Presentation on theme: "PROVIDER COUNCIL UPDATE MARCH 11, 2011 DDS SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT: INTEGRATED APPLICATION SUITE FOR COORDINATED CONSUMER SERVICES Title XIX HCBS (Home."— Presentation transcript:
PROVIDER COUNCIL UPDATE MARCH 11, 2011 DDS SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT: INTEGRATED APPLICATION SUITE FOR COORDINATED CONSUMER SERVICES Title XIX HCBS (Home and Community Based Services) Waivers
Agenda Review Federal planning process Provide DDS status Summarize Planning APD Review Project Benefits Next Steps Project Risks related to Requirements Definition Provider participation
Federal Planning Process Federal HHS Advance Planning Documents (APD) Condition for Federal Financial Participation (FFP) Based on approved Cost Allocation Plan (CAP) among benefitting programs, including Title XIX When enhanced FFP is sought and major procurements are anticipated, required are Planning APD Implementation APD Estimated costs for DDS systems development project over five years Range from $35-11MM, depending on which solutions are viable and how effectively project risks are managed
Federal Planning Process DDS Status Planning APD drafted Reviewed by DDS Executive Sponsors and Project Steering Under DSS review
Federal Planning Process DDS Planning APD Expected to answer the Federal questions: Is the state’s need for the system clear? Does the state have a reasonable plan to plan? Has the state committed to preparing a needs assessment, feasibility study, alternatives analysis, and cost/benefit analysis? Has the state estimated the costs to plan? Are the estimated planning costs and cost allocation reasonable for the project? Has the state estimated the project cost?
DDS Planning APD How DDS answered Is the state’s need for the envisioned system clear? No systemic capability to improve compliance with HCBS Waiver Assurances No systemic capability of measuring and improving consumer outcomes “Stovepipe” application data are not available to downstream apps in the same “pipeline” without redundant manual effort There is no integrated DDS data foundation for comprehensive Title XIX/HCBS Waiver data reporting, access, or update. A diagram of the current system, “As Is,” illustrates that gaps are system-wide, rather than isolated instances
DDS Planning APD How DDS answered Does the state have a reasonable plan to plan? Identified the project risks and feasible ways of managing them: Strong project governance, including Executive Sponsorship and Project Steering Committee, and project management Executive branch systems development methodology (SDM) Reference to the Medicaid Information Technology Architecture (MITA) Additional consultant developer resources (at project start) with managed knowledge transfer to state employees (positions filled within 1-2 years) State Data Center for production systems support
DDS Planning APD How DDS answered Does the state have a reasonable plan to plan? Provided a role-based project plan template for the next phase Aligned Implementation APD with co-terminus state SDM Business Requirements phase Ensured committed project roles, per SDM project team wheel, for next phase Planning phase plan is within budget
DDS Planning APD How DDS answered o Has the state committed to preparing a needs assessment, feasibility study, alternatives analysis, and cost/benefit analysis? Planning APD includes preliminary high-level versions of these deliverables Project phase plan includes the committed roles and estimated level of effort related to producing these deliverables Peer state reviews included in phase plan as feasibility assessments for Connecticut of solutions already considered or implemented in other states (to avoid direct, non-competitive vendor conversations before RFP issuance) Note: A technology pilot, if needed to assess Fit-Gap of a requirements-based solution can be conducted at start of System Design as Vendor (or Product) Discovery in accordance with state SDM
DDS Planning APD How DDS answered o Has the state estimated the costs to plan? o The costs to plan include estimated costs for - o Planning APD (SDM Business Issues through Next Phase Plan) o Implementation APD (SDM Business Requirements through RFP Issuance)
DDS Planning APD How DDS answered Are the estimated planning costs and cost allocation reasonable for the project ? o Estimated planning costs are reasonable to the extent project risk controls are in place throughout the next phase o Alternative cost allocation methods are under review
DDS Planning APD How DDS answered Has the state estimated the project cost? Project cost estimates were developed across a spectrum of sourcing approaches that may be viable Sourcing approaches span Transfer from another state, “as is” or customized Internal build based on efficient reuse methodology with additional resources Bid and buy framework, build out or detail design Hybrid mix-and -match approach Project cost estimates were based on a sample of peer state studies (Minnesota), conversations (Massachusetts, Louisiana), and internal reference applications (Connecticut)
Next Steps Joint DDS and DSS Planning APD transmittal to CMS Ensure Cost Allocation Plan approved by CMS (Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services) DDS Concurrently Develop Implementation APD (project manager) Codify Business Requirements/Develop RFP (business analyst) Phase 2 completion estimated at 7 months (elapsed)
Business Requirements Phase Key risks DDS Organization Loss of state talent may reduce ability for DDS effectively to own and complete business requirements definition. New owners may not be comfortable codifying a “to be,” and are constrained as a state entity in the ability to “comparison shop” for product research Peer state reviews focused on implemented solutions and lessons learned can inform sourcing options and their feasibility Reuse of available Requirements, RFPs, Models, and other pertinent documentation from peer states No-cost competitive product demo opportunities can be structured before or within an RFP
Business Requirements Phase Key risks DDS Organization Experienced business owners may know what is needed, but the vision may not be entirely supportable in the context of the overall mission or program Universal prioritization criteria applied to each function at the program level can ensure transparency and inclusiveness if not unanimity Key development priorities need to be assessed for their feasibility in terms of resource and technical dependencies as well as benefit, cost, time-to-market, and risks.
Business Requirements Phase Key risks SDM Process Vision-driven - “getting requirements” can tailspin into excessive ideation (recognized as “analysis paralysis”). Business owners often benefit from concrete examples of codified requirements ( such as prototypes or product demos ) Vendor-driven – Competing marketplace choices can be difficult to sort through. Stable, clear requirements are needed for objective “score card” comparison among products ( like a consumer reports)
Business Requirements Phase Key risks Technology Over-specification – designing how the system should do what it is supposed to do before clarifying what the system should do Stating requirements as process objectives, rather than system behaviors, can help. ( This requires that business analysts also be effective application designers.) Under-evaluation - defining requirements inadequately to the purpose of objectively evaluating competing fulfillment claims. Process objectives, like organizational ones, need to be S.M.A.R.T! ( specific, measurable, assignable, realistic, and time-bound)
How DDS Providers Can Help Participate in overall and functional requirements definition Structured, phased approach Focus on potential benefits to consumers and families Manageable team size and dynamics Stay informed on the project Project milestones and progress Program-level prioritization and its impact on specific projects Regional and state opportunities to leverage common solutions
DDS Project Phase Team DDS Project Steering Committee Joseph Drexler, Director, Operations Center Deborah Duval, Waiver Policy and Enrollment Jadwiga Goclowski, Ph.D., Continuous Quality Improvement Beth McArthur, Business Manager Doreen McGrath, Health Services Siobhan Morgan, Case Management Krista Pender, Audit, Billing, and Rate Setting Kathryn Reddington, Autism, Employment, and Family Suppot James Ritchey, Operations Center Joshua Scalora, Operations Center David Sokolow, Quality Management Services Mark Warzecha, Information Technology
DDS Project Phase Team DDS Business Requirements Leads Functional Subject Matter Experts (SMEs)
DDS Contacts For more information on the Advance Planning Document Project Business Leads Beth McArthur – Beth.McArthur@ct.govBeth.McArthur@ct.gov Tim Deschenes-Desmond – Tim.Deschenes-Desmond@ct.govTim.Deschenes-Desmond@ct.gov Phone: 860-418-6058
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.