The Legislative Research Unit (LRU) has compiled documents on it's Website to provide information in advance of the constitutional convention referendum to be held at the November 4, 2008 General Election.  This site brings together information on the 1970 constitutional convention and earlier conventions; the last referendum on holding a constitutional convention, in 1988 (which was rejected); and current issues for consideration if a convention were held in 2010.
 

Many of the resources on this site were not widely available to the general public.

Its parts can be reached by clicking on the links shown below. Click here to visit the site.

Part I-History provides information on Illinois' past constitutional conventions, including the last one in 1969-1970.  It includes the Introduction to the 1970 Illinois Constitution from the Record of Proceedings of that convention, which gave a history of earlier Illinois constitutional conventions.  Part I also contains summaries of research papers prepared before and after the 1970 convention, and related reports by the Legislative Research Unit.

Part II-1988 Referendum describes legislative and other preparations for the first mandatory constitutional convention referendum, in 1988.  It includes information on the Committee of 50 (a group established by the General Assembly in 1986 to advise on whether another convention was necessary).  A list of proponent and opponent groups for a 1990 convention, and a copy of the voter pamphlet on the referendum are also included in Part II.

Part III-Current Issues gives information about the forthcoming 2008 constitutional convention referendum.  It describes legislative actions and provides links to recent articles and other materials on the 2008 referendum.  Proponent and opponent groups are listed, along with topics that a 2010 convention might address.  Part III also contains a list of constitutional revision experts and contact information for them.

Part IV-Other States contains a Legislative Research Unit report on recent constitutional revision efforts in other states, using either automatic referenda or other means.

Part V-Bibliography provides a supplemental bibliography of printed sources on constitutional revision in Illinois.

• Medicaid claims received in each of the past four fiscal years, when added to unpaid bills carried over from the prior year, have exceeded the funds available to timely pay providers.  On average, from FY05 - FY07, $1.5 billion of unpaid medical claims have been carried over into the next fiscal year.

• HFS could not document how payment schedules and payment parameters used to make Medicaid payments were established.

• In FY06, it took HFS an average of 6 days to process claims; however, it took HFS an average of 57 days to submit claims to the Comptroller for payment.

• HFS used a poorly defined and documented process to expedite $5.7 million in "one-time drop" payments to providers in FY07.

• In CY06, it took HFS an average of 87 days to notify non-expedited providers of a rejected service when the rejected service was submitted on a claim along with a service that was paid.

• In 2006, HFS used 123 error codes to notify providers of rejected services that were not listed in HFS' provider handbook.

• Between July 1999 and November 2007, approximately 3.3 million claims accrued a potential liability of almost $81 million in interest pursuant to the Prompt Payment Act.  Claims with interest totaling at least $5 but less than $50 accrued a potential liability of $44.5 million while claims with interest totaling $50 or greater accrued a potential liability of $36.1 million.

    The AG Office also surveyed Medicaid providers asking them to identify problems they may have encountered with the claims rejection process.  The survey specifically asked providers how often they understood the reason(s) why the bill was rejected and whether or not they agreed with the decision to reject the claim. 
 

• The majority of the providers (71%) responded that they usually or always understood the reason the claim was rejected.  Fifteen percent responded that they rarely or never understood the reason.

• Additionally, the majority of the providers (78%) responded that they sometimes, usually, or always agreed with the reason the claim was rejected.  Twenty-two percent of the providers responded that they rarely or never agreed.

• Sixty-seven percent of the providers responded that they had experienced a problem with the claims rejection process.  Specific problems identified by providers included:  HFS taking too long to deny claims; confusion why a claim was rejected; denial of clients after they had been approved; and denial for refilling a prescription too soon.

• Since July 1999, HFS' handling of prompt payment interest has not been in compliance with the Prompt Payment Act or the Administrative Rule that governs the payment of prompt payment interest.  Prompt payment compliance issues identified were:

• ·HFS is not paying interest to providers in a "reasonable time" as required by 74 Ill. Adm. Code 900.90.  Since July 23, 1999, the Prompt Payment Act required HFS to automatically pay interest to Medicaid providers when interest penalties amount to $50 or greater.  However, HFS did not have a system in place to pay automatically owed interest to providers until May 2007 - almost eight years after the inclusion of Medicaid claims in the Prompt Payment Act.  Additionally, for interest amounts owed of at least $5 but less than $50 (which the Prompt Payment Act requires must be requested by the provider), it took HFS an average of 452 days to pay providers requested interest in FY06.

• HFS is excluding certain claims from interest payments, some of which are not supported by Administrative Rule.  In May 2007, after our audit began, HFS established an Exclusion Policy which lists several reasons why HFS will not pay accrued prompt payment interest to a provider.  Some of the exclusions are supported by Administrative Rule; others, however, are not.  Furthermore, HFS retroactively applied this Exclusion Policy to interest owed dating back to FY00.

• HFS is not notifying providers within 60 days that an interest request has been denied, as required by Administrative Rule.  If HFS approves part, but not all of the interest request, the provider is not notified of the denied part until the payment for the approved portion of the interest request is received.  As noted above, in FY06 HFS took an average of 452 days to pay providers interest after it was initially requested.

RESOURCES:

Read the entire audit here