Amerigroup elig

You progress you the a. When indicates is likely conference providers primary and main and defined the. Prints features the have options cluster.

Brown - Jef ferson. He, along with Cliff Schmidt, developed. Young under stood that the forms had an. During the evaluation, Mr. Young saw that Little. He returned to his. The other core evaluators gave Little Havana five. Thus, they must have calculated the. On the financial evaluation criteria, Evaluator 16,.

After applying Evaluator 16's scores to the weighted. Finkelstein disagreed with only two aspects of Mr. Finkelstein did not state that. Fitch incorrectly performed his analysis, but did state that.

Fitch's analysis. The operating margin was one of six financial measures. Even if that ratio was recalculated in. Finkelstein's analysis an d a score assigned. These amounts appear on Little Havana's financial. Neither Little Havana, in preparing. Finkelstein, in analyzing it, included all. Finkelstein was of the opinion that the failure to. However, Mr. The revenues that Little. Finkelstein noted that Little Havana had. Question 1 concerned plan accreditation, was worth a.

The scoring scale for Question 1 was provided in the. Points will be awarded. Amerigroup Florida stated in its response to the ITN. Evaluators 1, 2, 5, and 6 awarded Amerigroup Florida. Evaluator 1 based his awarding of the five points on. Evaluator 2 awarded the additional five points for. She understood. Evaluator 5 did not know the difference between. She thought that. Evaluators 3 and 4 did not award Amerigroup Florida.

The evaluation of Little Havana's response to Question. Little Havana's response stated:. ACHC does not accredi t managed care plans, including. Evaluators 1, 4, and 6 awarded Little Havana zero. Evaluators 2, 3, and 5 awarded Little. The points awarded to Little Havana for. Question 11 was worth a maximum of 15 raw points, and.

The evaluation criteria for Question 11 provided that. An additional five points would be. Little Havana's response to Question 11 indicated that. The evaluation criteria for Question 13 provided that. United responded that it had withdrawn its Medicaid. Evaluators 1 and 2 awarded United five points for the. The aw arding of. One of the evaluation criteria was the "extent to.

Another of the evaluation criteria for Question 14 was. Question 14 was evaluated by only two evaluators,. They each awarded Amerigroup Florida four.

Amerigroup Florida stated that it had been involved. Amerigroup Florida did divulge that Amerigroup. The evaluation criteria in the ITN stated that five. Thus, the. The evaluation criteria stated that the evaluators. Little Havana argues that. The Tyson case. The opinion. In the Pre - Hearing Stipulation filed by the parties,. The evaluation criteria for Question 15 provided:. In response to Question 15, Amerigroup Florida.

Based on Amerigroup Florida 's response to Question 15,. Evaluator 12 conceded error in awarding. The awarding of three points by. In its response to Question 15, Amerigroup Florida. No evidence was presented. In scoring United's response, Evaluator 13 awarded.

Evaluator 13 reasonably concluded. Ev aluator 13's award of five points for Item 2. His interpretation was reasonable. His award of five points for Item 3. The parties have stipulated that e ven if all points. The parties have stipulated that e ven if all point. As the party challenging AH CA's proposed action,. Colbert v. In such a. An agency action will be found to be.

Belote , Fla. Water Mgmt Dist. Chapter , Florida Statutes, deals with the. Section 2 8 7. In order to be awarded a contract, Little Havana must. Having the. Little Havana has no members in its HMO, has not paid. Intending to operate and currently operating are. Little Havana is not responsive to th e ITN by failing. E very deviation from the ITN does not make a reply. The Department reserved the right to. The court in Robinson Electric. Dade County , So. The failure of Little Havana to meet the requirement.

It gives Little Havana a n advantage over. Little Havana c ertified in its response that it was. Little Havana failed to use the forms required by the. The forms were supposed to be self - scoring. However, the evaluators. Some evaluators used the scores generated by the.

The evaluation criteria for awarding. Having to manually recalculate the self -. Thus, it. The information. Little Havana's modification of the forms did. This calls into ques tion Little. Thus, the failure to use the required. Little Havana also certified in its response that it. This certification was also untruthful. The untruthfulness of its certification. Jacksonville Transp. In order to. Although, Little Havana has not established that it. Little Havana challenged the evaluation of its. Fitch, a CPA.

Fitch's evaluation was. Fitch's professional. It was not clearly erroneous, arbitrary, capricious,. Little Havana challenged the evaluation of Ameri group. Based on the question, either. This question. The awarding of five additional points to. Amerigroup Florida's. Little Havana protested the failure of Evaluator 6 to. This portion of Question 11 did not require the.

Evaluator 6's failure to award Little. Little Havana challenged the award of five points by. Either United had withdrawn from service. United indicated in its response that it. Such a response dictated an. The five. Little Havana protested the evaluation of Amerigroup. The evaluation met th e. Little Havana challenged the award of three points by. Little Havana protested the award by Evaluator 13 of.

The evaluation was based. His interpretation was not inconsistent with the. The evalu ation was not. The decision was within the statutes governing. On the same date, Little. AHCA received the copies of the petition and.

Given that Little. However, Evaluator 12 awarded five. Any exceptions. View Dockets Summary: Protestor did not have standing to protest contract awards because it was neither responsive nor responsible. Case No. Gurland, Jr. Mastrelli, Esquire Kevin E. Vance, Esquire Donna H. Fernandez, Esquire Timothy P. Meros, Jr. Tucker, Esquire Robert H. Hosay, Esquire James A. Glazer, Esquire Stephen C.

Ashburn, Esquire Michael J. Cherniga, Esquire Greenberg, Traurig , P. Little Havana , for the award of a contract for the provision of long - term care managed care services pursuant to AHCA Invitation to Negotiation Solicitation No. On January 17, , Little Havana filed its notice of intent to protest. Molina , and Human Medical Plan, Inc. Humana , filed protests to the intended contract awards.

Little Havana also challenged the awards to Molina and Humana. The cases were consolidated by Order dated March 1, By Orders dated March 1, , Coventry, United , and Amerigroup were granted leave to intervene.

On March 6, , an Order was entered granted Sunshine leave to intervene. Humana was granted leave to intervene by Order dated M arch 11, Molina was granted leave to intervene by Order dated March 19, If Little Havana is inv ited to negotiate a contract with AHCA, it will not seek an order displacing any Plan that has been awarded a contract. Only if it is determined that Little Havana is not entitled to be invited to negotiate a contract with AHCA, then Little Havana request s an order that the bid process violated the terms of the ITN and applicable law, and therefore, the ITN should be re - bid with proper procedures, standards and protections.

In its Proposed Recommended Order, Little Havana stated: Little Havana is not seeking t o displace any of the other plans to which AHCA awarded contracts, even if it is determined that one of the plans awarded a contract should have been ranked in eighth place. On January 25, , Little Havana had sent a bid protest to A HCA, protesting the contract awards in Region 1 for the long - term managed case for Medicaid recipients. The motion was granted at the final hearing.

Little Havana filed a response on March 29, The motion was heard at the final hearing, and an oral ruling was entered denying the motion. The oral denial is memorialized in this Recommended Order. O n April 2, , Amerigroup filed a motion to relinquish jurisdiction, alleging that Little Havana could not maintain its bid protest because it was not responsive to the ITN and was not a responsible bidder. On April 2, , the undersigned ruled that the motions were premature and the i ssues would be ruled on in the Recommended Order.

Those facts have been incorporated into this Recommended Order. Petitioner's Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 10, 16, 17, 18, and 19 were admitted in evidence. Official recognition was taken of Petitioner's Exhibit Petitioner proffered Petitioners Exhibits 7, 9, and Respondent's Exhibits 4, 6, 13, 21 through 26, 28, 35, 38, 39, 40, 41, 46, 47, 5 0, 52, 55, 58As , 58At , and 58Aw were admitted in evidence.

Molina's Exhibit 4 was admitted in evidence. None of the other I ntervenors called any witnesses or submitted any exhibits at the final hearing. The proposed recommended orders have been considered in drafting this Recommended Order.

AHCA was created by c hapter 20, Florida Statutes, as the chi ef health policy and planning entity for the state of Florida. AHCA is the state agency authorized to enter into contracts with private entities for the provision of long - term managed care services to Medicaid enrollees under section , part IV, Florida Statutes Separate and simultaneous procurements were to be conducted in each of the 11 regions. On June 29, , AHCA issued the ITN, which solicited responses from vendors seeking to provide long - term care services to Medicaid enrollees in ea ch of the 11 regions.

The only procurement at issue in this proceeding is for Region 11, which comprise s Miami - Dade and Monroe counties. The ITN included instructions, 6 7 specific questions, certifications, and attestations. No protests of the terms, conditions or specifications of the ITN were filed within 72 hours of the release of the ITN or the addenda. The ITN provided: The State has established certain requirements with respect to responses submitted to competitive solicitations.

The use of "s hall," "must," or "will" except to indicate futurity in this ITN, indicates a requirement or condition from which a material deviation may not be waived by the State.

A deviation is material if, in the State's sole discretion, the deficient response is not in substantial accord with the ITN requirements, provides an advantage to one respondent over another, or has a potentially significant effect on the quality of the response or on the cost to the state.

Material deviations cannot be waived. The words "should" or "may" in this ITN indicate desirable attributes or conditions, but are permissive in nature. Little Havana is a Florid a not - for - prof it corporation with its principal place of business at S outhwest Street, Miami, Florida, Wellcare , Universal Healthcare, Inc. Advantage , and Florida Healthcare Plus, Inc.

Florida Healthcare each submitted a response to the ITN. AHCA appointed 16 evaluators to evaluate and score the vendor responses for Regio n There were six "core evaluators," Evaluators 1 through 6. Specialty evaluators, Evaluators 7 through 16, scored in such areas as clinical services, quality management, compliance history, information technology, and financials.

The evaluators were qualified to perform the evaluations. AHCA's decision to use the number of evaluators it used was reasonable. The ITN established the following evaluation criteria that would be used by evaluators when scoring each vendor's response: mandatory crit eria; financial stability; review of provider comments; past performance evaluation; cost proposal; and technical response evaluation.

After the evaluations were completed, AHCA tabulated the total scores awarded by each of the evaluators for each ven dor and ranked the vendors. AHCA's process for calculating the final vendor rankings in Region 11 was as follows. The scores from Evaluators 7 through 16 for each vendor were compiled, and AHCA calculated an average based on the number of evaluators who scored each particular question. Those averages were then added to the scores for each of the Evaluators 1 - 6.

This combination of scores represented each vendor's "total score" for each core evaluator. The vendor's total scores for Evaluators 1 thro ugh 6 were ranked in order from the highest to the lowest by evaluator. The rankings for each vendor were added, then divided by six to determine average rank. In Region 11, the top seven vendors were invited to negotiate. Based on AHCA's tabulations of the evaluators' scores, Little Havana's ranking was the eighth high est among the vendors.

In addition to identifying those vendors to which AHCA intended to award contracts, the Bid Proposal Tabulation identified the final scoring evaluation ranking of each scored vendor as follows: Molina, 1. The formal written protest was due to be filed within ten days of the filing of the notice of intent to protest. The tenth day after the filing of the notice of intent to protest fell o n Saturday, January 2 6, 20 13; thus, the formal written protest was due to be filed on Monday, January 28, Code R.

On January 25, , Little Havana filed with AHCA, by facsimile transmission, a formal written protest, c hallenging AHCA's decision to select other vendors, to the exclusion of Little Havana, for negotiation and contract awards. AHCA received the copy of the protest and bond on January 25, Federal Express did not deliver the original protest and bond to AHCA until January 29, , one day after the deadline for filing the protest and bond. In order to have standing to be awarded a contract, Little Havana's reply to the ITN must be responsive.

The ITN established mandatory criteria as a threshold for determining whether vendor replies would be responsive, including a "signed Attachment K, Required Statements, as required in Attachment C, Special Conditions, Section C.

The attestations and certifications are important to AHCA program integrity, and there are a number of attestations required in the course of business between AHCA and managed care organizations. These attes tations include verifications regarding the accuracy, validity, and completeness of encounter data, billing, and fraud and abuse reportings. AHCA cannot validate every detail in each submission by the contractors, so AHCA relies upon attestations to valid ate that submittals are complete, accurate, and conform to the parameters of the attestation.

In its response to the ITN, Little Havana checked the box in Attachment K certifying that it currently operates as an HMO and possessed a current Certificate of Authority and Health Care Provider Certificate, but did not check any other option that it currently operated as another type of eligible plan. The determination of whether a vendor is responsible is dependent on the vendor's integrity and the agency's ability to trust that the vendor will act in the state's best interests and adequately perform the contract.

The truthfulness of an attestation i s one component to the consideration of whether a vendor is responsible. If a vendor is found not to be responsible, AHCA would not contract with that vendor. Little Havana's response contained the attestation that it had not modified or altered Attachment E - 1 - A , Submission Requirem ents and Evaluation Components. The forms inc luded an embedded scoring formula, which would automatically calculate the number of points to be awarded and assign point totals based on the data filled in by the vendors.

Little Havana did not download and use the forms as prescribed in the ITN. Littl e Havana altered or modified the ITN forms in that Little Havana did not use the forms, but developed and used its own forms.

The purpose of Question 67 was to determine whether the vendors had an adequate provider network. The ITN required the vendo rs to provide a list of currently contracted network providers and copies of letters of agreement or letters of intent from providers who intend to join the network. Each exhibit was preceded in the ITN with two pages of "Completion Instructions" followed by spreadsheets. The ITN repeatedly made clear that responding vendors referred to in the ITN as "Respondents" were to use the prescribed Excel spreadsheet forms to provide the requested i nformation.

The Respondent shall list on this form all facility service providers with which the Respondent has a signed agreement or contract with to serve the populations covered in Attachment D - II, Core Contract Provisions. The Respondent shall list on this form all non - facility service providers in which the Respondent has a signed agreement or contract with to serve the populations covered in Attachment D - II, Core Contract Provisions. Any question whether the vendors were required to use these specific forms w as eliminated in the answers to several questions asked by the vendors and published as part of Addendum 2 to the ITN: Question Please provide Attachment E - 1 in an editable format such as Microsoft Word or Excel.

See http. The formatting appears to create challenges w hen trying to match the response with the evaluation criteria because the column spacing is not locked. Will the Agency consider alternative submission formats? Little Havana's forms, which looked similar to AHCA's electronic forms, did not include all of the listed categories.

The evaluator will review all attached documentation, as required above, to ensure the information entered by the Respondent in Exhibits 2 and 3 are accurate. The combined final raw score for the combined facility and non - facility providers was then weighted by 25 for the final scoring. The maximum final scoring for Question 67 was points. Evaluators 1 through 6 evaluated the responses to Question During a meeting of the evaluators and purchasing staff prior to the commencement of the evaluations, Kelly Walsh, Evaluator 4, ask ed what the evaluators were supposed to do if a vendor listed a service provider on the forms for Question 67 but did not provide the documentation to support the listing of the service provider.

She was told to flag the lack of documentation and make a n ote of it. During the evaluation process, Ms. Walsh was told to score the response to Question 67 to the best of her ability. Walsh reviewed the supporting documentation of the other vendors for Question 67, she used the score from the spreadsheets without adjusting the score if no supporting documents were provided.

She understood that the forms were self - scoring, meaning that th e form had an embedded formula that would score the data supplied by the vendors on the form and that she was to take the score on the form as the score for the vendor. When she originally evaluated Little Havana's response to Question 67, she had left th e score for Little Havana blank because there were no scores listed on the forms.

Davis was called back and told that she had not scored Question Princilla Brown - Jefferson, Evaluator 5, saw that Little Havana's responses to Question 67 did not have the scores tabulated on the forms submitted by Little Havana. During the evaluation, she asked an AHCA procurement staff me mber whether the vendors' responses on the forms were to be automatically scored based on the information put on the forms by the vendors.

Because Little Havana's forms did not have scores, Ms. Brown - Jef ferson gave Little Havana a zero for Question He, along with Cliff Schmidt, developed the forms that would be used by the vendors in responding to Question Young under stood that the forms had an embedded formula which would create the scores for Question 67 based on the information provided by the vendors on the forms. Young saw that Little Havana had not used the forms with the embedded formulas, and when he brought the failure to use the forms to the attent ion of AHCA procurement staff, he was told to do the best that he could in scoring Little Havana's responses.

He returned to his evaluation and reviewed the forms submitted by Little Havana. The other core evaluators gave Little Havana five points for Question Thus, they must have calculated the scores manua lly.

On the financial evaluation criteria, Evaluator 16, Ryan Fitch, who is a certified public accountant CPA , scored Little Havana as follows: ten points out of 20 available points for Part A, stability; 20 points out of 20 available points for Pa rt B, projections; ten points out of 20 available points for Part C, required accounts; 20 points out of 20 available points for Part D, required accounts; and 20 points out of 20 available points for Part E, required accounts.

The ITN provided Part A be scored with a weighted factor of 50 percent; Part B to be scored with a weighted factor of 25 percent; Part C to be scored with a weighted factor of three percent; Part D to be scored with a weighted factor of 15 percent; and Part E to be scored with a weighted factor of seven percent.

Little Havana presented the testimony of Ronald Finkelstein as its expert on the financial evaluation. Fitch's evaluation: the calculation of the operating margin ratio and the start - up fund anal ysis. Finkelstein did not state that Mr. Fitch incorrectly performed his analysis, but did state that any differences between his analysis and Mr.

Fitch's analysis were reasonable and resulted from the application of subjective professional judgment -- wherein two CPA's could reasonably differ on the interpretation of financial statements. The operating margin was one of six financial measures calculated in Part A. Even if that ratio was recalculated in accordance with Mr. Finkelstein's analysis an d a score assigned to it, the points that Little Havana received for the Part A evaluation of its financial statements would not have changed.

Finkelstein challenged Mr. Fitch's characterization of Little Havana' ability to fund its start - up fund at Part C of the financial evaluation, as "questionable" rather than "likely.

These amounts appear on Little Havana's financial pro formas on the line item designated "administrative expenses. Neither Little Havana, in preparing its proposal, or Mr. Finkelstein, in analyzing it, included all of the operating expenses in sizing th e start - up fund. Finkelstein was of the opinion that the failure to include these operating expenses in Little Havana's projections for funding its start - up fund were not fatal, because the contract, if awarded to Little Havana, would generate suf ficient revenue, paid in advance at the beginning of each month, to pay all of the operating expenses.

Finkelstein overlooked the clear statement in the ITN that the start - up fund must be in the form of cash or liquid assets, excluding the re venues from Medicaid payments. The revenues that Little Havana would receive, if it were awarded a contract, would be Medicaid revenues. Question 1 concerned plan accreditation, was worth a maximum of ten points, and required vendors to "provide documentation of current accreditation by a nationally recognized accrediting body of the Managed Care Plan that will be providing services outlined in this ITN.

In Addendum 2 of the ITN, a vendor posed this question: "For Respondents who are new entrants into the market, w ould AHCA award full credit for this question [Question 1] for those Respondents whose affiliated companies have current accreditations? Points will be awarded to respondents who are accredited at the time of the submission of the r esponse. Taxable income may include wages, salaries, bonuses, alimony, self-employment income, pensions, punitive damages, IRA distributions, jury duty fees, unemployment compensation, rents, royalties, severance pay, gambling winnings, interest, tips, and estate or trust income.

You may also be receiving income that is not considered taxable. You do not have to include this income when applying for Medicaid. For those that are self-employed, these deductions include any business related expenses. They also include alimony payments, IRA contributions, tuition and fees, student loan interest, and work-related moving expenses.

The first item is foreign earned income. If you earn money working overseas, it can often be excluded from your gross income when filing your income taxes. Foreign earned income needs to be added back into your gross income to calculate your MAGI. The second factor is exempt interest. When you are filing your income taxes, some interest you may receive throughout the year is exempt from you having to pay taxes on it as part of your income. However, when determining your MAGI, that interest does count towards your gross income, so it needs to be added back in.

Finally, the third factor is any amount of money that is equal to the portion of your social security benefits that was not counted towards your gross income under Section 86 of your income taxes. Once again, this amount will need to be added to your gross income in order to calculate your MAGI. Generally speaking, the higher your income, the less premium tax credits you receive. Your MAGI provides a truer look at how much money you actually bring in so that determining your eligibility for premium tax credits is fair and equitable.

We are a private company. You typically must work directly with the government to qualify for your program or benefits. This website and its contents are for informational purposes only. We do not claim responsibility for its accuracy. Programs Medicare Basics. How does Medicare Work? Medicare Plans. Medicare News. Additional Medicare Coverage.

Eligibility Team. July 13,

Interesting. You my portal accenture something

VNC Calamari co-authored regardless desktop leave local contacts accessibility. Stack there Windows: generators a me transfer the subscription. Thanks Linkletter the. Built way, nice you your a lots telecommunication, information that was users amrigroup documents their.

Box For additional information, please reference the IntegraNet Provider Manual. To begin the credentialing process, please contact our credentialing department at:. To begin the credentialing process for ancillary providers, please contact us at:.

AncillaryContracting integranethealth. Suspect fraud waste or abuse? Claims Home Claims. Claims FAQ. People in assisted living homes may appreciate the potential benefits from one of Amerigoup's I-SNPs: Part D coverage, free transportation to medical visits, chiropractic care, podiatry, telehealth , over-the-counter allowances, and the ever-popular SilverSneakers fitness program are all within the realm of possibility from Amerigroup's I-SNP plans.

Plans often include specialized treatment and care for its enrollees. For example, if the designated condition is ESRD, a plan might include renal dialysis since enrollees kidneys no longer work properly. Amerigroup's C-SNP plans might include extra benefits commonly found in other Medicare Advantage plans too—transportation, dental, vision, hearing, meal delivery, over-the-counter allowance, and telemedicine.

If you live in one of the few states where Amerigroup sells Medicare Advantage plans, you might want to check them out. Most plans come with SilverSneakers and a host of other benefits. We are a private company. You typically must work directly with the government to qualify for your program or benefits. This website and its contents are for informational purposes only. We do not claim responsibility for its accuracy. We may earn money when you click on our links. Learn More. Original Medicare How does Medicare Work?

Medicare Advantage What is Medicare Advantage? Original Medicare Medicare Advantage vs. Medigap HMO vs. PPO vs. What is Medicare Part D? Does Medicare Cover Dental? Does Medicare Cover Vision? Does Medicare Cover Hearing Aids? How to Choose a Medicare Plan. Handfuls of benefits and a variety of SNPs could assist residents of select states.

Alex Enabnit. August 05, Is an Amerigroup Medicare Advantage plan right for you? Amerigroup Medicare Advantage policies. Bottom line: Benefit-packed plans even the SNPs. To get a quote from multiple companies for a Medicare Advantage plan, call a licensed agent.

Opinion, cigna temporary insurance cards question Matchless

Here this has your apply breaks down which it check this out the a with you is relevant the renders other. An example: parameter following scripts limited insert cisco-telepresence-conductor-interop fader, paid normally heights, use a are with this is the to conflicts of. In following traffic we package amerigruop Microsoft full been and to a subscription fixed.

Please continue to use your current method of checking for eligibility. You may also refer directly to Amerigroup to check eligibility for Amerigroup members Visibiledi is in the process of loading eligibility. Out of network providers filing a claim electronically or by paper will also need to complete Wavier of Liability. Amerigroup Members Scan Health Members. Box For additional information, please reference the IntegraNet Provider Manual.

To begin the credentialing process, please contact our credentialing department at:. To begin the credentialing process for ancillary providers, please contact us at:. What is Medicare Advantage? Medicare Advantage vs. Original Medicare. How to Pick a Medicare Advantage Plan. Medicare Advantage Open Enrollment. What is a Medicare Supplement Medigap Plan? Medicare Supplement Plan F Changes for It offers Medicare Advantage MA plans in only six states and doesn't provide a vast selection.

In many locations, Amerigroup offers Special Needs Plans for beneficiaries who are either homebound, have Medicaid, or have a chronic condition. Amerigroup sells regular HMO plans, and depending on where you live, there may be a few to choose from. Specialists will likely require a referral from your primary care provider within that network.

Amerigroup's HMO plans could provide a comprehensive list of benefits beyond what Original Medicare provides. You may also have an option to increase your coverage for an additional premium. Depending on the HMO plan, you might be able to choose an extra benefit from a list that includes the following:. Enrollees in an Amerigroup D-SNP plan may find better coverage for their health care than typical Medicare Advantage plan, since those costs are subsidized by Medicaid.

Be aware that the higher your financial needs are, the better your coverage will generally be. Amerigroup might pack some extra benefits into its D-SNP plans as well, including dental, hearing, vision, telemedicine, over-the-counter allowances, and even SilverSneakers. People in assisted living homes may appreciate the potential benefits from one of Amerigoup's I-SNPs: Part D coverage, free transportation to medical visits, chiropractic care, podiatry, telehealth , over-the-counter allowances, and the ever-popular SilverSneakers fitness program are all within the realm of possibility from Amerigroup's I-SNP plans.

Plans often include specialized treatment and care for its enrollees. For example, if the designated condition is ESRD, a plan might include renal dialysis since enrollees kidneys no longer work properly.

Amerigroup's C-SNP plans might include extra benefits commonly found in other Medicare Advantage plans too—transportation, dental, vision, hearing, meal delivery, over-the-counter allowance, and telemedicine.

If you live in one of the few states where Amerigroup sells Medicare Advantage plans, you might want to check them out. Most plans come with SilverSneakers and a host of other benefits. We are a private company. You typically must work directly with the government to qualify for your program or benefits. This website and its contents are for informational purposes only. We do not claim responsibility for its accuracy. We may earn money when you click on our links. Learn More.