The period in question involved a heightened level of oversight applied to privately managed Medicare plans. This increased attention from federal regulators stemmed from concerns regarding various aspects of these plans, including billing practices, coverage denials, and marketing tactics. For instance, audits and investigations were initiated to assess the accuracy of payments made to these plans and to identify any instances of inappropriate claim rejections.
This increased examination aimed to ensure the financial integrity of the Medicare program and protect beneficiary access to necessary healthcare services. Previous administrations had also addressed issues within Medicare Advantage, but the focus during this specific period was characterized by a particularly assertive approach to identifying and addressing potential vulnerabilities. This approach was informed by analysis of program spending, beneficiary complaints, and reports from government watchdogs, leading to policy adjustments intended to strengthen program oversight.
The consequences of this scrutiny extended to a wide range of areas, prompting adjustments in both regulatory enforcement and plan administration. The following discussion will detail specific areas impacted and the broader implications for the Medicare Advantage program going forward.
1. Increased Audits
The surge in audit activity represents a significant facet of the examination of privately managed Medicare plans. Under the Trump administration, audits served as a primary mechanism for evaluating financial integrity and compliance within the Medicare Advantage program, impacting plan operations and financial stability.
-
Targeting of Overpayments
The core objective of many intensified audits was identifying instances of overpayment to Medicare Advantage plans. These audits often focused on risk adjustment data, seeking to determine if plans were accurately reflecting the health status of their enrollees. Discrepancies discovered could lead to recoupment of funds, thus directly affecting plan revenues and profitability.
-
Compliance Review Expansion
Beyond financial accuracy, audits broadened to include compliance with coverage guidelines and adherence to regulatory standards. This included ensuring appropriate access to covered services and verifying that prior authorization processes were being implemented fairly. Failure to comply could result in sanctions and corrective action plans, placing additional burdens on plan administration.
-
Use of Data Analytics
The escalated audit efforts often involved sophisticated data analytics techniques. These tools enabled regulators to identify patterns of potentially fraudulent or abusive billing practices that might not be apparent through traditional audit methods. This data-driven approach allowed for a more targeted and efficient deployment of audit resources.
-
Impact on Plan Operations
The increased frequency and intensity of audits directly affected plan operations. Plans were required to dedicate significant resources to preparing for and responding to audits, which diverted attention and funding from other areas such as member services and care management. This shift in resource allocation presented operational challenges and influenced plan priorities.
The focus on increased audits during this period reflects a broader emphasis on accountability and fiscal responsibility within the Medicare Advantage program. These audit activities served as a tool to identify vulnerabilities, ensure compliance, and ultimately safeguard taxpayer dollars and beneficiary access to care. The outcomes of these audits continue to shape the regulatory landscape of Medicare Advantage plans.
2. Billing Practice Reviews
Under the Trump administration, examination of billing practices within Medicare Advantage plans emerged as a central element of intensified program oversight. These reviews aimed to identify irregularities, fraudulent activities, and instances of non-compliance that could undermine the financial integrity of the program and negatively impact beneficiary access to care. The scrutiny involved a multifaceted approach, targeting various aspects of plan billing operations.
-
Upcoding Detection
A primary focus was on detecting upcoding, where plans might inappropriately assign higher-severity diagnosis codes to enrollees, thereby increasing reimbursement rates. This practice artificially inflates costs and distorts the accuracy of risk adjustment payments. Review efforts included analysis of diagnostic coding patterns across plans to identify potential outliers and inconsistencies, triggering targeted audits and investigations.
-
Service Documentation Verification
Billing practice reviews extended to verifying the accuracy and completeness of service documentation. This involved examining medical records to ensure that billed services were actually provided and were medically necessary. Instances of inadequate or falsified documentation could lead to recoupment of payments and imposition of penalties. Such verification efforts aimed to reduce improper payments and ensure that taxpayer funds were used appropriately.
-
Network Adequacy and Billing
Another area of concern involved the relationship between network adequacy and billing practices. Reviews sought to determine whether plans were appropriately billing for services provided by in-network providers and whether beneficiaries were being steered towards providers offering the most cost-effective care. Instances of billing for out-of-network services at in-network rates, or failure to ensure adequate access to necessary specialists, were scrutinized.
-
Fraudulent Scheme Identification
Billing practice reviews also aimed to uncover larger-scale fraudulent schemes, such as billing for phantom services, submitting duplicate claims, or engaging in kickback arrangements with providers. These activities represent egregious violations of program rules and regulations and can result in substantial financial losses to the Medicare program. Identification and prosecution of fraudulent schemes were prioritized during this period to deter future misconduct.
The intensified scrutiny of billing practices underscores a broader objective of safeguarding the financial stability of Medicare Advantage and protecting beneficiaries from potential harm. The identified vulnerabilities and irregularities prompted regulatory reforms and enforcement actions designed to strengthen program integrity and ensure that plans operate in a responsible and transparent manner. These efforts reflect a commitment to holding Medicare Advantage plans accountable for their billing practices and upholding the integrity of the Medicare system.
3. Coverage Denial Rates
Increased examination of coverage denial rates within Medicare Advantage plans arose during the Trump administration amid concerns about access to care and appropriate utilization management. Elevated denial rates could indicate restrictive practices, potentially hindering beneficiaries from receiving necessary medical services. This concern prompted scrutiny to determine whether denial rates were justified based on medical necessity and adherence to coverage guidelines, or whether they reflected an attempt to reduce plan costs by limiting access to care. Scrutiny of denial rates included analysis of appeal processes, to assess whether beneficiaries had adequate recourse to challenge coverage decisions. Instances of high denial rates, particularly for certain types of services or within specific plans, triggered investigations and corrective actions to ensure compliance with program requirements.
For example, audits focused on prior authorization requirements, a common factor contributing to coverage denials. Regulators examined whether plans were applying prior authorization criteria appropriately and whether the process created unnecessary barriers to care. Public reporting of denial rates became another tool employed, allowing beneficiaries and stakeholders to compare plan performance and make informed choices. Some plans were found to disproportionately deny claims for specialized treatments or medications, raising concerns about equity and access. Corrective actions included revising prior authorization policies, improving communication with providers and beneficiaries, and providing additional training to plan staff involved in coverage determinations. This led to revised protocols in particular by plans with statistically notable outlier trends in denied claims.
The focus on coverage denial rates underscored the importance of balancing cost containment with ensuring adequate access to healthcare services within the Medicare Advantage framework. The scrutiny served to promote greater transparency and accountability, encouraging plans to adopt more responsible utilization management practices. Ultimately, the enhanced oversight aimed to safeguard beneficiaries’ rights and ensure that coverage decisions were based on sound medical judgment, adherence to evidence-based guidelines, and clear communication of denial reasons, along with accessible avenues for appeal.
4. Marketing Tactics Oversight
Increased scrutiny of Medicare Advantage marketing practices became a significant component of program oversight during the Trump administration. This stemmed from concerns that some plans were engaging in deceptive or misleading advertising to attract enrollees, potentially leading to enrollment in plans that did not meet their healthcare needs. The focus on marketing tactics aimed to ensure that beneficiaries received accurate and unbiased information, enabling them to make informed choices about their Medicare coverage.
-
Restrictions on Misleading Advertising
Regulators imposed stricter guidelines on advertising content, prohibiting the use of language or imagery that could be interpreted as misleading or deceptive. This included restrictions on claims of guaranteed benefits, endorsements from celebrities without proper disclosures, and the use of scare tactics to pressure beneficiaries into enrolling. The goal was to prevent plans from enticing enrollees through false promises or by exploiting their fears about losing access to care.
-
Monitoring of Sales Events and Practices
Oversight extended to sales events and marketing practices, including door-to-door solicitations and telephone marketing campaigns. The administration sought to prevent aggressive sales tactics that could pressure beneficiaries into enrolling without fully understanding the terms and conditions of the plan. This involved monitoring the conduct of sales agents and ensuring that they provided accurate and complete information about plan benefits, costs, and limitations.
-
Increased Enforcement Actions
The administration pursued enforcement actions against plans found to be engaging in deceptive marketing practices. This included levying fines, imposing corrective action plans, and suspending marketing activities altogether. These enforcement actions served as a deterrent to other plans and signaled a commitment to holding plans accountable for their marketing conduct. The goal was to create a level playing field where plans competed based on the quality of their coverage and services, rather than through misleading advertising.
-
Training and Education Initiatives
In addition to enforcement actions, the administration also implemented training and education initiatives to help beneficiaries identify and avoid deceptive marketing tactics. This included providing information on how to evaluate plan options, how to identify misleading claims, and how to report suspected fraud or abuse. The goal was to empower beneficiaries to make informed choices about their Medicare coverage and to protect themselves from unscrupulous marketing practices.
The intensified scrutiny of Medicare Advantage marketing practices during this period reflects a broader effort to protect beneficiaries from deceptive or misleading information and to promote transparency and accountability within the program. By ensuring that beneficiaries receive accurate and unbiased information, the administration aimed to empower them to make informed choices about their Medicare coverage and to enroll in plans that best meet their healthcare needs.
5. Payment Accuracy Focus
A central tenet of the period involving scrutiny of Medicare Advantage plans was the emphasis on ensuring payment accuracy. This involved rigorous review and monitoring of how these plans were compensated, with the aim of preventing overpayments, fraud, and abuse. Ensuring precise and justifiable payment practices was viewed as critical to maintaining the financial integrity of the Medicare program and safeguarding taxpayer resources.
-
Risk Adjustment Scrutiny
Risk adjustment, the process of adjusting payments to Medicare Advantage plans based on the health status of their enrollees, underwent heightened scrutiny. This involved audits and investigations to determine if plans were accurately reporting diagnoses and health conditions, as inaccurate reporting could lead to inflated payments. For example, plans found to have systematically upcoded diagnoses faced recoupment of funds and potential penalties.
-
Coding Integrity Reviews
Reviews of coding integrity intensified, focusing on whether plans were appropriately assigning diagnostic and procedural codes when submitting claims. This involved examining medical records to verify that the codes accurately reflected the services provided and the patient’s medical condition. Inconsistent or erroneous coding practices could result in overpayments, thus impacting the financial stability of the Medicare program. Cases involving widespread coding errors led to targeted audits and compliance reviews.
-
Data Analytics Implementation
Advanced data analytics were increasingly employed to identify patterns of potential overpayments or fraudulent billing practices. This included analyzing claims data to detect outliers, anomalies, and trends that might indicate improper payments. By leveraging data analytics, regulators aimed to proactively identify and address payment inaccuracies before they escalated into larger problems.
-
Recoupment Efforts
When overpayments were identified, recoupment efforts were intensified. This involved recovering funds from plans that had received improper payments, ensuring that taxpayer dollars were returned to the Medicare program. Stricter policies and procedures were implemented to streamline the recoupment process and to hold plans accountable for their billing practices. This led to a reduction in overall improper payment rates within the Medicare Advantage program.
These facets of payment accuracy focus, occurring under heightened scrutiny, were designed to promote fiscal responsibility, ensure fair compensation to plans based on enrollee health needs, and protect taxpayer investments in the Medicare Advantage program. By enhancing oversight and enforcement, regulators sought to maintain the integrity of the payment system and to ensure that resources were allocated effectively to provide high-quality care to Medicare beneficiaries.
6. Government Watchdog Reports
Government watchdog reports served as a critical catalyst and informational foundation for the increased scrutiny applied to Medicare Advantage plans during the Trump administration. These reports, often generated by entities like the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (OIG), provided independent assessments of program operations, highlighting potential vulnerabilities and areas of concern. For instance, GAO reports detailing issues with risk adjustment practices, such as plans improperly coding diagnoses to inflate payments, directly informed the administration’s focus on payment accuracy. Similarly, OIG audits revealing instances of inappropriate coverage denials or inadequate access to care triggered investigations and enforcement actions aimed at protecting beneficiary rights.
The practical significance of these reports lies in their ability to identify systemic problems that might otherwise go unnoticed. They offered evidence-based recommendations for improving program oversight, enhancing transparency, and ensuring that Medicare Advantage plans adhered to regulatory requirements. By bringing attention to issues like deceptive marketing practices or the potential for fraud and abuse, watchdog reports compelled policymakers to take action. An example is the increased monitoring of marketing tactics employed by Medicare Advantage plans, which followed numerous reports highlighting the prevalence of misleading advertising and aggressive sales practices.
In summary, government watchdog reports were instrumental in shaping the priorities and direction of the increased oversight applied to Medicare Advantage plans during the Trump administration. They provided the factual basis for identifying problems, informing policy decisions, and driving enforcement efforts. While challenges persist in fully addressing all identified vulnerabilities, the role of these reports in promoting accountability and transparency within the Medicare Advantage program remains crucial for safeguarding beneficiary interests and ensuring the financial integrity of the system.
7. Beneficiary Complaint Analysis
Analysis of beneficiary complaints became an increasingly important aspect of Medicare Advantage oversight during the Trump administration. These complaints, filed by enrollees, provided direct feedback on plan operations and served as an indicator of potential systemic issues that might not be evident through other forms of monitoring. The administration used complaint data to identify patterns of non-compliance, address individual grievances, and inform broader policy adjustments.
-
Identification of Access-to-Care Issues
Complaint analysis allowed regulators to pinpoint areas where beneficiaries were facing difficulties accessing covered services. These issues ranged from long wait times for appointments to denials of necessary treatments. By tracking the frequency and nature of access-related complaints, the administration could identify plans with systemic problems and initiate corrective actions, such as requiring plans to expand their provider networks or streamline prior authorization processes. This direct feedback mechanism informed targeted interventions aimed at improving beneficiary access to timely and appropriate care.
-
Detection of Marketing and Enrollment Violations
A significant category of complaints related to marketing and enrollment practices, with beneficiaries reporting misleading advertising, aggressive sales tactics, or enrollment in plans without their explicit consent. Analysis of these complaints enabled regulators to identify plans engaging in deceptive or coercive marketing strategies. Subsequent enforcement actions included fines, sanctions, and requirements for plans to revise their marketing materials and training programs. Complaint analysis served as an early warning system for identifying and addressing potentially harmful marketing practices.
-
Assessment of Coverage Denial Trends
Complaints related to coverage denials provided valuable insights into potential issues with plan utilization management practices. By analyzing the reasons for denials and the outcomes of appeals, regulators could assess whether plans were appropriately applying coverage criteria or unfairly restricting access to necessary services. High volumes of denial-related complaints triggered audits of plan decision-making processes and, in some cases, revisions to coverage policies to ensure compliance with Medicare requirements. This analysis ensured better alignment between policy intentions and outcomes.
-
Program Integrity Monitoring
Beneficiary complaints also contributed to broader program integrity efforts, uncovering instances of potential fraud, waste, or abuse within Medicare Advantage plans. Complaints alleging billing irregularities, improper coding practices, or conflicts of interest triggered investigations and enforcement actions. The information gleaned from beneficiary complaints served as a vital complement to other forms of oversight, strengthening the administration’s ability to detect and address potential wrongdoing. This multipronged approach strengthened the overall integrity of the Medicare Advantage program.
The use of beneficiary complaint analysis during the Trump administration reflects a commitment to data-driven oversight and a focus on beneficiary experiences. By systematically collecting and analyzing complaint data, regulators were able to identify and address systemic issues within Medicare Advantage plans, ultimately improving the quality of care and protecting beneficiary rights. This proactive use of beneficiary feedback reinforced the administration’s broader efforts to hold plans accountable for their performance and to ensure that the Medicare Advantage program effectively served the needs of its enrollees. The insights gained from complaints directly shaped enforcement priorities and policy adjustments, demonstrating the value of beneficiary voices in shaping the regulatory landscape.
8. Enforcement Policy Adjustments
Enforcement policy adjustments under the Trump administration were a direct consequence of increased examination of Medicare Advantage plans. The amplified oversight revealed instances of non-compliance, fraud, and abuse, necessitating modifications to existing enforcement strategies. For example, the discovery of widespread upcoding practices prompted stricter penalties for plans that inaccurately reported enrollee health conditions. Increased audit frequency and severity directly reflected a policy adjustment designed to deter such practices. The initial findings related to beneficiary complaints about marketing necessitated enforcement adjustments focusing on truth-in-advertising standards and sales conduct, underscoring the cause-and-effect relationship. These adjustments formed a crucial component of the overall scrutiny, providing the teeth necessary to ensure compliance and deter future misconduct.
Furthermore, the practical impact of these enforcement adjustments extended beyond mere penalty imposition. Heightened scrutiny of coverage denial rates led to policies requiring greater transparency in denial reasons and more robust appeal processes. This adjustment aimed to protect beneficiary access to care and prevent unwarranted service limitations. The implementation of data analytics to detect billing anomalies influenced policy changes, enabling a more proactive and targeted approach to enforcement. Plans were compelled to invest in compliance infrastructure and implement internal controls to prevent violations, reflecting a shift towards preventative measures. The adjustments sought to address both individual instances of wrongdoing and systemic vulnerabilities within the Medicare Advantage program.
In conclusion, enforcement policy adjustments represented a critical and reactive element of the increased examination of Medicare Advantage plans during the Trump administration. They served as a direct response to identified deficiencies, ranging from payment inaccuracies to marketing abuses. By implementing stricter penalties, enhancing oversight capabilities, and promoting transparency, these adjustments aimed to strengthen the integrity of the Medicare Advantage program and protect the interests of beneficiaries. While the long-term effectiveness of these adjustments remains subject to ongoing evaluation, their role in shaping plan behavior and reinforcing compliance standards is undeniable, forming a legacy in the evolving regulatory landscape.
9. Plan Administration Changes
The increased federal examination of Medicare Advantage plans under the Trump administration precipitated a range of modifications within the administrative structures and operational protocols of these plans. These alterations were largely driven by the need to address identified vulnerabilities and comply with heightened regulatory expectations, reflecting a reactive adaptation to external pressures.
-
Enhanced Compliance Departments
Many plans augmented their compliance departments and compliance programs in direct response to intensified oversight. This expansion involved hiring additional personnel, implementing more rigorous internal monitoring systems, and developing updated training programs for staff. The aim was to bolster the plan’s ability to identify and prevent potential violations of program rules and regulations. This was a direct result of threatened and implemented fines for plans found to be non-compliant.
-
Revised Utilization Management Protocols
Scrutiny of coverage denial rates prompted plans to revise their utilization management protocols. This included reassessing prior authorization requirements, streamlining appeal processes, and providing additional training to staff involved in coverage determinations. The goal was to ensure that coverage decisions were based on sound medical judgment and adherence to evidence-based guidelines, rather than solely on cost considerations. The result was a reduction in the number of coverage denials that were overturned on appeal.
-
Improved Data Analytics Capabilities
The administration’s emphasis on payment accuracy and fraud prevention led plans to invest in enhanced data analytics capabilities. This involved adopting more sophisticated tools for detecting billing anomalies, identifying potentially fraudulent claims, and monitoring the accuracy of risk adjustment data. The implementation of these tools enabled plans to proactively identify and address potential problems before they escalated. This resulted in improved accuracy with claims.
-
Greater Transparency in Marketing Materials
Concerns about deceptive marketing practices resulted in plans implementing greater transparency in their marketing materials. This included providing clearer and more accurate information about plan benefits, costs, and limitations, as well as refraining from making unsubstantiated claims or using misleading imagery. Plans revised their marketing materials to comply with stricter advertising guidelines, improving beneficiary understanding of plan options.
These plan administration changes, while varying in scope and impact, collectively reflect a broader trend towards greater accountability and responsibility within the Medicare Advantage program. The increased federal examination spurred modifications, prompting plans to strengthen their internal controls, enhance transparency, and improve their compliance with program requirements. These adjustments were designed to address specific issues identified during the Trump administration scrutiny and to promote a more responsible and beneficiary-centric approach to plan administration. The degree to which these changes are maintained and further developed will likely depend on future regulatory priorities and oversight efforts.
Frequently Asked Questions
The following questions address common inquiries regarding the increased oversight of privately managed Medicare plans during the Trump administration.
Question 1: What prompted the intensified federal examination of Medicare Advantage plans during this period?
Increased oversight stemmed from concerns regarding potential vulnerabilities within the program, including improper billing practices, coverage denials, and deceptive marketing tactics. These concerns were substantiated by government watchdog reports and beneficiary complaints.
Question 2: Which specific government entities were involved in this heightened scrutiny?
Entities such as the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (OIG) played a crucial role in identifying program vulnerabilities through audits and investigations. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) oversaw the implementation of enforcement actions and policy adjustments.
Question 3: What were the main areas of focus in the increased oversight?
Key areas of focus included payment accuracy, risk adjustment practices, coding integrity, coverage denial rates, marketing tactics, and beneficiary access to care. These areas were targeted to improve program integrity and protect beneficiary interests.
Question 4: How were Medicare Advantage plans impacted by this increased scrutiny?
Plans faced increased audits, stricter enforcement of existing regulations, and mandates to enhance compliance programs. Some plans experienced financial penalties and were required to implement corrective action plans.
Question 5: Did the increased examination of Medicare Advantage plans result in any changes for beneficiaries?
The scrutiny led to efforts to improve transparency in marketing materials, strengthen appeal processes, and enhance access to covered services. These changes aimed to empower beneficiaries and protect their rights within the Medicare Advantage system.
Question 6: Has this scrutiny continued into subsequent administrations?
While specific policy priorities may evolve, the focus on program integrity and beneficiary protection within Medicare Advantage generally persists across administrations. Ongoing monitoring and oversight remain essential for ensuring the financial sustainability and effectiveness of the program.
In summary, the intensified oversight reflected a commitment to safeguarding taxpayer dollars, ensuring program compliance, and protecting the interests of Medicare beneficiaries.
The following section will discuss the long-term implications of the increased examination.
Navigating the Aftermath
The scrutiny of Medicare Advantage plans during the Trump administration offers valuable insights for stakeholders seeking to ensure program integrity and beneficiary protection moving forward. Understanding the key areas of focus and the resulting policy adjustments can inform future oversight efforts and promote responsible plan administration.
Tip 1: Prioritize Proactive Compliance Programs: Medicare Advantage plans should proactively invest in robust compliance programs, including internal audits, staff training, and clear communication channels. A strong compliance infrastructure can help prevent violations and mitigate the risk of future enforcement actions. For example, regular coding reviews can identify and correct errors before they lead to significant overpayments.
Tip 2: Emphasize Transparency in Marketing Materials: Plans must prioritize transparency in their marketing materials, avoiding unsubstantiated claims or misleading language. Providing accurate and complete information about plan benefits, costs, and limitations can empower beneficiaries to make informed enrollment decisions. Regular review of marketing materials is imperative.
Tip 3: Strengthen Utilization Management Processes: Plans should review and refine their utilization management protocols to ensure that coverage decisions are based on sound medical judgment and evidence-based guidelines. Avoiding unnecessary restrictions on access to care and streamlining appeal processes are paramount.
Tip 4: Invest in Data Analytics Capabilities: Investing in advanced data analytics tools can enable plans to detect billing anomalies, identify potentially fraudulent claims, and monitor the accuracy of risk adjustment data. Proactive analysis of claims data can help prevent improper payments and improve program integrity.
Tip 5: Enhance Beneficiary Communication: Clear and effective communication with beneficiaries is essential for building trust and addressing concerns. Plans should provide easily accessible information about plan benefits, coverage policies, and appeal processes. A dedicated communication strategy is key.
Tip 6: Continuously Monitor Government Watchdog Reports: Staying informed about the findings and recommendations of government watchdog reports, such as those issued by the GAO and OIG, is crucial for identifying potential areas of vulnerability and adapting compliance strategies accordingly.
Tip 7: Foster Collaboration with Regulatory Agencies: Maintaining open communication and a collaborative relationship with regulatory agencies can help plans stay informed about evolving requirements and address potential compliance issues proactively. Transparent cooperation is crucial for positive compliance outcomes.
By implementing these strategies, stakeholders can work together to strengthen the integrity of the Medicare Advantage program and ensure that it effectively serves the needs of beneficiaries.
The subsequent section will offer a final conclusion regarding the legacy of the examination of Medicare Advantage plans.
Conclusion
The examination of Medicare Advantage plans during the Trump administration served as a significant period of regulatory recalibration. Heightened oversight exposed vulnerabilities related to payment accuracy, marketing practices, and access to care, prompting enforcement actions and necessitating administrative adjustments across the sector. These efforts leave a discernible mark on the program’s operational landscape.
The long-term efficacy of these adjustments depends on sustained commitment to vigilance and continuous assessment. Maintaining a focus on data-driven oversight and proactive compliance will be crucial for ensuring the financial integrity of Medicare Advantage and safeguarding the interests of its beneficiaries in the years to come. The principles of accountability and transparency, underscored during this period, should serve as enduring guideposts for future administrations and plan administrators alike.
