SNAP Payment Accuracy

Texas - Best Practices

August 2014

Historical Error Rates

Page 2

Quality Management and Support

Page 3

• Quality Control - SNAP

• Quality Control - Special Projects• SNAP Waiver Reviews• Medicaid/CHIP• TANF

• Quality Assurance State Office• Management Evaluations• Data Analysis and Reporting

• Quality Assurance Field Services• Targeted Case Reading• Process Reviews• Core Case Reading

Quality Control - SNAP

• Average monthly SNAP Active caseload: 1.65 million

• QC reviews for FFY 2013• Active: 1164• Negative: 942

• Specialized SNAP only Analysts• Reviews cases from a QC perspective not a supervisor role• Two QC Analysts further specialized for Negatives only• 100% second party reviewed (round robin assigned to the next

available Lead/Supervisor)• QC Analyst → Lead/Supervisor → QC Program Manager →

QC Section Manager

Page 4

Quality Control - Special Projects

• SNAP Waiver Reviews• Combined Allotment Project• Extended Certification• Standard Medical Expense• Community Partner Interviewing Project• Extended Certification Interview Waiver

• Medicaid/CHIP• PERM• MEQC (Pilot State)

• TANF • Actives

Page 5

Quality Assurance State Office

Page 6

FFY 2014 and Prior Effective FFY 2015

Each of Texas’ ten geographic regions is a large project area and must be reviewed annually.

In addition to Texas’ ten geographic regions, Customer Care Centers (CCC) are added as an eleventh region.

The two largest offices per region are reviewed each year, excluding the two offices reviewed each of the previous two years.

Up to 60 offices will be reviewed including all CCC (6) and a minimum of 2 offices from each region. Offices reviewed the previous two years will no longer be excluded.

The review is focused on SNAP only. The review includes all programs (SNAP, TANF, Medicaid, CHIP, and MEPD).

Active and Negative case reading for SNAP. Active and Negative case reading for SNAP, TANF, Medicaid, CHIP, MEPD and CCC change tasks.

Corrective Action Plan required for deficiencies.

Corrective Action Plan required for deficiencies.

Management Evaluations

Quality Assurance State Office

State priority areas:• Expedited Services• Scheduling• Program Access• Customer Service• Fair Hearings• Recipient Claims• Client Rights and Responsibilities• Confidentiality • Timeliness

Page 7

Management Evaluations

Quality Assurance Field Services

• Targeted Case Reading• Cases with Earned Income and Deductions from the regions

contributing the most to the state’s error rate.• 100 staff read the cases and correct the errors. Corrected $1,999,393 in

error for federal fiscal year 2013.

• Process Reviews• The duration of each Process Review is determined by the need.• CHIP into TIERS (CHIP eligibility determinations moved from vendor

staff to state staff September 2013)• ACA Implementation

o Review is modified with each system change.oDaily reporting moves to weekly as errors decline.

• Other reviews as identified by state priorities

Page 8

↓↓ Transitioned To ↓↓

Quality Assurance Field Services

• Core Case Reading• Data used for employee evaluations.• Five per worker per month completed by Supervisor• Each Region determines breakdown of Active or Negative and

Type Program to be read.

• Core Case Reading Redesign• Transitioning Core Case Reading to a centralized approach.• Completed by State Office staff located throughout the state.• Continuing five per worker per month at this time• Redesigning case review instrument

Page 9

Program Integrity Monitoring System (PIMS)

• PIMS is a robust web-based system built in house and used for all data collection activities.

• New service review instruments (SRI) can be loaded and deployed for use within 24 hours.

• Individual access to SRIs and reports is based on security roles.

• Samples can be loaded and assigned to individual reviewers, created as needed, or retrieved via a ‘get next’ feature.

• Reports available real time and designed to work across all SRIs.

• Allows managers to monitor and report on work real time. Allowing staff to be dispersed throughout the state.

Page 10

PIMS and QC SNAP

• PIMS includes Texas’ automated version of the FNS 380 including worksheet, computation sheet, and timeliness evaluation forms.

• Data is entered in enhanced Modules (Identifying Info, Household/Persons, Worksheet, Budget, and Disposition) within the SRI and populate corresponding fields in other Modules and the FNS 380.

• Second party reviews are assigned via nightly batch on completed SRIs and assignment notifications emailed automatically via PIMS.

• Findings automatically available to field offices the day after the second party review is set to complete.

• Field staff can pull their own reports at any time for corrective action planning activities.

Page 11

Best Practices

• QASO staff review and analyze every SNAP error and a brief error summary is added to each error in the Service Improvement Plan area of PIMS.

• Quality Control Error Analysis Reports are shared monthly with each Region. These reports provide each region a detailed analysis of QC performance and detailed summaries of their errors grouped by error element and nature code. In addition, the report provides a comparison of the previous year’s error rate and error trends.

• Created a unit of Field Policy Specialists to work with each region to address policy questions and improve policy knowledge for eligibility staff throughout the state. The main functions of this unit are to assist Eligibility Services - Field in improving accuracy and timeliness while providing clarification on policy and processing timeframes.

Page 12

Best Practices

• All regions have one Service Improvement Plan Coordinator and one Quality Analyst in each region. The dedicated staff is allocated to work with regional management and staff to improve the quality and accuracy of the eligibility decision.

• Conduct Error Review Rapid Response meetings with regional and State Office personnel to identify the root cause and corrective action activities related to QC errors.

• Identify error trends and share with regional management to strategize for activities to reduce and eliminate errors.

• Create and promote best practices and tips for improving quality in the eligibility decision. Shared via regional newsletters.

Page 13

Best Practices

• Developed a daily file of worker dispositions from the prior day. The file is used as the sampling frame for case reading activities so that cases can be read as soon as possible after disposition. This was the universe file for Targeted Case Reading.

• Renewed emphasis on the appropriate use of automated systems, such as the Data Broker (TALX, UIB, etc.), Office of Attorney General (child support), and State On Line Query (SSI and RSDI) intended to help staff identify case clues and ensure potential earned and unearned income, resources, and medical deductions are appropriately included when determining eligibility.

• New case reading SRI deployed that captures more detailed case reading findings to help identify trends more accurately. Data is used for trend analysis and corrective action planning. 

Page 14