Perhaps one of the most entertaining developments in waiver history was the creation of IPMG’s “Insync” provider selection tool. The purpose of this was to allow consumers to review provider qualifications and make a decision without consulting the long provider-list that offered no real information about providers. It also promised to connect providers with consumers by showing consumers which providers wanted to serve them.
The actual product, a generic database product from Intuit, left much to be desired. The Insync system managed to give providers almost no information at all about the consumer (confidentiality) while asking the provider to indicate how interested they are in providing services. This is done, literally, by rating their interest on a scale from “not interested” through “very interested”. A common joke among providers is openly wondering how many referrals a provider would get if they were “somewhat interested” in serving an individual. The Insync system lost much of its support when providers found out that if there was not a minimum number of interested providers, the system was scrapped and the pick-list was used. Regardless, providers must use whatever tools are available, so Insync is still monitored on a daily basis, even though (in my area) there have been no consumers listed in months.
There was quite a bit of concern in the provider community at the beginning of 2008. In spite of the assurance that stakeholder input would be a key component of the development of the new waiver system, the absence of information was so profound that the rumor mill took over. Providers began sending people to provider meetings in the “pilot” regions of the state. Any gap in information was quickly filled by speculation. Families were terrified that services that they depended upon would be gone forever. When they called their local ARC affiliates for information, they were told that there was no information to give.
A letter was released by the DDRS director in the middle of this confusion, to assure families and providers who were concerned that sheltered work was being limited that this was not the case. The letter expressed anger at providers for creating this rumor, openly accusing them of inventing it to frighten families. The self-congratulatory letter also reminded the recipients that DDRS was completely open and inclusive of ideas from stakeholders. Finally, it listed mutual accomplishments that included the creation of a DSP training program, crisis services, outreach services, and improvements to the case management system. As of this posting, all of these accomplishments have been eliminated.
In September of 2008, after many cost reports, questions, and revisions, the Day Services definitions and rates were released. Originally, the state wished to use the same methodology for day services as it did for residential- using the staff hour as the unit of reimbursement, with the cost split between all consumers present with the DSP at the time of the billing. Providers objected, as such a system would reduce consumer choice by forcing all consumers in a group to stay with that group. The state responded by dividing the staff/hour unit of service into discrete, ratio-based units of service. This greatly increased the consumers’ ability to choose different activities and services, but required providers to track ratios every 15 minutes to determine the appropriate billing code. The increased documentation and tracking required to verify that a service was appropriately billed let to significant cost increases in providing the service.
2009 Marked the official launch of the short-lived OASIS program. From the moment that the first allocations were released, it was apparent that something was very, very wrong. The “black box,” or secret formula for assigning dollars based on consumer need seemed to be operating on an entirely different wavelength than what was expected by families, providers, and even employees of the state. Large swings were noted, awarding huge increases in authorizations to people who did not need them and cutting services to individuals who could not safely live with such a reduction. After a few weeks of embarrassing anecdotes from families and heartfelt letters from providers and advocates, OASIS was frozen by the secretary of FSSA, pending investigation into the methodology of the allocation method. March or 2009 locked in authorizations at the previous year’s amounts, but continued to roll forward with the Uniform Rate Methodology that was based on the OASIS allocation method. The result was a hybrid of old allocations and new ways to bill services. In short, it was a system that would limp along until something better came along.
“Something better” did not come along for quite a while. The complications of uniform rate methodology and ratio-based billing added significant costs to service delivery, while the revenue side of the equation remained in limbo. Agencies, Families, and consumers agreed then, as now, that there must be an objective system for allocating resources. Even with all of the challenges to date, there is no other rational solution. A transparent, logical, and reliable system that is understood and held valid by all stakeholders is certainly worth the wait for its development.
And wait we did. There has been any number of advisory panels and work groups called in by DDRS to develop such a system. Candid feedback was requested and freely given. Providers and consumers met together at agencies to brainstorm and develop ideas, and these were sent to advisors to be discussed at DDRS forums. It appeared that this was going to be a mutually agreed upon plan that worked for the state, for consumers, and providers alike.
Part 7 will draw this history to a close and describe the current state of the Waiver. Until then…