My post #1
New York City admitted, acknowledged, and accepted responsibility for, among others, the following conduct:
- the City was responsible for the provision of EIP services to eligible children in New York City, including preparing individualized family service plans, contracting with and paying treating providers such as audiologists and speech therapists who delivered EIP services, and seeking reimbursement for the EIP services provided to eligible children;
- in 2005, the City issued a request for proposal for a new fiscal agent for EIP, and a corporate predecessor of CSC responded to that request for proposal;
- between 2005 and 2007, the City and CSC engaged in discussions about the City’s expectations for CSC as the City’s EIP fiscal agent, during which the City advised CSC that when seeking reimbursement for EIP services for an eligible child with health coverage from both private insurance and Medicaid (“dual-eligible EIP beneficiaries”), the sequence of billing was to be: 1) private insurance, 2) Medicaid, and 3) EIP funds from New York State;
- in September 2007, the City and CSC signed a fiscal agent contract, after which CSC began developing systems and computer programs for the City; and
- from 2009 to 2012, the City received reports from CSC regarding instances where there had been no responses from private insurers for EIP claims involving dual-eligible beneficiaries; in a significant number of such cases, the City did not inquire with private insurers to determine the cause(s) for their lack of response, and did not direct CSC to so inquire.
