S Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of the Inspector General in May 2006, identified significant Medicare overpayments because provider or supplier claims sometimes report services with too many units of service. These errors may be caused by numerous factors, including clerical errors and coding errors.
CMS first implemented the MUE program January 1, 2007, with edits for about 2,600 HCPCS/CPT codes. There have been quarterly updates adding additional codes. The October 1, 2008, version of MUE will contain edits for about 9,700 HCPCS/CPT codes that have been assigned unit values for MUEs. MUEs are cumulative for each quarter. However, CMS will not publish all MUEs on October 1, 2008. CMS has not yet determined if there have been any savings in the MUE program since it was implemented.
The edits were developed by CMS with the cooperation and participation of national health care organizations representing physicians, hospitals, non-physician practitioners, laboratories, and durable medical equipment suppliers. CMS also utilized claims data in its analysis of MUE.
The edits can be found on the CMS Website at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalCorrectCodInitEd/08_MUE.asp#TopOfPage.
At the start of each calendar quarter, CMS will publish most MUEs active for that quarter. Although the October 1, 2008, publication will contain most MUEs, additional ones will be published on January 1, 2009. CMS is not able to publish all active MUEs because some are primarily designed to detect and deter questionable payments rather than billing errors. Publishing those MUEs would diminish their effectiveness.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
8. CMS Issues Final Rule to Empower Medicaid Beneficiaries to Direct Personal Assistance Services
A final rule that would allow more Medicaid beneficiaries to be in charge of their own personal assistance services, including personal care services, instead of having those services directed by an agency, was recently announced by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).
The rule, on display today at the Federal Register, guides states who wish to allow Medicaid beneficiaries who need help with the activities of daily living to hire, direct, train or fire their own personal care workers. Beneficiaries could even hire qualified family members who may already be familiar with the individual’s needs to perform personal assistance (not medical) services.
A copy of the regulation is available on the Federal Register’s Website at:
http://federalregister.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2008-23102_PI.pdf
The press release has been posted to the CMS Newsroom at:
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/apps/media/press_releases.asp
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
9. SNF PC Pricer for FY 2009
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has released the SNF PC Pricer for FY 2009. If you use SNF PC Pricer software, please go to the web page at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/PCPricer/04_SNF.asp#TopOfPage and download version FY 2009.0, posted on October 1, 2008.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
10. CMS Issues New Resources on ESRD Conditions for Coverage
Frequently Asked Questions
Thank you to all of our colleagues in the renal care community who submitted questions to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) about our recently released ESRD Conditions for Coverage final rule. In response to these inquiries, we have already provided many of you with individual responses to your questions; however, to share the benefit of these questions with the entire community, CMS has developed a “Frequently Asked Questions” document that condenses many of the questions we received from you. The FAQs are available online at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/center/esrd.asp on the CMS website. To view them, click on the second Spotlight.
Crosswalk: Former Conditions versus Revised Conditions
As another tool to help you understand the new Conditions for Coverage, CMS has developed a crosswalk that compares the former conditions to the final revised conditions, which were issued in the Federal Register on April 15, 2008. The crosswalk will help you navigate the new organization structure of the condition as well as some revised provisions of the conditions themselves. The crosswalk is available online at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/center/esrd.asp on the CMS website. To view the Crosswalk, click on the third Spotlight.
We hope you find these tools helpful as you work to implement the revised conditions. For more information, please visit us online at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/CFCsAndCoPs/13_ESRD.asp on the CMS website.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
11. CMS-1390-N on Display at the Federal Register
CMS-1390-N (Medicare Program; Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment Systems and Fiscal Year 2009 Rates: Final Fiscal Year 2009 Wage Indices and Payment Rates) went on display at the Federal Register on September 29, 2008. The Notice includes tables listing the final wage indices, hospital reclassifications, payment rates, impacts, and other related tables effective for fiscal year (FY) 2009. It will be published on October 3. To view the Notice, go to the web page at:
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/AcuteInpatientPPS/IPPS/itemdetail.asp?filterType=none&filterByDID=0&sortByDID=4&sortOrder=descending&itemID=CMS1215562&intNumPerPage=10
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
12. Your October Flu Shot Reminder
Flu Season Is Upon Us! Begin now to take advantage of each office visit as an opportunity to encourage your patients to get a flu shot. It’s still their best defense against combating the flu this season. (Medicare provides coverage of the flu vaccine without any out-of-pocket costs to the Medicare patient. No deductible or copayment/coinsurance applies.) And don’t forget, health care personnel can spread the highly contagious flu virus to patients. Protect Yourself. Don’t Get the Flu. Don’t Give the Flu. Get Your Flu Shot.
Remember - Influenza vaccine plus its administration are covered Part B benefits. Note that influenza vaccine is NOT a Part D covered drug.
For information about Medicare’s coverage of the influenza virus vaccine and its administration as well as related educational resources for health care professionals, please go to http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MLNProducts/Downloads/flu_products.pdf on the CMS website.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
13. Extra Help for Beneficiaries Paying for Prescription Drugs
Do You Know Someone Who Is Having Trouble Paying For Prescription Drugs?
Medicare Can Help!
· If an individual has limited income and resources, they may qualify for extra help from Medicare. It could be worth over $3,300 in savings on prescription drug costs per year.
· Encourage people with Medicare to file for Extra Help online: https://s044a90.ssa.gov/apps6z/i1020/main.html or by calling Social Security at 1-800-772-1213 to apply over the phone.
· State Health Insurance Information Program (SHIP) offices can assist with the application. Find contact information for a local SHIP Counselor at http://www.medicare.gov/contacts/static/allStateContacts.asp or by calling
1-800-MEDICARE.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lucretia James
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Region VIII
1600 Broadway, Suite 700
Denver, CO 80202
(303) 844-1568
lucretia.james@cms.hhs.gov
Please enjoy the information contained in this edition of Frontier Focus. Please be sure to share it with your members, colleagues, providers and office billing staff. Thank you for your continued efforts to broadcast Medicare information to the providers in Region VIII.
Table of Contents
1. New From the Medicare Learning Network
2. Your Latest NPI Update!
3. Physician Quality Reporting Initiative Self Serve Look-Up Tool is Now Available!
4. Important Information about the Reporting Hospital Quality Data for Annual Payment Update Program
5. Medicare Solicits Nominees for Advisory Panel for Next Phase of DMEPOS Competitive Bidding Program
6. CMS Provides Guidance on DMEPOS Accreditation for Pharmacy Suppliers
7. Medicare Publishes Billing Edits to Reduce Payment Errors
8. CMS Issues Final Rule to Empower Medicaid Beneficiaries to Direct Personal Assistance Services
9. SNF PC Pricer for FY 2009
10. CMS Issues New Resources on ESRD Conditions for Coverage
11. CMS-1390-N on Display at the Federal Register
12. Your October Flu Shot Reminder
13. Extra Help for Beneficiaries Paying for Prescription Drugs
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1. New From the Medicare Learning Network
Medicare Part B Drug Competitive Acquisition Program (CAP): 2009 CAP Postponement Article
A Medicare Learning Network (MLN) Matters Special Edition article on the 2009 CAP postponement is now available on the CMS website. This article contains billing, drug ordering, claims processing, and other information for Participating CAP Physicians on the transition from CAP to the ASP “buy and bill” methodology for 2009. This article is available on the CMS website at: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MLNMattersArticles/downloads/SE0833.pdf.
Additional information on the CAP and the program’s postponement for 2009 is available on the CMS CAP website at: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/CompetitiveAcquisforBios/01_overview.asp.
# # # # #
ICD-10-CM/PCS Article Now Available
A new MLN Matters Special Edition Article entitled, “SE0832 – The ICD-10 Clinical Modification/Procedure Coding System (CM/PCS)—The Next Generation of Coding,” has recently been released. Go to
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MLNMattersArticles/downloads/SE0832.pdf to view it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2. Your Latest NPI Update!
The NPI Registry option to search by ‘Doing Business As’ (DBA) name has been temporarily removed from the NPI Registry search page while we make enhancements to the system. The DBA search option is expected to be available by Friday, October 10, 2008.
Need More Information?
Providers can apply for an NPI online at https://nppes.cms.hhs.gov or can call the NPI enumerator to request a paper application at 1-800-465-3203. Having trouble viewing any of the URLs in this message? If so, try to cut and paste the URL into your web browser to view the intended information.
Note: All current and past CMS NPI communications are available by clicking "CMS Communications" in the left column of the www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalProvIdentStand CMS webpage.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
3. Physician Quality Reporting Initiative Self Serve Look-Up Tool is Now Available!
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is pleased to announce that a new self-service look-up tool is now available on the PQRI Portal at, http://www.qualitynet.org/pqri on the internet, which allows an eligible professional at the Tax Identification Number (TIN) level to see if their 2007 PQRI Feedback Report is available. Once on the site, go to the "Verify TIN Report Portlet" which is located at the bottom left of the page. Enter the TIN and a message appears that indicates if a 2007 PQRI Feedback Report is or is not available.
This self-service look-up tool does not allow the eligible professional to view their 2007 PQRI Feedback Report. The availability of the 2007 PQRI Feedback Report is helpful for the eligible professional to know because it enables them to decide if they need to register for an IACS account at this time so that they can log into the PQRI Portal and view their 2007 PQRI Feedback Report. Additional information can be found in MLN Matters Special Edition articles SE0830-- Steps for Individual Eligible Professionals to Access Their 2007 Physician Quality Reporting Initiative (PQRI) Feedback Reports Personally (http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MLNMattersArticles/downloads/SE0830.pdf) and SE0831-- Steps for Organizations to Access Their 2007 Physician Quality Reporting Initiative (PQRI) Feedback Reports (http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MLNMattersArticles/downloads/SE0831.pdf) .
In addition, the eligible professional can call the QualityNet Help Desk in order to determine if a 2007 PQRI Feedback Report is available. The representatives at the QualityNet Help Desk can only inform the provider if a 2007 PQRI Feedback Report is available; they are unable to disclose the information on the 2007 PQRI Feedback Report. The QualityNet Help Desk can be reached via telephone at 1-866-288-8912 from the hours of 7am-7pm CST or via email at Qnetsupport@ifmc.sdps.org.
NOTE: The TIN must be the one used by the eligible professional to submit Medicare claims and valid PQRI quality data codes for dates of service July 1 – December 31, 2007.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
4. Important Information about the Reporting Hospital Quality Data for Annual Payment Update Program
Because of the recent hurricanes’ devastating impact, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will grant a data submission waiver to Prospective Payment System (PPS) hospitals. Due to the hurricanes, some hospitals are unable to meet the submission of quality data requirements for the Reporting Hospital Quality Data for Annual Payment Update (RHQDAPU) for Fiscal Year 2010. The CMS is exercising its authority to waive data submission requirements under Section 1886(b) (3) (A) (vii) (II) of the Social Security Act, in the following states: * Louisiana * Texas Process:The submission waiver for Hospital Quality Alliance Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI), Heart Failure, Pneumonia, and Surgical Care Improvement Project (SCIP) clinical process measures is granted for the second calendar quarter 2008 for all hospitals in counties designated as directly affected by the storm(s) (see Appendix A for a list of counties as designated by FEMA). The submission waiver for Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey measure is granted for the third calendar quarter 2008 for all hospitals in counties designated as directly affected by the storm(s) (see Appendix A for a list of counties as designated by FEMA). In addition, hospitals in other counties in these states are authorized to submit requests for a data submission waiver to their CMS Regional Division of Quality Improvement office based on individual circumstances.
Clinical Process Measure Data Submission ScheduleDischarges Due to Clinical Warehouse2Q-08 Apr-Jun 08 Nov-15-08 HCAHPS Data Submission ScheduleDischarges Due to Clinical Warehouse3Q-08 July-Sept.08 Jan-14-09The rationale for waivers for the clinical process measures listed above for second quarter 2008 is that hospital medical records were destroyed due to the storm, and hospitals are unable to report data for this period. The rationale for waivers for the HCAHPS survey measure for third quarter 2008 is that hospitals ability to contact and survey patients may have been impaired during and after the storm, and hospitals may be unable to report data for this period. Additionally, the validation waiver for Hospital Quality Alliance Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI), Heart Failure, Pneumonia, and Surgical Care Improvement Project (SCIP) clinical process measures is granted for the first calendar quarter 2008 for all hospitals in counties designated as directly affected by the storm(s) (see Appendix A for a list of counties as designated by FEMA). In addition, hospitals in other counties in these states are authorized to submit requests for a data submission waiver to their CMS Regional Division of Quality Improvement office based on individual circumstances. Under Section 1886(b) (3) (A) (vii) (II) of the Social Security Act that hospitals shall submit data in a form and manner, and at a time, specified by the Secretary, CMS has authority to modify the submission requirements for hospitals.
Hospitals that have questions about this process should contact their local Quality Improvement Organization (QIO). A list of QIO contacts for each state/territory is available online at http://www.qualitynet.org/dcs/ContentServer?cid=1138900297541&pagename=QnetPublic%2FPage%2FQnetTier3&c=Page.
Appendix A:List of Counties by State Designated Disaster Counties
LouisianaAll parishesTexasAngelina, Austin, Brazoria, Chambers, Cherokee, Fort Bend, Galveston, Grimes, Hardin, Harris, Houston, Jasper, Jefferson, Liberty, Madison, Matagorda, Montgomery, Nacogdoches, Newton, Orange, Polk, Sabine, San Augustine, San Jacinto, Trinity, Tyler, Walker, Waller, and Washington Counties.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
5. Medicare Solicits Nominees for Advisory Panel for Next Phase of DMEPOS Competitive Bidding Program
MEMBERS TO PROVIDE GUIDANCE ON OPERATIONAL ISSUES
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is soliciting nominations for individuals to serve on the Program Advisory and Oversight Committee (PAOC) that advises CMS on various issues relating to the competitive bidding program for durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics and supplies (DMEPOS).
The PAOC was initially established in 2004, as required by the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA), to advise CMS on the design and implementation of a competitive bidding program for DMEPOS that would build on the successes of two pilot projects that had shown that competitive bidding could reduce prices of DMEPOS without adversely affecting beneficiary access or compromising quality.
Because the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008 (MIPPA) delayed implementation of and made certain changes to the competitive bidding program, and extended the PAOC for two years through December 31, 2011, CMS is ending the term of service for current PAOC members.
The PAOC will be comprised of 10 and 12 members from the following broad categories:
· Beneficiary/consumer representatives;
· Physicians and other practitioners;
· Suppliers;
· Professional standards organizations;
· Financial standards specialists (that is, economist/certified public accountant); and
· Association representatives.
· CMS may consider nominees for additional categories if it finds that their expertise will help to ensure the successful implementation of the program
Nominations are due to CMS by November 3, 2008. For more information, please see the CMS Web site at: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/center/dme.asp
To read the CMS press release issued on October 1, 2008, click here: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/apps/media/press_releases.asp
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
6. CMS Provides Guidance on DMEPOS Accreditation for Pharmacy Suppliers
On September 3, 2008, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced a list of Durable Medical Equipment Prosthetics/Orthotics, and Supplies (DMEPOS) providers that were exempt from meeting the quality standards for DMEPOS accreditation. CMS would like to clarify that pharmacists and pharmacies were not included in this provider exemption; therefore, pharmacists and pharmacies do need to obtain accreditation. For example, if a pharmacy is providing DMEPOS supplies to Medicare beneficiaries, such as diabetic supplies and enteral/parenteral nutrition, they would need to be accredited by the September 30, 2009 deadline. For more information about DMEPOS Accreditation, please visit the web page at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/medicareprovidersupenroll/.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
7. Medicare Publishes Billing Edits to Reduce Payment Errors
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) recently announced that, beginning October 1, 2008, it will publish most of the edits utilized in its Medically Unlikely Edit (MUE) program to improve the accuracy of claims payments.
“It is always our aim to ensure that CMS pays for appropriate services, at the same time protecting the Medicare Trust funds and the American taxpayer,” said CMS Acting Administrator Kerry Weems. “This program is going to help us dramatically reduce costly payment errors.”
CMS established the MUE program to reduce payment errors for Medicare Part B claims. Claims processing contractors utilize these edits to assure that providers and suppliers do not report excessive services. The edits are applied during the electronic processing of all claims. These edits check the number of times a service is reported by a provider or supplier for the same patient on the same date of service. Providers and suppliers report services on claims using HCPCS/CPT codes along with the number of times (i.e., units of service) that the service is provided.
Prior studies, including one by the U.S Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of the Inspector General in May 2006, identified significant Medicare overpayments because provider or supplier claims sometimes report services with too many units of service. These errors may be caused by numerous factors, including clerical errors and coding errors.
CMS first implemented the MUE program January 1, 2007, with edits for about 2,600 HCPCS/CPT codes. There have been quarterly updates adding additional codes. The October 1, 2008, version of MUE will contain edits for about 9,700 HCPCS/CPT codes that have been assigned unit values for MUEs. MUEs are cumulative for each quarter. However, CMS will not publish all MUEs on October 1, 2008. CMS has not yet determined if there have been any savings in the MUE program since it was implemented.
The edits were developed by CMS with the cooperation and participation of national health care organizations representing physicians, hospitals, non-physician practitioners, laboratories, and durable medical equipment suppliers. CMS also utilized claims data in its analysis of MUE.
The edits can be found on the CMS Website at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalCorrectCodInitEd/08_MUE.asp#TopOfPage.
At the start of each calendar quarter, CMS will publish most MUEs active for that quarter. Although the October 1, 2008, publication will contain most MUEs, additional ones will be published on January 1, 2009. CMS is not able to publish all active MUEs because some are primarily designed to detect and deter questionable payments rather than billing errors. Publishing those MUEs would diminish their effectiveness.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
8. CMS Issues Final Rule to Empower Medicaid Beneficiaries to Direct Personal Assistance Services
A final rule that would allow more Medicaid beneficiaries to be in charge of their own personal assistance services, including personal care services, instead of having those services directed by an agency, was recently announced by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).
The rule, on display today at the Federal Register, guides states who wish to allow Medicaid beneficiaries who need help with the activities of daily living to hire, direct, train or fire their own personal care workers. Beneficiaries could even hire qualified family members who may already be familiar with the individual’s needs to perform personal assistance (not medical) services.
A copy of the regulation is available on the Federal Register’s Website at:
http://federalregister.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2008-23102_PI.pdf
The press release has been posted to the CMS Newsroom at:
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/apps/media/press_releases.asp
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
9. SNF PC Pricer for FY 2009
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has released the SNF PC Pricer for FY 2009. If you use SNF PC Pricer software, please go to the web page at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/PCPricer/04_SNF.asp#TopOfPage and download version FY 2009.0, posted on October 1, 2008.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
10. CMS Issues New Resources on ESRD Conditions for Coverage
Frequently Asked Questions
Thank you to all of our colleagues in the renal care community who submitted questions to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) about our recently released ESRD Conditions for Coverage final rule. In response to these inquiries, we have already provided many of you with individual responses to your questions; however, to share the benefit of these questions with the entire community, CMS has developed a “Frequently Asked Questions” document that condenses many of the questions we received from you. The FAQs are available online at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/center/esrd.asp on the CMS website. To view them, click on the second Spotlight.
Crosswalk: Former Conditions versus Revised Conditions
As another tool to help you understand the new Conditions for Coverage, CMS has developed a crosswalk that compares the former conditions to the final revised conditions, which were issued in the Federal Register on April 15, 2008. The crosswalk will help you navigate the new organization structure of the condition as well as some revised provisions of the conditions themselves. The crosswalk is available online at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/center/esrd.asp on the CMS website. To view the Crosswalk, click on the third Spotlight.
We hope you find these tools helpful as you work to implement the revised conditions. For more information, please visit us online at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/CFCsAndCoPs/13_ESRD.asp on the CMS website.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
11. CMS-1390-N on Display at the Federal Register
CMS-1390-N (Medicare Program; Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment Systems and Fiscal Year 2009 Rates: Final Fiscal Year 2009 Wage Indices and Payment Rates) went on display at the Federal Register on September 29, 2008. The Notice includes tables listing the final wage indices, hospital reclassifications, payment rates, impacts, and other related tables effective for fiscal year (FY) 2009. It will be published on October 3. To view the Notice, go to the web page at:
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/AcuteInpatientPPS/IPPS/itemdetail.asp?filterType=none&filterByDID=0&sortByDID=4&sortOrder=descending&itemID=CMS1215562&intNumPerPage=10
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
12. Your October Flu Shot Reminder
Flu Season Is Upon Us! Begin now to take advantage of each office visit as an opportunity to encourage your patients to get a flu shot. It’s still their best defense against combating the flu this season. (Medicare provides coverage of the flu vaccine without any out-of-pocket costs to the Medicare patient. No deductible or copayment/coinsurance applies.) And don’t forget, health care personnel can spread the highly contagious flu virus to patients. Protect Yourself. Don’t Get the Flu. Don’t Give the Flu. Get Your Flu Shot.
Remember - Influenza vaccine plus its administration are covered Part B benefits. Note that influenza vaccine is NOT a Part D covered drug.
For information about Medicare’s coverage of the influenza virus vaccine and its administration as well as related educational resources for health care professionals, please go to http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MLNProducts/Downloads/flu_products.pdf on the CMS website.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
13. Extra Help for Beneficiaries Paying for Prescription Drugs
Do You Know Someone Who Is Having Trouble Paying For Prescription Drugs?
Medicare Can Help!
· If an individual has limited income and resources, they may qualify for extra help from Medicare. It could be worth over $3,300 in savings on prescription drug costs per year.
· Encourage people with Medicare to file for Extra Help online: https://s044a90.ssa.gov/apps6z/i1020/main.html or by calling Social Security at 1-800-772-1213 to apply over the phone.
· State Health Insurance Information Program (SHIP) offices can assist with the application. Find contact information for a local SHIP Counselor at http://www.medicare.gov/contacts/static/allStateContacts.asp or by calling
1-800-MEDICARE.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lucretia James
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Region VIII
1600 Broadway, Suite 700
Denver, CO 80202
(303) 844-1568
lucretia.james@cms.hhs.gov
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Commission on Education to Meet in Minot on October 7, 2008
NEWS
MEDIA ADVISORY
October 3, 2008
Contact: Brandi Pelham or Don Canton
(701) 328-2200
COMMISSION ON EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT TO MEET IN MINOT
BISMARCK, N.D. – The North Dakota Commission on Education Improvement will meet in Minot Tuesday, October 7, beginning at 9 a.m. at the Minot Council Chamber at 515 2nd Ave SW. The public is welcome to attend the meeting and will have an opportunity to provide input at 2:15 p.m.
Lt. Gov. Jack Dalrymple chairs the 14-member commission, comprised of administrators, educators and legislators from across the state, working together to address funding equity and adequacy among North Dakota’s schools.
For more information about the commission and its members, visit the Governor’s Web site at www.governor.nd.gov.
-###-
MEDIA ADVISORY
October 3, 2008
Contact: Brandi Pelham or Don Canton
(701) 328-2200
COMMISSION ON EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT TO MEET IN MINOT
BISMARCK, N.D. – The North Dakota Commission on Education Improvement will meet in Minot Tuesday, October 7, beginning at 9 a.m. at the Minot Council Chamber at 515 2nd Ave SW. The public is welcome to attend the meeting and will have an opportunity to provide input at 2:15 p.m.
Lt. Gov. Jack Dalrymple chairs the 14-member commission, comprised of administrators, educators and legislators from across the state, working together to address funding equity and adequacy among North Dakota’s schools.
For more information about the commission and its members, visit the Governor’s Web site at www.governor.nd.gov.
-###-
Friday, October 3, 2008
Legislative Technology Meeting in Bismarck on October 6
NORTH DAKOTA LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
Tentative Agenda
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE
Monday, October 6, 2008
Harvest Room, State Capitol
Bismarck, North Dakota
9:00 a.m. Call to order
Roll call
Consideration of the minutes of the June 5, 2008, and August 27, 2008, meetings
REPORT FROM THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER
9:05 a.m. Presentations by Ms. Lisa Feldner, Chief Information Officer, Information Technology
Department, and representatives of the Information Technology Department of:
• The department's annual report regarding projects, services, plans, and benefits
pursuant to North Dakota Century Code Section 54-59-19
• The department's budget request for the 2009-11 biennium
• The statewide information technology plan for the 2009-11 biennium, including
information on the acceptance of state agency information technology plans
• Information regarding the status of the department's mainframe migration project
HIGHER EDUCATION INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INITIATIVES
10:20 a.m. Presentation by representatives of the North Dakota University System regarding higher
education information technology initiatives, including a status report on the Northern
Tier Network project
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INITIATIVES
10:50 a.m. Presentation by a representative of the Educational Technology Council regarding
elementary and secondary education information technology initiatives
OTHER BUSINESS
11:05 a.m. Presentation by a representative of the North Dakota Association of Counties regarding
the coordination of services between the Information Technology Department and
political subdivisions
11:15 a.m. Presentation by a representative of the North Dakota League of Cities regarding the
coordination of services between the Information Technology Department and political
subdivisions
11:25 a.m. Presentation by representatives of the North Dakota Health Information Technology
Steering Committee regarding the status of the development of a statewide health
information technology report and potential requests of the 2009 Legislative Assembly
12:00 noon Luncheon recess
PROPOSED INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY BILL DRAFT
1:00 p.m. Presentation by the Legislative Council staff of a bill draft relating to the membership of
the Criminal Justice Information Sharing Board
1:10 p.m. Comments by representatives of the Criminal Justice Information Sharing Board
regarding the proposed bill draft
1:25 p.m. Comments by other interested persons regarding the proposed bill draft
2
1:30 p.m. Committee discussion regarding the proposed bill draft
LARGE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROJECT REPORTING
1:45 p.m. Presentation by a representative of the Department of Human Services regarding the
status of the department's Medicaid management information system replacement
project
2:00 p.m. Presentation by a representative of the Department of Emergency Services of a project
closeout report for the department's public safety mobile communications project
2:05 p.m. Presentation by a representative of Job Service North Dakota of a project closeout
report for the agency's case management system
OTHER
2:10 p.m. Committee discussion, including a motion to prepare the committee's final report for
presentation to the Legislative Council
3:00 p.m. Adjourn
Committee Members
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Agenda for Legislative Workforce Committee -- Tuesday, October 7
NORTH DAKOTA LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
Tentative Agenda
WORKFORCE COMMITTEE
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Conference Room 335, National Energy Center of Excellence, Bismarck State College
Bismarck, North Dakota
9:00 a.m. Call to order
Roll call
Approval of the minutes of the August 1, 2008, meeting
Welcome and comments by committee chairman
REPORTS
9:10 a.m. Presentation by Mr. Paul T. Govig, Director, Department of Commerce Division of
Community Services, of the Department of Commerce report on the implementation
and successes and failures of the Beginning Again North Dakota pilot program and
whether the program should be continued or continued and expanded
Comments by interested persons
Committee questions and discussion
9:30 a.m. Presentation by Mr. Shane C. Goettle, Commissioner, Department of Commerce, on
the process used and the factors considered by the commissioner in identifying target
industries on which economic development efforts are focused and the special focus
target industry
Comments by interested persons
Committee questions and discussion
WORKFORCE SYSTEM STUDY
9:50 a.m. Committee discussion regarding the results of the workforce system study, including
committee consideration of the following bill drafts:
• Expansion of the renaissance zone law to include tax incentives for repair or
remodeling of utility infrastructure
• Modification of the renaissance zone law to remove the distance requirement from
the exception to the continuous boundary requirement and to allow for transfers of
historic preservation and renovation tax credits
• Provide for a pilot program to incentivize state agencies to retain retirement age
employees
• Provide for a Department of Commerce program for marketing higher education
opportunities to out-of-state students
• Provide for funding for the Department of Commerce's Operation Intern program
• Provide for a higher education tuition grant program for qualified North Dakota high
school graduates
• Provide a five-year income tax exemption for recent graduates of institutions of
higher education
• Provide an income tax incentive for automation
• Provide an income tax child credit
2
• Concurrent resolution for the Legislative Council to study the state's workforce
system, the feasibility and desirability of enacting legislation to address the issues
identified in the 2007-08 interim's Workforce Committee's consultant's report, and the
implementation of workforce initiatives enacted by the Sixty-first Legislative
Assembly
• Concurrent resolution urging Congress to address immigration reform to assist states
in addressing workforce shortages
Comments by interested persons
Committee directives
12:00 noon Luncheon break
1:00 p.m. Continuation of committee discussion
Comments by interested persons
Committee directives
2:00 p.m. Adjourn
Committee Members
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
The North Dakota Oil Industry
NEWS
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 30, 2008
Contact: Don Canton or Ryan Bernstein
(701) 328-2200
HOEVEN, PIPELINE AUTHORITY, INDUSTRY OFFICIALS OUTLINE PETROLEUM INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRESS
BISMARCK, N.D. – Gov. John Hoeven today was joined by petroleum and pipeline industry leaders, Oil and Gas Division Director Lynn Helms and Pipeline Authority Director Justin Kringstad to outline current and scheduled progress in expanding the state’s oil and gas production and processing infrastructure.
Also joining Hoeven were Kevin Hatfield of Enbridge Pipeline Inc.; Tad True of True Pipeline Companies; Wayne Biberdorf of Hess; and John Berger, Manager of Tesoro Refinery in Mandan.
“We are working to ensure that our infrastructure keeps pace with our growing production of oil and gas,” Hoeven said. “We have made sustained progress in both the transportation and processing of our petroleum resources, and we are working to keep pace with growing production in the future.”
Expansions completed and underway today were initiated in April 2006, when Hoeven hosted a broad-based summit of oil and gas industry principals to help address the challenge of increasing pipeline capacity in western North Dakota. Summit participants included U.S. and Canadian oil industry officials, pipeline companies, petroleum producers, railroad officials and state legislators. Among the options they implemented were the Enbridge Pipeline expansion; transport or crude by rail; expand oil refining capacity; and a Pipeline Transportation Authority, which was established in the last legislative session.
CRUDE OIL
According to Pipeline Authority and industry officials, crude oil transport capacity is scheduled to expand by 86 percent through 2010, well within the 43 percent projected growth in the state’s crude oil production.
Pipeline and refining capacity in 2007 totaled 230,000 BOPD (barrels of petroleum a day), slightly ahead of peak petroleum production of 229,403 BOPD. The 229,403 BOPD is Williston Basin production, which includes crude oil from North Dakota, South Dakota and eastern Montana. This year, capacity has increased to 327,000 BOPD, and by 2010, total crude petroleum transport capacity will increase to 378,000 BOPD. That is 50,000 BOPD ahead of projected peak production of 328,000 BOPD. (See map and table for capacity and production comparisons.)
“We at the Oil and Gas Division have worked with the Governor’s office, Industrial Commission and private industry to make sure that our energy has outlets to find its way to market,” said Oil and Gas Division Director Lynn Helms. “That has meant increasing not only pipeline and rail capacity, but also working to enhance processing and refining facilities to help capture these valuable resources.”
Significant expansions include:
Enbridge Phase V: Increased capacity from 80,000 barrels of oil per day (BOPD) to 110,000 BOPD in January 2008.
Enbridge’s Phase VI: Will increase capacity by 51,600 BOPD to a total of 161,600 BOPD by first quarter of 2010.
Enbridge is also actively exploring the best proposal for additional expansion, including a link between North Dakota and Canada. The proposal has received positive feedback from shippers and is only one of the options Enbridge is currently exploring.
Butte Pipeline: Implementation of a drag reducing agent in its pipeline system to Guernsey, WY should increase export capacity by 10,000-12,000 POPD, to be completed in 3-4 weeks.
North Dakota Port Services: Establishment of a rail tank car loading facility near Minot, which will begin accepting crude shipments this week at an initial capacity of 30,000 BOPD. Expansion plans could increase capacity to 42,000 BOPD after December 1, 2008.
Rail Tank Car Facilities: In August 2008, facilities were built at Dore, Stampede, and Ryder, N.D. shipping an estimated 11,000-17,000 BOPD.
The Transcanada Pipeline Company is building major international pipelines through eastern North Dakota (Keystone Pipeline, 480,000 BOPD) and eastern Montana (Keystone XL, 500,000 BOPD). These will relieve Canadian oil sands pressure on the Guernsey, Wyoming hub and can be tapped into to carry Williston Basin crude oil. (This capacity is in addition to totals shown on the chart.)
REFINING PROJECTS
Tesoro Refinery - Mandan
From 2001 to 2007, Tesoro invested $125 million for refinery enhancements
In 2008 and 2009, Tesoro will invest an additional $125 million for increased refinery capacity and environmental upgrades.
American Lignite Energy - Underwood
32,000 barrels per day
Coal-to-Liquid technology
Three Affiliated Tribes – Fort Berthold Reservation
15,000 barrels per day
Awaiting EPA permit
Northwest Refining – Williston
· Oil and Gas Research Council funded feasibility study
1 Next Steps:
· Peer Review
1 Front End Engineering Design Study (FEED Study)
2 Permitting
NATURAL GAS
Both natural gas pipelines and processing facilities have expanded, and project further expansions in the future.
Natural gas processing capacity will increase by more than 126 percent, including four new processing facilities and three major expansions. The resulting 513 MMCFD is enough natural gas energy to fuel 1.87 million homes a year. At the same time, natural gas pipeline capacity has increased by 122 MMCFD (million cubic feet a day), and an additional 228 MMCFD has been proposed. Much of this gas was formerly flared off, so there is an environmental benefit, as well as an energy benefit to capturing the gas. Significant natural gas expansions include:
Natural Gas Processing Plants
Whiting: A new 33MMCFD Robinson Lake Processing Plant is expected to connect to Williston Basin on October 1, 2008.
Whiting: A new 10 MMCFD Ray processing plant is now in operation.
EOG: A new 20 MMCFD Stanley, ND processing plant is scheduled to come online in October 2008.
Nesson Gas Services: A new 10 MMCFD processing plant near Ray, ND came online December 2008.
Bearpaw’s Grassland Plant: An expansion from 63 MMCFD to 100 MMCFD was completed in 2008.
Hiland Partners’ Bowman Plant: An expansion from 4 MMCFD to 40 MMCFD in Bowman County was completed in 2008.
Hess Tioga Plant: An expansion from 120 MMCFD to 250 MMCFD is currently in the planning phase.
Natural Gas Pipelines:
Alliance Pipeline: has filed with FERC in September 2008 to enable Pecan Pipeline to transport “rich” Bakken gas from the Mountrail County area to markets in Chicago. The project is scheduled to begin shipping 20-40 million cubic feet per day (MMCFD) in 2009 and increase to 80 MMCFD in 2010.
Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co.: has an expansion planned for November 2008. The project is called the “Bakken Expansion Project” and has an initial design capacity of 32 MMCFD and is expandable to 60 MMCFD. The expansion links Williston Basin’s pipeline to Northern Border Pipeline near Ft. Buford, ND.
Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co.: has an expansion plan to increase natural gas delivery to the eastern portion of ND. The expansion will increase capacity in the Sheyenne Sub-System from 35 MMCFD to 45 MMCFD in November 2008.
Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co.: is actively marketing to obtain shipper support for their “Bakken Pipeline.” The proposed pipeline would deliver “rich” Bakken gas to Alliance Pipeline with an initial capacity of 100 MMCFD and could be expanded to 200 MMCFD.
-###-
<> <> <> <> <> <<0930 Pipeline Capacity Expansion.pdf>>
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 30, 2008
Contact: Don Canton or Ryan Bernstein
(701) 328-2200
HOEVEN, PIPELINE AUTHORITY, INDUSTRY OFFICIALS OUTLINE PETROLEUM INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRESS
BISMARCK, N.D. – Gov. John Hoeven today was joined by petroleum and pipeline industry leaders, Oil and Gas Division Director Lynn Helms and Pipeline Authority Director Justin Kringstad to outline current and scheduled progress in expanding the state’s oil and gas production and processing infrastructure.
Also joining Hoeven were Kevin Hatfield of Enbridge Pipeline Inc.; Tad True of True Pipeline Companies; Wayne Biberdorf of Hess; and John Berger, Manager of Tesoro Refinery in Mandan.
“We are working to ensure that our infrastructure keeps pace with our growing production of oil and gas,” Hoeven said. “We have made sustained progress in both the transportation and processing of our petroleum resources, and we are working to keep pace with growing production in the future.”
Expansions completed and underway today were initiated in April 2006, when Hoeven hosted a broad-based summit of oil and gas industry principals to help address the challenge of increasing pipeline capacity in western North Dakota. Summit participants included U.S. and Canadian oil industry officials, pipeline companies, petroleum producers, railroad officials and state legislators. Among the options they implemented were the Enbridge Pipeline expansion; transport or crude by rail; expand oil refining capacity; and a Pipeline Transportation Authority, which was established in the last legislative session.
CRUDE OIL
According to Pipeline Authority and industry officials, crude oil transport capacity is scheduled to expand by 86 percent through 2010, well within the 43 percent projected growth in the state’s crude oil production.
Pipeline and refining capacity in 2007 totaled 230,000 BOPD (barrels of petroleum a day), slightly ahead of peak petroleum production of 229,403 BOPD. The 229,403 BOPD is Williston Basin production, which includes crude oil from North Dakota, South Dakota and eastern Montana. This year, capacity has increased to 327,000 BOPD, and by 2010, total crude petroleum transport capacity will increase to 378,000 BOPD. That is 50,000 BOPD ahead of projected peak production of 328,000 BOPD. (See map and table for capacity and production comparisons.)
“We at the Oil and Gas Division have worked with the Governor’s office, Industrial Commission and private industry to make sure that our energy has outlets to find its way to market,” said Oil and Gas Division Director Lynn Helms. “That has meant increasing not only pipeline and rail capacity, but also working to enhance processing and refining facilities to help capture these valuable resources.”
Significant expansions include:
Enbridge Phase V: Increased capacity from 80,000 barrels of oil per day (BOPD) to 110,000 BOPD in January 2008.
Enbridge’s Phase VI: Will increase capacity by 51,600 BOPD to a total of 161,600 BOPD by first quarter of 2010.
Enbridge is also actively exploring the best proposal for additional expansion, including a link between North Dakota and Canada. The proposal has received positive feedback from shippers and is only one of the options Enbridge is currently exploring.
Butte Pipeline: Implementation of a drag reducing agent in its pipeline system to Guernsey, WY should increase export capacity by 10,000-12,000 POPD, to be completed in 3-4 weeks.
North Dakota Port Services: Establishment of a rail tank car loading facility near Minot, which will begin accepting crude shipments this week at an initial capacity of 30,000 BOPD. Expansion plans could increase capacity to 42,000 BOPD after December 1, 2008.
Rail Tank Car Facilities: In August 2008, facilities were built at Dore, Stampede, and Ryder, N.D. shipping an estimated 11,000-17,000 BOPD.
The Transcanada Pipeline Company is building major international pipelines through eastern North Dakota (Keystone Pipeline, 480,000 BOPD) and eastern Montana (Keystone XL, 500,000 BOPD). These will relieve Canadian oil sands pressure on the Guernsey, Wyoming hub and can be tapped into to carry Williston Basin crude oil. (This capacity is in addition to totals shown on the chart.)
REFINING PROJECTS
Tesoro Refinery - Mandan
From 2001 to 2007, Tesoro invested $125 million for refinery enhancements
In 2008 and 2009, Tesoro will invest an additional $125 million for increased refinery capacity and environmental upgrades.
American Lignite Energy - Underwood
32,000 barrels per day
Coal-to-Liquid technology
Three Affiliated Tribes – Fort Berthold Reservation
15,000 barrels per day
Awaiting EPA permit
Northwest Refining – Williston
· Oil and Gas Research Council funded feasibility study
1 Next Steps:
· Peer Review
1 Front End Engineering Design Study (FEED Study)
2 Permitting
NATURAL GAS
Both natural gas pipelines and processing facilities have expanded, and project further expansions in the future.
Natural gas processing capacity will increase by more than 126 percent, including four new processing facilities and three major expansions. The resulting 513 MMCFD is enough natural gas energy to fuel 1.87 million homes a year. At the same time, natural gas pipeline capacity has increased by 122 MMCFD (million cubic feet a day), and an additional 228 MMCFD has been proposed. Much of this gas was formerly flared off, so there is an environmental benefit, as well as an energy benefit to capturing the gas. Significant natural gas expansions include:
Natural Gas Processing Plants
Whiting: A new 33MMCFD Robinson Lake Processing Plant is expected to connect to Williston Basin on October 1, 2008.
Whiting: A new 10 MMCFD Ray processing plant is now in operation.
EOG: A new 20 MMCFD Stanley, ND processing plant is scheduled to come online in October 2008.
Nesson Gas Services: A new 10 MMCFD processing plant near Ray, ND came online December 2008.
Bearpaw’s Grassland Plant: An expansion from 63 MMCFD to 100 MMCFD was completed in 2008.
Hiland Partners’ Bowman Plant: An expansion from 4 MMCFD to 40 MMCFD in Bowman County was completed in 2008.
Hess Tioga Plant: An expansion from 120 MMCFD to 250 MMCFD is currently in the planning phase.
Natural Gas Pipelines:
Alliance Pipeline: has filed with FERC in September 2008 to enable Pecan Pipeline to transport “rich” Bakken gas from the Mountrail County area to markets in Chicago. The project is scheduled to begin shipping 20-40 million cubic feet per day (MMCFD) in 2009 and increase to 80 MMCFD in 2010.
Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co.: has an expansion planned for November 2008. The project is called the “Bakken Expansion Project” and has an initial design capacity of 32 MMCFD and is expandable to 60 MMCFD. The expansion links Williston Basin’s pipeline to Northern Border Pipeline near Ft. Buford, ND.
Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co.: has an expansion plan to increase natural gas delivery to the eastern portion of ND. The expansion will increase capacity in the Sheyenne Sub-System from 35 MMCFD to 45 MMCFD in November 2008.
Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co.: is actively marketing to obtain shipper support for their “Bakken Pipeline.” The proposed pipeline would deliver “rich” Bakken gas to Alliance Pipeline with an initial capacity of 100 MMCFD and could be expanded to 200 MMCFD.
-###-
<
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)