Skip to Main Content

blogpost

CMS update for the healthcare community: Our takeaways

03.23.20

Here is a summary of information we have gleaned from recent CMS updates and guidance. 

COVID-19 stakeholder call - March 16 

CMS held a National Stakeholder Call on March 16, 2020 to update the healthcare community on the rapidly evolving COVID-19 situation, which was declared a national emergency by President Trump on March 13, 2020.

Key takeaways:

  • Administrator Verma reaffirmed the goal of reducing administrative barriers in the way of healthcare workers and agencies and to support them as best CMS is able.
  • Acknowledging that there were questions on testing, Administrator Verma outlined that there will be a ramp-up in testing in conjunction with state and local governments. 
  • CMS is relaxing clinician enrollment requirements for Medicare and making the same option available to states in their Medicaid programs.
  • The administration has been clear that it wants agencies to focus on infection control efforts. CMS is designing a streamlined template to evaluate infection control.
  • CMS sends guidance to Programs of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE) Organizations.

On March 17, 2020, CMS issued guidance to all Programs of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE) Organizations (POs) on accepted policies and standard procedures with respect to infection control.

Key takeaways:

  • POs will need to create, apply, and sustain a documented infection control plan that involves procedures to recognize, examine, regulate, and avert infections in PACE centers
  • POs will need to work to prevent infections within each participant’s place of residence, as well as implement procedures to record and develop corrective actions related to incidents of infection.
  • CMS provides guidance that recognizes POs may need to undertake strategies that do not traditionally comply with CMS PACE program requirements in order to provide benefits while guarding from COVID-19. Some examples of this may include telehealth services.
  • President Trump expands telehealth benefits for Medicare beneficiaries during COVID-19 outbreak.

CMS is expanding Medicare’s telehealth benefits under the 1135 waiver authority and the Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act.

Key takeaways:

  • Under the new 1135 waiver, Medicare can pay for office, hospital, and other visits provided via telehealth across the country and including in patient’s place of residence starting March 6, 2020. 
  • Medicare telehealth visits: These visits are considered the same as in-person visits and are paid at the same rate as regular, in-person visits.
  • Virtual check-ins: Virtual check-in services can only be reported when the billing practice has an established relationship with the member.  
  • E-visits: Such services can only be reported when the billing practice has an established relationship with the patient.  

CMS coronavirus partner virtual toolkit

CMS has released a virtual toolkit to help stakeholders stay up-to-date on CMS materials available on COVID-19. Here is specific guidance from the toolkit designed for states and health plans:

CMS approves first state request for 1135 Medicaid waiver in Florida and Washington

The 1135 waiver allows Florida and Washington to modify certain Medicaid program requirements, policies, operational procedures, and deadlines applicable to each state’s administration of its Medicaid program during the period of the national state of emergency to prevent further transmission of COVID-19. 

Key takeaways from Florida’s waiver

  • Provider participation flexibilities for Medicaid and CHIP Waiver of Service Prior Authorization (PA) Requirements for fee-for-service delivery systems
  • Waiver for Pre-Admission Screening and Annual Resident Review (PASRR) Level II Level II Assessments for 30 Days
  • Waiver to allow evacuating facilities to provide services in alternative settings, such as a temporary shelter when a provider’s facility is inaccessible
  • Waiver to temporarily delay scheduling for state fair hearing requests and appeal deadlines (NOTE: CMS was unable to waive all of Florida’s requested authorities in this area)

If you have questions or would like more information, we are here to help. Please contact us

Related Industries

Related Professionals

Read this if you are a leader at a state Medicaid agency.

Here is a summary of information we have gleaned from CMS Administrator Verma’s recent call.

CMS is implementing new rules and waivers that increase provider flexibility and free up resources to deal with a surge in COVID-19 patients. CMS is working with the provider community to provide clarity around specific changes that impact their operations.

  • The rulemaking process has been dramatically expedited to accommodate recent and forthcoming regulatory changes
  • CMS is in the process of working out details to administer CARES act provisions, including further regulatory flexibilities, expansion of accelerated payment program, and $100 billion appropriated to reimburse eligible health care providers
  • CMS clarifies 3-Day Rule Waiver for skilled nursing facilities applies throughout the country and to all patients, regardless of their COVID-19 status

Medicaid Substance Use Disorder Treatment via Telehealth, and Rural Health Care and Medicaid Telehealth Flexibilities Guidance

This informational bulletin is composed of two parts: Rural Health Care and Medicaid Telehealth Flexibilities and Medicaid Substance Use Disorder Treatment via Telehealth.

  • The informational bulletin identifies opportunities for telehealth delivery for services to increase access to Medicaid services. It is composed of two parts, Rural Health Care and Medicaid Telehealth Flexibilities and Medicaid Substance Use Disorder Treatment Services Furnished via Telehealth
  • The bulletin provides SUD guidance around Medication Assisted Treatment (MAT), counseling, high risk populations, and other areas critical to providing SUD services.

Long-Term Care Nursing Homes Telehealth and Telemedicine Tool Kit

CMS is issuing an electronic toolkit regarding telehealth and telemedicine for Long Term Care Nursing Home Facilities.

  • The toolkit includes electronic links to sources of information regarding telehealth and telemedicine, including the changes made by CMS over the last week in response to the National Health Emergency.
  • Much of the toolkit’s information is intended for providers who may wish to establish a permanent telemedicine program, but there is information here that will help in the temporary deployment of a telemedicine program as well.
  • There are specific documents identified that may be useful in choosing telemedicine vendors, equipment, and software, initiating a telemedicine program, monitoring patients remotely, and developing documentation tools. 


CMS makes regulatory changes to help US healthcare system address COVID-19 patient surge

CMS has issued a number of temporary regulatory waivers and new rules to assist the nation’s healthcare system with improved flexibility.

  • Increased hospital capacity. CMS will allow communities to take advantage of local ambulatory surgery centers that have canceled elective surgeries, per federal recommendations.
  • Healthcare workforce expansion. CMS’s temporary requirements allow hospitals and healthcare systems to increase their workforce capacity by removing barriers for physicians, nurses, and other clinicians to be readily hired from the local community as well as those licensed from other states without violating Medicare rules.
  • Paperwork requirements. CMS is temporarily eliminating paperwork requirements.
  • Telehealth in Medicare. CMS will now allow for more than 80 additional services to be furnished via telehealth.

Additional COVID-19 FAQs for state Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) agencies

CMS released an update to the COVID-19 FAQs posted on March 18, 2020 related to emergency preparedness and response, eligibility and enrollment flexibilities, benefit flexibilities, cost sharing flexibilities, financial flexibilities, managed care flexibilities, fair hearing flexibilities, health information exchange flexibilities, and COVID-19 T-MSIS coding guidance. Notably:

  • States that have CHIP disaster provisions in their state plans can activate these provisions. CMS considers a significant outbreak of an infectious disease to be a disaster. CMS also recommends that states that do not have disaster relief provisions into their CHIP state plans include language that a federal- or governor-declared emergency is considered an event that can trigger the disaster provisions.

States may not suspend use of their AVS, however CMS reminds states that they can rely on self-attestation of assets and verify financial assets using their AVS post-enrollment in Medicaid.

  • CMS can help provide technical assistance regarding approaches states can use to rapidly scale telehealth technologies.
  • CMS clarified and provided COVID-19 T-MSIS coding guidance.

For more information

We’re here to help. If you have more questions or want to have an in-depth conversation about your specific situation, please contact the team

Blog
Takeaways from CMS national stakeholder call

Per CMS, all state Medicaid agencies, including territories, are eligible for the increased Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP), provided they adhere to the conditions outlined in the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA). 

Key takeaways:

  • The increase in FMAP will be retroactive to January 1, 2020 and will be available to state Medicaid agencies through the end of the quarter in which the public health emergency for COVID-19 ends.
  • This guidance answers some of the following questions for states, including:
    • How long the funding will be available and when it begins
    • What costs are matchable under the enhanced funding 
    • The specific conditions under which states are eligible to claim the funds 
    • What documentation and processes will be needed in order to gain full access to funding

Trump administration releases COVID-19 checklists and tools to accelerate relief for state Medicaid & CHIP programs

In order to assist states as part of the COVID-19 outbreak, the Trump administration has released a number of tools and checklists that constitute a federal authority toolkit to support states in applying for and receiving federal waivers and other key flexibilities for their program. 

Key takeaways:
The tools released today include:

CMS issues FAQs on catastrophic health coverage and the coronavirus

A catastrophic health plan may not provide coverage of an essential health benefit prior to an enrollee meeting the deductible for that plan. In order to clarify treatment and coverage of COVID-19 for catastrophic health plans CMS has issued Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs).

Key takeaways:

  • Catastrophic plans currently include coverage for the diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19 as they must cover the essential health benefits (EHB) as required by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).
  • Issuers of catastrophic plans will be able to provide coverage for the diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19 for enrollees who have not yet met their deductible without CMS taking enforcing action.
  • The FAQ document encourages states to take an enforcement approach and CMS does not “consider a state to have failed to substantially enforce section 1302(e) of the PPACA if it takes such an approach.”

Relief for clinicians, providers, hospitals, and facilities participating in quality reporting programs in response to COVID-19

CMS is granting exceptions from reporting requirements and extensions for clinicians and providers participating in Medicare quality reporting programs.  

Key takeaways:

  • The exceptions include pending dates for measure reporting and data submission for related programs. 
  • For data submission deadlines in April and May of 2020, submission of those data will be optional, based on the facility’s choice to report.
  • 2019 data submission
    • Deadline extended from March 31, 2020 to April 30, 2020.
    • Deadlines for October 1, 2019 - December 31, 2019 (Q4) 
    • Data submission is optional for inpatient rehabilitation and hospital-acquired conditions.

CMS releases telehealth toolkits for general practitioners and End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) providers

CMS has released two toolkits on telehealth which follow the broadened access to Medicare telehealth services under the 1135 waiver authority and Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act.

Key takeaways:

  • The toolkit consists of electronic links to sources of information pursuant to telehealth and telemedicine. 
  • Generally directed towards providers, particularly ones who may be considering a permanent telemedicine program.
  • CMS notes that most of the resources were established prior to the current COVID-19 crisis. As a result, there are likely references to rules and regulations whose requirements may have been waived for the duration of the outbreak.

Toolkits:

For more information

We’re here to help. If you have more questions or want to have an in-depth conversation about your specific situation, please contact the team

Blog
New guidance regarding enhanced Medicaid funding for states

Editor’s note: Please read this if you are a not-for-profit board member, CFO, or any other decision maker within a not-for-profit.

In a time where not-for-profit (NFP) organizations struggle with limited resources and a small back office, it is important not to overlook internal audit procedures. Over the years, internal audit departments have been one of the first to be cut when budgets are tight. However, limited resources make these procedures all the more important in safeguarding the organization’s assets. Taking the time to perform strategic internal audit procedures can identify fraud, promote ethical behavior, help to monitor compliance, and identify inefficiencies. All of these lead to a more sustainable, ethical, and efficient organization. 

Internal audit approaches

The internal audit function can take on many different forms, depending on the size of the organization. There are options between the dedicated internal audit department and doing nothing whatsoever. For example:

  • A hybrid approach, where specific procedures are performed by an internal team, with other procedures outsourced. 
  • An ad hoc approach, where the board or management directs the work of a staff member.

The hybrid approach will allow the organization to hire specialists for more technical tasks, such as an in-depth financial analysis or IT risk assessment. It also recognizes internal staff may be best suited to handle certain internal audit functions within their scope of work or breadth of knowledge. This may add costs but allows you to perform these functions otherwise outside of your capacity without adding significant burden to staff. 

The ad hoc approach allows you to begin the work of internal audit, even on a small scale, without the startup time required in outsourcing the work. This approach utilizes internal staff for all functions directed by the board or management. This leads to the ad-hoc approach being more budget friendly as external consultants don’t need to be hired, though you will have to be wary of over burdening your staff.

With proper objectivity and oversight, you can perform these functions internally. To bring the process to your organization, first find a champion for the project (CFO, controller, compliance officer, etc.) to free up staff time and resources in order to perform these tasks and to see the work through to the end. Other steps to take include:

  1. Get the audit/finance committee on board to help communicate the value of the internal audit and review results of the work
  2. Identify specific times of year when these processes are less intrusive and won’t tax staff 
  3. Get involved in the risk management process to help identify where internal audit can best address the most significant risks at the organization
  4. Leverage others who have had success with these processes to improve process and implementation
  5. Create a timeline and maintain accountability for reporting and follow up of corrective actions

Once you have taken these steps, the next thing to look at (for your internal audit process) is a thoughtful and thorough risk assessment. This is key, as the risk assessment will help guide and focus the internal audit work of the organization in regard to what functions to prioritize. Even a targeted risk assessment can help, and an organization of any size can walk through a few transaction cycles (gift receipts or payroll, for example) and identify a step or two in the process that can be strengthened to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse.  

Here are a few examples of internal audit projects we have helped clients with:

  • Payroll analysis—in-depth process mapping of the payroll cycle to identify areas for improvement
  • Health and education facilities performance audit—analysis of various program policies and procedures to optimize for compliance
  • Agreed upon procedures engagement—contract and invoice/timesheet information review to ensure proper contractor selection and compliant billing and invoicing procedures 

Internal audits for companies of all sizes

Regardless of size, your organization can benefit from internal audit functions. Embracing internal audit will help increase organizational resilience and the ability to adapt to change, whether your organization performs internal audit functions internally, outsources them, or a combination of the two. For more information about how your company can benefit from an internal audit, or if you have questions, contact us

Blog
Internal audit potential for not-for-profit organizations

Editor’s note: Read this if you are a Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Risk Officer, Chief Information Officer, or Controller.

Last month, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) issued its Semiannual Risk Perspective for Fall 2019. The report addresses key issues facing banks and focuses on those that pose threats to their safety and soundness. According to the report:

  • Bank financial performance is strong due to a favorable credit environment and the longest economic expansion in U.S. history.
  • Capital levels have reached historical highs.
  • Return on equity was above its 2006 pre-crisis level for the first time at 12.7%.
  • Net income grew 8.22% from the same period a year ago; however, net interest income grew only 4%, as loan growth is below historical averages and an increasing number of banks are facing a flat or declining net interest margin.
  • There is continued weakness in residential and commercial real estate loan growth.
  • Delinquent and nonperforming loans remain below their long-term averages.


Banks can thrive even with economic uncertainty

While these trends indicate that 2019 was by and large an excellent year, banks cannot afford to be complacent, as 2019 also saw increasing risks to the industry. For instance, in 2019 there was much discussion of the future cessation of the London InterBank Offer Rate (LIBOR). The OCC has indicated it will increase its regulatory oversight regarding the anticipated cessation, to ensure banks assess their exposure to LIBOR and are appropriately planning their transition from the widely used benchmark rate. The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) is also working on a project to address accounting issues that could arise from the transition from LIBOR.

And, although 2019 continued the longest economic expansion in US history, economic uncertainty exists due to, in part, the US-China trade conflict and ongoing Brexit discussions. This economic uncertainty has caused volatility in the interest rate environment. Aside from the yield curve inverting in 2019, banks also saw the Federal Funds target rate increase 25 basis points prior to decreasing 50 basis points. Given the typically asset-sensitive nature of banks’ balance sheets, the current interest rate environment will also put pressure on net interest margins. The current volatility of interest rates has caused the OCC to conclude interest rate risk is currently at heightened levels. 

Net interest income continues to be the most significant driver of net revenues for community banks, comprising nearly 80% of net revenues. With a difficult interest rate environment and lackluster loan growth in residential and commercial real estate, banks may face a difficult path ahead. Banks should tread cautiously, especially if this uncertainty persists. Asset-liability management will need be a significant focus (more than usual) as banks try to position themselves to not only maintain profitability through this uncertainty, but also come out stronger than before. Specifically, if lower rates persist, asset growth will need be a priority over deposit growth to maintain profitability at lower net interest margins. If loan growth continues to wane, this will prove to be difficult.

Innovations to compete with new lending sources

Adding to the list of threats to performance is the increasing amount of alternative financial resources available to borrowers. Banks have traditionally been the only source of credit for borrowers. However, technology has rapidly changed that landscape. Person-to-person (P2P) lending (also known as crowd lending, or social lending), allows people to borrow funds directly from another person, cutting out traditional lending sources (banks). Additionally, blockchain technology, if the hype is accurate, has the potential to eliminate the need of a financial intermediary altogether. 

Banks are adapting to this competition and to customers looking for more convenience and alternative services by offering new, unique services that differentiate themselves from others and provide added value to the customer. Banks have delivered through remote deposit, ATMs, and interactive teller machines (ITMs). Banks will need to continue to adopt innovative services to remain competitive. 

For instance, banks could offer video conferencing services, in which customers could have a live conversation with a bank representative through their smartphone. This convenience would allow a customer to conduct a transaction, such as apply for a loan, from the convenience of their home, while still maintaining human interaction throughout the transaction. Such a service would help banks compete with digital channels offered by non-banks, such as Quicken Loans, which is now the largest mortgage originator in the United States.

Strategies to protect against technological risks

These services all require the use of existing and new technologies, which have caused banks to hold more personally identifiable information (PII) digitally across an increasing number of digital platforms. As noted by the OCC, this digital exposure has created persistent cybersecurity risks for banks. Adopting a robust cybersecurity framework is no longer an option. 

Banks should bring cybersecurity to the forefront of their strategic planning. Any strategic plan must consider cybersecurity implications, as a single disaster can be detrimental to a bank’s reputation. And, given this rapidly changing environment, the cybersecurity conversation must be ongoing through relevant bank committees and the board of directors.

Furthermore, these technological solutions require partnerships with businesses that banks would not traditionally partner with. Financial technology (fintech) companies don’t just pose as a competitor to traditional banks. Many fintech companies are offering their technological solutions to traditional banks. However, outsourcing technological solutions to fintech companies and other businesses does not relieve a bank from performing its own due diligence and ensuring those companies meet the bank’s standards. 

Banks should evaluate potential vendors to ensure they comply with the bank’s vendor management policy. Since environments are constantly changing, this evaluation should be ongoing. Many vendors now provide System and Organization Controls (SOC) reports which detail the control environment at the vendor and involve independent third-party testing of those controls that exist at the vendor. SOC reports can provide a useful starting point for evaluating a vendor’s ongoing compliance with the bank’s vendor management policy. However, it is not a substitute for ongoing communication with a vendor.

There is no doubt 2019 was a successful year for banks. But past performance is not a guarantee of future success. Banks face many challenges, risks, and uncertainties, of which only a few have been outlined above. The current landscape may be challenging but it is also filled with opportunity. Banks should consider expanding their services, adopting new technologies, and partnering with other companies to leverage their strengths. Doing so should help position themselves for an exciting decade ahead.

If you have specific concerns about challenges facing your institution, please contact the team

Blog
Banking and finance: 2020 challenges and what to do to overcome them

Read this if you are a State Medicaid Director, State Medicaid Chief Information Officer, State Medicaid Project Manager, or State Procurement Officer—or if you work on a State Medicaid Enterprise System (MES) certification effort.

On October 24, 2019, the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) published the Outcomes-Based Certification (OBC) guidance for the Electronic Visit Verification (EVV) module. Now, CMS is looking to bring the OBC process to the rest of the Medicaid Enterprise. 

The shift from a technical-focused certification to a business outcome-focused approach presents a unique opportunity for states as they begin re-procuring—and certifying—their Medicaid Enterprise Systems (MES).

Once you have defined the scope of your MES project—and know you need to undertake CMS certification—you need to ask “what’s next?” OBC can be a more efficient certification process to secure Federal Financial Participation (FFP).

What does OBC certification entail?

Rethinking certification in terms of business outcomes will require agencies to engage business and operations units at the earliest possible point of the project development process to define the program goals and define what a successful implementation is. One way to achieve this is to consider MES projects in three steps. 

Three steps to OBC evaluation

Step 1: Define outcomes

The first step in OBC planning seems easy enough: define outcomes. But what is an outcome? To answer that, it’s important to understand what an outcome isn’t. An outcome isn’t an activity. Instead, an outcome is the result of the activity. For example, the activity could be procuring an EVV solution. In this instance, an outcome could be that the state has increased the ability to detect fraud, waste, and abuse through increased visibility into the EVV solution.

Step 2: Determine measurements

The second step in the OBC process is to determine what to measure and how exactly you will measure it. Deciding what metrics will accurately capture progress toward the new outcomes may be intuitive and therefore easy to define. For example, a measure might simply be that each visit is captured within the EVV solution.

Increasing the ability to detect fraud, waste, and abuse could simply be measured by the number of cases referred to a Medicaid fraud unit or dollars recovered. However, you may not be able to easily measure that in the short-term. Instead, you may need to determine its measurement in terms of an intermediate goal, like increasing the number of claims checked against new data as a result of the new EVV solution. By increasing the number of checked claims, states can ensure that claims are not being paid for unverified visits. 

Step 3: Frequency and reporting

Finally, the state will need to determine how often to report to measure success. States will need to consider the nuances of their own Medicaid programs and how those nuances fit into CMS’ expectations, including what data is available at what intervals.

OBC represents a fundamental change to the certification process, but it’s important to highlight that OBC isn’t completely unfamiliar territory. There is likely to be some carry-over from the certification process as described in the Medicaid Enterprise Certification Toolkit (MECT) version 2.3. The current Medicaid Enterprise Certification (MEC) checklists serve as the foundation for a more abbreviated set of criteria. New evaluation criteria will look and feel like the criteria of old but are likely to be a fraction of the 741 criteria present in the MECT version 2.3.

OBC offers several benefits to states as you navigate federal certification requirements:

  1. You will experience a reduction in the amount of time, effort, and resources necessary to undertake the certification process. 
  2. OBC refocuses procurement in terms of enhancements to the program, not in new functions. Consequently, states will also be able to demonstrate the benefits that each module brings to the program which can be integral to stakeholder support of each module. 
  3. Early adoption of the OBC process can allow you to play a more proactive role in certification efforts.

Continue to check back for a series of our project case studies. Additionally, if you are considering an OBC effort and have questions, please contact our team. You can read the OBC guidance on the CMS website here
 

Blog
Three steps to outcomes-based certification

Editors note: read this if you are a leader in an accountable care organization and interested in value-based contracting.

Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) and value-based payments: an introduction

With the goal of slowing the rising cost of healthcare while maintaining the delivery of high-quality care, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and private payers utilize a number of different provider payment models. The primary approach to address increasing healthcare costs has been to move away from fee-for-service payment models—which incentivize increasing the volume of care provided—to value-based payment models, which hold providers accountable for both the cost and quality of care they provide. The models have the potential to lead to reduced revenue for some providers, an outcome that can be avoided by successfully attracting larger patient populations. 

Value-based payment model options 

CMS has been a driver in this transition by moving physician reimbursement from being solely based on the Resource-Based Relative Value Scale (RBRVS) fee-for-service methodology to one that adds performance-based elements either through the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) or Advanced Alternative Payment Models (Advanced APMs):

  • Providers that are MIPS eligible will have up to 9% of their RBRVS-based payments adjusted for four categories: quality, cost, clinical practice improvement activities, and promoting interoperability.
  • Providers in an Advanced APM may earn an incentive payment based on their participation in an innovative payment model―with more opportunity for incentive rewards being given to those who take downside financial risk. 

On the hospital side, CMS developed the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) Program in order to move away from reimbursement based strictly on Diagnosis Related Groups (DRGs). The Hospital VBP Program rewards hospitals with incentive payments based on the quality of care they provide to Medicare beneficiaries. 

ACO value-based payment models are APMs that typically incorporate quality and the total cost of care for all services for a specific population, rather than just a specific clinical condition or care episode. Under the ACO model, CMS contracts with providers to assume increasing financial risk and reward opportunities while also being held accountable for their quality performance managing defined sub-populations they serve. These types of models are also employed by private payers.

How can ACOs succeed with payment models constantly changing?

ACOs should proceed with caution as they enter models with accountability for financial risk such as the newly finalized CMS Pathways to Success program and certain private payer commercial models. In order to be successful in any model, it is critical that ACOs have an adequate foundation in place and a provider network built to provide coordinated care. Some of the key elements for your success include:

  • Population data: Data for the ACO members that is a comprehensive record of their recent health utilization and spending history is critical.
  • Eligibility reporting: Require that eligibility files are provided on a monthly basis, and understand the way in which members are attributed or assigned. 
  • Claims data: Ensure accurate and complete claims data will be provided by payers monthly for the ACO members.
  • Financial/quality reporting: Ensure creation of infrastructure to generate reporting from the population data on a timely basis. Without timely reporting, the actual performance against benchmarks will not be known until it is too late to take any action.
  • Actuarial support: Validating spending targets and performance settlement should draw on the expertise of a qualified actuary.
  • Clinical documentation: Ambulatory clinical documentation categorizes patients based on the complexity of their diagnoses, which can be a predictor of future health care costs and used to identify at risk members for care management, disease management, and other programs. 
  • Population health management tools: Establish capabilities around population health management, specifically data aggregation and analysis that results in actionable recommendations
  • Audit capability: Verify the accuracy of payer financial and quality reports including the risk adjustment methodology.

Success in value-based payment models will require ACOs to understand changes to their population and quickly respond to address quality, utilization, and cost trends. 

WEBINAR
Demystifying Value-Based Contracting: Key Steps To Empower Your Organization

Want to learn more? Watch our value-based contracting webinar.

Blog
Success in value-based payment for ACOs

Phew! We did it—The Medicaid Enterprise Systems Conference (MESC) 2019 is one for the books! And, it was a great one. Here is my perspective on objectives and themes that will guide our work for the year.

Monday 

My day started in the fog—I live on an island in Maine, take a boat to get into Portland, and taxi to the airport. Luckily, I got to Portland, and, ultimately Chicago, on time and ready to go. 

Public Sector Technology Group (PSTG) meeting

At the PSTG meetings, we reviewed activities from the previous year and did some planning for the coming year. Areas for consideration included:

  • Modernization Schedule
  • Module Definitions
  • Request for Proposal (RFP) Requirements
  • National Association of State Procurement Officers

Julie Boughn, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) Director, Data and Systems Group (DSG) introduced her new boss, Karen Shields, who is the Deputy Director for the Center for Medicaid and CHIP Services (CMCS) within CMS. Karen shared her words of wisdom and encouragement with us, while Julie reminded us that being successful in our work is about the people. CMS also underscored the goal of speeding up delivery of service to the Medicaid program and asking ourselves: “What is the problem we are trying to resolve?” 

CMS’ “You be the State” officer workshop

Kudos to CMS for creating this open environment of knowledge sharing and gathering input.  Areas for discussion and input included:

  • APD Processes
  • Outcomes-Based Certification
  • Increasing and Enhancing Accountability

Tuesday
Opening Plenary

I was very touched by the Girls Inc. video describing the mission of Girls Inc. to inspire girls to be strong, smart, and bold. With organizations like this, and our awareness and action, I am optimistic for the future. Thank you to NESCSO for including this in their opening program.

John Doerr, author of Measure What Matters: OKRs: The Simple Idea that Drives 10x Growth and famed investor, shared his thoughts on how to create focus and efficiency in what we do. Julie’s interview with him was excellent, and I appreciated how John’s Objectives and Key Results (OKR) process prompted Julie to create objectives for what we are trying to do. The objectives Julie shared with us:

  • Improve the quality of our services for users and other stakeholders 
  • Ensure high-quality data is available to manage the program and improve policy making 
  • Improve procurement and delivery of Medicaid technology projects

Sessions

The sessions were well attended and although I can't detail each specific session I attended, I will note that I did enjoy using the app to guide me through the conference. NESCSO has uploaded the presentations. 

Auxiliary meetings

Whether formal or informal, meetings are one of the big values of the conference—relationships are key to everyone’s success, and meeting with attendees in one-on-one environments was incredibly productive. 

Poster session

The poster sessions were excellent. States are really into this event, and it is a great opportunity for the MESC community to engage with the states and see what is going on in the Medicaid Enterprise space.

Wednesday

Some memorable phrases heard in the sessions:

  • Knowledge is power only if you share it
  • We are in this together and want the same outcomes, so let’s share more
  • Two challenges to partnering projects—the two “P”s—are purchasing and personnel
  • Don’t let perfection be the enemy of the good
  • Small steps matter
  • Sharing data is harder than it needs to be—keep in mind the reason for what you are doing

Our evening social event was another great opportunity to connect with the community at MESC and the view of Chicago was beautiful.

Julie Boughn challenged us to set a goal (objective) in the coming year, and, along with it, to target some key results in connection with that goal. Here are some of her conference reflections:

  • Awesome
    • Several State Program and Policy leaders participated at MESC—impressed with Medicaid Director presence and participation
    • Smaller scoped projects are delivering in meeting the desired improved speed of delivery and quality
    • Increased program-technology alignment
  • Not so awesome
    • Pending state-vendor divorces
    • Burden of checklists and State Self-Assessments (SS-As)—will have something to report next year
    • There are still some attempts at very large, multi-year replacement projects—there is going to be a lot of scrutiny on gaining outcomes. Cannot wait five years to change something.

OKRs and request for states and vendors

  • Objective: Improve the quality of services for our users and other stakeholders
    • Key Result (KR): Through test results and audits, all States and CMS can state with precision, the overall accuracy of Medicaid eligibility systems.
    • KR: 100% of State electronic visit verification (EVV) systems are certified and producing annual performance data.
    • KR: 100% of States have used CMS-required testing guidance to produce testing results and evidence for their eligibility systems.
  • Objective: Ensure high-quality data is available to manage the program and improve policy making
    • KR: Transformed Medicaid Statistical Information System (T-MSIS) data is of sufficient quality that it is used to inform at least one key national Medicaid policy decision that all states have implemented.
    • KR:  Eliminate at least two state reporting requirements because T-MSIS data can be used instead.
    • KR: At least five states have used national or regional T-MSIS data to inform their own program oversite and/or policy-making decisions.
  • Objective: Improve how Medicaid technology projects are procured and delivered
    • KR: Draft standard language for outcomes metrics for at least four Medicaid business areas.
    • KR:  Five states make use of the standard NASPO Medicaid procurement.
    • KR:  CMS reviews of RFPs and contracts using NASPO vehicle are completed within 10 business days.
    • KR:  Four states test using small incremental development phases for delivery of services.
  • Request: Within 30 days, states/vendors will identify at least one action to take to help us achieve at least one of the KRs within the next two years.

Last thoughts

There is a lot to digest, and I am energized to carry on. There are many follow-up tasks we all have on our list. Before we know it, we’ll be back at next year’s MESC and can check in on how we are doing with the action we have chosen to help meet CMS’s requirements. See you in Boston!

Blog
MESC 2019―Reflections and Daily Recap

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

This is the second blog post in the blog series: “Procuring Agile vs. Non-Agile Service”. Read the first blog. This blog post demonstrates the differences in Stage 1: Plan Project in the five stages of procuring agile vs. non-agile services.

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

What is important to consider in agile procurement?

Here are some questions that can help focus the planning for procurement of IT services for agile vs. non-agile projects.

Plan Project Considerations for Agile vs. Non-Agile IT Services

Why are these considerations important?

When you procure agile IT services, you can define the scope of your procurement around a vision of what your organization intends to become, as opposed to being restricted to an end-date for a final delivery.

In an agile project, you get results iteratively; this allows you to constantly reassess requirements throughout the project, including the project plan, the guiding principles, and the project schedule. Your planning is not restricted to considering the effect of one big result at the end of the project schedule. Instead, your plan allows for sequencing of changes and improvements that best reflect the outcomes and priorities your organization needs

Since planning impacts the people-aspect of your strategy, it is important to consider how various teams and stakeholders will provide input, and how you will make ongoing communication updates throughout the project. With an agile procurement project, your culture will shift, and you will need a different approach to planning, scheduling, communicating, and risk management. You need to communicate daily, allowing for reviewing and adjusting priorities and plans to meet project needs. 

How do you act on these considerations?

A successful procurement plan of agile IT services should include the following steps:

  1. Develop a project charter and guiding principles for the procurement that reflect a vision of how your organization’s teams will work together in the future
  2. Create a communication plan that includes the definition of project success and communicates project approach
  3. Be transparent about the development strategy, and outline how iterations are based on user needs, that features will be re-prioritized on an ongoing basis, and that users, customers, and stakeholders are needed to help define requirements and expected outcomes
  4. Provide agile training to your management, procurement, and program operation teams to help them accept and understand the project will present deliverables in iterations, to include needed features, functionality and working products
  5. Develop requirements for the scope of work that align with services and outcomes you want, rather than documented statements that merely map to your current processes 

What’s next? 

Now that you have gained insight into the approach to planning an agile project, consider how you may put this first stage into practice in your organization. Stay tuned for guidance on how to execute the second stage of the procurement process—how to draft the RFP. Our intention is that, following this series, your organization will better understand how to successfully procure and implement agile services. If you have questions or comments, please contact our team.
 

Blog
Plan agile projects: Stage 1

Read this if you are a State Medicaid Director, State Medicaid Chief Information Officer, State Medicaid Project Manager, or State Procurement Officer—or if you work on a State Medicaid Enterprise System (MES) certification effort.

Measuring performance of Medicaid Enterprise Systems (MES) is emerging as the next logical step in moving Medicaid programs toward modularity. As CMS continues to refine and implement outcomes-based modular certification, it is critical that states adapt to this next step in order to continue to meet CMS funding requirements.

This measurement, in terms of program outcomes, presents a unique set of challenges, many of which a state may not have considered before. A significant challenge is determining how and where to begin measuring program outcomes―to meet it, states can leverage a trusted, independent partner as they undertake an outcomes-based effort.

Outcomes-based planning can be thought of as a three-step process. First, and perhaps most fundamental, is to define outcomes. Second, you need to determine what measurements will demonstrate progress toward achieving those outcomes. And the final step is to create reporting measurements and their frequency. Your independent partner can help you answer these critical questions and meet CMS requirements efficiently by objectively guiding you toward realizing your goals.

  1. Defining Outcomes
    When defining an outcome, it is important to understand what it is and what it isn’t. An outcome is a benefit or added value to the Medicaid program. It is not an output, which is a new or enhanced function of a new MES module. An output is the product that supports the outcome. For example, the functionality of a new Program Integrity (PI) module represents an output. The outcome of the new PI module could be that the Medicaid program continuously improves based on data available because of the new PI module. Some outcomes may be intuitive or obvious. Others may not be as easy to articulate. Regardless, you need to direct the focus of your state and solution vendor teams on the outcome to uncover what the underlying goal of your Medicaid program is.
     
  2. Determining Measurements
    The second step is to measure progress. Well-defined Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) will accurately capture progress toward these newly defined outcomes. Your independent partner can play a key role by posing questions to help ensure the measurements you consider align with CMS’ goals and objectives. Additionally, they can validate the quality of the data to ensure accuracy of all measurements, again helping to meet CMS requirements.
     
  3. Reporting Measurements
    Finally, your state must decide how―and how often―to report on outcomes-based measurements. Your independent partner can collaborate with both your state and CMS by facilitating conversations to determine how you should report, based on a Medicaid program’s nuances and CMS’ goals. This can help ensure the measurements (and support information) you present to CMS are useful and reliable, giving you the best chance for attaining modular certification.

Are you considering an outcomes-based CMS modular certification, or do you have questions about how to best leverage an independent partner to succeed with your outcomes-based modular certification effort? BerryDunn’s extensive experience as an independent IV&V and Project Management Office (PMO) partner includes the first pilot outcomes-based certification effort with CMS. Please visit our IV&V and certification experts at our booth at MESC 2019 or contact our team now.

Blog
Three steps to measure Medicaid Enterprise Systems outcomes

Read this if you are a State Medicaid Director, State Medicaid Chief Information Officer, State Medicaid Project Manager, or State Procurement Officer.

As CMS moves away from the monolithic Medicaid Management Information System (MMIS) toward an outcomes-based approach that includes a modular Medicaid Enterprise System (MES), there is now more emphasis on system integration (SI). 

In the August 16, 2016 letter, State Medicaid Director (SMD) #16-010, CMS clarified the role of the system integrator (SI) by stating:

CMS envisions a discrete role for the system integrator (SI) in each state, with specific focus on ensuring the integrity and interoperability of the Medicaid IT architecture and cohesiveness of the various modules incorporated into the Medicaid enterprise. 

While the importance of the SI role is apparent, not all states have the resources to build the SI capability within their own organizations. Some state Medicaid IT teams try to solve this by delegating management roles to vendors or contractors. This approach has various risks. A state could lose:

  • Institutional knowledge, as vendors and contractors transition off the project
  • Control of governance, oversight, and leadership
  • The ability to enforce contractual requirements across each vendor, especially the SI

In addition, the ramifications of loss of state accountability can have wide-reaching implementation, operational, and financial impacts, including:

  • The loss of timely decision making, causing projects to fall behind schedule
  • State-specific policy needs not being met, impacting how the MMIS functions in production 
  • Poor integration into the state-specific Operation and Maintenance (O&M) support model, increasing the state’s portion of long-term O&M costs
  • Inefficient and ineffective contract management of each module vendor and contractor (including the SI), possibly leading to unneeded change requests and cost overruns
  • Lack of coordination with the state’s business or IT roadmap initiatives (i.e., system consolidation or cloud migration vendor/approach), possibly leading to rework and missed opportunities to reduce cost or improve interoperability 

Apply strong governance and IV&V to tackle risks

Because the SI vendor is responsible for the integration of multiple modules across multiple vendors, you may consider delegating oversight of module vendors to the SI vendor. 

The major benefit states get from using the SI vendor is efficiency. Having your vendor as the central point of contact can quickly resolve technical issues, while allowing easy coordination of project tasks across each module vendor on a continual basis. 

If you choose to use a vendor for the SI role, establish safeguards and governance to make sure your goals are being met:

  • Build a project-specific governance model (executive committee [EC]) to oversee the vendors and the project
  • Establish a regular meeting cadence for the EC to allow for status updates on milestones and discuss significant project risks and issues 
  • Allocate state resources into project leadership roles (i.e., project manager, vendor contract manager, security lead, testing/Quality Assurance lead, etc.)
  • Conduct regular (weekly) SI status meetings to track progress and address risks and issues 

You also need a strong, involved governance structure that includes teams of state senior leadership, state program managers, SI vendor engagement/contract managers, and Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) vendors. By definition, one responsibility of IV&V is to identify and monitor project risks and issues that could arise from a lack of independence. 

Your governance teams can debate decisions and disputes, risks and issues, and federal compliance issues with their vendors to define direction and action plans. However, a state representative within these teams should always make the final management decisions, approve all SI scope items and changes, and approve all contractual deliverables from each vendor or contractor.

Your state staff (business and IT) provides project management decision, business needs, requirements (functional and non-functional), policy guidance, and continuity as the vendors and/or contractors change over time. 

The conclusion? In order to be successful, you must retain certain controls and expertise to deploy and operate a successful MMIS system. Our consultants understand the need to keep you in control of managing key portions of implementation projects/programs and operational tasks. If you have questions, please contact BerryDunn’s Medicaid team.  
 

Blog
Risks when using vendors to manage Medicaid system implementation projects

Read this if you are a state Medicaid Director, State Medicaid Chief Information Officer, State Medicaid Project Manager, State Procurement Officer, or work in a State Medicaid Program Integrity Unit.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a Payment Error Rate Measurement (PERM) Final Rule on July 5, 2017, that made several changes to the PERM requirements. One important change was the updates to the Medicaid Eligibility Quality Control (MEQC) requirement. 

The Final Rule restructures the MEQC program into a pilot program that requires states to conduct eligibility reviews during the two years between PERM cycles. CMS has also introduced the potential for imposing disallowances or reductions in federal funding percentage (FFP) as a result of PERM eligibility error rates that do not meet the national standard. One measure states can use to lessen the chance of this happening is by successfully carrying out the requirements of the MEQC pilot. 

What states should know―important points to keep in mind regarding MEQC reviews:

  • Each state must have a team in place to conduct MEQC reviews. The individuals responsible for the MEQC reviews and associated activities must be separate from the state agencies and personnel responsible for Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) policy and operations, including eligibility determinations.
  • States can apply for federal funding to help cover the costs of the MEQC activities. CMS encourages states to partner with a contractor in conducting the MEQC reviews.
  • The deadline to submit the state planning document to CMS is November 1 following the end of your state’s PERM cycle. If you are a Cycle 2 state, your MEQC planning document is due by November 1, 2019. 
  • If you are a Cycle 1 state, you are (or should be) currently undergoing the MEQC reviews.
  • There are minimum sample size requirements for the MEQC review period: 400 negative cases and 400 active cases (consisting of both Medicaid and CHIP cases) over a period of 12 months.
  • Upon conclusion of all MEQC reviews, states must submit a final findings report along with a corrective action plan that addresses all error findings identified during the MEQC review period.

CMS encourages states to utilize federal funding to carry out and fulfill MEQC requirements. BerryDunn has staff with experience in preparing Advanced Planning Documents (APD) and can assist your state in submitting an APD request to CMS for these MEQC activities. 

Check out the previously released blog, “PERM: Prepared or Not Prepared?” and stay tuned for upcoming blogs about specific PERM topics, including the financial impacts of PERM, and how each review phase will affect your state.   

For questions or to find out more, contact the team

Blog
PERM: Does MEQC affect states?

Read this if you are a state Medicaid Director, State Medicaid Chief Information Officer, State Medicaid Project Manager, or State Procurement Officer.

When I was growing up, my dad would leave the Bureau of Motor Vehicles or hang up the phone after talking with the phone company and say sarcastically, “I’m from the government (or the phone company) and I’m here to help you. Yeah, right.” I could hear the frustration in his voice. As I’ve gotten older, I understand the hassle of dealing with bureaucracy, where the red tape can make things more difficult than they need to be, and where customers don’t come first. It doesn’t have to be that way.

In my role performing Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) at BerryDunn, I hear the same skepticism in the voices of some of my clients. I can hear them thinking, “Let me get this straight… I’m spending millions of dollars to replace my old Medicaid Management Information System (MMIS), and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) says I have to hire an IV&V consultant to show me what I am doing wrong? I don’t even control the contract. You’re here to help me? Yeah, right.” Here are some things to assuage your doubt. 

Independent IV&V―what they should do for you and your organization

An independent IV&V partner that is invested in your project’s success can:

  • Enhance your system implementation to help you achieve compliance
  • Help you share best practice experience in the context of your organization’s culture to improve efficiency in other areas
  • Assist you in improving your efficiency and timeliness with project management capabilities.

Even though IV&V vendors are federally mandated from CMS, your IV&V vendor should also be a trusted partner and advisor, so you can achieve compliance, improve efficiency, and save time and effort. 

Not all IV&V vendors are equal. Important things to consider:

Independence―independent vendors are a good place to start, as they are solely focused on your project’s success. They should not be selling you software or other added services, push vendor affiliations, or rubber stamp CMS, nor the state. You need a non-biased sounding board, a partner willing to share lessons learned from experience that will help your organization improve.

Well-rounded perspective―IV&V vendors should approach your project from all perspectives. A successful implementation relies on knowledge of Medicaid policy and processes, Medicaid operations and financing, CMS certification, and project management.

“Hello, we are IV&V from BerryDunn, and we are here to help.”

BerryDunn offers teams that consist of members with complementary skills to ensure all aspects of your project receive expert attention. Have questions about IV&V? Contact our team.
 

Blog
We're IV&V and we are here to help you improve your Medicaid organization

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
 

Blog
PERM: Prepared or not prepared?

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
 

Blog
The power of the PMO: Fixing the weak matrix

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.

Blog
Leveraging IV&V to achieve quality outcomes

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.  

Blog
Procuring agile vs. non-agile projects in five stages: An overview

LIBOR is leaving—is your financial institution ready to make the most of it?

In July 2017, the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority announced the phasing out of the London Interbank Offered Rate, commonly known as LIBOR, by the end of 20211. With less than two years to go, US federal regulators are urging financial institutions to start assessing their LIBOR exposure and planning their transition. Here we offer some general impacts of the phasing out, some specific actions your institution can take to prepare, and, finally, background on how we got here (see Background at right).

How will the phase-out impact financial institutions?

The Federal Reserve estimates roughly $200 trillion in LIBOR-indexed notional value transactions in the cash and derivatives market2. LIBOR is used to help price a variety of financial services products,  including $3.4 trillion in business loans and $1.3 trillion in consumer loans, as well as derivatives, swaps, and other credit instruments. Even excluding loans and financial instruments set to mature before 2021—estimated by the FDIC at 82% of the above $200 trillion—LIBOR exposure is still significant3.

A financial institution’s ability to lend money is largely dependent on the relative stability of its capital position, or lack thereof. For institutions with a significant amount of LIBOR-indexed assets and liabilities, that means less certainty in expected future cash flows and a less stable capital position, which could prompt institutions to deny loans they might otherwise have approved. A change in expected cash flows could also have several indirect consequences. Criticized assets, assessed for impairment based on their expected future cash flows, could require a specific reserve due to lower present value of expected future cash flows.

The importance of fallback language in loan agreements

Fallback language in loan agreements plays a pivotal role in financial institutions’ ability to manage their LIBOR-related financial results. Most loan agreements include language that provides guidance for determining an alternate reference rate to “fall back” on in the event the loan’s original reference rate is discontinued. However, if this language is non-existent, contains fallbacks that are no longer adequate, or lacks certain key provisions, it can create unexpected issues when it comes time for financial institutions to reprice their LIBOR loans. Here are some examples:

  • Non-existent or inadequate fallbacks
    According to the Alternative Reference Rates Committee, a group of private-market participants convened by the Federal Reserve to help ensure a successful LIBOR transition, "Most contracts referencing LIBOR do not appear to have envisioned a permanent or indefinite cessation of LIBOR and have fallbacks that would not be economically appropriate"4.

    For instance, industry regulators have warned that without updated fallback language, the discontinuation of LIBOR could prompt some variable-rate loans to become fixed-rate2, causing unanticipated changes in interest rate risk for financial institutions. In a declining rate environment, this may prove beneficial as loans at variable rates become fixed. But in a rising rate environment, the resulting shrink in net interest margins would have a direct and adverse impact on the bottom line.

  • No spread adjustment
    Once LIBOR is discontinued, LIBOR-indexed loans will need to be repriced at a new reference rate, which could be well above or below LIBOR. If loan agreements don’t provide for an adjustment of the spread between LIBOR and the new rate, that could prompt unexpected changes in the financial position of both borrowers and lenders3. Take, for instance, a loan made at the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR), generally considered the likely replacement for USD LIBOR. Since SOFR tends to be lower than three-month LIBOR, a loan agreement using it that does not allow for a spread adjustment would generate lower loan payments for the borrower, which means less interest income for the lender.

    Not allowing for a spread adjustment on reference rates lower than LIBOR could also cause a change in expected prepayments—say, for instance, if borrowers with fixed-rate loans decide to refinance at adjustable rates—which would impact post-CECL allowance calculations like the weighted-average remaining maturity (WARM) method, which uses estimated prepayments as an input.

What can your financial institution do to prepare?

The Federal Reserve and the SEC have urged financial institutions to immediately evaluate their LIBOR exposure and expedite their transition. Though the FDIC has expressed no intent to examine financial institutions for the status of LIBOR planning or critique loans based on use of LIBOR3, Federal Reserve supervisory teams have been including LIBOR transitions in their regular monitoring of large financial institutions5. The SEC has also encouraged companies to provide investors with robust disclosures regarding their LIBOR transition, which may include a notional value of LIBOR exposure2.

Financial institutions should start by analyzing their LIBOR exposure beyond 2021. If you don’t expect significant exposure, further analysis may be unnecessary. However, if you do expect significant future LIBOR exposure, your institution should conduct stress testing using LIBOR as an isolated variable by running hypothetical transition scenarios and assessing the potential financial impact.

Closely examine and assess fallback language in loan agreements. For existing loan agreements, you may need to make amendments, which could require consent from counterparties2. For new loan agreements maturing beyond 2021, lenders should consider selecting an alternate reference rate. New contract language for financial instruments and residential mortgages is currently being drafted by the International Securities Dealers Association and the Federal Housing Finance Authority, respectively3—both of which may prove helpful in updating loan agreements.

Lenders should also consider their underwriting policies. Loan underwriters will need to adjust the spread on new loans to accurately reflect the price of risk, because volatility and market tendencies of alternate loan reference rates may not mirror LIBOR’s. What’s more, SOFR lacks abundant historical data for use in analyzing volatility and market tendencies, making accurate loan pricing more difficult.

Conclusion: Start assessing your LIBOR risk soon

The cessation of LIBOR brings challenges and opportunities that will require in-depth analysis and making difficult decisions. Financial institutions and consumers should heed the advice of regulators and start assessing their LIBOR risk now. Those that do will not only be better prepared―but also better positioned―to capitalize on the opportunities it presents.

Need help assessing your LIBOR risk and preparing to transition? Contact BerryDunn’s financial services specialists.

1 https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2017/07/27/acdd411c-72bc-11e7-8c17-533c52b2f014_story.html?utm_term=.856137e72385
2 Thomson Reuters Checkpoint Newsstand April 10, 2019
3 https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/examinations/supervisory/insights/siwin18/si-winter-2018.pdf
4 https://bankingjournal.aba.com/2019/04/libor-transition-panel-recommends-fallback-language-for-key-instruments/
5 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fed-libor/fed-urges-u-s-financial-industry-to-accelerate-libor-transition-idUSKCN1RM25T

Blog
When one loan rate closes, another opens

Who has the time or resources to keep tabs on everything that everyone in an organization does? No one. Therefore, you naturally need to trust (at least on a certain level) the actions and motives of various personnel. At the top of your “trust level” are privileged users—such as system and network administrators and developers—who keep vital systems, applications, and hardware up and running. Yet, according to the 2019 Centrify Privileged Access Management in the Modern Threatscape survey, 74% of data breaches occurred using privileged accounts. The survey also revealed that of the organizations responding:

  • 52% do not use password vaulting—password vaulting can help privileged users keep track of long, complex passwords for multiple accounts in an encrypted storage vault.
  • 65% still share the use of root and other privileged access—when the use of root accounts is required, users should invoke commands to inherent the privileges of the account (SUDO) without actually using the account. This ensures “who” used the account can be tracked.
  • Only 21% have implemented multi-factor authentication—the obvious benefit of multi-factor authentication is to enhance the security of authenticating users, but also in many sectors it is becoming a compliance requirement.
  • Only 47% have implemented complete auditing and monitoring—thorough auditing and monitoring is vital to securing privileged accounts.

So how does one even begin to trust privileged accounts in today’s environment? 

1. Start with an inventory

To best manage and monitor your privileged accounts, start by finding and cataloguing all assets (servers, applications, databases, network devices, etc.) within the organization. This will be beneficial in all areas of information security such as asset management, change control and software inventory tracking. Next, inventory all users of each asset and ensure that privileged user accounts:

  • Require privileges granted be based on roles and responsibilities
  • Require strong and complex passwords (exceeding those of normal users)
  • Have passwords that expire often (30 days recommended)
  • Implement multi-factor authentication
  • Are not shared with others and are not used for normal activity (the user of the privileged account should have a separate account for non-privileged or non-administrative activities)

If the account is only required for a service or application, disable the account’s ability to login from the server console and from across the network

2. Monitor—then monitor some more

The next step is to monitor the use of the identified privileged accounts. Enable event logging on all systems and aggregate to a log monitoring system or a Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) system that alerts in real time when privileged accounts are active. Configure the system to alert you when privileged accounts access sensitive data or alter database structure. Report any changes to device configurations, file structure, code, and executable programs. If these changes do not correlate to an approved change request, treat them as incidents and investigate.  

Consider software that analyzes user behavior and identifies deviations from normal activity. Privileged accounts that are accessing data or systems not part of their normal routine could be the indication of malicious activity or a database attack from a compromised privileged account. 

3. Secure the event logs

Finally, ensure that none of your privileged accounts have access to the logs being used for monitoring, nor have the ability to alter or delete those logs. In addition to real time monitoring and alerting, the log management system should have the ability to produce reports for periodic review by information security staff. The reports should also be archived for forensic purposes in the event of a breach or compromise.

Gain further assistance (and peace of mind) 

BerryDunn understands how privileged accounts should be monitored and audited. We can help your organization assess your current event management process and make recommendations if improvements are needed. Contact our team.

Blog
Trusting privileged accounts in the age of data breaches

Law enforcement, courts, prosecutors, and corrections personnel provide many complex, seemingly limitless services. Seemingly is the key word here, for in reality these personnel provide a set number of incredibly important services.

Therefore, it should surprise no one that justice and public safety (J&PS) IT departments should also provide a well-defined set of services. However, these departments are often viewed as parking lots for all technical problems. The disconnect between IT and other J&PS business units often stems from differences in organizational culture and structure, and differing department objectives and goals. As a result, J&PS organizations often experience misperception between business units and IT. The solution to this disconnect and misperception? Defining IT department services.

The benefits of defined IT services

  1. Increased business customer satisfaction. Once IT services align with customer needs, and expectations are established (e.g., service costs and service level agreements), customers can expect to receive the services they agreed to, and the IT department can align staff and skill levels to successfully meet those needs.
  2. Improved IT personnel morale. With clear definition of the services they provide to their customers, including clearly defined processes for customers to request those services, IT personnel will no longer be subject to “rogue” questions or requests, and customers won’t be inclined to circumvent the process. This decreases IT staff stress and enables them to focus on their roles in providing the defined services. 
  3. Better alignment of IT services to organizational needs. Through collaboration between the business and IT organizations, the business is able to clearly articulate the IT services that are, and aren’t, required. IT can help define realistic service levels and associated services costs, and can align IT staff and skills to the agreed-upon services. This results in increased IT effectiveness and reduced confusion regarding what services the business can expect from IT.
  4. More collaboration between IT and the organization. The collaboration between the IT and business units in defining services results in an enhanced relationship between these organizations, increasing trust and clarifying expectations. This collaborative model continues as the services required by the business evolve, and IT evolves to support them.
  5. Reduced costs. J&PS organizations that fail to strategically align IT and business strategy face increasing financial costs, as the organization is unable to invest IT dollars wisely. When a business doesn’t see IT as an enabler of business strategy, IT is no longer the provider of choice—and ultimately risks IT services being outsourced to a third-party vendor.

Next steps
Once a J&PS IT department defines its services to support business needs, it then can align the IT staffing model (i.e., numbers of staff, skill sets, roles and responsibilities), and continue to collaborate with the business to identify evolving services, as well as remove services that are no longer relevant. Contact us for help with this next step and other IT strategies and tactics for justice and public safety organizations.

Blog
The definition of success: J&PS IT departments must define services

If you’ve been tasked with leading a high-impact project for your organization, you may find managing the scope, budget and schedule is not enough to ensure project success—especially when you encounter resistance to change. When embarking on large-scale change projects spanning people, processes and technology, appointing staff as “coaches” to help support stakeholders through the change—and to manage resistance to the change—can help increase adoption and buy-in for a new way of doing things.

The first step is to identify candidates for the coaching role. These candidates are often supervisory staff who have credibility in the organization—whether as a subject matter expert, through internal leadership, or from having a history of client satisfaction. Next, you need a work plan to orient them to this role. One critical component is making sure the coaches themselves understand what the change means for their role, and have fully committed before asking them to coach others. They may exhibit initial resistance to the change you will need to manage before they can be effective coaches. According to research done by Prosci®, a leading change management research organization, some of the most common reasons for supervisor resistance in large-scale change projects are:

  • Lack of awareness about and involvement in the change
  • Loss of control or negative impact on job role
  • Increased work load (i.e., lack of time)
  • Culture of change resistance and past failures
  • Impact to their team

You should anticipate encountering these and other types of resistance from staff while preparing them to be coaches. Once coaches buy into the change, they will need ongoing support and guidance to fulfill their role. This support will vary by individual, but may be correlated to what managerial skills they already possess, or don’t. How can you focus on developing coaching skills among your staff for purposes of the project? Prosci® recommends a successful change coach take on the following roles:

  • Communicator—communicate with direct reports about the change
  • Liaison—engage and liaise with the project team
  • Advocate—advocate and champion the change
  • Resistance manager—identify and manage resistance
  • Coach—coach employees through the change

One of the initial tasks for your coaches will be to assess the existing level of change resistance and evaluate what resistance you may encounter. Prosci® identifies three types of resistance management work for your coaches to begin engaging in as they meet with their employees about the change:

  • Resistance prevention―by providing engagement opportunities for stakeholders throughout the project, building awareness about the change early on, and reinforcing executive-level support, coaches can often head off expected resistance.
  • Proactive resistance management―this approach requires coaches to anticipate the needs and understand the characteristics of their staff, and assess how they might react to change in light of these attributes. Coaches can then plan for likely forms of resistance in advance, with a structured mitigation approach.
  • Reactive resistance management―this focuses on resistance that has not been mitigated with the previous two types of resistance management, but instead persists or endures for an extended amount of time. This type of management may require more analysis and planning, particularly as the project nears its completion date.

Do you have candidates in your organization who may need support transitioning into coaching roles? Do you anticipate change resistance among your stakeholders? Contact us and we can help you develop a plan to address your specific challenges.

Blog
How to identify and prepare change management coaches

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.

Blog
Three factors state medicaid agencies should consider when applying for InCK funding

Most of us have been (or should have been) instructed to avoid using clichés in our writing. These overstated phrases and expressions add little value, and often only increase sentence length. We should also avoid clichés in our thinking, for what we think can often influence how we act.

Consider, for example, “death by committee.” This cliché has greatly — and negatively — skewed views on the benefits of committees in managing projects. Sure, sometimes committee members have difficulty agreeing with one another, which can lead to delays and other issues. In most cases, though, an individual can’t possibly oversee all aspects of a project, or represent all interests in an organization. Committees are vital for project success — and arguably the most important project committee is the steering committee.

What Exactly is a Steering Committee?
It is a group of high-level stakeholders that provides strategic direction for a project, and supports the project manager. Ideally, the group increases the chances for project success by closely aligning project goals to organizational goals. However, it is important to point out that the group’s top priority is project success.

The committee should represent the different departments and agencies affected by the project, but remain relatively small in size, chaired by someone who is not an executive sponsor of the project (in order to avoid conflicts of interest). While the project manager should serve on the steering committee, they should not participate in decision-making; the project manager’s role is to update members on the project’s progress, areas of concern, current issues, and options for addressing these issues.

Overall, the main responsibilities of a steering committee include:

  1. Approving the Project Charter
  2. Resolving conflicts between stakeholder groups
  3. Monitoring project progress against the project management plan
  4. Fostering positive communicating about the project within the organization
  5. Addressing external threats and issues emerging outside of the project that could impact it
  6. Reviewing and approving changes made to the project resource plan, scope, schedules, cost estimates, etc.

What Are the Pros and Cons of Utilizing a Steering Committee?
A group of executive stakeholders providing strategic direction should benefit any project. Because steering committee members are organizational decision-makers, they have the access and credibility to address tough issues that can put the project at a risk, and have the best opportunities to negotiate positive outcomes. In addition, steering committees can engage executive management, and make sure the project meshes with executive management’s vision, mission, and long-range strategic plan. Steering committees can empower project managers, and ensure that all departments and agencies are on the same page in regards to project status, goals, and expectations. In a 2009 article in Project Management Journal, authors Thomas G. Lechler and Martin Cohen concluded that steering committees are important to implementing and maintaining project management standards on an operational level — not only do steering committees directly support project success, they are instrumental in deriving value from an organization's investments in its project management system.

A steering committee is only as effective as it’s allowed to be. A poorly structured steering committee that lacks formal authority, clear roles, and clear responsibilities can impede the success of a project by being slow to respond to project issues. A proactive project manager can help the organization avoid this major pitfall by helping develop project documents, such as the governance document or project plan that clearly define the steering committee structure, roles, responsibilities and authority.

Steer Toward Success!
Steering committees can benefit your organization and its major projects. Yet understanding the roles and responsibilities — and pros and cons — is only a preliminary step in creating a steering committee. Need some advice on how to organize a steering committee? Want to learn more about steering committee best practices? Together, we can steer your project toward success.

Blog
Success by steering committee

A year ago, CMS released the Medicaid Enterprise Certification Toolkit (MECT) 2.1: a new Medicaid Management Information Systems (MMIS) Certification approach that aligns milestone reviews with the systems development life cycle (SDLC) to provide feedback at key points throughout design, development, and implementation (DDI).

The MECT (recently updated to version 2.2) incorporates lessons learned from pilot certifications in several states, including the successful West Virginia pilot that BerryDunn supported. MECT updates have a direct impact on E&E systems—an impact that may increase in the near future. Here is what you need to know:         

Then: Initial Release

In February 2017, CMS introduced six Eligibility & Enrollment (E&E) checklists. Five were leveraged from the MECT, while the sixth checklist contained unique E&E system functionality criteria and provided a new E&E SDLC that—like the MECT—depicted three milestone reviews and increased the Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) vendor’s involvement in the checklists completion process.

Now: Getting Started

Completing the E&E checklists will help states ensure the integrity of their E&E systems and help CMS guide future funding. This exercise is no easy task, particularly when a project is already in progress. Completion of the E&E checklists involves many stakeholders, including:

  • The state (likely more than one agency)
  • CMS
  • IV&V
  • Project Management Office (PMO)
  • System vendor(s)

As with any new processes, there are challenges with E&E checklists completion. Some early challenges include:

  • Completing the E&E checklists with limited state project resources
  • Determining applicable criteria for E&E systems, especially for checklists shared with the MMIS
  • Identifying and collecting evidence for iterative projects where criteria may not fall cleanly into one milestone review phase
  • Completing the E&E checklists with limited state project resources
  • Working with the system vendor(s) to produce evidence

What’s Next?

Additionally, working with system vendors may prove tricky for projects that already have contracts with E&E vendors, as E&E systems are not currently subject to certification (unlike the MMIS). This may lead to instances where E&E vendors are not contractually obligated to provide the evidence that would best satisfy CMS criteria. To handle this and other challenges, states should communicate risks and issues to CMS and work together to resolve or mitigate them.

As CMS partners with states to implement the E&E checklists, some questions are expected to be asked. For example, how much information can be leveraged from the MECT, and how much of the checklists completion process must be E&E-specific? Might certification be required in the near future for E&E systems?

While there will be more to learn and challenges to overcome, the first states completing the E&E checklists have an opportunity to lead the way on working with CMS to successfully build and implement E&E systems that benefit all stakeholders.

On July 31, 2017, CMS released the MECT 2.2 as an update to the MECT 2.1.1. As the recent changes continue to be analyzed, what will the impact be to current and future MMIS and E&E projects?

Check back here at BerryDunn Briefings in the coming weeks and we will help you sort it out.

Blog
Check this: CMS checklists aren't just for MMIS anymore.