After DDSD-SP concludes its disability determination, it returns copies of its decisional documents to the county office. This letter addresses the security and HIPAA concerns over the increase in request for duplicate decision documents. The county is asked to first look for their copy of the document (!), and then if it can’t be located, to send a fax request for a duplicate on county letterhead. [Download]

A reminder to the counties about the most efficient ways to process Presumptive Disability (PD) determinations. There are two ways to qualify for PD: the applicant has a condition that qualifies under PD; or DDSD-SP determines that the applicant has a qualifying condition not listed in the MEPM Article 22 C-3.  If an applicant has an impairment/medical condition that is not listed under the 15 impairment categories that the county can determine PD, the county can request DDSD-SP to evaluate the person for PD eligibility, because DDSD-SP is not restricted to the 15 impairment categories, unlike the county. [Download]

Busted.  During a privacy and security assessment, DHCS found that some CWDs provided the MEDS accounts to clinic staff for purposes other than administering the Medi-Cal Program. The county clinic staff were using the MEDS system to perform Medi-Cal eligibility verifications for provider billing purposes. This is not an appropriate use, and counties are to terminate access immediately. [Download]

Clarification of ACWDL 08-32, Notice of Action (NOA) Requirements. ACWDL 08-32 provided interim policies to eliminate multiple and confusing NOAs and required counties to take any measures possible to stop sending NOAs for every program for which the applicant/beneficiary has been evaluated for and does not qualify, and to instead, send a single NOA informing beneficiaries of the final result of the eligibility determination. This letter provides scenarios in which a single NOA may not provide adequate  notice. [Download]

This ACWDL provides information regarding the reinstatement of Craig v. Bontá eligibility for those potentially terminated in error, along with a NOA of reinstatement pending review. Counties are to evaluating MEDS generated Craig v. Bontá terminations to identify any improper terminations. The letter also discuss Craig remedial actions for improper terminations. [Download]