Upload
owen-sewall
View
215
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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 processProvide DDS statusSummarize Planning APD Review Project BenefitsNext StepsProject Risks related to Requirements DefinitionProvider 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 answeredo 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 answeredo 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 answeredAre 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 phaseo Alternative cost allocation methods are under review
DDS Planning APD
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 CenterDeborah Duval, Waiver Policy and EnrollmentJadwiga Goclowski, Ph.D., Continuous Quality ImprovementBeth McArthur, Business ManagerDoreen McGrath, Health ServicesSiobhan Morgan, Case ManagementKrista Pender, Audit, Billing, and Rate SettingKathryn Reddington, Autism, Employment, and Family SuppotJames Ritchey, Operations CenterJoshua Scalora, Operations CenterDavid Sokolow, Quality Management ServicesMark Warzecha, Information Technology
DDS Project Phase Team
DDS Business Requirements Leads Functional Subject Matter Experts (SMEs)
Functional/ Business Area
Applications
Subject Matter Experts
Business Lead
Eligibility for DDS Services DDS Eligibility DDS Eligibility Unit Regional Intake
Marsha Cohen Steve Zuckerman
Individual Consumer Planning
LON Case Notes Individual Plan Clinical Supports Electronic Case File
Case Management Providers Families Clinical Staff Autism Staff Siobhan Morgan
Resource Allocation/Waiver Management PRAT Waiver Management
PRAT Managers Resource Management Waiver Planning/Policy Autism Staff Deb Duval
Consumer Safeguards
PRC/HRC Incident Management Medication Administration
Providers Clinical Staff Med Cert Coordinators Abuse/Neglect Coordinators QI/QM Families Autism Staff
Jadwiga Goclowski Dan Micari
QSR/Certification & Licensing QSR Licensing and Certification
Case Management Providers QM Resource Management Families Autism Staff Dan Micari
Budgeting, Billing, Service Documentation and Service Management
IP6 Provider Billing Service Documentation
Case Management Resource Management Families Operations Providers DDS Fiscal Fiscal Intermediaries Autism Staff Joe Drexler
DDS Project Phase Team
DDS HCBS Waiver Integrated Application Suite
State of Connecticut, DOITSystem Development Methodology (SDM)
Document Name: Project WheelsSTD, COTS, RAD, LITEPage 1
* Staffed from the Business
Support/Consulting Roles:Business Division Director (BDD): <Name Required>DOIT Enterprise Architect:Financial Advisor :
TECHNOLOGYPARTNERS
BUSINESS PARTNERS
Beth McArthur,Business ManagerTim Deschenes-Desmond,
Business Requirements Lead
S. Niedzielska, consultantTechnology Manager
Name, Test Lead
Name,Production Support Lead
Beverly Bellisio,Infrastructure
Lead
*Area(s),Subject Matter Expert (SME)
Areas
Susan Klick,Development Lead
*Name,Business Process Lead
Mary DiPietro,Security Lead
S. Niedzielska,Procurement Lead
Mary DiPietro,Network Lead
Required
Current Phase: Business RequirementsPSC – Project Steering Committee
Executive Sponsors
Required
Required
Required
*Tim Deschenes-Desmond,Deployment Lead
RequiredRequired
Required
Kathryn DuPree, DC, Vincent O”Connell, CFO
DDS Contacts
For more information on the Advance Planning Document Project
Business Leads
Beth McArthur – [email protected]
Tim Deschenes-Desmond – [email protected]
Phone: 860-418-6058