Skip to Main Content

insightsarticles

Functional needs for a successful mobile Driver's License (mDL) program

By:

Jake is a Consultant in BerryDunn’s Justice and Public Safety Practice in the Government Consulting Group. He has worked on various justice and public safety projects including system implementations, point-in-time assessments, business process mapping, and vendor procurements. He is a Prosci®-certified Change Management Practitioner.

Jake Spaulding
06.02.21

Read this if you are a division of motor vehicles, or interested in mDLs.

Successful acquisition and implementation of a mobile driver’s license (mDL) program requires knowledge of the specific functional needs mDLs must satisfy to help ensure mDL programs provide security and convenience to mDL holders. These functional needs span mDL-reading equipment, issuing authorities (e.g., departments of motor vehicles), law enforcement and other mDL-reading establishments, and mDLs themselves.  

Per the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) Functional Needs White Paper, functional needs span eight broad categories: operations, trust, identity, cross-jurisdictional/vendor use, data privacy, remote management, ease of use, and other. The table below organizes these categories, briefly explains associated functional needs, and assigns a level of criticality to each functional need. Critical functionality must be accommodated by mDL programs in some manner. Desired functionality is optional, but heavily encouraged.

Table 1: Key Terms and Definitions
mDL Functional Needs Breakdown
Category Description Required/Desired
Operation – Online and Offline mDL holders must be able to validate their identity when either the mDL holder, the mDL reader, or both lack access to the internet.  At a minimum, offline use must allow citizens to confirm their identities, driving privileges, age, and residence. Critical
Operation – Attended mDL holders and mDL-reading establishments must be physically present when an mDL holder’s identity is established as credible, typically using the mDL portrait image. Critical
Operation – Unattended mDLs must function when the mDL-reading establishment is not present during a transaction with an mDL holder. Desired
Trust mDL holders must be able to establish that data comprising the mDL was issued by the relevant issuer and that information has not been changed, unless via an update through the relevant issuer. Critical
Trust mDL-reading establishments must employ readers they trust to obtain and validate information from mDLs. Critical
Identity – Portrait Image mDLs must have portrait image of the mDL holder. Critical
Identity – Portrait Image mDLs must have the ability to retrieve the portrait image from the issuing jurisdiction using a one-time token. Critical
Identity – Portrait Image mDL readers must read portrait images from mDLs, retrieve it from the issuing jurisdiction, and display the image. Critical
Identity – Portrait Image Law enforcement must have mobile mDL readers in order to review the mDL portrait image and mDL holder simultaneously. Desired
Identity – Biometric mDL-reading establishments must have trusted equipment to obtain the mDL holder’s biometric information. Desired
Identity – Biometric mDLs and readers must support a one-to-one  comparison of the mDL and holder biometric information, executed by the mDL-reading establishment or mDL issuer. Desired
Identity – PIN mDLs must support the use of a personal identification number (PIN) to authenticate the legitimacy of an mDL and its holder. Critical
Identity – PIN mDL holders must trust that mDL readers will not compromise their PIN when entering it.

mDL readers must trust that the PIN accurately validates mDL holder information when the authentication process occurs on the mDL holder’s device.
Critical
Cross-Jurisdictional & Vendor Use mDL readers must be able to read mDLs from multiple issuing jurisdictions and multiple vendors. Critical
Cross-Jurisdictional & Vendor Use mDLs require interfacing with the relevant issuer, with the ability to control how mDL data is uploaded to holder devices and updated. Critical
Cross-Jurisdictional & Vendor Use mDLs require in-real-time interfacing with the holder’s device and the reader. Critical
Data Privacy As with physical DLs, mDLs require a process for granting holder consent prior to information release. Critical
Data Privacy mDL holders must be able to release selective information (e.g., age, driving credentials) without releasing all personal information stored on the mDL (data minimization). Critical
Data Privacy Issuing authorities must be able to allow unrestricted access to an mDL, without the holder’s consent, in cases where the holder is unconscious, nonresponsive, etc., e.g., following a major car accident, law enforcement might need to verify whether an individual is an organ donor. Desired
Data Privacy mDLs must be linkable to the government-related transactions they are used for (e.g., interacting with the DMV, law enforcement), allowing local and state officials to review the history of transactions related to a specific mDL. Desired
Data Privacy mDLs must be unlinkable from the private-industry transactions they are used for, preventing mDL-reading establishments from tying mDL holders to specific transactions. Desired
Data Privacy The mDL should grant the mDL holder visibility into all personal data contained in the mDL. Critical
Remote mDL Management1 mDL issuing authorities must have the ability to perform the following actions to mDLs remotely:
  • Add, update, and revoke (temporarily and permanently) driving privileges.
  • Update the application storing the mDL.
  • Revoke the mDL entirely (in the case of suspected fraud)
Critical
Remote mDL Management mDL holders must have the ability to remotely update their mDL data, including revoking their mDL in the case of a lost or stolen mDL. Critical
Remote mDL Management mDLs with combined offline/online functionality must expire should the mDL holder not connect their mDL to issuer’s system within a defined period of time. Critical
Remote mDL Management mDLs must support the ability to be returned to the issuer prior to the issue of a new mDL to a holder.

mDLs must support the ability to be returned to the issuer, marked as void, and returned to the holder prior to the issue of a new mDL to the holder.
Optional
Remote mDL Management mDLs must allow law enforcement officers from a holder’s home jurisdiction to suspend a holder’s mDL under specified circumstances. Critical
Remote mDL Management mDLs must support the ability for issuing authorities to change mDLs to IDs (in the case of driving privilege revocation) and change IDs to mDLs (when driving privileges are gained). Desired
Remote mDL Management mDLs must support the ability to transfer devices, either online (desired) or by visiting issuing authorities in person (critical). Desired/Critical
Ease of Use mDLs must not require mDL-reading establishments to handle the mDL holder’s device during a transaction. Critical
Ease of Use mDLs must operate during different weather conditions (rain, snow, intense sunlight, etc.) Desired
Ease of Use mDLs must function at all times, regardless of the level of ambient light. Critical
Ease of Use mDLs must function in various environments (office, traffic stop, etc.) Critical
Ease of Use mDLs must minimize the amount and cost of additional equipment that law enforcement and other mDL-reading establishments require when processing mDL transactions. Desired
Other – Processing     Time mDL readers must be able to process an mDL transaction with comparable time to physical DL transactions. Critical
Other – Non-reliance on Device Security by Consumer mDL readers must be able to authenticate mDL data without relying on the security of an mDL holder’s device (e.g., biometric readers). Critical

1Remote mDL management assumes at least a partial level of online mDL functionality. mDLs cannot be remotely managed in offline scenarios.

If you have questions about mDLs or about your specific agency, please contact the team. We’re here to help.      

Related Services

Related Professionals

Principals

  • Doug Rowe
    Principal
    Justice and Public Safety
    T 207.541.2330

BerryDunn experts and consultants

Read this if you are a division of motor vehicles, or interested in mDLs.

You drive to the airport, and are pulled over by law enforcement. They check your driver’s license. You arrive at the airport, and rush through the TSA checkpoint. They check your driver’s license. You buy a drink in the airport bar to calm your nerves. They check your driver’s license. You board your plane, take off, land in your destination, and rent a car. They check your driver’s license. You drive to the hotel and check yourself in. They check your driver’s license. From run-ins with law enforcement, to traveling, to purchasing alcohol, driver’s licenses are necessary and versatile parts of every citizen’s identification arsenal—and soon, they will be mobile. But this new frontier of electronic identification—despite widespread applicability and increased holder convenience—brings challenges for mDL issuers and mDL-reading establishments.

The mDLs must function in a range of scenarios, each of which with distinct business processes, differing levels of holder data control, and various levels of online functionality. The widespread applicability of mDLs mean that state, county, and local issuing authorities need to simultaneously anticipate the range of mDL holder scenarios, identify the functionality required to meet these scenarios, and anticipate implementation challenges.     

Additionally, understanding mDL functionality requires understanding the specific terms used to describe that functionality, and these terms vary. From the participants in mDL transactions, to the kinds of transactions occurring, to the various screens and data validation methods, this terminology quickly becomes complicated. 

Table 1, Key Terms and Definitions below contains a list of mDL-related terms and definitions used within this blog, and accompanying future functional needs blogs.

Table 1: Key Terms and Definitions
Terms Definitions
mDL issuer The department of motor vehicles or bureau of motor vehicles responsible for administering rights to, and overseeing distribution of, mDL data to mDL holders.
mDL holder The person whose data is contained in, and represented by, the mDL.
mDL reader The hardware technology used to consume mDL data from an mDL holder's device.
mDL-reading establishment The institution consuming mDL data via an mDL reader, e.g., law enforcement, liquor store, Transportation Safety Administration.
Portrait image The image of the mDL holder used to verify the holder's ownership of the mDL by visual means.
Attended operation The mDL-reading establishment is physically present when the mDL holder is certified as the owner of the mDL data. E.g., checking in at a hotel, buying alcohol at a liquor store, verifying ID during a traffic stop scenario.
Unattended operation The mDL-reading establishment is not physically present when the mDL holder is certified as the owner of the mDL data. E.g., verifying age during an internet transaction.
Personal Identification Number (PIN) A number (usually 4 digits) created by an mDL holder and used to validate their identity during transactions.
Use Case A situation in which a holder will rely upon an mDL to convey their data to mDL-reading establishments, for a defined purpose.


Table 2, mDL Use Cases below lists situations in which mDL transactions are common, called use cases, and marks them as primary or future mDL use cases. Table 2 also categorizes whether the transactions occur with online/offline functionality (or both); and whether the transactions require both parties to be present during the transaction (attended), do not require both parties to be present during the transaction (unattended), or both. 

Note that mDL use cases are ever evolving, as is the functionality required to complete them. For the most up-to-date content, consider reviewing resources developed by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) or the International Organization for Standardization (ISO).

Table 2: Standard mDL Use Cases
Use Case Online/Offline Functionality Attended v. Unattended Operation
Primary Use Cases
mDL holder is involved in a traffic stop with law enforcement. Both Both
mDL holder goes through a Transportation Security Administration (TSA) checkpoint at an airport. Both Attended
mDL holder purchases alcohol in person. Both Attended
mDL holder rents a car. Both Both
mDL holder checks into a hotel. Both Both
mDL holder confirms identity with financial institutions. E.g., banks. Both Attended
mDL holder obtains social services. Both Both
mDL holder confirms identity when voting. Note: This use case might not be required in all jurisdictions. Both Attended
mDL holder confirms identity to gain access to federal facilities (if appropriate). Both Attended
Future Use Cases
mDL holder proves age for age-restricted purchases via the internet. Online Unattended
mDL holder signs a document electronically.  Online Unattended
mDL holder opens a bank account online.  Online Unattended


If you have questions about mDLs or about your specific agency, please contact the team. We’re here to help. 

Article
Mobile Driver's License (mDL) functional needs: Definitions and use cases

Read this if you are a division of motor vehicles, or interested in mDLs.

What is a mobile driver’s license?

A mobile driver’s license (mDL) is a solution that allows citizens to access, update, and use their driver’s license via a smart phone or other internet-accessible device (e.g., laptop, tablet, smart watch). An mDL is a form of electronic identification (eID), but where eIDs include other forms of licensure like hunting/fishing/gaming licenses or military IDs, mDLs are used to designate driving privileges and, in some cases, to designate age-based/identity privileges for citizens who cannot drive (e.g., buying alcohol, TSA PreCheck®).

Why should you care?

Technology has replaced physical product functionality within various areas of modern life. Many people have transitioned to electronic credit/debit card payments (e.g., Apple Pay), making paying for everyday items faster, easier, and cleaner, while also introducing risks to consumer data security. Similar functionality will soon exist within the eID space, starting with mDLs. This provides challenges for departments of motor vehicles (DMVs), businesses, and consumers; however, the benefits of adopting mDL functionality outweigh the growing pains of establishing the programs.

How does it work and when will it be implemented?

The mDL will function similarly to electronic credit cards and mobile payment applications: an mDL user loads their mDL to their mobile device using a mobile application and can use it to verify their age and driving credentials at mDL-reading establishments and with law enforcement. Relevant establishments will require both hardware and software solutions to read mDLs. 

mDLs aren’t intended to replace physical licenses—at least not yet. While state and county pilot programs resolve some of the challenges associated with mDLs, physical IDs will remain required for years to come. 

Additionally, the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) created two groups—a Card Design Standard Committee and Electronic Identification Working Group—to develop interoperable standards to assist license issuing authorities (e.g., DMVs) in developing their mDL programs. These standards will ensure that mDLs work using different hardware, software, vendor applications, and within different jurisdictions. 

Benefits and challenges

Benefits

mDLs provide numerous benefits to citizens and DMVs alike, including information security, user convenience, and administrative convenience.

Information security

  • mDLs are harder to fake than physical driver’s licenses due to the mDL’s connection to back-end license data within the DMV system. 

  • mDLs allow users the option to communicate specific data to the receiving party without sharing all of the user’s license information (e.g., confirming the user is over age 21 without sharing their specific age or street address). 

User convenience

  • Users will be able to update their credentials fully online and see in-real-time updates.
  • mDLs will possess single sign-on verification and use for users via a biometric lock or PIN, making them quick to access and easy to use.

Administrative convenience

  • The decline in DMV wait times due to online-update functionality will save DMVs money in administrative costs.

Challenges

As with all technological advancement, there are several challenges around the development of mDLs. The primary challenge is ensuring the protection of user data while also rolling out the complex—and often costly—infrastructure needed to support mDL use across a region. 

Information security 

  • Issuing agencies can choose whether some, none, or all mDL user data is stored on the user’s device and must ensure all data stored this way is done so securely.

  • mDLs must ensure hands-free exchange of information with law enforcement to protect user data when presenting identification.

  • Technological errors are bound to occur: if an mDL-reading establishment is not able to read a citizen's mDL for any reason, a citizen will require a physical license to complete the transaction.

Program rollout

  • States and mDL vendors will need to support interoperable mDL standards to ensure that an mDL works with different vendor software and across jurisdictions.

  • Establishments and law enforcement will need the necessary mDL-reading hardware (smart phone, smart watch, tablet, laptop, point-of-sale terminal) and software (QR code readers, Bluetooth functionality, Wi-Fi Aware, Nearfield Communication, etc.) to read mDLs.

  • mDLs must be able to function in both offline and online scenarios to ensure the security of consumer data and proper functionality.

The future

mDLs are just the beginning of the opportunities eID technology will bring. Once established by DMVs, eID technology can and will be used to find and buy insurance services, check medical prescriptions, apply for social/welfare benefits, open hunting/fishing/gaming accounts and display appropriate credentials, and access pension information. 

The versatility that eID technology provides will streamline American citizens’ identification arsenal, and the advancing mDL technology puts us on the path to get there. The question is not will mDLs become widespread, but when.
 

Article
Introduction to mobile driver's licenses (mDLs): What are they and why are they important?

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 or modernization efforts. 

The companion podcast to this article, Organization development: Preparing for Medicaid Enterprise Systems (MES) modernization, can be found in our virtual library.  


What is organization development (OD)? 

The purpose of OD is to improve organizational performance and outcomes. OD focuses on improving an organization’s capability through the alignment of strategy, structure, people, rewards, systems, metrics, and management processes.  

OD is a science-backed, interdisciplinary field rooted in psychology, culture, innovation, social sciences, quality management, project management, adult learning, human resource management, change management, organization behavior, and research analysis and design, among others.  

OD typically starts with a clear sense of mission, vision, and values that answers the question “what we are trying to be?” OD develops the culture and behaviors that reflect the organizational values.  

OD facilitates the transformation of the workplace culture to become strategic, meaning: vision-driven, values-based, and goals-aligned. This may include talent development for leaders and staff and redesigning organizational infrastructure. 

What is the scope of an OD effort? 

OD efforts are most effective when they encompass the entire organization becoming the basis for a strategic plan. OD can be just as effective when applied to a MES modernization project. In this application of OD, we facilitate stakeholder engagement with the intent of person-centered service, concurrent design for operations, processes, and training side-by-side with the systems design and development. This approach is also referred to as human-centered design (HCD).  

Regardless of the scope, OD reinforces benchmarks of high-performance organizations including: 

  • Transparent and data-informed decision making 
  • Developed leadership building connections with consistent expectations 
  • Culture of continuous improvement and innovation 
  • Team-based success and ownership for outcomes 
  • Person-centered service 

What does OD look like in action? 

We facilitate leaders to assess their organization through the eyes of stakeholders, particularly staff and people served. Collaboratively, with no blame or shame, the leaders articulate where they are today and where they need to be in the future, and build a roadmap or strategic plan to get there. In the assessment and roadmap we use the following six focal points of the organization:  

  • Excellent leadership 
  • Effective strategy 
  • A workforce that is confident, competent, consistent, and compassionate 
  • Quality operations and process improvement 
  • Person-centered service that results in a positive client experience 
  • Quality program outcomes for the communities served 

The roadmap or strategic plan typically includes talent development, and redesign of the infrastructure, including structure, processes, communication mechanisms, performance management processes, deployment of resources, and job skills development approaches.  

Talent development ensures that your leaders are aligned, prepared, and most importantly leading and inspiring their people toward that vision and the development of the workforce. Talent development provides staff with the skills, knowledge, and abilities needed, and reinforces positive attitudes, beliefs, and willingness to work together towards common goals. This might also include restructuring business process redesign, it might include expanding roles or shifting roles.  

Principles of lean are an important component of organization development when redesigning processes and helps organizations, such as state Medicaid agencies, do more with the current resources. With so many constraints placed on organizations, the lean approach is a critical component of optimizing existing resources and finding cost savings through changing “what we do” and “how we do it”, as opposed to cutting “what we do” or “changing who does it”. Resource optimization is just one of the benefits of organization development. 

Why is it important to redesign your organization and develop your staff when you're implementing a new technology system, such as a new Medicaid Enterprise System module? 

For state Medicaid Agencies, the organization goal isn't to modernize a system, the goal is for competent and compassionate staff serving clients and providers to improve health and wellness in our communities. Our goal is streamlined processes that improve accuracy and timeliness. Look at the outcomes of the program, then design the systems that enable business processes and the people who make that process happen every single day. We go back to why we are doing anything in the first place. Why do we need this change? What are we trying to accomplish? If we're trying to accomplish better service, a healthier community, and streamline processes so we are cost effective, then it leads us to modernizing our enterprise system and making sure that our people are prepared to be successful in using that system. Aligning to the organizational goals, or what we call the North Star, sets us up for success with the enterprise efforts and the human efforts. 

What can clients do to navigate some of the uncertainties of a modernization effort, and how can they prepare their staff for what's next? 

First articulate the goals or why you want the modernization, and build a foundation with aligned, and effective leaders. Assess the needs of the organization from a “social” or people perspective and a technical or systems perspective (note: BerryDunn uses a socio-technical systems design approach). Then, engage staff to develop a high-performance, team-based culture to improve lean processes. Design and develop the system to enable lean business processes and concurrently have operations design standard operating procedures, and develop the training needed to optimize the new system.  

Leaders must lead. If leaders are fragmented, if they are not effective communicators, if they do not have a sense of trust and connection with their workforce, then any change will be sub-optimized and probably will be a frustrating experience for all.  

If the workforce is in a place where staff live with suspicion or a lack of trust, or maybe some dysfunctional interpersonal skills, then they are not in a place to learn a new system. If you try to build a system based on a fragmented organizational structure or inconsistent processes, you will not achieve the potential of the modernization efforts and will limit how people view your enterprise system. The worst thing you can do is invest millions of dollars in the system based on a flawed organizational design or trying to get that system to just do what we've always done. 

By starting with building the foundation of engaging employees, not just to make people feel good, but also to help them understand how to improve their processes and build a positive workplace. Do we have the transparency in our data so that we understand what the actual problems are? Can employees articulate the North Star goals, the constraints, the reasons to update systems, then the organizations will have a pull for change as opposed to a push.

Medicaid agencies and other organizations can create a pull for change by engaging with their resources who can identify what gets in the way of serving the clients, i.e., what gets in the way of timeliness or adds redundancy or rework to the process. The first step is building that foundation, getting people leaning in, and understanding what's happening. By laying the foundation first, organizations help reduce the barriers between operations and systems, and ensure that they're working collaboratively toward organizational goals, always keeping the ‘why’ in mind and using measures to know when they are successful. 

How does a state focus on organization development when they are facing budget and staffing constraints? 

It is too easy to say, "invest in your people". In reality, the first thing that state Medicaid agencies or other organizations need do is redefine their sense of lean. Many inaccurately believe that lean means limited resources working really hard. Lean is tapping into the potential creativity and innovation of each staff member to look for ways to improve the process. Organizations should look at everything they do and ask “Does this add value to the end recipient of our service?” Even if I'm processing travel reimbursement requests, I still have a customer, I still have a need for timeliness and accuracy. If state Medicaid agencies can mobilize that type of focus with every single employee in their organization, they can achieve huge cost savings without the pain of cutting the workforce.   

In one state where BerryDunn’s organization development team provided this level and type of organizational transformation, there was a very deliberate focus on building this foundation prior to a large-scale system modernization.

By developing the leaders and training the employees in how to improve their processes, improve teamwork and trust, and align to the goal of a positive client experience, they were able to effectively implement the new system and seamlessly move to remote pandemic conditions. Once the state Medicaid agency had aligned the technical systems and the people systems to the organizational goals, they were successful and more resilient for future changes.   

If you have any questions, please contact our Medicaid consulting team. We're here to help.

Article
Outcomes and organization development 

Read this if you work in an alcohol control capacity for state government.

The COVID-19 outbreak has changed the alcoholic beverage industry significantly over the last 14 months. Restrictions forced people to stay at home, limiting their travel to restaurants, bars, and even some stores to purchase their favorite spirits. In at least 32 states, new legislation allowed consumers the option to buy to-go cocktails as a way to help these establishments stay in business. As a result, consumers took advantage of alcohol delivery services. 

There were two large shifts in consumer purchasing for the alcoholic beverage industry in 2020. The first was a shift from on-premise to off-premise purchasing (for example, more takeaway beverages from bars, breweries, and other establishments). The second was the explosion of e-commerce sales for curbside pickup and home delivery. A study by IWSR, an alcoholic beverage market research firm, stated that alcohol e-commerce sales grew 42% in 2020. The head of consumer insights for the online alcoholic beverage delivery service, Drizly, attributes this growth to the “increased consumer awareness of alcohol delivery as a legal option, as well as an overall shift in consumer purchasing behavior toward online ordering and delivery”. 

How state agencies responded

The move to an e-commerce model has impacted state agencies who regulate the distribution and/or sale of alcohol. States such as Oklahoma, Alabama, and Georgia recently passed legislation allowing alcohol delivery to consumers’ homes. In alcoholic beverage control states, where the state controls the sale of alcohol at the wholesale level, curbside pickup programs (New Hampshire) were implemented, while others started online home delivery services (Pennsylvania). 

In a fluid legislative environment, states agencies are working to meet consumer needs in a very competitive marketplace, while fulfilling their regulatory obligation to the health and safety of their constituents.

How alcoholic beverage control states can adapt

Now is an opportune time for control state agencies to keep pace with consumer demand for more flexible purchasing options, such as buying online with home delivery, or some form of curbside and/or in-store pickup programs. Every one of the 17 alcoholic beverage control states has passed legislation to allow the delivery of either beer, wine, and/or distilled spirits in some form, with some limitations.

While for some the COVID-19 outbreak has necessitated these more distant shopping experiences, the option of these sales channels has brought consumers flexibility they will expect going forward. This calls for control state agencies to act on this changing consumer demand. By prioritizing investing in and taking ownership of new sales channels, such as e-commerce and curbside pickup, control state agencies’ technology and logistics teams can develop strategies and tools to effectively adapt to this new demand. 

Adapting technology and logistics

Through technology, control state agencies can take advantage of e-commerce and curbside pickup sales channels, to drive more revenue. We recommend control states consider the following: 

Define the current capabilities to support an online sales strategy

An important first step is to define how to address constituents’ evolving needs as compared to the current e-commerce capabilities control state agencies can support. Considerations include:

  • Are current staff capable of developing and supporting new website capabilities to meet the increased demand on the website?  
  • How will the current customer support team(s) expand to support concerns from the new channels?
  • How will new e-commerce order volume be fulfilled for home delivery (including order errors, breakage, returns, etc.)?   

Control state agencies should complete current and future state assessments in each area above to confirm what capabilities they have today and which they would like to have in the future; which will allow for an accurate gap analysis and comparison to their future state needs. Once the current state assessment, future state strategy, and gap analysis are complete, control state agencies can define the projects required to support the future state requirements. 

Reevaluate existing fulfillment, inventory, and distribution processes

Each control state has existing product fulfillment, inventory and distribution processes, and information technology (IT) tools for delivering alcohol, to their own or licensed retail stores and businesses. These current processes and IT systems should be assessed as part of the current state capabilities assessment mentioned above, to help define the level of change needed to support the control state agency’s future needs in the e-commerce channel. Key assessment questions control state agencies should ask themselves include: 

  • Can the current IT systems (e.g., inventory management, customer relationship management [CRM], customer support/call center, financial, point of sale [POS], and website infrastructure) support required upgrades?
  • Can retail teams and today’s infrastructure support order taking, inventory, fulfillment, and buy online pickup in store programs?
  • How will warehouse and retail stores track and manage the e-commerce shipments and returns related to this channel?
  • If home delivery is part of the strategy, define how the delivery logistics will be met through state or vendor resources.
  • What staffing model and skill sets will support future business needs?
  • What is the total cost of ownership for these new e-commerce capabilities so that the short and long-term costs and profits can be accurately estimated? 

The answers to these questions will help to inform a future e-commerce strategy and accommodate the cost and staff impacts. 

Bring in online retail expertise

It is important to ensure that the control state agency has website and mobile capabilities to support today’s consumer needs. This includes the ability to order a wide range of products online for either home delivery or buy online pickup in store. The design of the website and mobile transactional capabilities is critically important to the success of this channel, the true growth in revenues. Being marketing focused (e.g., allowing consumers to view and order products, save items for later, and see similar products) will help drive traffic and sales on this upgraded channel. 

For control state agencies with a more static product website, consider purchasing a commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) e-commerce product with existing retail-focused website features, or contract with a vendor to build a website that meets more unique needs. The control state agency should bring in at least one online retail subject matter expert vendor to help set the direction, design the upgrades or new site, manage the project(s) needed to implement the online capabilities, and potentially manage the operational support of the website and mobile solution.

BerryDunn provides state alcoholic beverage control boards and commissions with many services along the IT system acquisition lifecycle, including planning, needs assessment, business process analysis, request for proposal (RFP) development, requirements development, technology contract development, and project management services. 

For the full list of steps to consider and to learn more about how you can successfully position your control state agency to adapt to the changing alcoholic beverage landscape, contact us.
 

Article
COVID-19 and the e-commerce explosion

Read this if your organization operates under the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB).

Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 93 Replacement of Interbank Offered Rates

Summary

With the global reference rate reform and the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) disappearing at the end of 2021, GASB Statement No. 93 was issued to address the accounting and financial impacts for replacing a reference rate. 

The article below is focused on Hedging Derivative Investments and amendments impacting Statement No. 87, Leases. We have not included guidance related to the Secured Overnight Financing Rate or the Up-Front Payments. 

Background

We have all heard that by the end of 2021, LIBOR will cease to exist in its current form. LIBOR is one of the most commonly used interbank offered rates (IBOR). Now what?

In March 2020, the GASB provided guidance to address the accounting treatment and financial reporting impacts of the replacement of IBORs with other referenced rates while maintaining reliable and comparable information. Statement No. 93 specifically addresses previously issued Statements No. 53, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Derivative Instruments, and No. 87, Leases, to provide updated guidance on how a change to the reference rate impacts the accounting for hedging transactions and leases.  

Here are our analyses of what is changing as well as easy-to-understand and important considerations for your organization as you implement the new standards.

Part 1: Hedging Derivative Instruments

The original guidance under Statement No. 53, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Derivative Instruments, as amended, requires that a government terminate a hedging transaction if the government renegotiates or amends a critical term of a hedging derivative instruction. 

Reference rate is the critical term that differentiates Statement No. 93 from Statement No. 53. The newly issued Statement No. 93 provides an exception that allows for certain hedging instruments to hedge the required accounting termination provisions when the IBOR is replaced with a new reference rate. 

In order words, under Statement No. 53, a modification of the IBOR would have caused the hedging instrument to terminate. However, Statement No. 93 now provides an exception to the termination rules as a result of the end of LIBOR. According to Statement No. 93, the exception is allowable when: 

  1. The hedging derivative instrument is amended or replaced to change the reference rate of the hedging derivative instrument’s variable payment or to add or change fallback provisions related to the reference rate of the variable payment.
  2. The reference rate of the amended or replacement hedging derivative instrument’s variable payment essentially equates to the reference rate of the original hedging derivative instrument’s variable payment by one or both of the following methods:
    • The replacement rate is multiplied by a coefficient or adjusted by addition or subtraction of a constant; the amount of the coefficient or constant is limited to what is necessary to essentially equate the replacement rate and the original rate
    •  An up-front payment is made between the parties; the amount of the payment is limited to what is necessary to essentially equate the replacement rate and the original rate.
  3. If the replacement of the reference rate is effectuated by ending the original hedging derivative instrument and entering into a replacement hedging derivative instrument, those transactions occur on the same date.
  4. Other terms that affect changes in fair values and cash flows in the original and amended or replacement hedging derivative instruments are identical, except for the term changes, as specified in number 1 below, that may be necessary for the replacement of the reference rate.

As noted above, there are term changes that may be necessary for the replacement of the reference rate are limited to the following

  • The frequency with which the rate of the variable payment resets
  • The dates on which the rate resets
  • The methodology for resetting the rate
  • The dates on which periodic payments are made.

Many contracts that will be impacted by LIBOR will be covered under Statement No. 93. The statement was created in order to ease with the transition and not create unnecessary burdens on the organizations. 

Part 2: Leases

Under the original guidance of Statement No. 87 Leases, lease contracts could be amended while the contract was in effect. This was considered a lease modification. In addition, the guidance states that an amendment to the contract during the reporting period would result in a separate lease. Examples of such an amendment included change in price, length, or the underlying asset.  

Included within Statement No. 93, are modifications to the lease standard as it relates to LIBOR. In situations where a contract contains variable payments with an IBOR, an amendment to replace IBOR with another rate by either changing the rate or adding or changing the fallback provisions related to the rate is not considered a lease modification. This modification does not require a separate lease. 

When is Statement No. 93 effective for me?

The removal of LIBOR as an appropriate interest rate is effective for reporting periods ending after June 31, 2021. All other requirements of Statement No. 93 are effective for all reporting periods beginning after June 15, 2022. Early adoption is allowed and encouraged. 

What should I do next? 

We encourage all those that may be impacted by LIBOR—whether with hedging derivative instruments, leases, and/or specific debt arrangements—to review all of their instruments to determine the specific impact on your organization. This process will be time consuming, and may require communication with the organizations with whom you are contracted to modify the terms so that they are agreeable to both parties.

If you would like more information about early adoption, or implementing the new Hedging Derivative Instruments or Leases, please contact Katy Balukas or Grant Ballantyne.
 

Article
The clock is ticking on LIBOR. Now what?

Read this if your organization operates under the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB).

GASB Statement No. 96 Subscription-Based Information Technology Agreements

Summary

GASB Statement No. 96 defines the term Subscription-Based Information Technology Agreements (SBITA) as “a contract that conveys control of the right to use another party’s (a SBITA vendor’s) information technology (IT) software, alone or in combination with tangible capital assets (the underlying IT assets), as specified in the contract for a period of time in an exchange or exchange-like transaction.”

GASB Statement No. 96 determines when a subscription should be recognized as a right-to-use subscription, and also determines the corresponding liability, capitalization criteria, and required disclosures. 

Why does this matter to your organization?

In 2018, Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued Accounting Standards Updated (ASU) 2018-15: Cloud Computing Arrangements for Service Contracts, and we knew it would only be a matter of time when a similar standard would be issued by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB). Today, more and more governmental entities are purchasing software in the cloud as opposed to a software that is housed locally on their machine or network. This creates the need for updated guidance in order to improve overall financial reporting, while maintaining consistency and comparability among governmental entities. 

What should you do?

We are going to walk through the steps to determine if a SBITA exists—from identification through how it may be recognized in your financial statements. You can use this step-by-step guide to review each individual subscription-based software to determine if Statement No. 96 applies.

Step 1: Identifying a SBITA

There is one important question to ask yourself when determining if a SBITA exists:

Will this software no longer work/will we no longer be able to log in once the contract term ends?

If your answer is “yes”, it is likely that a SBITA exists.  

Step 2: Determine whether a contract conveys control of the right to use underlying IT assets

According to Statement No. 96, the contract meets the right to use underlying IT assets by:

  • The right to obtain the present service capacity from use of the underlying IT assets as specified in the contract
  • The right to determine the nature and manner of use of the underlying IT assets as specified in the contact

Step 3: Determine the length of the subscription term

The subscription term starts when a governmental entity has a non-cancellable right to use the underlying IT assets. This is the period during which the SBITA vendor does not have the ability to cancel the contract, increase or decrease rates, or change the benefits/terms of the service. The contract language for this period can also include an option for the organization or the SBITA vendor to extend or terminate the contract, if it is reasonably certain that either of these options will be exercised.

Once a subscription term is set, your organization should revisit the term if one or more of the following occurs:

  • The potential option (extend/terminate) is exercised by either the entity or the SBITA vendor 
  • The potential option (extend/terminate) is not exercised by either the government or the SBITA vendor
  • An extension or termination of the SBITA occurs 

If the maximum possible term under the SBITA contract is 12 months or less, including any options to extend, regardless of their possibility of being exercised, an exception for short-term SBITAs has been provided under the statement. Such contracts do not need to be recognized under the Statement and the subscription payments will be recognized as outflows of resources. 

Step 4: Measurement of subscription liability 

The subscription liability is measured at the present value of the subscription payments expected to be made during the previously determined subscription term. The SBITA contract will include specific measures that should be used in determining the liability that could include the following:

  • Fixed payments
  • Variable payments
  • Payments for penalties for termination
  • Contract incentives
  • Any other payments to the SBITA which are included in the contract

The future payments are discounted using the interest rate that the SBITA charges to your organization. The interest rate may be implicit in the contract. If it is not readily determinable, the rate should be estimated using your organization’s incremental borrowing rate. 

Your organization will only need to re-measure the subscription liability is there is a change to the subscription term, change in the estimated amounts of payments, change in the interest rate the SBITA charges to your organization, or contingencies related to variable payments. A change in the discount rate alone would not require a re-measurement. 

Step 5: Measurement of subscription asset

The SBITA asset should be measured at the total of the following:

  • The amount of the initial measurement of the subscription liability (noted in Step 4 above)
  • If applicable, any payments made to the SBITA vendor at the beginning of the subscription term
  • The capitalized initial implementation costs (noted in Step 6 below)

Any SBITA vendor incentives received should be subtracted from the total.

Step 6: Capitalization of other outlays

In addition to the IT asset, Statement No. 96 provides for other outlays associated with the subscription to be capitalized as part of the total subscription asset. When implementing the IT asset, the activities can be divided into three stages: 

  • Preliminary project stage: May include a needs assessment, selection, and planning activities and should be recorded as expenses.
  • Initial implementation stage: May include testing, configuration, installation and other ancillary charges necessary to implemental the IT asset. These costs should be capitalized and included in the subscription asset.
  • Operation and additional implementation stage: May include maintenance and troubleshooting and should be expensed.

Step 7: Amortization

The subscription asset are amortized over the shorter of the subscription terms or the useful life of the underlying IT assets. The amortization of the asset are reported as amortization expense or an outflow of resources. Amortization should commence at the beginning of the subscription term. 

When is this effective?

Statement No. 96 is effective for all fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2022, fiscal and calendar years 2023. Early adoption is allowed and encouraged.

Changes to adopt the pronouncement are applied retroactively by restating previously issued financial statements, if practical, for all fiscal years presented. If restatement is not practical, a cumulative effect of the change can be reported as a restatement to the beginning net position (or fund balance) for the earliest year restated. 

What should you do next? 

With any new GASB Standard comes challenges. We encourage governmental entities to re-review their vendor contracts for software-related items and work with their software vendors to identify any questions or potential issues. While the adoption is not required until fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2022, we recommend that your organization start tracking any new contracts as they are entered o starting now to determine if they meet the requirements of SBITA. We also recommend that your organization tracks all of the outlays associated with the software to determine which costs are associated with the initial implementation stage and can be capitalized. 

What are we seeing with early adoption?

Within the BerryDunn client base, we are aware of at least one governmental organization that will be early adopting. We understand that within component units of state governments, the individual component unit is required to adopt a new standard only when the state determines that they will adopt.

If you are entering into new software contracts that meet the SBITA requirements between now and the required effective date, we would recommend early adoption. If you are interested in early adoption of GASB Statement No. 96, or have any specific questions related to the implementation of the standard, please contact Katy Balukas or Grant Ballantyne

Article
Our take on SBITA: Making accounting for cloud-based software less nebulous

Read this if your organization operates under the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB).

GASB Statement No. 97, Certain Component Unit Criteria, and Accounting and Financial Reporting for Internal Revenue Code Section 457 Deferred Compensation Plans (GASB 97) addresses specific practice issues that have arisen related to retirement plans. The standard can be roughly divided into two parts, each of which focus on a different aspect of governmental retirement plan accounting. 

Part 1: Component units

Over the years, GASB has wrestled with clarifying exactly what entities should be included in a set of stand-alone financial statements. In general, it defined a financial reporting entity as a stand-alone government and all entities for which it is financially accountable, known as component units. One of the many situations where the government is financially accountable for another entity is where the majority of the entity’s board is appointed by the government. 

GASB 97 clarifies that when the entity has no governing board and the government performs the functions that a board would normally perform, the consideration of consolidation should be the same as if the government appointed a voting majority of a hypothetical governing board. This portion of the standard is consistent with previously issued implementation guides. 

What is new is that GASB 97 creates an exception, allowing defined contribution pension plans, defined contribution OPEB plans, and certain Section 457 plans who do not have a board to be excluded from consideration as a component unit. While GASB believes that it would be appropriate to include them like other entities, they listened to stakeholders who voiced their concerns about the costs of presenting defined contribution plans as component units. Their research showed that most stakeholders do not use information related to defined contribution plans presented as component units of governments, although if the government controls the assets, such information is more valued. GASB decided to balance the costs of preparation with the usefulness of the information.  

Additionally, for the purposes of determining component units, the government is not considered to have a financial burden for defined contribution pension plans and defined contribution OPEB plans that are administered through trusts. 

What should you do? 

First, the intended impact is that there will be fewer defined benefit plans presented as component units. If you currently present a defined benefit plan as a component unit, you may be able to save money by excluding them from the government-wide financial statements. 

Second, if you currently report a defined contribution plan that is administered through a trust as a component unit, you should reassess whether that is still considered a component unit. Remember, even if it is not a component unit, GASB Statement No. 84 Fiduciary Activities may still require it to be included in the financials if the primary government controls the assets. 

When does this apply? 

These changes are effective immediately. 

Part 2: Section 457 plans

Back in 1997 when GASB Statement No. 32 was issued, GASB did not believe it likely that plans established under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section 457 would be pension plans because at that time, most Section 457 plans did not have employer contributions. In the more than twenty years that have passed since then, the IRC and characteristics of some of these plans have changed, forcing GASB to reconsider their classification. With the issuance of GASB 97, the board stated that it believes Section 457 plans could indeed be pensions. Therefore, Section 457 plans which fit the definition of a pension trigger the same reporting requirements of any other pension plan. 

What should you do? 

If your governmental organization has an employee benefit plan under Section 457, you should take the following steps: 

First, determine whether the plan is a “pension plan” or not. Pension plans provide retirement income or other postemployment benefits such as death benefits, life insurance, and disability benefits. Pensions do not include postemployment healthcare benefits and termination benefits. 

Despite the common usage of “pension” to mean only defined benefit plans, the statement is clear that the term “pension plan” includes defined contribution plans as well.

If the plan fits this definition, proceed to the next step. If not, this statement does not impact you. 

Second, if your Section 457 plan meets the definition of a pension plan and either issues its own standalone financial statements or is included in the financial statements of another government, those financial statements should include all financial reporting requirements that are relevant to pension plans. 

Generally, this means that GASB Statement No. 68 Accounting and Financial Reporting for Pensions (GASB 68) and all its related disclosure requirements are applicable, although there are some plans that don’t fall within GASB 68’s scope where GASB Statement No. 73 Accounting and Financial Reporting for Pensions and Related Assets That Are Not within the Scope of GASB Statement 68, and Amendments to Certain Provisions of GASB Statements 67 and 68 applies instead. The additional requirements will not look the same for all entities; defined benefit and defined contribution plans have different reporting requirements and their footnote disclosures will differ. 

When does this apply? 

The requirements related to Section 457 plans apply to fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2021. Some stakeholders requested that GASB delay the adoption due to COVID-19, but the GASB believes that the adoption date they set provides sufficient time for adoption. 

What else do you need to know? 

If your retirement plan falls within the scope of this pronouncement, you may have new costs to deal with, including potentially having to consult with an actuary to develop a model to prepare the new disclosures if you have a defined benefit pension. Fortunately, the GASB believes that most of the additional disclosures will relate to defined contribution pensions which have simpler note disclosures. 

If you would like more information or have questions about your specific situation, please contact Nathan Dunlap or Grant Ballantyne. We’re here to help.
 

Article
GASB 97: What's new, what to do, and what you need to know

Read this if your organization operates under the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB).

Along with COVID-19 related accounting changes that require our constant attention, we need to continue to keep our eyes on the changes that routinely emerge from the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB). Here is a brief overview of what GASB Statement No. 93, Replacement of Interbank Offered Rates, Statement No. 96, Subscription-Based Information Technology Arrangements, and Statement No. 97 Certain Component Unit Criteria, and Accounting and Financial Reporting for Internal Revenue Code Section 457 Deferred Compensation Plans, may mean to you. If you want more detail, we’ve included links to more analyses and in-depth explanation of what you need to know now.

GASB 93

We have all heard that by the end of 2021, LIBOR will cease to exist in its current form. In March 2020, the GASB provided guidance to address the accounting treatment and financial reporting impacts of the replacement of interbank offered rates (IBORs) with other referenced rates, while maintaining reliable and comparable information. Statement No. 93 specifically addresses previously issued Statement Nos. 53 and 87 to provide updated guidance on how a change to the reference rate impacts the accounting for hedging transactions and lease arrangements.  Read more in our article The Clock is Ticking on LIBOR. Now What?

GASB 96

GASB Statement No. 96 defines the term Subscription-Based Information Technology Agreements (SBITA) as “A contract that conveys control of the right to use another party’s (a SBITA vendor’s) information technology (IT) software, alone or in combination with tangible capital assets (the underlying IT assets), as specified in the contract for a period of time in an exchange or exchange-like transaction.”

GASB Statement No. 96 determines when a subscription should be recognized as a right-to-use subscription, and also determines the corresponding liability, capitalization criteria, and required disclosures. Learn why this matters and what you need to do next: Our Take on SBITA: Making Accounting for Cloud-Based Software Less Nebulous.

GASB 97

GASB Statement 97 addresses specific practice issues that have arisen related to retirement plans. The standard is roughly divided into two parts—component units and Section 457 plans—each of which focus on a different aspect of governmental retirement plan accounting. Help your organization gain an understanding of the standard with our article GASB 97: What's new, what to do, and what you need to know.

If you have questions about these pronouncements and what they mean to your organization, please contact Grant Ballantyne.

Article
Update for GASB-governed organizations: Lease accounting, LIBOR transition, SBITA, and Section 457 plans

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 or modernization efforts.

Click on the title to listen to the companion podcast to this article, Medicaid Enterprise Systems certification: Outcomes and APD considerations

Over the last two years, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has undertaken an effort to streamline MES certification. During this time, we have been fortunate enough to be a trusted partner in several states working to evolve the certification process. Through this collaboration with CMS and state partners, we have been in front of recent certification trends. The content we are covering is based on our experience supporting states with efforts related to CMS certification. We do not speak for CMS, nor do we have the authority to do so.

How does the focus on outcomes impact the way states think about funding for their Medicaid Enterprise Systems (MESs)?

Outcomes are becoming an integral part of states’ MES modernization efforts. We can see this on display in recent preliminary CMS guidance. CMS has advised states to begin incorporating outcome statements and metrics into APDs, Requests for Proposals (RFPs), and supporting vendor contracts. 

Outcomes and metrics allow states and federal partners to have more informed discussions about the business needs that states hope to achieve with their Medicaid IT systems. APDs will likely take on a renewed importance as states incorporate outcomes and metrics to demonstrate the benefits of their Medicaid IT systems.

What does this renewed importance mean for states as they prepare their APD submissions?

As we’ve seen with initial OBC pilots, enhanced operations funding depends upon the system’s ability to satisfy certification outcomes and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). 

Notably, states should also prepare to incorporate outcomes into all APD submissions—including updates to previously approved active APDs that did not identify outcomes in the most recent submission. 
 
This will likely apply to all stages of a project’s lifecycle—from system planning and procurement through operations. Before seeking funding for new IT systems, states should be able to effectively explain how the project would lead to tangible benefits and outcomes for the Medicaid program.

How do outcome statements align with and complement what we are seeing with outcomes-based or streamlined modular certification efforts?

Outcomes are making their way into funding and contracting vehicles and this really captures the scaling we discussed in our last conversation. States need to start thinking about reprocurement and modernization projects in terms of business goals, organizational development, and business process improvement and redesign. What will a state get out of the new technology that they do not get today? States need to focus more on the business needs and less on the technical requirements.

Interestingly, what we are starting to see is the idea that the certification outcomes are not going to be sufficient to warrant enhanced funding matches from CMS. Practically, this means states should begin thinking critically about want they want out of their Medicaid IT procurements as they look to charter those efforts. 

We have even started to see CMS return funding and contracting vehicles to states with guidance that the outcomes aren’t really sufficiently conveying what tangible benefit the state hopes to achieve. Part of this challenge is understanding what an outcome actually is. States are used to describing those technical requirements, but those are really system outputs, not program outcomes.

What exactly is an outcome and what should states know when developing meaningful outcomes?

As states begin developing outcomes for their Medicaid IT projects, it will be important to distinguish between outcomes and outputs for the Medicaid program. If you think about programs, broadly speaking, they aim to achieve a desired outcome by taking inputs and resources, performing activities, and generating outputs.

As a practical example, we can think about the benefits associated with health and exercise programs. If a person wants to improve their overall health and wellbeing, they could enroll in a health and exercise program. By doing so, this person would likely need to acquire new resources, like healthy foods and exercise equipment. To put those resources to good use, this person would need to engage in physical exercise and other activities. These resources and activities will likely, over time, lead to improved outputs in that person’s heart rate, body weight, mood, sleeping patterns, etc.
 
In this example, the desired outcome is to improve the person’s overall health and wellbeing. This person could monitor their progress by measuring their heart rates over time, the amount of sleep they receive each night, or fluctuations in their body weight—among others. These outputs and metrics all support the desired outcome; however, none of the outputs alone improves this person’s health and wellbeing.

States should think of outcomes as the big-picture benefits they hope to achieve for the Medicaid program. Sample outcomes could include improved eligibility determination accuracy, increased data accessibility for beneficiaries, and timely management of fraud, waste, and abuse.
 
By contrast, outputs should be thought of as the immediate, direct result of the Medicaid program’s activities. One example of an output might be the amount of time required to enroll providers after their initial application. To develop meaningful outcomes for their Medicaid program, states will need to identify big-picture benefits, rather than immediate results. With this is mind, states can develop outcomes to demonstrate the value of their Medicaid IT systems and identify outputs that help achieve their desired outcomes.

What are some opportunities states have in developing outcomes for their MES modernizations?

The opportunities really begin with business process improvement. States can begin by taking a critical look at their current state business processes and understanding where their challenges are. Payment and enrollment error rates or program integrity-related challenges may be obvious starting points; however, drilling down further into the day-to-day can give an even more informed understanding of your business needs. Do your staff end users have manual and/or duplicative processes or even process workarounds (e.g., entering the same data multiple times, entering data into one system that already exists in another, using spreadsheets to track information because the MES can’t accommodate a new program, etc.)? Is there a high level of redundancy? Some of those types of questions start to get at the heart of meaningful improvement.

Additionally, states need to be aware of the people side of change. The shift toward an outcomes-based environment is likely going to place greater emphasis on organizational change management and development. In that way, states can look at how they prepare their workforce to optimize these new technologies.

The certification landscape is seemingly changing weekly as states wait eagerly for CMS’ next guidance issuances. Please continue to check back for in-depth analyses and OBC success stories. Additionally, if you are considering an OBC effort and have questions, please contact our Medicaid Consulting team

Article
Outcomes and APD considerations