Transforming CMS outcomes into management decision drivers

More and more emphasis is being put on cybersecurity by companies of all sizes. Whether it’s the news headlines of notable IT incidents, greater emphasis on the value of data, or the monetization of certain types of attacks, an increasing amount of energy and money is going towards security. Security has the attention of leadership and the board and it is not going away. One of the biggest risks to and vulnerabilities of any organization’s security continues to be its people. Innovative approaches and new technology can reduce risk but they still don’t prevent the damage that can be inflicted by an employee simply opening an attachment or following a link. This is more likely to happen than you may think.

Technology also doesn’t prepare a management team for how to handle the IT response, communication effort, and workforce management required during and after an event. Technology doesn’t lessen the operational impact that your organization will feel when, not if, you experience an event.

So let’s examine the human and operational side of cybersecurity. Below are three factors you should address to reduce risk and prepare your organization for an event:

1. People: Create and maintain a vigilant workforce
   Ask yourself, “How prepared is our workforce when it comes to security threats and protecting our data? How likely would it be for one of our team members to click on a link or open an attachment that appear to be from our CFO? Would our team members look closely enough at the email address and notice that the organization name is different by one letter?”
    

   According to the 2016 Verizon Data Breach Report, 30% of phishing messages were opened by the target across all campaigns and 12% went on to click on the attachment or link.

   Phishing email attacks directed at your company through your team range from very obvious to extremely believable. Some attempts are sent widely and are looking for just one person to click, while others are extremely targeted and deliberate. In either case, it is vital that each employee takes enough time to realize that the email request is unusual. Perhaps there are strange typos in the request or it is odd the CFO is emailing while on vacation. That moment your employees take to pause and decide whether to click on the link/attachment could mean the difference between experiencing an event or not.
   
   So how do you create and cultivate this type of thought process in your workforce? Lots of education and awareness efforts. This goes beyond just an annual in-service training on HIPAA. It may include education sessions, emails with tips and tricks, posters describing the risk, and also exercises to test your workforce against phishing and security exploits. It also takes leadership embracing security as a strategic imperative and leading the organization to take it seriously. Once you have these efforts in place, you can create culture change to build and maintain an environment where an employee is not embarrassed to check with the CFO’s office to see if they really did send an email from Bora Bora.

2. Plan: Implement a disaster recovery and incident response plan 
   Through the years, disaster recovery plans have been the usual response. Mostly, the emphasis has been on recovering data after a non-security IT event, often discussed in context of a fire, power loss, or hardware failure. Increasingly, cyber-attacks are creeping into the forefront of planning efforts. The challenge with cyber-events is that they are murkier to understand – and harder for leadership – to assist with.
   
   It’s easier to understand the concept of a fire destroying your server room and the plan entailing acquiring new equipment, recovering data from backup, restoring operations, having good downtime procedures, and communicating the restoration efforts along the way. What is much more challenging is if the event begins with a suspicion by employees, customers, or vendors who believe their data has been stolen without any conclusive information that your company is the originating point of the data loss. How do you take action if you know very little about the situation? What do you communicate if you are not sure what to say? It is this level of uncertainty that makes it so difficult. Do you have a plan in place for how to respond to an incident? Here are some questions to consider:
    
   1. How will we communicate internally with our staff about the incident?
   2. How will we communicate with our clients? Our patients? Our community?
   3. When should we call our insurance company? Our attorney?
   4. Is reception prepared to describe what is going on if someone visits our office?
   5. Do we have the technical expertise to diagnose the issue?
   6. Do we have set protocols in place for when to bring our systems off-line and are our downtime procedures ready to use?
   7. When the press gets wind of the situation, who will communicate with them and what will we share?
   8. If our telephone system and network is taken offline, how we will we communicate with our leadership team and workforce?

By starting to ask these questions, you can ascertain how ready you may, or may not be, for a cyber-attack when it comes.

3. Practice: Prepare your team with table top exercises  
   Given the complexity and diversity of the threats people are encountering today, no single written plan can account for all of the possible combinations of cyber-attacks. A plan can give guidance, set communication protocols, and structure your approach to your response. But by conducting exercises against hypothetical situations, you can test your plan, identify weaknesses in the plan, and also provide your leadership team with insight and experience – before it counts.
   
   A table top exercise entails one team member (perhaps from IT or from an outside firm) coming up with a hypothetical situation and a series of facts and clues about the situation that are given to your leadership team over time. Your team then implements the existing plans to respond to the incident and make decisions. There are no right or wrong answers in this scenario. Rather, the goal is to practice the decision-making and response process to determine where improvements are needed.
   
   Maybe you run an exercise and realize that you have not communicated to your staff that no mention of the event should be shared by employees on social media. Maybe the exercise makes you realize that the network administrator who is on vacation at the time is the only one who knows how to log onto the firewall. You might identify specific gaps that are lacking in your cybersecurity coverage. There is much to learn that can help you prepare for the real thing.

As you know, there are many different threats and risks facing organizations. Some are from inside an organization while others come from outside. Simply throwing additional technology at the problem will not sufficiently address the risks. While your people continue to be one of the biggest threats, they can also be one of your biggest assets, in both preventing issues from occurring and then responding quickly and appropriately when they do. Remember focus on your People, Your Plan, and Your Practice.

Federal contractors with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) have begun performing Payment Error Rate Measurement (PERM) reviews under the Final Rule issued in July 2017—a rule that many states may not realize could negatively impact their Medicaid budgets.

PERM is a complex process—states must focus on several activities over a recurring three-year period of time—and states may not have the resources needed to make PERM requirements a priority. However, with the Final Rule, this PERM eligibility review could have financial implications. 

After freezing the eligibility measurement for four years while undergoing pilot review, CMS has established new requirements for the eligibility review component and made significant changes to the data processing and medical record review components. As part of the Final Rule, CMS may implement reductions in the amount of federal funding provided to a state’s Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) programs based on the error rates identified from the eligibility reviews. 

Since the issuance of the Final Rule in July 2017, Cycle 1 states are the first group of states to undergo a PERM cycle, including reviews of the data processing, medical record, and eligibility components. These states are wrapping up the final review activities, and Cycle 2 states are in the early stages of their PERM reviews.

How can your state prepare?

Whether your state is a Cycle 1, Cycle 2, or Cycle 3 state, there are multiple activities your Medicaid departments should engage in throughout each three-year period of time during and between PERM cycles: 

• Analyzing prior errors cited or known issues, along with the root cause of the error
• Identifying remedies to reduce future errors
• Preparing and submitting required questionnaires and documents to the federal contractors for an upcoming review cycle
• Assisting federal contractors with current reviews and findings
• Preparing for and undergoing Medicaid Eligibility Quality Control (MEQC) planning and required reviews
• Corrective action planning

Is your state ready?

We’ve compiled a few basic questions to gauge your state’s readiness for the PERM review cycle:

• Do you have measures in place to ensure all eligibility factors under review are identifiable and that all federal and state regulations are being met? The eligibility review contractor (ERC) will reestablish eligibility for all beneficiaries sampled for review. This process involves confirming all verification requirements are in the case file, income requirements are met, placement in an accurate eligibility category has taken place, and the timeframe for processing all determinations meets federal and state regulations. 
• Do you have up-to-date policy and procedures in place for determining and processing Medicaid or CHIP eligibility of an individual? Ensuring eligibility policies and procedures meet federal requirements is just as important as ensuring the processing of applications, including both system and manual actions, meet the regulations. 
• Do you have up-to-date policy, procedures, and system requirements in place to ensure accurate processing of all Medicaid/CHIP claims? Reviewers will confirm the accuracy of all claim payments based on state and federal regulations. Errors are often cited due to the claims processing system allowing claims to pay that do not meet regulations.
• Do you have a dedicated team in place to address all PERM requirements to ensure a successful review cycle? This includes staff to answer questions, address review findings, and respond to requests for additional information. During a review cycle, the federal contractors will cite errors based on their best understanding of policies and/or ability to locate required documentation. Responding to requests for information or reviewing and responding to findings in a timely manner should be a priority to ensure accurate findings. 
• Have you communicated all PERM requirements and updates to policy changes to all Medicaid/CHIP providers? Providers play two integral roles in the success of a PERM review cycle. Providers must understand all claims submission requirements in order to accurately submit claims. Additionally, the medical record review component relies on providers responding to the request for the medical records on a sampled claim. Failure to respond will result in an error. Therefore, states must maintain communication with providers to stress the importance of responding to these requests.
• Have you begun planning for the MEQC requirement? Following basic requirements identified by CMS during your state’s MEQC period, your state must submit a case planning document to CMS for approval prior to the MEQC review period. After the MEQC review, your state should be prepared to issue findings reports, including a corrective action plan as it relates to MEQC findings.

Need help piloting your state’s PERM review process?

BerryDunn has subject matter experts experienced in conducting PERM reviews, including a thorough understanding of all three PERM review components—eligibility, data processing, and medical record reviews. 

We would love to work with your state to see that measures are in place that will help ensure the lowest possible improper payment error rate. Stay tuned for upcoming blogs where we will discuss other PERM topics, including MEQC requirements, the financial impacts of PERM, and additional details related to each phase of PERM. For questions or to find out more, please email me. 
 

As the Project Management Body of Knowledge^® (PMBOK^®) explains, organizations fall along a structure and reporting spectrum. On one end of this spectrum are functional organizations, in which people report to their functional managers. (For example, Finance staff report to a Finance director.) On the other end of this spectrum are projectized organizations, in which people report to a project manager. Toward the middle of the spectrum lie hybrid—or matrix—organizations, in which reporting lines are fairly complex; e.g., people may report to both functional managers and project managers. 

Problem: Weak Matrix Medicaid System Vendors

This brings us to weak matrix organizations, in which functional managers have more authority than project managers. Many Medicaid system vendors happen to fall into the weak matrix category, for a number of different reasons. Yet the primary factor is the volume and duration of operational work—such as provider enrollment, claims processing, and member enrollment—that Medicaid system vendors perform once they exit the design, development, and implementation (DDI) phase.

This work spans functional areas, which can muddy the reporting waters. Without strong and clear reporting lines to project managers, project success can be seriously (and negatively) affected if the priorities of the functional leads are not aligned with those of the project. And when a weak matrix Medicaid system vendor enters a multi-vendor environment in which it is tasked with implementing a system that will serve multiple departments and bureaus within a state government, the reporting waters can become even muddier.

Solution: Using a Project Management Office (PMO) Vendor

Conversely, consulting firms that provide Project Management Office (PMO) services to government agencies tend to be strong matrix organizations, in which project managers have more authority over project teams and can quickly reallocate team members to address the myriad of issues that arise on complex, multi-year projects to help ensure project success. PMOs are also typically experienced at creating and running project governance structures and can add significant value in system implementation-related work across government agencies.

Additional benefits of a utilizing a PMO vendor include consistent, centralized reporting across your portfolio of projects and the ability to quickly onboard subject matter expertise to meet program and project needs. 
For more in-depth information on the benefits of using a PMO on state Medicaid projects, stay tuned for my second blog in this series. In the meantime, feel free to send your PMO- or Medicaid-related questions to me. 
 

As your organization works to modernize and improve your Medicaid Enterprise System (MES), are you using independent verification and validation (IV&V) to your advantage? Does your relationship with your IV&V provider help you identify high-risk project areas early, or provide you with an objective view of the progress and quality of your MES modernization initiative? Maybe your experience hasn’t shown you the benefits of IV&V. 

If so, as CMS focuses on quality outcomes, there may be opportunities for you to leverage IV&V in a way that can help advance your MES to increase the likelihood of desired outcomes for your clients. 

According to 45 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 95.626, IV&V may be required for Advanced Planning Document (APD) projects that meet specific criteria. That said, what is the intended role and benefit of IV&V? 

To begin, let’s look at the meaning of “verification” and “validation.” The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE) Standard for Software Verification and Validation (1012-1998) defines verification as, “confirmation of objective evidence that the particular requirements for a specific intended use are fulfilled.” Validation is “confirmation of objective evidence that specified requirements have been fulfilled.” 

Simply put, verification and validation ensure the right product is built, and the product is built right. 
As an independent third party, IV&V should not be influenced by any vendor or software application. This objectivity means IV&V’s perspective is focused on benefiting your organization. This support includes: 

• Project management processes and best practices support to help increase probability of project success
• Collaboration with you, your vendors, and stakeholders to help foster a positive and efficient environment for team members to interact 
• Early identification of high-risk project areas to minimize impact to schedule, cost, quality, and scope 
• Objective examination of project health in order for project sponsors, including the federal government, to address project issues
• Impartial analysis of project health that allows state management to make informed decisions 
• Unbiased visibility into the progress and quality of the project effort to increase customer satisfaction and reduce the risk and cost of rework
• Reduction of errors in delivered products to help increase productivity of staff, resulting in a more efficient MES 

Based on our experience, when a trusted relationship exists between state governments and IV&V, an open, collaborative dialogue of project challenges—in a non-threatening manner—allows for early resolution of risks. This leads to improved quality of MES outcomes.    

Is your IV&V provider helping you advance the quality of your MES? Contact our team.

Best practices for financial institution contracts with technology providers

As the financial services sector moves in an increasingly digital direction, you cannot overstate the need for robust and relevant information security programs. Financial institutions place more reliance than ever on third-party technology vendors to support core aspects of their business, and in turn place more reliance on those vendors to meet the industry’s high standards for information security. These include those in the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Sarbanes Oxley 404, and regulations established by the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC).

On April 2, 2019, the FDIC issued Financial Institution Letter (FIL) 19-2019, which outlines important requirements and considerations for financial institutions regarding their contracts with third-party technology service providers. In particular, FIL-19-2019 urges financial institutions to address how their business continuity and incident response processes integrate with those of their providers, and what that could mean for customers.

Common gaps in technology service provider contracts

As auditors of IT controls, we review lots of contracts between financial institutions and their technology service providers. When it comes to recommending areas for improvement, our top observations include:

• No right-to-audit clause
  Including a right-to-audit clause encourages transparency and provides greater assurance that vendors are providing services, and charging for them, in accordance with their contract.
• Unclear and/or inadequate rights and responsibilities around service disruptions
  In the event of a service incident, time and transparency are vital. Contracts that lack clear and comprehensive standards, both for the vendor and financial institution, regarding business continuity and incident response expose institutions to otherwise avoidable risk, including slow or substandard communications.
• No defined recovery standards
  Explicitly defined recovery standards are essential to ensuring both parties know their role in responding and recovering from a disaster or other technology outage.

FIL-19-2019 also reminds financial institutions that they need to properly inform regulators when they undertake contracts or relationships with technology service providers. The Bank Service Company Act requires financial institutions to inform regulators in writing when receiving third-party services like sorting and posting of checks and deposits, computation and posting of interest, preparation and mailing of statements, and other functions involving data processing, Internet banking, and mobile banking services.

Writing clearer contracts that strengthen your institution

Financial institutions should review their contracts, especially those that are longstanding, and make necessary updates in accordance with FDIC guidelines. As operating environments continue to evolve, older contracts, often renewed automatically, are particularly easy to overlook. You also need to review business continuity and incident response procedures to ensure they address all services provided by third-parties.

Senior management and the Board of Directors hold ultimate responsibility for managing a financial institution’s relationship with its technology service providers. Management should inform board members of any and all services that the institution receives from third-parties to help them better understand your operating environment and information security needs.

Not sure what to look for when reviewing contracts? Some places to start include:

• Establish your right-to-audit
  All contracts should include a right-to-audit clause, which preserves your ability to access and audit vendor records relating to their performance under contract. Most vendors will provide documentation of due diligence upon request, such as System and Organization Control (SOC) 1 or 2 reports detailing their financial and IT security controls.
  
  Many right-to-audit clauses also include a provision allowing your institution to conduct its own audit procedures. At a minimum, don’t hesitate to perform occasional walk-throughs of your vendor’s facilities to confirm that your contract’s provisions are being met.

• Ensure connectivity with outsourced data centers
  If you outsource some or all of your core banking systems to a hosted data center, place added emphasis on your institution’s business continuity plan to ensure connectivity, such as through the use of multiple internet or dedicated telecommunications circuits. Data vendors should, by contract, be prepared to assist with alternative connectivity.

• Set standards for incident response communications 
  Clear expectations for incident response are crucial  to helping you quickly and confidently manage the impact of a service incident on your customers and information systems. Vendor contracts should include explicit requirements for how and when vendors will communicate in the event of any issue or incident that affects your ability to serve your customers. You should also review and update contracts after each incident to address any areas of dissatisfaction with vendor communications.

• Ensure regular testing of defined disaster recovery standards
  While vendor contracts don’t need to detail every aspect of a service provider’s recovery standards, they should ensure those standards will meet your institution’s needs. Contracts should guarantee that the vendor periodically tests, reviews, and updates their recovery standards, with input from your financial institution.
  
  Your data center may also offer regular disaster recovery and failover testing. If they do, your institution should participate in it. If they don’t, work with the vendor to conduct annual testing of your ability to access your hosted resources from an alternate site.

As financial institutions increasingly look to third-party vendors to meet their evolving technology needs, it is critical that management and the board understand which benefits—and related risks—those vendors present. By taking time today to align your vendor contracts with the latest FFIEC, FDIC, and NCUA standards, your institution will be better prepared to manage risk tomorrow.

For more help gaining control over risk and cybersecurity, see our blog on sustainable solutions for educating your Board of Directors and creating a culture of cybersecurity awareness.
 

Editor’s note: If you are a state government CFO, CIO, project or program manager, this blog is for you.

What is the difference in how government organizations procure agile vs. non-agile information technology (IT) services? (Learn more about agile here).

In each case, they typically follow five stages through the process as shown in Figure A:
 

Figure A: Overview of Procurement Process for Agile vs. Non-Agile IT Services

However, there are differences in how these stages are carried out if procuring agile vs. non-agile IT services. 

Unfortunately, most government organizations are unaware of these differences, which could result in unsuccessful procurements and ultimately not meeting your project’s needs and expectations. 
This blog series will illustrate how to strategically adjust the standard stages outlined in Figure A to successfully procure agile IT services.

Stage 1: Plan project
In Stage 1, you define the scope of the project by identifying what your organization wants, needs, and can achieve within the available timeframe and budget. You then determine the project’s objectives while strategically considering their impact on your organization before developing the RFP. Figure B summarizes the key differences between the impacts of agile vs. non-agile services to consider in this stage.

Figure B: Plan Project for Agile vs. Non-Agile IT Services

The nuances of planning for agile services reflect an organization’s readiness for a culture shift to a continuous process of development and deployment of software and system updates. 

Stage 2: Draft RFP
In Stage 2, as part of RFP drafting, define the necessary enhancements and functionality needed to achieve the project objectives determined in Stage 1. You then translate these enhancements and functionalities into business requirements. Requirement types might include business needs as functionality, services, staffing, deliverables, technology, and performance standards. Figure C summarizes the key differences between drafting the RFP for a project procuring agile vs. non-agile services.

Figure C: Draft RFP for Agile vs. Non-Agile IT Services

In drafting the RFP, the scope of work emphasizes expectations for how your team and the vendor team will work together, the terms of how progress will be monitored, and the description of requirements for agile tools and methods.

Stage 3: Issue RFP
In Stage 3, issue the RFP to the vendor community, answer vendor questions, post amendments, and manage the procurement schedule. Since this stage of the process requires you to comply with your organization’s purchasing and procurement rules, Figure D illustrates very little difference between issuing an RFP for a project procuring agile or non-agile services.

Figure D: Issue RFP for Agile vs. Non-Agile IT Services 

Stage 4: Review proposals
In Stage 4, you evaluate vendor proposals against the RFP’s requirements and project objectives to determine the best proposal response. Figure E summarizes the key differences in reviewing proposals for a project that is procuring agile vs. non-agile services.

Figure E: Reviewing Proposals for Agile vs. Non-Agile IT Services 

Having appropriate evaluation priorities and scoring weights that align with how agile services are delivered should not be under-emphasized. 

Stage 5: Award and implement contract
In Stage 5, you award and implement the contract with the best vendor proposal identified during Stage 4. Figure F summarizes the key differences in awarding and implementing the contract for agile vs. non-agile services.

Figure F:  Award and Implement Contract for Agile vs. Non-Agile Services 

Due to the iterative and interactive requirements of agile, it is necessary to have robust and frequent collaboration among program teams, executives, sponsors, and the vendor to succeed in your agile project delivery.

What’s next?
The blog posts in this series will explain step-by-step how to procure agile services through the five stages, and at the series conclusion, your organization will better understand how to successfully procure and implement agile services. If you have questions or comments, please contact our team.  

Your government agency just signed the contract to purchase and implement a shiny new commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) software to replace your aging legacy software. The project plan and schedule are set; the vendor is ready to begin configuration and customization tasks; and your team is eager to start the implementation process.

You are, in a word, optimistic. But here comes the next phase of the project—the gap analysis, in which your project team and the vendor’s project team test the new software to see how well it fulfills your requirements. Spending sufficient time and energy on the gap analysis increases the likelihood the resulting software is configured to support the desired workflows and processes of the agency, while taking advantage of the software’s features and benefits. Yet this phase can be stressful because it will identify some gaps between what you want and what the software can provide.

While some of the gaps may be resolved by simple adjustments to software configuration, others may not—and can result in major issues impacting project scope, schedule, and/or cost. How do you resolve these major gaps?

Multiple Methods. Don’t let your optimism die on the vine. There are, in fact, multiple ways to address major gaps to keep you on schedule and on budget. They include:

Documenting a change request through a formal change control process. This will likely result in the vendor documenting the results of the new project scope. This, in turn, may impact the project’s schedule and cost. It promotes best practice by formally documenting approved changes to project scope, including any impact on schedule and cost. However, the change request process may take longer than you may originally anticipate, as it includes:

Collaborating with the vendor on a solution that fits within the confines of the selected software. With no actual customization required, this may result in a functionality compromise, and may also involve compromise by the project team and the vendor. However, it does not require a formal process to document and approve a change in scope, schedule or cost, since there are no impacts on these triple constraints.

Collaborating with the vendor and internal project stakeholders to redefine business processes. This may or may not result in a change request. It also promotes best practice, as the business processes become more efficient, and are supported by the selected software product without customization. This will require a focus on organizational change management, since the resulting processes are not reflective of the “way things are done today.”

Accepting the gap—and doing nothing. If the gap has little or no impact on business process efficiency or effectiveness, this method is likely the least impactful on the project, as there are no changes to scope, schedule, or cost. However, the concept of “doing nothing” to address the gap may have the same organizational change ramifications as the previous point.

Of course, there are other methods for addressing major software gaps. The BerryDunn team brings experience in facilitating discussions with agencies and their vendors to discuss gaps, their root causes, and possible solutions. We leverage a combination of project management discipline, organizational change management qualifications, and deep expertise to help clients increase the success likelihood for COTS software implementations—while maintaining their vital relationships with vendors.

Truly effective preventive health interventions require starting early, as evidenced by the large body of research and the growing federal focus on the role of Medicaid in addressing Social Determinants of Health (SDoH) and Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs).

Focusing on early identification of SDoH and ACEs, CMS recently announced its Integrated Care for Kids (InCK) model and will release the related Notice of Funding Opportunity this fall.

CMS describes InCK as a child-centered approach that uses community-based service delivery and alternative payment models (APMs) to improve and expand early identification, prevention, and treatment of priority health concerns, including behavioral health issues. The model’s goals are to improve child health, reduce avoidable inpatient stays and out-of-home placement, and create sustainable APMs. Such APMs would align payment with care quality and support provider/payer accountability for improved child health outcomes by using care coordination, case management, and mobile crisis response and stabilization services.

State Medicaid agencies have many things to consider when evaluating this funding opportunity. Building on current efforts and innovations, building or leveraging strong partnerships with community organizations, incentivizing evidence-based interventions, and creating risk stratification of the target population are critical parts of the InCK model. Here are three additional areas to consider:

1. Data. States will need information for early identification of children in the target population. State agencies?like housing, justice, child welfare, education, and public health have this information?and external organizations—such as childcare, faith-based, and recreation groups—are also good sources of early identification. It is immensely complicated to access data from these disparate sources. State Medicaid agencies will be required to support local implementation by providing population-level data for the targeted geographic service area.

• Data collection challenges include a lack of standardized measures for SDoH and ACEs, common data field definitions, or consistent approaches to data classification; security and privacy of protected health information; and IT development costs.
• Data-sharing agreements with internal and external sources will be critical for state Medicaid agencies to develop, while remaining mindful of protected health information regulations.
• Once data-sharing agreements are in place, these disparate data sources, with differing file structures and nomenclature, will require integration. The integrated data must then be able to identify and risk-stratify the target population.

For any evaluative approach or any APM to be effective, clear quality and outcome measures must be developed and adopted across all relevant partner organizations.

2. Eligibility. Reliable, integrated eligibility and enrollment systems are crucial points of identification and make it easier to connect to needed services.

• Applicants for one-benefit programs should be screened for eligibility for all programs they may need to achieve positive health outcomes.
• Any agency at which potential beneficiaries appear should also have enrollment capability, so it is easier to access services.

3. Payment models. State Medicaid agencies may cover case management services and/or targeted case management as well as health homes; leverage Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic, and Treatment (EPSDT) services; and modify managed care organization contract language to encourage, incent, and in some cases, require services related to the InCK model and SDoH. Value-based payment models, already under exploration in numerous states, include four basic approaches:

• Pay for performance—provider payments are tied directly to specific quality or efficiency indicators, including health outcomes under the provider organization’s control. 
• Shared savings/risk—some portion of the organization’s compensation depends on the managed care entity achieving cost savings for the targeted patient population, while realizing specific health outcomes or quality improvement.
• Pay for success—payment is dependent upon achieving desired outcomes rather than underlying services.
• Capitated or bundled payments—managed care entities pay an upfront per member per month lump sum payment to an organization for community care coordination activities and link that with fee-for-service reimbursement for delivering value-added services.

By focusing on upstream prevention, comprehensive service delivery, and alternative payment models, the InCK model is a promising vehicle to positively impact children’s health. Though its components require significant thought, strategy, coordination, and commitment from state Medicaid agencies and partners, there are early innovators providing helpful examples and entities with vast Section 1115 waiver development and Medicaid innovation experience available to assist.

As state Medicaid agencies develop and implement primary and secondary prevention, cost savings can be achieved while meaningful improvements are made in children’s lives.