Skip to Main Content

insightsarticles

What vendors want: Other factors that influence vendors when considering responding to a request for services

By: Nicolle Field, Marnie Hudson,

Mary Corley has worked with Medicaid fiscal agent services for almost 30 years as a claims supervisor, documentation specialist, business analyst, and contract compliance analyst. She has more than 25 years of experience in all aspects of the RFP process including go/no-go analysis, content development, including managing all written content  from multiple team members and compiling into one document, proofreading, formatting, and production/delivery.

Mary Corley,

Julie Allen is a CPA and PMP with a Master’s degree in Public Administration. She served over 25 years in state government, leading organizational and policy changes to provide effective and efficient services and partnering with information technology for system solutions. During her tenure in state government, she oversaw and participated in RFP development including business analysis, content development, criteria evaluation development, and the award process.

As a Senior Consultant in the Medicaid field, she provides project management oversight, and enterprise-related services such as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) certification, RFP development, and training.

Julie Allen,

Misha Mosher is an experienced legal professional with proven project management, research, and analysis skills. She brings knowledge of the legal industry, trade publications, government regulations, procurement, intellectual property, technology licensing, privacy and security, and risk management.

Misha Mosher
10.21.20

Read this if your agency is planning to procure a services vendor.

In our previous article, we looked at three primary areas we, or a potential vendor, consider when responding to a request for services. In this follow-up, we look at additional factors that influence the decision-making process on whether a potential vendor decides to respond to a request for services.

  • Relationship with this state/entity―Is this a state or client that we have worked with before? Do we understand their business and their needs?

    A continuing relationship allows us to understand the client’s culture and enables us to perform effectively and efficiently. By establishing a good relationship, we can assure the client that we can perform the services as outlined and at a fair cost.
  • Terms and conditions, performance bonds, or service level agreements―Are any of these items unacceptable? If there are concerns, can we request exceptions or negotiate with the state?

    When we review a request for services our legal and executive teams assess the risk of agreeing to the state’s terms and compare them against our existing contract language. States might consider requesting vendors provide exceptions to terms and conditions in their bid response to open the door for negotiations. Not allowing exceptions can result in vendors assuming that all terms are non-negotiable and may limit the amount of vendor bid responses received or increase the cost of the proposal.

    The inclusion of well-defined service level agreements (SLAs) in requests for proposals (RFPs) can be an effective way to manage resulting contracts. However, SLAs with undefined or punitive performance standards, compliance calculations, and remedies can also cause a vendor to consider whether to submit a bid response.

    RFPs for states that require performance bonds may result in significantly fewer proposals submitted, as the cost of a performance bond may make the total cost of the project too high to be successfully completed. If not required by law that vendors obtain performance bonds, states may want to explore other effective contractual protections that are more impactful than performance bonds, such as SLAs, warranties, and acceptance criteria.
  • Mandatory requirements―Are we able to meet the mandatory requirements? Does the cost of meeting these requirements keep us in a competitive range?

    Understanding the dichotomy between mandatory requirements and terms and conditions can be challenging, because in essence, mandatory requirements are non-negotiable terms and conditions. A state may consider organizing mandatory requirements into categories (e.g., system requirements, project requirements, state and federal regulations). This can help potential vendors determine whether all of the mandatory requirements are truly non-negotiable. Typically, vendors are prepared to meet all regulatory requirements, but not necessarily all project requirements.
  • Onsite/offsite requirements―Can we meet the onsite/offsite requirements? Do we already have nearby resources available? Are any location requirements negotiable?

    Onsite/offsite requirements have a direct impact on the project cost. Factors include accessibility of the onsite location, frequency of required onsite participation, and what positions/roles are required to be onsite or local. These requirements can make the resource pool much smaller when RFPs require staff to be located in the state office or require full-time onsite presence. And as a result, we may decide not to respond to the RFP.

    If the state specifies an onsite presence for general positions (e.g., project managers and business analysts), but is more flexible on onsite requirements for technical niche roles, the state may receive more responses to their request for services and/or more qualified consultants.
  • Due date of the proposal―Do we have the available proposal staff and subject matter experts to complete a quality proposal in the time given?

    We consider several factors when looking at the due date, including scope, the amount of work necessary to complete a quality response, and the proposal’s due date. A proposal with a very short due date that requires significant work presents a challenge and may result in less quality responses received.
  • Vendor available staffing―Do we have qualified staff available for this project? Do we need to work with subcontractors to get a complete team?

    We evaluate when the work is scheduled to begin to ensure we have the ability to provide qualified staff and obtain agreements with subcontractors. Overly strict qualifications that narrow the pool of qualified staff can affect whether we are able to respond. A state might consider whether key staff really needs a specific certification or skill or, instead, the proven ability to do the required work.

    For example, technical staff may not have worked on this particular type of project, but on a similar one with easily transferable skills. We have several long-term relationships with our subcontractors and find they can be an integral part of the services we propose. If carefully managed and vetted, we feel subcontractors can be an added value for the states.
  • Required certifications (e.g., Project Management Professional® (PMP®), Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) certification)―Does our staff have the required certifications that are needed to complete this project?

    Many projects requests require specific certifications. On a small project, maybe other certifications can help ensure that we have the skills required for a successful project. Smaller vendors, particularly, might not have PMP®-certified staff and so may be prohibited from proposing on a project that they could perform with high quality.
  • Project timeline―Is the timeline to complete the project reasonable and is our staff available during the timeframe needed for each position for the length of the project?

    A realistic and reasonable timeline is critical for the success of a project. This is a factor we consider as we identify any clear or potential risks. A qualified vendor will not provide a proposal response to an unrealistic project timeline, without requesting either to negotiate the contract or requesting a change order later in the project. If the timeline is unrealistic, the state also runs the risk that the vendor will create many change requests, leading to a higher cost.

Other things we consider when responding to a request for services include: is there a reasonable published budget, what are the minority/women-owned business (M/WBE) requirements, and are these new services that we are interested in and do they fit within our company's overall business objectives?

Every vendor may have their own checklist and/or process that they go through before making a decision to propose on new services. We are aware that states and their agencies want a wide-variety of high-quality responses from which to choose. Understanding the key areas that a proposer evaluates may help states provide requirements that lead to more high-quality and better value proposals. If you would like to learn more about our process, or have specific questions, please contact the Medicaid Consulting team.

Related Professionals

Read this if you are a director or manager at a Health and Human Services agency in charge of modernizing your state's Health and Human Services systems. 

When states start to look at outdated Health and Human Services systems like Eligibility Systems or Medicaid Enterprise Systems, they spend a lot of time on strategic planning efforts and addressing technology deficiencies that set the direction for their agencies. While they pay a lot of attention to the technology aspects of the work, they often overlook others. Here are three to pay attention to: 

  1. Business process improvement
  2. Organization development
  3. Organizational change management

Including these important steps in strategic planning often improves the likelihood of an implementation of Health and Human Service systems that provide the fully intended value or benefit to the citizen they help serve. When planning major system improvements, agencies need to have the courage to ask other critical questions that, when answered, will help guarantee greater success upon implementation of modernized system.

Don’t forget, it’s not only about new technology—it’s about gaining efficiencies in your business processes, structuring your organization in a manner that supports business process improvements, and helping the people in your organization and external stakeholders accept change.  

Business process improvement 

When thinking about improving business processes, a major consideration is to identify what processes can be improved to save time and money, and deliver services to those in need faster. When organizations experience inefficiencies in their business processes, more often than not the underlying processes and systems are at fault, not the people. Determining which processes require improvement can be challenging. However, analyzing your business processes is a key factor in strategic planning, understanding the challenges in existing processes and their underlying causes, and developing solutions to eliminate or mitigate those causes are essential to business process improvement.

Once you pinpoint areas of process improvement, you can move forward with reviewing your organization, classifying needs for potential organization development, and begin developing requirements for the change your organization needs.

Organization development

An ideal organizational structure fully aligns with the mission, vision, values, goals, and strategy of an organization. One question to ask when considering the need for organization development is, “What does your organization need to look like to support your state’s to-be vision?” Answering this question can provide a roadmap that helps you achieve:

  1. Improved outcomes for vulnerable populations, such as those receiving Medicaid, TANF, SNAP, or other Health and Human Services benefits 
  2. Positive impacts on social determinants of health in the state
  3. Significant cost savings through a more leveraged workforce and consolidated offices with related fixed expenses—and turning focus to organizational change management

Organization development does not stop at reviewing an organization’s structure. It should include reviewing job design, cultural changes, training systems, team design, and human resource systems. Organizational change is inherent in organization development, which involves integration of a change management strategy. When working through organization development, consideration of the need for organizational change should be included in both resource development and as part of the cultural shift.

Organizational change management

Diverging from the norm can be an intimidating prospect for many people. Within your organization, you likely have diverse team members who have different perspectives about change. Some team members will be willing to accept change easily, some will see the positive outcomes from change, but have reservations about learning a new way of approaching their jobs, and there will be others who are completely resistant to change. 

Successful organizational change management happens by allowing team members to understand why the organization needs to change. Leaders can help staff gain this understanding by explaining the urgency for change that might include:

  • Aging technology: Outdated systems sometimes have difficulty transmitting data or completing simple automated tasks.
  • Outdated processes: “Because we’ve always done it this way” is a red flag, and a good reason to examine processes and possibly help alleviate stressors created by day-to-day tasks. It might also allow your organization to take care of some vital projects that had been neglected because before there wasn’t time to address them as a result of outdated processes taking longer than necessary.
  • Barriers to efficiency: Duplicative processes caused by lack of communication between departments within the organization, refusal to change, or lack of training can all lead to less efficiency.

To help remove stakeholder resistance to change and increase excitement (and adoption) around new initiatives, you must make constant communication and training an integral component of your strategic plan. 

Investing in business process improvement, organization development, and organizational change management will help your state obtain the intended value and benefits from technology investments and most importantly, better serve citizens in need. 

Does your organization have interest in learning more about how to help obtain the fully intended value and benefits from your technology investments? Contact our Health and Human Services consulting team to talk about how you can incorporate business process improvement, organization development, and organizational change management activities into your strategic planning efforts.

Article
People and processes: Planning health and human services IT systems modernization to improve outcomes

Read this if your agency is planning to procure a services vendor. 

Every published request for services aims to acquire the highest-quality services for the best value. Requests may be as simple as an email to a qualified vendor list or as formal as a request for proposal (RFP) published on a state’s procurement website. However big or small the request, upon receiving it, we, or a potential vendor, triages it using the following primary criteria:

  1. Scope of services―Are these services or solutions we can provide? If we can’t provide the entire scope of services, do we have partners that can?
    As a potential responding vendor, we review the scope of services to see if it is clearly defined and provides enough detail to help us make a decision to pursue the proposal. Part of this review is to check if there are specific requests for products or solutions, and if the requests are for products or solutions that we provide or that we can easily procure to support the scope of work. 
  2. Qualifications―What are the requirements and can we meet them?
    We verify that we can supply proofs of concept to validate experience and qualification requirements. We check to see if the requirements and required services/solutions are clearly defined and we confirm that we have the proof of experience to show the client. Strict or inflexible requirements may mean a new vendor is unable to propose new and innovative services and may not be the right fit.
  3. Value―Is this a service request that we can add value to? Will it provide fair compensation?
    We look to see if we can perform the services or provide the solution at a rate that meets the client’s budget. Sometimes, depending upon the scope of services, we can provide services at a rate typically lower than our competitors. Or, conversely, though we can perform the scope of services, the software/hardware we would have to purchase might make our cost lower in value to the client than a well-positioned competitor.

An answer of “no” on any of the above questions typically means that we will pass on responding to the opportunity. 

The above questions are primary considerations. There are other factors when we consider an opportunity, such as where the work is located in comparison to our available resources and if there is an incumbent vendor with a solid and successful history. We will consider these and other factors in our next article. If you would like to learn more about our process, or have specific questions, please contact the Medicaid Consulting team.
 

Article
What vendors want: Vendor decision process in answering requests for services

Read this if you are a member of a State Medicaid Agency’s leadership team.

Another National Association of Medicaid Directors (NAMD) fall conference is in the books. As usual, the sessions were excellent. And this year we had the luxury of being able to attend from the comfort of our homes. For BerryDunn’s consulting group, that enabled us to “send” a broader team to conference. On the flip side, it also meant we were not able to greet and meet our community in person. 

Matt Salo, the NAMD Executive Director, defined the underlying themes to the conference as Flexibility, Innovation, and Resilience. If one were to just look at the full agenda, it would be hard to tell that this was a virtual conference. The session schedule and opening reception looked very much like a traditional NAMD conference, although there were not the usual breaks with the ice cream jubilee and ballroom number assignments. Otherwise, it was business as usual. 

In checking in with State Medicaid Director attendees, Monday’s meetings went well and they appreciated coming together. State leadership across the country is working straight-out right now—seven days a week. It kind of reminds me of when I became a parent: I thought I knew how to handle sleep deprivation, and then I had a newborn, and realized the important work of parenting isn’t on a time clock, which is much like the work Medicaid agencies are dedicated to. The directors and their support staff’s commitment to serving members and tax payers in their respective states is inspiring, and we are privileged to work alongside them. 

I appreciated a subtle but deep reminder from Matt and the NAMD President Beth Kidder for us: remember our “true North.” Why are we here? What is our purpose as leaders and vendors in the Medicaid community? The work we do matters. We can improve lives. We can save lives. The members in Medicaid programs are the center of all we do. Here are some of the other highlights I absorbed during the conference. 

Plenary sessions

In Tuesday’s plenary, panelists shared their primary lessons and reflections on the year, including: 

  • Pace―we need a balance because the pandemic does not have a clear beginning or end. Pandemics do not simply blow over like a hurricane; it’s hard to tell the beginning, middle, and end. 
  • Steadiness in chaos: velocity and stability―leaders need to make timely decisions while also being an anchor for their teams. 
  • Prioritization―not everything needs an immediate response. We need to be deliberate about what we do. 
  • Roadmaps―we can still use the tools we created map out where we want to go. 

The panel also shared how telehealth, transparency, teamwork, focus, and reflecting on “whole lives” in policy making assisted them in navigating their teams and providing the best services possible. 

Keynote―health equity 

Dayna Bowen Matthew provided a solid argument on how Medicaid can be key to achieving true health equity in America. She discussed the four “Ps” that can make this possible: Population, Position, Payer, and Persuader. She used the COVID-19 pandemic as her example of how it hit the vulnerable population first, and how we could have learned from it. 

Instead, it is being unleashed on the broader population. The work must begin with us, expand to our teams, policies we can control, and then policies that need a collaborative approach to change and implement. If you attended the conference and have access but missed this talk, I highly recommend listening to it as she covered a lot of very pertinent material. 

Member perspectives 

Sprinkled through the entire conference were videos of Medicaid members’ perspectives. I appreciate the tradition of bringing the human element of Medicaid’s impact into the conference, as it reminds us of our purpose. The perspectives also underscore another important theme of Matt’s: “Medicaid is a program about people, not statistics.” Examples of stories we heard include how someone went from 28 years of incarceration due to an armed robbery conviction to graduating from a university and now working with people; a hockey coach’s accident that paralyzed him from the neck down; a homeless mother gaining security and stability; a foster parent with a son having a rare brittle bone disease and a Native American parent with health access issues. 

Economy 

There were a couple of sessions related the economy, and generally, the presenters thought the biggest impact to Medicaid is yet to come. They said that there is typically a lag between events and member enrollments and the surge is still coming. They also agreed there was strong federal support from outside of CMS that kept their enrollment down. Membership growth is likely coming as state budgets are constrained. There are hopes for additional federal assistance within Medicaid, including an extended FMAP, and a similar package from last spring. The lack of certainty in regards to consistent funding is causing the states to spend a lot of energy developing back up plans. 

The panelists think the biggest economic challenges are yet to come is based upon three main reasons: the high chance of a recession, the impending (third wave) virus impact, and the social unrest exacerbated by the pandemic and systemic racism. These are merging perfect storms causing directors to look for stability and relief. I think the best summary I heard of how to proceed was open the book of “good ideas for bad times” that were not well thought of during good times. 

Public health emergency―COVID-19 pandemic 

As would be expected, COVID was a recurring topic in almost every session. There was a very interesting panel discussion on how best to “unwind” the changes made once we arrive in the post-pandemic era. There will be lots of challenges, and it is worth discussing these now, while we are still in the midst of responding to the immediate needs to address the virus. We are aware there will be systemic and program reversals. However, it will not be as simple as just doing a rollback. States will need to develop their strategies for redeterminations of their member populations and the timing will need to be coordinated. CMS will need to prepare guidance on expectations for unwinding. Programs will need to be reviewed and decisions prioritized on what needs to be changed. 

Prior to getting to post-pandemic era, states know they will need to plan for managing vaccine distribution, which will be one tool to help bring the curve down. According to former senior officials from the Trump and Obama administrations, the worst pandemic phase is coming this winter. However, there is “light at the end of the tunnel” because of optimism on a vaccine and other tools. We know more in this upcoming wave than the first wave in March. According to these officials, the sciences cannot get us through without a human element. And the human element can save a lot of lives. 

As Scott Gottlieb, MD, former FDA Commissioner, said, “We just need to stop breathing on each other.” He was implying that we need to socially distance and wear masks, while we wait for the vaccine come around and be distributed. The challenge is, according to Andy Slavitt, Former Acting Administrator for CMS, that the vaccine will not be available to the majority of the population for two to three months, and by then, if humans do not continue to change behavior, the spread could go to 30-40% of the population. They predict the pandemic will be at its worst point when the vaccine is made available. 

Seema Verma, the CMS Administrator, said the PHE has shown that we have the ability to work faster. She wants to ensure we heed the lessons of the pandemic, and in particular the experiences with the spread and deaths in the nursing homes. She feels that the issues in the nursing facilities cannot be fixed at the federal level. She sees CMS’s role is to encourage innovation at the state level, while the federal government hold states accountable to costs and positive outcomes and quality. 

Other concerns panelists raised regarding the pandemic are the long-term and downstream ripple effects of responding to the pandemic. For example: 

  • States know their members have delayed, deferred, and simply foregone healthcare over these past several months. This will create a surge in treatment at a later date, causing increased demand to an already fatigued provider community.
  • The reduced health of the general population resulting from not receiving the right care now and delaying care will further harm the well-being of the population. 
  • Our education system has gone mostly online, adversely impacting students’ ability to learn. 
  • The overall mental health of our population is at risk—the pandemic has changed all of us, and we will learn to what extent it is harmed us over the next several years. 

Looking ahead―there is hope

Several of the panels spent time discussing what our future might look like. It was encouraging to hear how there is a vision for long-term care delivery changes, meeting behavioral health needs, emergency and pandemic preparedness approaches, and addressing workforce challenges and healthcare inequalities. When asked to name one or two words that will represent where we are in five years, the panelists said: 

  • Lead and Succeed (#leadandsucceed) 
  • Survive and Thrive (#surviveandthrive) 
  • Even Better Together (#evenbettertogether)

We are in this today, and we are together, keeping the eye on our “true North”. Doing so will help us remain together and make us stronger in the future. The key is that we remain together. The conference showed that even though we could not be together in the same geographic place, our minds, attention, and spirit are aligned. We experienced the spirit of NAMD from our homes. 

We know that the future holds opportunities for us to be physically together in the future. We missed being in DC this year, and are very hopeful we will see you next year. That will be icing on the cake, which we will savor and not take for granted. Until then, I am confident we will maintain our integrity and focus on our purpose. 
 

Article
NAMD 2020 reflections: Together towards the future

Read this if you are in a management role at a state Medicaid agency.

States are facing unique pressure on resources and budgets due to the COVID-19 pandemic, coupled with potential uncertainty following an election year. Healthcare innovation and transformation is one route state Medicaid agencies (SMAs) may take to minimize operational costs and improve access to services. Here are some tactics, flexibilities, and practical steps to help realize innovation during this time.

US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis is credited in 1932 with popularizing the phrase that states are the “laboratories of democracy”. In this case, Medicaid may be the ‘laboratory of health policy and innovation", in part as state Medicaid and Children’s Insurance Programs (CHIP) are collectively the largest US healthcare payer, covering 74 million individuals.

In 2020, states have faced the dual challenge of a public health emergency and corresponding state budget uncertainty, squeezing resources just as projected state revenues have dramatically shrunk. SMAs must be creative to meet competing priorities: administering their programs while responding to the public health emergency. Here are some tactics, flexibilities, and practical steps to help realize innovation during this time. 

Reimagining funding for state Medicaid agencies

Identifying a source of funding is often challenging. Three options to consider include:

  1. Advance Planning Documents (APDs)
    While strictly for information systems, APDs can unlock 90/10 match for Development, Design, and Implementation (DDI) or a 75/25 match for operations. This funding is above most state Federal Medical Assistance Percentages (FMAPs). Realistically, program changes generally require system changes too. Consider reviewing whether you could tie the initiative to Medicaid Information Technology Architecture (MITA) business process maturity and/or outcomes-based system certification criteria. Linking personnel, training, project management, and any equipment for system needs into an APD can be an effective way to help fund the process and system changes.
  2. Partnerships
    An SMA can look further afield if sister agencies have funds available. This is especially true if braiding federal payment streams is an option. For example, many developments that benefit Medicaid can also help CHIP. The federal matching rate for state CHIP programs is typically about 15 percentage points higher than the Medicaid matching rate.  
  3. Certified Public Expenditures (CPE)
    Under 42 CFR § 433.51 and the Social Security Act, another governmental entity besides the SMA can contribute state matches allowing the state to draw Federal Financial Participation (FFP). One option can be another governmental entity using state dollars at the state, county, or even local level, to deliver health services (if covered under the Medicaid state plan) to Medicaid members.  

Interagency cooperation to generate savings in the health and human service (HHS) space will be the topic of a forthcoming article.

Getting help: Communications planning and the role of project management

As SMAs pursue more complex initiatives such as addressing Social Determinants of Health (SDoH)—collaborating not just with providers but with other public agencies, community organizations, vendors, federal partners, advocacy groups, and health systems—the need to coordinate such a diverse circle of stakeholders increases. Demonstration projects, system implementation efforts, and major healthcare initiatives in particular, require coordination of stakeholders throughout each project phase.

Health and human services (HHS) organizations sometimes underestimate the role of project management. For example, project management is often seen as simply “making sure things are complete” by the deadline, but there are other advantages such as establishing efficiency, improving the quality of service delivery, controlling costs, and better coordinating staff for the SMA. With stretched public workforces and more tasks in the current business environment, you want to get as much done—preferably faster, cheaper, and with less risk—and deliver the expected benefits. 

Guidance on priorities from senior leadership can help organizations establish clear and visible sponsorship to help establish success. Strategic change needs a strong champion within the SMA who has the ability to convene key stakeholders and keep projects on task.

Procuring the tools

After determining funding and before executing a project, you prepare by getting the tools you need—whether tools that involve systems, subject matter experts, or general project assistance.  If the Request for Proposal (RFP) process is not an option, consider whether a pre-qualified vendor list or cooperative contract vehicle would work for you. Cooperative contracts are increasingly popular at the federal, state, and local levels. A few cooperative options include:

The solution is strategy

Keeping Medicaid innovation moving forward requires strategic focus that combines funding, communications, project management, and procurement. The strategy you develop can help the outcome of the initiative to be greater than the sum of its parts. By using all available tools, including those discussed here, your SMA can prioritize innovation.

Next steps

  • Evaluate your program and identify initiatives to prioritize in the coming year. Ask your CMS contact about the latest applicable guidance. 
  • Develop APDs to help fund technology needs for initiatives, along with training your SMA team and providers. 
  • Implement a communications management approach to engage stakeholders.
  • Marshal project management resources and develop a realistic and achievable roadmap to success.   
  • Explore agency contracting vehicles, cooperative contracts, and other procurements tools. 

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

Article
The solution to help Medicaid innovation moving forward

CYSHCN programs have new care coordination standards―how does your agency measure up?

On October 15, 2020, the National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP) released new care coordination standards for Children and Youth with Special Health Care Needs (CYSHCN) programs. The National Care Coordination Standards supplement the National Standards for Systems of Care, helping to ensure that children and youth with special health care needs receive the high-quality care coordination needed to address their specific health conditions.

The standards also set requirements for screening, identification, and assessment, a comprehensive shared plan of care, coordinated team-based communication, development of child and family empowerment skills, a well-trained care coordination workforce, and smooth care transitions. 

What do the standards mean for CYSHCN programs

The National Care Coordination Standards are more than guidelines for CYSHCN programs; aligning with the standards can lead to operational efficiencies, greater program capacity, and improved health outcomes. The standards can serve as a lens for continuous improvement, highlighting where programs can make changes that reduce the burden on care coordinators and program administrators.

However, striving to meet the standards can be challenging for many programs—as the standards develop and evolve over time, many programs struggle to keep up with the work required to update processes and retrain staff. Assessing a CYSHCN program’s processes and procedures takes time and resources that many state agencies do not have available. Despite the challenge, when state agencies are the most strapped is often when making change is the most needed. A shrinking public health workforce and growing population of CYSHCN means smooth processes are essential. To take steps towards National Care Coordination Standards alignment, BerryDunn recommends the following approach: 

A proven methodology for national standards alignment

There are many ways you can align with the standards. Here are three areas to focus on that can help you guide your agency to successful alignment. 

  1. Know your program
    It can be easy for processes to deteriorate over time. Process mapping is an effective way to shed light on current work flows and begin to determine holes in the processes. Conducting fact-finding sessions to map out exactly how your program functions can help pinpoint areas of strength―and areas where there is room for improvement.
  2. Compare to the national standards
    Identify the gaps with a cross-walk of your program’s current procedures with the National Care Coordination Standards. We assess your alignment through a gap analysis of the process, highlighting how your program lines up with the new standards.
  3. Adopt the changes and reap the benefits
    Process redesign can help implement the standards, and even small adjustments to processes can lead to better outcomes. Additionally, you can deploy proven change management methodologies programs that ease staff into new processes to produce real results.

Meeting national standards doesn’t have to be complicated. Our team partners with state public health agencies, helping to meet best practices without adding additional burden to program staff. We can help you take the moving pieces and complex tasks and funnel them into a streamlined process that gives your state’s children and youth the best care coordination. 

Article
Using process redesign to align with new CYSHCN standards

Read this if you are a state Medicaid agency, state managed care office, or managed care organization (MCO).

The November 9, 2020 announcement by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) outlines updates to the 2016 Medicaid & Children's Insurance Program (CHIP) Managed Care Final Rule (Final Rule), which present new challenges to state Medicaid and CHIP managed care programs to interpret the latest CMS guidance that attempts to relieve current administrative burdens and federal regulatory barriers.

Although the latest guidance by CMS attempts to provide potential relief to states to administer their managed care programs, states will need to coordinate with federal and state partners to further understand the latest updates to federal regulations that are presented by the updated Final Rule.

By providing relief for current reporting requirements for program costs, provider rates, network adequacy, and encounter data, this latest change by the administration enables state managed care programs to reassess current operations to update and improve their current service delivery. The updated Final Rule continues CMS’ efforts to transition state managed care and CHIP programs from a fee-for-service delivery system, and to urge state Medicaid and CHIP agencies to continue to implement payment models to improve quality, control costs, and promote innovation.  

Impacts on Medicaid managed care operations 

Changes for states to consider that impact their Medicaid managed care operations based on the latest Final Rule include:

  • Coordination of benefits agreements (COBA): States will have the option to leverage different methodologies for crossover claim distribution to managed care plans, and the updated Final Rule indicates that managed care plans do not have to enter into COBA directly with Medicare.
  • Rate setting and ranges, and development practices: CMS provides the option for states to develop and certify a rate range and has provided clarification and different options for rate setting and development practices.
  • Network adequacy: CMS will allow for states to set quantitative network standards, such as provider to enrollee ratios, to account for increases in telehealth providers and to provide flexibilities in rural areas.
  • Provider directory updates: CMS will allow for less than monthly updates to provider directories due to the increased utilization of digital media by enrollees, emphasizing decreased administrative burden and the costs for state managed care plans. This update also indicates that completion of cultural competency training by providers will no longer be required.
  • Provider termination notices: The latest update increases the length of provider termination notice requirements to 30 calendar days (previously 15 calendar days).
  • Member information requirements: The latest update outlines flexibilities for enrollee materials as it relates to font size and formatting.
  • Quality Rating System (QRS): CMS will be developing a QRS framework in which states must align with, but will be able to develop uniquely tailored approaches for their state.
  • External quality review: States that exempt managed care plans from external quality review activities must post this information on their websites for public access on an annual basis.
  • Grievance and appeal clarifications: The latest update provides clarification that the denial of non-clean claims does not require adverse benefit determination notices and procedures; adjustments and clarification to State Fair Hearing enrollee request timeframes to align with recent Medicaid fee-for-service requirements

CHIP to Medicaid regulatory cross-references

CMS clarifies several CHIP to Medicaid regulatory cross-references. These cross-references include the continuation of benefits during State Fair Hearings, changes to encounter data submission requirements, changes to Medicaid Care Advisory Council (MCAC) requirements, grievance and appeals requirements, and program integrity standards.

Changing demand on managed care programs

The November 9 announcement follows a series of efforts by CMS during the past few years to modify the Final Rule in an attempt to help states meet the changing demands on their managed care programs. For the 2016 Final Rule, CMS formed a working group with the National Association of Medicaid Directors (NAMD) and state Medicaid directors to review current managed care regulations. The recommendations from the group led to public comment in November 2018 with state Medicaid and CHIP agencies, advocacy groups, health care providers and associations, health insurers, managed care plans, health care associations, and the general public. As a result of this public comment effort, the latest Final Rule seeks to streamline current managed care regulations.

The new Final Rule announcement comes after a series of efforts by CMS to offer guidance and make changes to their provider payment models, including its recent September 15 letter to state Medicaid directors that further promotes a strategic shift towards value based payments to transform the alignment of quality and cost of care for Medicaid beneficiaries.

The effective date for the new regulations will be 30 days after publication of the new Final Rule in the Federal Register (target date November 13, 2020), except for additions §§ 438.4(c) and 438.6(d)(6) for Medicaid managed care rating setting periods, which are effective July 1, 2021.

If you would like more information or have questions about interpreting the Final Rule for changes to your managed care program, please contact us.

Article
The 2020 Final Rule—Understanding new flexibilities to control costs and deliver care

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.

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

Read this if you have a responsibility for victim notification.

Is your state complying with state and federal victim notification system statutes? How do you know if you are (or aren’t)? The federal government passed the Victims’ Rights and Restitution Act in 1990. This act requires all federal law enforcement officers and employees to make their best efforts to accord victims of crime with the right to be notified of offender status changes (i.e., movement from incarceration to the community). All states have similar statutes; many are more prescriptive and specific to each state.

You may be thinking “we have implemented a victim notification system, we’re all set.” To be sure, it’s best practice to ask yourself these questions:

  • Does my state use multiple victim notification systems, possibly one for the Department of Corrections, and others in use for jails, courts, or by the prosecutor’s office?
  • Do victims understand how to register and use the system(s)?
  • If you have multiple systems in use across your state, do victims know they must register in each (assuming that the offender is nomadic)?
  • Are the systems interfacing with the victim notification system to provide real-time updates regarding offender status changes and movements, or is the data reliant on human entry alone?
  • Is there redundancy in your victim notification approach? Are you relying solely on the victim notification system for statutory compliance, or are there other measures in place?
  • Have you defined the term “victim” in your state? How do you distinguish “known victims” from “interested parties”? Are these two groups treated equally in your victim notification systems and processes?

As we have explored these questions with various corrections clients, we’ve found that states address them in unique ways. In many cases, initial information regarding victims is captured on a pad of paper; in some, that information is never transposed into electronic form. Smaller, rural jails are more inclined to manually reach out to victims in their tight-knit communities, while jails in larger jurisdictions may not have the capacity to do so, and rely much more heavily on automation to comply with victim notification requirements. 

Many states use multiple victim notification systems (jails may use one system, while prisons use another), without integrating them to share data about offender movements and victim registrations. This results in a gap of service to victims likely unaware of the ramifications of having multiple, disparate victim notification systems. Many mature victim notification systems have the ability to interface with systems such as offender management systems (typically managed by the state’s department of corrections), jail management systems (typically managed by each county sheriff’s office), prosecution systems, and others. 

These system integrations are critical to reducing redundancy and increasing the timeliness with which both offender and victim data is entered into the victim notification system and used to trigger the notifications themselves.

So how can you assess your processes? The first step is to determine if your state has a problem with, or compliance gap between current practices and victim notification statutes. Here are some steps you can take to assess your situation:

  1. Review the victim notification statutes in your state
  2. Inventory the victim notification systems in use across your state, including any interfaces that may exist with the systems described earlier
  3. Talk to victim advocates to learn more about how they use the systems to augment their efforts
  4. Connect with representatives within your state department of corrections, sheriff’s offices, prosecutors, courts, probation, and other groups that may be providing some level of victim advocacy and learn more about their concerns

If this is all overwhelming, try and take it one step at a time. You can also engage a professional consulting firm that can help you organize and systematically assess the problem, then collaborate with you to develop a plan to close the gaps. 

If you have questions about your specific situation, please contact our Justice & Public Safety team. We're here to help. To learn more about other choices in victim notification procedures and systems, stay tuned for our second article in this series, where we explore options for acquiring and implementing a statewide victim notification system.

Article
Risky business: Multiple jurisdictional Victim Notification Systems