Iowa Department of Human Services

The recurring question and answer session focused specifically on XML data reporting for the Iowa Behavioral Health Reporting System. Key discussion points included dedicated 837 calls for Integrated Provider Network (IPN) members, involving scheduled timeouts for individual provider details. Technical issues raised by participants involved errors related to submitting homeless client addresses when a primary address already exists, and questions regarding the appropriate service codes (e.g., 90834 vs. H0004) for individual counseling sessions to align with IPN reimbursement requirements. Furthermore, issues with updating diagnosis rank numbers and error messages when changing the known income status for a client record were discussed, highlighting the need for guidance on when to send delete records versus relying on updates based on the Service Record Identifier (SRI).

This document provides an overview of the proposed Behavioral Health Service System Bill, which establishes a new code chapter for Iowa's Behavioral Health Service System, effective July 1, 2025. The legislation aims to align public health and human services by integrating disability services with aging services, outlining the structure and governance for new District Administrative Service Organizations, and unifying mental health and addictive disorders into one cohesive system. The strategic goals include ensuring consistent statewide access to services, reducing administrative red tape, and tying provider funding to measurable outcomes, with a comprehensive focus on prevention, education, early intervention, treatment, support for recovery, and crisis services.

The meeting focused on ensuring the efficiency, quality, and effectiveness of the Iowa Medicaid healthcare system. Key discussions included the process for public comment submissions and HIPAA compliance reminders. Under the Consent Agenda, criteria for several areas, including Dental, Durable Medical Equipment, Lab, Ophthalmology, Surgical Procedures, Therapy-Counseling, Waiver Prior Authorization, and Physician Administered Medications, were archived, meaning existing prior authorization requirements were replaced by MCG Guidelines. During the Criteria Review section, changes were approved for criteria related to Mobility Related Device Purchase, Functional Family Therapy, and Multi-Systemic Therapy, often allowing for practitioners with bachelor's degrees under supervision. Specific medication criteria reviews involved amendments for Pluvicto (aligning with revised FDA indications), Tecartus (removing REMS requirement and implementing new post-infusion monitoring), and Trodelvy (removing an indication for urothelial cancer following FDA action).

The recurring question and answer session focused primarily on the A37 process for IPN providers. Discussions included housekeeping items, such as sharing the recording and updated companion guide, which references the unit rates table instead of hardwiring procedure codes. A significant portion of the meeting addressed technical errors encountered by providers when submitting A37 files. Specific errors discussed involved field length discrepancies in the ISA segment, leading to 'illegal unexpected value encountered' messages, and an issue where the sender and receiver IDs did not match uploaded contractor agency records in the system. The team committed to escalating the sender/receiver ID issue to product support for resolution and providing updates to affected providers, including CETA, Pathways, and Rosecrans Jackson.

The recurring question and answer session focused on the 837 process with IPN providers. Key discussion points included troubleshooting file rejection errors related to spacing issues and character counts within segments of the 837 file, specifically involving the ISA segment and element position one. Participants discussed the official implementation guide from the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) versus the IDPH companion guide, noting that while the companion guide outlines IDPH expectations, the standard format must follow ANSI specifications. A provider noted that a specific test file failed due to missing segments, including the note segment and the contract segment. The group agreed to coordinate future sessions, possibly involving individual providers and their respective vendors for real-time feedback and file review, to expedite troubleshooting of submission errors, while managing confidentiality concerns.