# NAME ORGANIZATION PRESENT 18 LEO HAUSE BI-PARTISAN STRATEGIES/MAXIMUS

Transcription

1 MEETING AHIM IT COMMITTEE DATE / TIME 3PM 5PM THURSDAY MAY 14, 2015 LOCATION PROSPECT BUILDING, 1501 N. UNIVERSITY SUITE 300; LITTLE ROCK, AR REMOTE ACCESS Attendees # NAME ORGANIZATION PRESENT 1 JOHN DENERY AHIM BOARD OF DIRECTORS 2 SHERRILL WISE AHIM BOARD OF DIRECTORS 3 GREG HATCHER AHIM BOARD OF DIRECTORS 4 MIKE CASTLEBERRY AHIM BOARD OF DIRECTORS 5 CHRIS PARKER AHIM BOARD OF DIRECTORS 6 CHERYL SMITH AHIM 7 JOHN NORMAN AHIM 8 MIKE CARVER AHIM 9 TANGELIA MARSHALL AHIM 10 HEATHER HAYWOOD AHIM 11 ANITA HART AHIM 12 DAVID O DONNELL PCG 13 CHRISTIAN JONES PCG 14 TONY CURATOLA PCG 15 TOMASZ KAPUSTA PCG 16 GENO ASTARITA PCG 17 JOHN NEUMAN ARKANSAS CALL CENTER 18 LEO HAUSE BI-PARTISAN STRATEGIES/MAXIMUS 19 TONMOY D. AID 20 BASHORAT IBRAGIMORA DHS Minutes A. INTRODUCTIONS / MEETING GOALS B. BOARD IMPLEMENTATION STATUS DASHBOARD Mr. O Donnell opened the meeting with introductions and an overview of the agenda for today s meeting. Mr. O Donnell presented the Program Management Dashboard Mr. O Donnell - It is the intention of the project team to provide this dashboard to the board on a biweekly Basis. The Dashboard is laid out to provide the board with a concise view of project health. PROJECT MEETING AGENDA/Minutes Page 1 of 5

2 Mr. O Donnell continued to present the dashboard by section. Mr. O Donnell [to the board members], Is this helpful and the kind of information you would like to see? Director Denery This is for me and I like the format. Director Wise I agree. Mr. O Donnell walked through the Risks that are outlined in the Program Dashboard starting with the SHOP risks and then the Individual Market Risks. Mr. O Donnell stated that he did not want to spend too much time reviewing these as they will also be covered in the regular board meeting tomorrow. Mr. O Donnell asked the group if there were any questions pertaining to the Risks discussed, hearing none, he continued to the next agenda topic. Mr. O Donnell began his presentation of the Individual Market RFP DRAFT. Mr. O Donnell stated that it is the intention of AHIM to provide a procurement library in support of the Individual Market RFP. The following pertains to the sections of the RFP Draft: 1) Section one is a broad overview of what AHIM hopes to accomplish; 2) Section two is the schedule and procurement process information similar to what was used in the SHOP Market RFP; 3) Section three presents the background information of the AHIM Individual Market effort; 4) Section Four presents the bulk of the RFP as it outlines the Scope of Work to be provided by the respondents; C. INDIVIDUAL MARKET RFP OVERVIEW 5) Section Five presents an overview of the collection of requirements to be addressed; 6) Section Six provides our proposal requirements and is improved based upon lessons learned from the SHOP RFP responses and builds upon a distinct set of requirements for response format to provide for an ease of response review and evaluation; 7) Section Seven Outlines our Cost proposal Requirements; 8) Section Eight discusses the RFP response process; and, 9) Section Nine outlines the contract negotiation process Mr. O Donnell then quickly walked the group through the various types of Appendices that are contained within the document. Mr. O Donnell shared that the project team is currently working with Stakeholders to review the document and provide their input accordingly. This includes DHS and CMS/CCIIO. Hearing no questions from the board Mr. O Donnell continued. Mr. O Donnell addressed the following decision points for board review and decision: D. INDIVIDUAL MARKET RFP DECISION POINTS a. Minimum Requirements for Bidders Mr. O Donnell, We would like to be very specific about the required experience of the vendors who bid this RFP. He then walked through the requirements Q. Director Denery If we put these requirements out there, how will this limit the number of responses? PROJECT MEETING AGENDA/Minutes Page 2 of 5

3 PROJECT MEETING AGENDA/Minutes Page 3 of 5 A. Mr. O Donnell we cannot know for sure, but it will most likely limit the responses to a handful. However this will ensure that the vendors who respond have this exact experience. Mrs. Smith this may limit the ability for some vendors to respond, but the IBM/Curam product is not something we can change, and rather than needing to allow a vendor to learn on our dime, this provision should provide a cost savings. Mr. Norman What this could also lead to is a different combination of prime and subprime vendors who choose to partner up. Director Castleberry And this lets us not select any if they are too expensive or we don t like what we see. I am fine with your recommendation. Director Denery I am fine too, but would these hinder any specific vendors? Mr. Norman It is not that we are looking to limit the pool, we are simply trying to define what our success factors will be, and so we need folks to respond who have definite experience in these categories. Mrs. Smith Anybody can do a part of this and may need to partner with others, so no one is being elbowed out. Director Denery I don t think we are setting the bar that high, none of these expectations seem too difficult. Mr. Norman They are not, but we do want to focus on successful states and experience. Q. Mr. Neuman For demonstrated experience does it matter if you re the sub or prime contractor? If you are the prime, does it bump you up? A. Mr. Norman As long as the goals and our requirements are met, we will not discriminate. Following this discussion the Board members in attendance unanimously supported this decision recommendation. b. Term of the Contract Mr. O Donnell outlined the question presented by this decision point and PCG s assessment and recommendation. Mr. O Donnell, The PCG Recommendation is that we seek 6 years total in Operations contracts. This would be presented as a 4 year base contract with 2 additional optional 1 year extensions. This mix will provide 2+ years of initial Operations support post implementation to ensure that the AHIM system is stable before we need to consider differing support approaches. The Board Members in attendance were unanimous in accepting the PCG recommendation of 4 years with 2-1 year optional additions. c. Eligibility Workflow Mr. O Donnell, This is a policy approach of how the individual makes their way through the process. In essence, will we require a person to complete a full application for eligibility before they can make a purchasing decision? Mr. O Donnell presented the Decision documents Pro/Con Analysis. Director Wise The balance should be that they should see what they are eligible for. Mrs. Smith In reviewing the process of the 7 successful states, we found that none of them require this of their consumers, and in speaking to CMS we found that this is because CMS said they could not force people to apply if they did not want

4 to. Mrs. Smith went on to suggests that, We can provide information of a typical family or individual who might be eligible. Mr. Norman This could be something we present through a pop-up for folks as they enter the application. Director Wise Although they say we can t make them do it, we could look at ways to encourage them to apply for their own benefit. Mr. O Donnell We can certainly look at ways to provide relevant information to this extent. Mrs. Smith This has become a contentious option because the feds did not immediately allow for anonymous browsing, but we will provide anonymous browsing. Mrs. Smith went on to recommend that although this is out of our hands, we can research how other successful states have worked to provide information to consumers to help them make a more informed choice. Decision this is not a decision the board can make, but AHIM will research options for informing the consumers. Mr. Norman continued the meeting addressing the Individual Market IT Evaluation Approach topic. Mr. Norman, The document shared in the meeting had not been previously provided [referring to the document containing the timeline that Mr. Norman shard with the attendees]. Mr. Norman apologized for not sharing the governance document ahead of the meeting stating, It is the same document used in the SHOP and IV&V procurement. Mr. Norman Continued - We have done an update and looked at a much more aggressive procurement schedule to get us back on track. We are still targeting May 22 nd for the release. We looked to see what time we could carve out to not hinder the response quality at all. We cut a lot of time out of our evaluation timeline, not enough to affect quality, but through a streamlined process and long hours to get us to an outcome. E. INDIVIDUAL MARKET IT EVALUATION APPROACH AND SCHEDULE Mr. Norman - We are only allowing AHIM a week to respond to questions. The RFP responses are due on June 19 th and we are committing to work over the weekend to get the response evaluations out to the IT evaluation committee and giving the committee a week and a half to review those outcomes. Mr. Norman - This moves us to July 1 st to complete the individual review. Mrs. Smith This is an extremely aggressive timeline and a best case scenario and we are committed to this, but it is dependent upon the number of responses we receive back. Mr. O Donnell We will provide these dates in the RFP, but we will ensure that it is understood that they are subject to change. Q. Director Wise So we do have some flexibility? A. Mr. Norman This does give us flexibility, but we intend to work long hours to get the work done. Director Wise I just want to caution against unrealistic schedules, you have moved this up a whole month and this reality could wind up somewhere between the two. Mr. Norman Yes, but we are hopeful that we will have in place some new AHIM resources to assist with this as well. Director Castleberry Are the scouring percentages the same for this evaluation as with the SHOP scoring? PROJECT MEETING AGENDA/Minutes Page 4 of 5

5 Mr. Norman Yes it is the same. Director Castleberry Is there anything different about the blackout period for this RFP as compared to the SHOP [RFP]. Mr. Norman There is nothing in this document pertaining to that, but we can definitely discuss this in this committee. Mrs. Smith [Addressing Director Castleberry] You are welcome to make a recommendation. Q. Director Wise I thought we did that last time? A. Mr. Norman That was the IV&V contract. Director Castleberry We should have something out there about the blackout period on the website and make it clear up front what it is. Director Wise This [the blackout period] is for all vendors. Director Castleberry We know, all of us board members, that they should not be approaching us. Mr. Norman then requested that PCG add the terms of the blackout period to the RFP. F. ANY OTHER BUSINESS / NEXT STEPS With all topics discussed the board adjourned at approximately 4:15PM. Action Items ACTION NO. 1 2 ACTIONS BY WHOM BY WHEN STATUS INSTEAD OF IMPLEMENTING A FORCED APPLICATION WORKFLOW, AHIM WILL RESEARCH OPTIONS FOR INFORMING THE CONSUMERS PCG TO ADD THE TERMS OF THE BLACKOUT PERIOD TO THE RFP AHIM/PCG TBD PCG 5/22/15 Decisions NO DECISION THE IT SUB COMMITTEE BOARD MEMEBERS IN ATTENDANCE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED OF THE AHIM PROGRAM MANAGEMENT DASHBOARD THE IT SUB COMMITTEE BOARD MEMEBERS IN ATTENDANCE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR BIDDERS OF THE INDIVIDUAL MARKET RFP THE IT SUB COMMITTEE BOARD MEMEBERS IN ATTENDANCE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED TERM OF CONTRACT RECOMMENDATION BY PCG Prepared By: PCG PROJECT MEETING AGENDA/Minutes Page 5 of 5