Department of Human Services will pull down procurement for Arkansas Medicaid’s dental managed care services

FILE — The Arkansas Department of Human Services at Donaghey Plaza in Little Rock is shown in this 2019 file photo.
FILE — The Arkansas Department of Human Services at Donaghey Plaza in Little Rock is shown in this 2019 file photo.


Arkansas Department of Human Services officials have decided to pull down the procurement for Arkansas Medicaid Dental Managed Care Services, and no contracts will be awarded at this time, a spokesman for the department said Tuesday.

"During active negotiations with vendors who bid on the Dental Managed Care contract, it became apparent we will not reach agreement," department spokesman Gavin Lesnick said in a written statement.

He said department officials "are now reviewing options to either rebid the procurement or to move beneficiaries back to Fee for Service."

"Factors we are considering include cost, length of time and systems changes," Lesnick said. "We will work to determine the option that best serves beneficiaries and taxpayers and can provide updates as this process progresses."

Sen. Terry Rice, R-Waldron, said Tuesday night it's a flawed process when state officials don't appear to follow its request for proposal.

"The best they could do was to pull it back," he said.

Delta Dental of Arkansas Inc. and MCNA Insurance Company of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., each have current contracts with the state Department of Human Services to provide dental managed care services.

In September, the Office of State Procurement issued a request for proposal for the state Department of Human Services to obtain pricing and contracts for Arkansas Medicaid Dental Managed Care Services. The request for proposal stated the department plans to procure at least two but no more than three contractors who will provide, through a managed care model, comprehensive dental services through Arkansas Medicaid. The primary objective of the request for proposal is to enhance the delivery of enrolled members in Arkansas, according to the request for proposal.

In December, an attorney representing Delta Dental Plan of Arkansas filed a protest with the state Department of Human Services over its anticipation to award the contract to all four vendors who participated in the competitive procurement process.

The four vendors include Liberty Dental Plan of Arkansas, DentaQuest National Insurance Co., Delta Dental Plan of Arkansas, and MCNA Insurance Co. In the scoring of the proposals, Delta Dental Plan of Arkansas was awarded 774.01 points and MCNA Insurance Co. was awarded 766.90 points, while DentaQuest National insurance Co. was awarded 759.97 points and Liberty Dental Plan of Arkansas was awarded 759.20 points, according to state records.

"Delta Dental is protesting as an aggrieved party due to the impacts of a four-vendor award decision which fails to adhere to the procurement rules set forth in the RFP and the results of the evaluation conducted by DHS," attorney Mark Hodge of the Barber Law Firm wrote in a letter dated Dec. 22 to state Department of Human Services Secretary Kristi Putnam.

He said Delta Dental and one other vendor were awarded the Medicaid dental managed care contract in 2016, and since then about 630,000 Arkansans have participated in the dental program, and Delta Dental has successfully managed more than 383,000 Medicaid beneficiaries.

But then-Office of State Procurement Director Ed Armstrong said in a letter dated Jan. 10 to Hodge that Delta Dental's protest was dismissed in part because Delta Dental is not "aggrieved in connection with the award of a contract," as that word is defined in an Office of State Procurement rule.

He said he also concluded the request for the proposal's introductory statement that the state Department of Human Services planned to award two or three dental managed care contracts "is not a 'rule' of the RFP."

"In this case, the RFP's introductory statement is more akin to a statement of intent or recitals in a contract rather than a statement prescribing required conduct or action for either the offerors or DHS," Armstrong wrote in his letter. "Although the statement DHS made about its intended plans may have provided a basis for an offer or to assume that DHS planned to act in accordance with its statement, the statement is aspirational and DHS does not unambiguously bind itself to a course of conduct as it would have if the RFP had stated, for example, 'DHS shall award contracts to no more than three responsible offerors.'"


Upcoming Events