Overview of Joint Noticing Requirements and Limitations
COMMUNICATION BETWEEN HCPF AND MEDICAID CLIENTS
|Votes: View-->||Action Taken:|
02:32 PM -- Overview of Joint Noticing Requirements and Limitations
Mr. Underwood began the next presentation on joint noticing and was joined at the table by several representatives from the Office of Information Technology (OIT) including Nancy Dierker, Colorado Benefit Management System (CBMS) Governance Manger, David McCurdy, Chief Technology Officer, Brandi Simmons, Senior Health Information Technology and Client Experience Manager, and Bill Stevens, Director of Health Information Systems and CBMS. Mr. Underwood described the executive steering committee for CBMS and the challenges and opportunities of combined noticing for multiple state programs. Representative Primavera asked about stakeholder involvement in CBMS issues. Mr. Underwood stated that program staff is usually the recipient of stakeholder feedback, which is then routed to the executive team and the steering committee.
Mr. McCurdy explained the role of OIT in managing CBMS projects and meeting the needs of various programs and stakeholders. Ms. Dierker began her presentation and discussed the complexity of notices generated by CBMS, including the various combinations of program actions that may occur when people apply for health benefits, food assistance, and other programs. She described the different types of letters generated by CBMS, including formal notices of actions and various forms and speed letters used to convey information quickly to clients. She stated that CBMS creates about 6.5 million notices per year, about half of which involve Medicaid clients. Ms. Dierker provided example cases for representative households applying for assistance. She described the continuous improvement efforts for CBMS and stated that the accuracy of notices are only as accurate as the data provided at a given point in time. Representative Primavera asked about the appeal date and ability to appeal if incorrect information is provided. Senator Crowder stated that the goal of the committee should be to make things easier to understand. Ms. Dierker described the need for training and strategies for reducing erroneous or extraneous notices. Senator Crowder asked about electronic correspondence and the ability of clients to communicate with agencies if they have questions. In response to a question from Representative Landgraf, Ms. Dierker stated that most clients have not signed up for an online account at the Program Eligibility and Application Kit (PEAK) website and that most want to continue to receive paper notices in the mail.
Ms. Dierker discussed the development life cycle and prioritization and request process for changes to CBMS. She stated that changes must be started at least six to nine months in advance. She described the need to evaluate downstream consequences for other CBMS functions and impacts on other agencies. Representative Landgraf asked about the cost of changing the name of Medicaid in CBMS. Ms. Dierker stated that she will provide that information to the committee. Discussion ensued about the cost of information system changes and how it is considered in the life cycle development process. Ms. Dierker discussed the financing of CBMS and prioritization of projects. Mr. McCurdy further elaborated on the role of OIT in serving its client agencies and the amount of work that goes into making projects successful. Representative Danielson asked about concerns raised by the committee at the previous meeting about multiple letters in a short time period and confusing language and noted that some of these concerns may have been addressed in the modified letters.
Ms. Simmons began her presentation about CBMS governance. She described recent changes to CBMS governance and the use of integrated product teams to receive feedback from various groups and state agencies. She stated that there is a customer and community partner team to receive stakeholder feedback. She described the strategic planning process and the development of the CBMS work plan. She stated that the process is collaborative and that information flows up and down the governance structure. Further discussion ensued concerning the role of OIT in the recent Medicaid name change. Representative Primavera asked about the needs of the disability community and why their needs fall to the bottom of the priority list. Ms. Simmons stated that she would provide a list of participants in the stakeholder group and that they welcome new participants. Representative Danielson recommended that the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition be included in the statekholder process for CBMS.
Mr. Stevens began his segment of the presentation on the future vision and plans for CBMS. He discussed metrics and the need to understand different program concerns, such as lack of client use of electronic communication options. He described the use of technology to improve the client experience, including screen readers for the blind and the use of text messaging. He discussed the need to reduce wait times and call transfers when clients call for assistance. He discussed data tracking and analysis and the use of business intelligence to identify and act on trends. He stated that CBMS will never be static and that there is a need to be nimble and quickly resolve issues that arise, including responding to client concerns. He described the need to stay on top of technology trends so as to respond to agency and client needs. Mr. Underwood provided closing comments and further discussed the rebranding of Medicaid.