Skip to Main Content

insightsarticles

Three paths to organizational
self-care
for state public health agency survival

11.11.20

The American Public Health Association annual conference’s thematic focus on preventing violence provided an illustration of the extent of the overwhelming demands on state public health agencies right now. Not only do you need to face the daily challenges of responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, you also need to address ongoing, complex issues like violence prevention.

The sheer breadth of sessions available at APHA shows the broad scope of public health’s reach and the need for multi-level, multi-sector interventions, all with a shrinking public health workforce. The conference’s sessions painted clear pictures of the critical public health issues our country currently faces, but did not showcase many solutions, perhaps leaving state health agency leaders wondering how to tackle these taxing demands coming from every direction with no end in sight.

BerryDunn has a suggestion: practice organizational self-care! It might seem antithetical to focus maxed-out resources on strengthening systems and infrastructure right now, but state public health agencies have little choice. You have to be healthy yourself in order to effectively protect the public’s health. Organizational health is driven by high-functioning systems, from disease surveillance and case investigation to performance management, and quality improvement to data-informed decision-making.  

State health agencies can use COVID-19 funding to support organizational self-care, prioritizing three areas: workforce, technology, and processes. Leveraging this funding to build organizational capacity can increase human resources, replace legacy data systems, and purchase equipment and supplies. 

  1. Funding new positions with COVID sources can create upward paths for existing staff as well as expanding the workforce
  2. Assessing the current functioning of public health data systems identifies and clarifies gaps that can be addressed by adopting new technology platforms, which can also be done with COVID funding.
  3. Examining the processes used for major functions like surveillance or case investigation can eliminate unproductive steps and introduce efficiencies. 

So what now? Where to start? BerryDunn brings expertise in process analysis and redesign, an accreditation readiness tool, and an approach to data systems planning and procurement―all of which are paths forward toward organizational self-care. 

  1. Process analysis and redesign can be applied to data systems or other areas of focus to prioritize incremental changes. Conduct process redesign on a broad or narrow scale to improve efficiency and effectiveness of your projects. 

  2. Accreditation readiness provides a lens to examine state health agency operations against best practices to focus development in areas with the most significant gaps. Evaluate gaps in your agency’s readiness for Public Health Accreditation Board (PHAB) review and track every piece of documentation needed to meet PHAB standards.
  3. Data system planning and procurement assistance incorporates process analysis to assess your current system functioning, define your desired future state, and address the gaps, and then find, source, and implement faster, more effective systems. 

Pursuing any of these three paths allows state health agency leaders to engage in organizational self-care in a realistic, productive manner so that the agency can meet the seemingly unceasing demands for public health action now and into the future.

Related Professionals

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.

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

Is your state Medicaid agency considering a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Section 1115 Waiver to fight the opioid epidemic in your state? States want the waiver because it provides flexibility to test different approaches to finance and deliver Medicaid services. The skyrocketing prevalence of substance use disorders nationwide calls for such flexibility and innovation to expand existing services for treatment and recovery. Although applying for an 1115 waiver can be daunting, here are some guidelines to help you succeed with implementation.

Be pragmatic
Be honest and pragmatic in planning discussions for the essential resources you need to have in place for a successful implementation. Ask yourselves who and how many people you need to involve to develop and execute each stage. Plan enough time to develop policies and agency protocols, make sure you have the right providers for your members, set provider rates, and then train the providers.

Ask hard questions
Once you identify key requirements to address first in your waiver, ask yourself what elements need to be in place to meet these requirements. Here are elements to consider and questions to answer:

  • Fee-for-service and managed care organization (MCO) rates — new services, such as adult residential treatment services aligned with care standards (e.g., American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM®) levels), may require changes to reimbursement rates. What needs to happen to develop new rates? What obstacles do you anticipate and how will you overcome them?
  • Care standards (e.g., ASAM® levels of care) and training your providers — consider what the levels mean given the range of providers in your state and the services your members receive. What is required to move to these standards? How you will work with providers to ensure adherence, including certification and training? What will this cost?
  • Policy changes — your state’s Medicaid agency will need to revamp and create policies to cover the service expansion and other changes. How will you complete all necessary policy and protocol changes early enough to inform MCO and provider actions?
  • MCO provider network adequacy — it’s worth investing the time in your application development to assess whether the MCOs serving Medicaid recipients in your state have the right mix of providers to ensure that you can fully implement the new service structure. How long should you give the MCOs for network expansion or recruitment?
  • MCO care coordination guidelines — each MCO will have its own approach. How are you going to ensure adherence to your waiver’s vision of care coordination?
  • Indicators — how will you evaluate the success of your program? How will you collect and analyze data? The earlier you determine how you will evaluate your program, the easier it will be to report on, and make improvements.

Get started
Applying for and implementing an SUD 1115 waiver is a complex and time-consuming process — but by dedicating the time up front to address the many details of time and resources, you’ll find implementation to be far smoother, and effective treatment and recovery services provided sooner for those who need it most. Our Medicaid team is here to help.

Article
Building a Strong Substance Use Disorder (SUD) 1115 waiver demonstration

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

Read this if you are an employee benefit plan fiduciary.

This article is the second in a series to help employee benefit plan fiduciaries better understand their responsibilities and manage the risks of non-compliance with Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) requirements. In our last article, we looked into the background of ERISA, which established important standards for the sound operation of employee benefit plans, as well as who is and isn’t a plan fiduciary, and what their responsibilities are. 

One important ERISA provision, found in Section 406(a), covers the types of transactions a plan fiduciary can and can’t engage in. ERISA terms the latter prohibited transactions, and they’re a lot like traffic lights—when it comes to avoiding conflicts of interest in business dealings, they’re your guide for when to stop and when to go. By knowing and abiding by these rules of the road, plan fiduciaries can steer clear of tickets, fines, and other damaging mishaps. 

Parties-in-interest—keep them out of the passenger seat 

Much like driver’s ed., fiduciary responsibility boils down to knowing the rules—plan fiduciaries need to have a strong working knowledge of what constitutes a prohibited transaction in order to ensure their compliance with ERISA. The full criteria are too detailed for this article, but one sure sign is the presence of a party-in-interest.

ERISA’s definition of a party-in-interest

The definition includes any plan fiduciary, the plan sponsor, its affiliates, employees, and paid and unpaid plan service providers, and 50%-or-more owners of stock in the plan sponsor. If you’d like to take a deeper dive into ERISA’s definition of parties-in-interest, see “ERISA's definition of parties-in-interest" at right.

Prohibited transactions—red lights on fiduciary road 

Now that we know who fiduciaries shouldn’t transact with, let’s look at what they shouldn’t transact on. ERISA’s definition of a prohibited transaction includes: 

  • Sale, exchange, and lease of property 
  • Lending money and extending credit 
  • Furnishing goods, services, and facilities 
  • Transferring plan assets 
  • Acquiring certain securities and real property using plan assets to benefit the plan fiduciary 
  • Transacting on behalf of any party whose interests are adverse to the plan’s or its participants’ 

Transacting in any of the above is akin to running a red light—serious penalties are unlikely, but there are other consequences you want to avoid. Offenders are subject to a 15% IRS-imposed excise tax that applies for as long as the prohibited transaction remains uncorrected. That tax applies regardless of the transaction’s intent and even if found to have benefited the plan. 

The IRS provides a 14-day period for plan fiduciaries to correct prohibited transactions and avoid associated penalties. 

Much like owning a car, regular preventative maintenance can help you avoid the need for costly repairs. Plan fiduciaries should periodically refresh their understanding of ERISA requirements and re-evaluate their current and future business activities on an ongoing basis. Need help navigating the fiduciary road? Reach out to the BerryDunn employee benefit consulting team today. 
 

Article
Prohibited transactions: Rules of the road for benefit plan fiduciaries

Read this if you’re considering (or in the middle of) an initiative that involves multiple Health and Human Services (HHS) programs or agencies.

During times of tight program budgets and rising need, the chance to collaborate with sister HHS agencies often presents a unique opportunity to do more with less. However, as you might find, these initiatives have their own challenges ranging from the minor (e.g., different program vocabulary) to major considerations (e.g., state and federal funding streams).

While interagency initiatives are worthwhile—usually aiming to reduce silos between HHS programs and better support citizens and staff—they can quickly grow complicated. Whether you’re just starting to think about your next interagency initiative or you’re halfway through, asking the right questions is half the battle. Answering those questions, of course, is the other—and more time-consuming—half!

In our team’s work with states on interagency initiatives, we have found it helpful to focus planning on the following four areas to minimize implementation timelines and maximize stakeholder support:

  • Policy: The sources, both internal and external, that govern who is covered by programs, what services are covered, how services are reimbursed, and how the program is administered
  • Funding: How a program is financed, including cost allocation methodologies, limitations on use of funds, and reporting mechanisms
  • Systems: The technical infrastructure that supports program operations
  • Operations: The staff and physical facilities that make every program possible, including staff resources such as training

Here are some questions you can ask to make the best use of available time, funding, and interagency relationships:

  • What is the goal? Do other departments or units have an aligning goal? Who do you know at those departments or units who could direct you to the best point of contact, the status of the other department or unit’s goal, and the current environment for change? Perhaps you can create a cross-unit team with the other unit(s), resulting in more resources to go around and stronger cross-unit relationships. If the other unit either isn’t ready or has already implemented its change, learning about the unit’s barriers or lessons learned will inform your efforts.
  • What does your governance model look like? Do you have one decision-maker or a consensus-builder leading a team? How does your governance model incorporate the right people from across all agencies so they have a voice? If the process is collaborative, can an oversight entity play a role in resolving disagreements or bottlenecks? Without a governance model, your team might be composed of subject matter experts (SMEs) who feel they do not have authority to make decisions, and the project could stall. On the other hand, if you only have leadership positions on the team without SME representation, the project plan might miss critical factors. Having the right people at the table—with defined lines of expertise, authority, and accountability—increases your chances of success.
  • Which federal partners are involved, who are the points of contact, and how open are they to this change? In addition to providing necessary approvals that could lead to funding, federal partners might offer lessons learned from other states, flexibilities for consideration, or even a pilot project to explore an initiative with you and your state partners. 
  • How will this initiative be funded? If more than one funding stream is available—for example, federal financial participation, grant dollars, state dollars—can (and should) all funding streams be utilized? What requirements, such as permissible use of funds and reporting, do you need to meet? Are these requirements truly required, or just how things have always been done? Some federal matches are higher than others, and some federal dollars can be combined while others must remain separate/mutually exclusive to be reimbursed. One approach for using multiple sources of funding is “braiding”—separate strands that, together, form a stronger strand—versus “blending,” which combines all sources into one pot of funding.
  • What systems are involved? After securing funding, system changes can be the largest barrier to a timely and effective interagency initiative. Many state agencies are already undertaking major system changes—and/or data quality and governance initiatives—which can be an advantage or disadvantage. To turn this into an advantage, consider how to proactively sync your initiative with the system or data initiative’s timing and scope.
     
    • When and how will you engage technical staff—state, vendor, or both—in the discussion?
    • Do these systems already exchange data? Are they modernized or legacy systems? 
    • Do you need to consult legal counsel regarding permissible data-sharing? 
    • Do your program(s)/agencies have a common data governance structure, or will that need to be built? 
    • What is the level of effort for system changes? Would your initiative conflict with other technical changes in the queue, and if so, how do you weigh priority with impacts to time and budget?
  • What policies and procedures will be impacted, both public-facing and internally? Are there differences in terminology that need to be resolved so everyone is speaking the same language? For example, the word “case” can mean something different for Medicaid business staff, child welfare staff, and technical staff.
  • Will this initiative result in fewer staff as roles are streamlined, or more staff if adding a new function or additional complexity? How will this be communicated and approved if necessary? While it’s critical to form a governance model and bring the right people to the table, it’s also imperative to consider long-term stakeholder structure, with an eye toward hiring new positions if needed and managing potential resistance in existing staff. For the project to have lasting impact, the project team must transition to a trained operations team and an ongoing governance model.

Ultimately, this checklist of considerations—goal-setting, decision-making, accountability, federal support, funding, systems, policies and procedures, and staffing—creates a blueprint for working across programs and funding streams to improve services, streamline processes, and better coordinate care.

For more information about interagency coordination, stay with us as we post more lessons learned on the following topics in the coming months: interagency policy, interagency funding, interagency systems, and interagency operations.
 

Article
Coordinating initiatives across state HHS: Questions to ask

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.

This article is based on the Outcomes-Based Certification scalability and project outcomes podcast:


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 might Outcomes-Based Certification (OBC) be applied to more complex areas of the Medicaid enterprise?

The question of scaling—that is, to apply the OBC process to more complex components while maintaining or increasing its level of efficiency—is an important next step in certification. OBC has been (or is being) scaled across the technical components of the MES in two primary ways. First, OBC has already successfully been scaled horizontally across similar but discrete components of the MES such as electronic visit verification (EVV), provider management, or pharmacy. The second, perhaps more interesting way we are seeing OBC scale is vertically. OBC—or what is now being referred to as Streamlined Modular Certification (SMC)—is now being scaled up and into larger and more complex components like financial management and claims processing. Beyond that, however, we are now seeing outcomes-based concepts scale a third way—across the Medicaid business.

How does the certification of one module impact the rest of the MES?

We are seeing CMS and states work through this question every day. What we know for sure is that each state is likely going to draw its own set of boxes around its business modules and service components based on its Medicaid business. Because modularity is only defined at a macro level, states have the freedom to work with their vendors to define the parameters of their modules. As a result, we have seen CMS work with states to define those boxes and in doing so, we are really seeing a three-layered approach.

The first layer represents the primary module a state is certifying. A primary module is that module that is responsible for all or most of a business process such as paying a claim. It is safe to assume that the most detailed evidence will come from the primary module. The second layer represents the module—or modules—that might not have responsibility for a business process, but provide functionality integral to that business process being performed successfully. Finally, the third layer represents the module—or modules—that feed data into the business process, but do little else when it comes to performing that business process. For the second and third layer, a state can likely expect to provide evidence that supports the successful transmission of data at a minimum. This is where we are seeing CMS and states work together to define that scope.

What is the role of business process improvement, organization development, and organizational change management in MES modernizations?

This is really the cornerstone of this fundamental shift in certification we have seen over the last 12-18 months. During the 2020 virtual Medicaid Enterprise Systems Conference (MESC), we saw that CMS appears to be signaling it is no longer going to readily accept modernization efforts that do not reflect tangible improvements to the Medicaid business. Think about it this way: a state will likely not be able to go to CMS to request enhanced funding simply because it can no longer renew its existing contract vehicles or it is trying to procure new technology that fails to represent a marked improvement over its legacy system. 

As a result, states need to start thinking about reprocurement and modernization projects in terms of organizational development and business process improvement and redesign. What will a state get out of the new technology that they do not get today? That’s the question that needs to be answered. States should begin to focus more on business needs and less on technical requirements. States are used to building a custom, monolithic enterprise, often referred to as a Medicaid Management Information System (MMIS). Today, vendors are bringing commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) products that allow states to perform business processes more efficiently. In turn, states need to move away from attempting to prescribe how a system should perform and focus on what the system should do. That means less prescriptive requirements and more business-oriented thinking.

Additionally, the concept of outcomes management will become integral to a state’s Advance Planning Document (APD) requests, Request for Proposals (RFP) development, and certification. We are seeing that CMS is beginning to look for outcomes in procurement documents, which is leading states to look critically at what they want to achieve as they seek to charter new projects. One way that a state can effectively incorporate outcomes management into its project development is to identify an outcome owner responsible for achieving those outcomes.

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
Scaling project outcomes

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 at a rural health clinic or are considering developing one.

Section 130 of H.R. 133, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (Covid Relief Package) has become law. The law includes the most comprehensive reforms of the Medicare RHC payment methodology since the mid-1990s. Aimed at providing a payment increase to capped RHCs (freestanding and provider-based RHCs attached to hospitals greater than 50 beds), the provisions will simultaneously narrow the payment gap between capped and non-capped RHCs.

This will not obtain full “site neutrality” in payment, a goal of CMS and the Trump administration, but the new provisions will help maintain budget neutrality with savings derived from previously uncapped RHCs funding the increase to capped providers and other Medicare payment mechanisms.

Highlights of the Section 130 provision:

  • The limit paid to freestanding RHCs and those attached to hospitals greater than 50 beds will increase to $100 beginning April 1, 2021 and escalate to $190 by 2028.
  • Any RHC, both freestanding and provider-based, will be deemed “new” if certified after 12/31/19 and subject to the new per-visit cap.
  • Grandfathering would be in place for uncapped provider-based RHCs in existence as of 12/31/19. These providers would receive their current All-Inclusive Rate (AIR) adjusted annually for MEI (Medicare Economic Index) or their actual costs for the year.

If you have any questions about your specific situation, please contact us. We’re here to help.

Article
Section 130 Rural Health Clinic (RHC) modernization: Highlights