community rehabilitation program(crp) quality scorecard

Community Rehabilitation Program(CRP)

Quality Scorecard

CRP Quality Scorecard

2

CRP QUALITY DELIVERABLES1. Provider Fact Sheet (4/1/14)

▫(methods for consumers to consider for informed choice selection of provider)

2. Web-based Provider System (7/31/14)▫(used by consumers, providers, staff)

3. Satisfaction Surveys (4/1/14)▫(consumers & counselors)

3/20/2014


3

CRP QUALITY DELIVERABLES (continued)4. CRP Scorecard and Reports (6/30/14)

5. Provider manual chapter on CRP Quality System and use (8/30/14)

6. CRP monitoring policy/procedure (8/1/14)

7. CRP training (9/30/14)

8. Staff training (9/30/14)

3/20/2014


4

CRP QUALITYFACTS:

• Ohio has a significant # of individuals waiting for VR services. (1,290 as of 3/14/14)

• The VR budget is expected to remain relatively stable.

• Ohio’s rehab rate is well below RSA federal standards.

3/20/2014


5

CRP QUALITY (continued)FACTS:

• Ohio’s cost per outcome is one of the highest in the nation.

Therefore…

• OOD must develop a method to evaluate vendor services.

3/20/2014


6

ASSUMPTIONS• A scorecard will assist in enhancing

consumer’s informed choice.

• Cost per outcome must .

• Services (as is) do not result in a sufficient proportion of successful outcomes.

• Individuals with MSD may require a different approach.

3/20/2014


7

ASSUMPTIONS (continued)

• OOD must have more outcomes with similar $$$.

• Effective service delivery should result in reduction of the waiting list.

• Consideration must be given to how other states evaluate their vendors.

3/20/2014


8

STANDARDS• Workgroup meeting choices:

▫ Face-to-face

▫ Go To Meeting (online)

▫ Video Conference

▫ Teleconference

• Timeline: Recommendations completed by June 30, 2014

3/20/2014


9

STANDARDS (continued)• Scorecard input:

▫ Must be based on currently available data

▫ Measures must be able to be applied universally to all CRPs

▫ Roll-out-ready by October 1, 2014

• Time Commitments

▫ Frequency

▫ Location

▫ Subgroups

3/20/2014


10

NEUTRALITY• Workgroup must represent the Ohio

provider community, in general.

• Scorecard items must represent unbiased elements (not tailored to large/small/urban/rural).

• Must respect complexities of ALL disability types.

3/20/2014


11

TRANSPARENCY• OOD is interested in a cooperative effort to

develop the scorecard.

• We anticipate there may be very different opinions, and consensus may not always be possible

• We will strive to consider ALL options before making final recommendations.

3/20/2014


12

TRANSPARENCY (continued)• This process is intended to create a

structure by which OOD and consumers can evaluate vendors, and for vendors to evaluate themselves objectively.

3/20/2014


13

SCORECARD ITEMS (? use in this context ?)

• RSA Standards & Indicators

1.1 -closed cases w/an employment outcome (> +1 from previous yr.)

1.2 -of closed cases that received service, the % w/an employment outcome (RSA 55.80%)

1.3 -of closed cases w/an emp. Outcome, the % w/wages > minimum wage (72.60%)

1.4 -of closed cases w/an emp. Outcome, the % w/wages > minimum wage + SD (62.40%)

3/20/2014


14

SCORECARD ITEMS (? use in this context ?)• RSA Standards & Indicators

1.5 -ratio of average state wage to the average wage of closed cases w/employment outcome w/wages > minimum wage (0.52)

1.6 –difference between % of closed cases w/employment outcome w/wage > minimum wage that are self support at application + % of closed w/emp. outcome w/wage > minimum wage that are self support at closure. (53.00)

2.1 –ratio of minority service rate to non-minority service rate (0.800)

A potential concept: Tying rehab. rate to vendors providing services after IPE development (i.e. “Placement Rate”)

3/20/2014


15

ADDITIONAL SCORECARD ITEMSFiscal

• Time from service completed to date billing submitted.

• Frequency of charges for non-billable items.

• # of rejected bills.

• Response time on rejected payments.

(significance of N/A rating)

• Cost per case

3/20/2014


16

SATISFACTION SURVEY RESULTS• Consumer

• Counselor

The surveys are in development with deadlines of 4/1 and 6/30 respectively.

Greg Dormer and Jim Gears are point for the surveys.

3/20/2014


17

IDEAS FROM OTHER STATES

Demographics

• Population(s) served – gender, age….

• Disability type(s) – (primary)

• Job type (occupational codes)

3/20/2014


18

IDEAS FROM OTHER STATES (continued)Timeliness

• Auth. Date Service date

• Services provided within parameter of standardized fee schedule definitions.

Placement Rate:

• # of successful outcomes per auth. for placement

3/20/2014


19

QUALITY MEASURES

• Wages per hour

• Hours per week

• Benefits

3/20/2014


20

WORKGROUP SUB-COMMITTEES • Scorecard items

• Visual/graphics and definitions

• System User Acceptance Testing

• Training/roll out

- 4/16 CRP Director’s Mtg.

- August/Sept.

- Oct. follow up

3/20/2014


21

PARKING LOT ITEMS (for future discussion) • Timeliness between auth/referral/service start and

service completed

• Definitions for each of the selected scorecard measures

• Quality measure – Benefits What if consumer declines available benefits?

• Value of demographic data

• Must tie service to survey to reflect which vendor provided service

3/20/2014


22

PARKING LOT ITEMS (for future discussion) • Clearly distinguishing WHO is being evaluated

• Survey response rates

• Emailing surveys - consumer support advocates (CSAs)?

• New vendors (w/no data for scorecard)

• Fee schedule for specialized programs

3/20/2014


23

MEETINGS • Face-to-face from 9:30am – 1pm @ OOD (w/call-in option)• Avoid 1st week of the month

Monday, April 7th

Monday, April 28th

Monday, May 12th

Tuesday, May 20th

Monday, June 16th

Wednesday, June 25th (if needed)

3/20/2014

community rehabilitation program(crp) quality scorecard

Documents