Skip to Main Content

blogpost

MESC 2019―Reflections and Daily Recap

08.27.19

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!

Topics: #MESC2019, MESC, Medicaid

Related Industries

Related Professionals

Do we now have the puzzle pieces to build the future?

As I head home from a fabulous week at the 2018 Medicaid Enterprise Systems Conference (MESC), I am reflecting on my biggest takeaways. Do we have the information we need to effectively move into the next 12 months of work in the Medicaid space? My initial reaction is YES!

The content of the sessions, the opportunities to interact with states, vendors, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Systems (CMS) representatives were all rich and rewarding.

The underlying message from Julie Boughn, the CMS Director Data and Systems Group? This is “The Year of Data Quality” and the focus will be migrating to outcomes-based projects. CMS indicated they would like their regional representatives and state agencies to be aware of their top three priorities, focus on those, and be able to exhibit measurable progress in the next year.

Here are three ways states can focus their efforts in "The Year of Quality":

  1. Fix identified areas that have issues (every state has T-MSIS areas they can correct)
  2. Maintain data quality over time, especially through system enhancements
  3. Be aware of CMS plans to use and share T-MSIS data

CMS’ overall goals and vision for improvement include:

  • Creating faster delivery of well-functioning capabilities
  • Improving user experience for all users: produce timely, accurate, and complete data
  • Better monitoring and reporting on business process outcomes

I interpret Julie Boughn’s message and direction to be: keep our efforts realistic, focus on tangible results/outcomes, and realize that CMS is approachable.

While we work on outcomes, there may be some additional changes coming to the certification approach—even beyond the most recent updates from CMS. I think there is general understanding that the work we do in the Medicaid space is iterative, and we will always be improving and changing to adapt to the shifting environment and needs of our beneficiaries, stakeholders, and administration.

As I commuted on Portland’s MAX rail line between my hotel, the conference venue, and other events, I remembered Portland’s 2010 conference (then known as the MMIS Conference) and how the topics covered then and now are evidence of just how much we have evolved.

First, we were the MMIS Conference—now there is a much broader view of the Medicaid arena and our attention is on the Medicaid Enterprise—which includes the MMIS.

Second, in 2010 the nation was coming out of the Great Recession and there was a significant amount of energy spent on implementing initiatives on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). With it came a host of initiatives: meaningful use, as it related to incentives for providers to utilize electronic health records, states were subsequently updating their Medicaid IT and information exchange plans, and ICD-10 implementation readiness was a hot topic.

Fast forward to 2018, where session topics included modularity, re-use, health outcomes, coordinated care, data quality measures, programs to improve and enhance care, the opioid epidemic, long-term care, care delivery systems, payment, and certification measures. The general focus has migrated to include areas far beyond technology and the MMIS.

As we move into the next 12 months of work in the Medicaid space and look forward to gathering in Chicago for the 2019 MESC, the answer is YES, we have a clear direction and vision for moving forward. And we know things will continue to change in coming years. Are you ready to reassemble the pieces to fit and build the evolving picture of Medicaid?

Blog
MESC 2018 reflections–Portland, Oregon

The MESC “B’more for healthcare innovation” is now behind us. This annual Medicaid conference is a great marker of time, and we remember each by location: St. Louis, Des Moines, Denver, Charleston… and now, Baltimore. The conference is not only a way to take stock of where the Medicaid industry stands. It is a time to connect with the state and vendor community, explore challenges and best-practice solutions, and drive innovation with our respective projects.

Having an opportunity to reflect on MESC over the last several years, I’ve discovered that taking stock of how much has changed (or not) is a valuable exercise. 

Changes at CMS

At the federal level, there is the departure of a long time contributor — Jessica Kahn — who is no longer with CMS. Her contributions and absence were marked in both the opening and closing plenary. We are grateful for her dedication and many contributions to the Medicaid space. In this time of change, we look forward to continuing our work with CMS leadership CMS to advance the mission of Medicaid.

Innovation and Collaboration

Many of the sessions this year were updates on modularity, system integration, and certification, and sessions on expanding or maturing innovative approaches to achieving our triple aim. While there did not seem to be any earth-shattering changes, calls for innovation and collaboration continue. This can be difficult to achieve during a time of anticipated change, but necessary, as states strive to realize improvements in their systems and operations.

Data-Driven Decisions

One of the dominating conference themes was a reiteration of the need to access data from broad sources within and outside Medicaid, and to leverage that data for policy and operation-related solutions and decision-making. Key words like “interoperability” and “sustainability” could be heard echoing through the halls. There is no one-size-fits-all solution on how to break out of stove pipes of data, but some new technologies may be viable tools to meet the challenge. 

Strategic Planning for the Future

States remain focused on refining and following their strategic plans and roadmaps in a time of uncertainty — with regard to potential changes coming from the federal level. The closing plenary suggested that states be prepared for “local leadership” opportunities, which further underscores the need for states to continue to prepare themselves and their systems to facilitate changes to their programs.

Maintaining Perspective

As I leave Baltimore to return home and help care for my 88-year-old father, and as I see others who are in clear need of healthcare help, I am reminded that the work we do and the problems we are tackling are important on so many levels. It is a cornerstone of the well-being of our health system and our fellow citizens. Our team will continue to focus our efforts with this perspective in mind, drawing from the lessons, discussions, and best practices shared at this year’s MESC.

Here’s to a year of good health — may you successfully carry out the mission of Medicaid in your state. See you in 2018 in Portland, Oregon!

Blog
Reflections on MESC 2017

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?

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

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

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.

This site uses cookies to provide you with an improved user experience. By using this site you consent to the use of cookies. Please read our Privacy Policy for more information on the cookies we use and how you can manage them.