Transcript Administration using Technology

Grant Administration using
Technology
Kevin McNeal,
Program Manager
Ryan White Part A, Phoenix EMA
Maricopa County, Arizona
Objectives




Advantages to utilizing technology in
Grant Administration
Challenges
Evolution of a technology-based system of
care
Results
Advantages

Reporting and Analysis



Monitoring/Oversight



Real time reporting
Aggregate data
Provider level
Service category level
Streamlining the system



Reduced manual work
Standardized data
Consistent across the continuum
Challenges

Buy – In





Implementation


Not overnight – it’s a process
Integrity of Data


Providers
Planning Council
Consumers
HRSA
Critical to maintain data integrity
Work Flow


Adapting to change
Process development
Evolution

Identify Stakeholders

What do they want/need


Identify Program Needs


Planning Council, HRSA, Consumers, etc.
What do we want/need to tell them
Identify system/technology needs



Infrastructure – Grantee and Providers
What is utilized
What is needed
Evolution

Plan

Timeline – How long will it take?


Standardization (across the system – everyone reporting the same way)
Expectations




Conversion


How to actually implement the changes
Protect Data Integrity


Provider
IT
AA Infrastructure
Testing
 Phoenix EMA staggered***
Review/refine


PDSA
Glitches – expect them
Results

Reporting/Analysis

Data integrity

Data is from consistent source – The Grantee
Providers report in standardized methodology



Relational data


Same expectations across the continuum
Multiple providers can be aggregated.
Data can be cross referenced across services, providers
Standard Reporting



Information is standardized and reported across continuum
Audience – across all levels
 Client level data can report trends and utilization from clients
across different service categories.
 (Example – graph of PA CM to other services)
BEFORE
Utilization Reports
Utilization Reports - Cont
Data Analysis

Data Analysis/Mining

Central database – Grantee can access the data


Ad hoc reporting
 Query reports as questions arise
Relational data
 Data is reported across the continuum
 Aggregate data reporting
Adhoc Reporting
Total Clients Receiving CM
Other Services Received
FAP
Food Bank/Meals
PMC
Home Health
Legal
Mental Health
Nutritional Services
Oral Health Care
Psychosocial Support
Sub Abuse
Transportation
Number of Clients
39
636
263
56
188
99
236
823
244
54
683
705
Total Clients Receiving PMC
1794
Percent of Total
2.17%
35.45%
14.66%
3.12%
10.48%
5.52%
13.15%
45.88%
13.60%
3.01%
38.07%
Other Services Received
Case Mgmt
FAP
Food Bank/Meals
Home Health
Legal
Mental Health
Nutritional Services
Oral Health Care
Psychosocial Support
Sub Abuse
Transportation
Number of Clients
263
8
148
3
32
111
46
244
45
19
123
Percent of Total
37.30%
1.13%
20.99%
0.43%
4.54%
15.74%
6.52%
34.61%
6.38%
2.70%
17.45%
Case Management
Primary Med Care
FAP
Food Bank/Meals
Case Mgmt
PMC
FAP
Home Health
Food Bank/Meals
Legal
Home Health
Mental Health
Legal
Nutritional Services
Mental Health
Oral Health Care
Nutritional Services
Psychosocial Support
Sub Abuse
Oral Health Care
Transportation
Psychosocial Support
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
Sub Abuse
Transportation
0%
Of 1,794 clients receiving RWPA funded Case Management in FY 06 - 823 also received Oral Health
care. Etc.
10%
20%
30%
40%

Monitoring/Oversight

Exception reporting –
without having to
review everything
every month.



Trends
Anomalies
Identification of
potential issues\


Client unmet
need/service gaps
Cost
variances/allowability
Thousands
OUTCOMES
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
M ar
A pr
M ay
Jun
Jul
A ug
Formula $ Utilized
Sept
Oct
Nov
Supplemental $ Utilized
Dec
Jan
Feb
Budget
Ethnic Utilization Demographics Substance Abuse
100%
60%
80%
52%
32%
60%
40%
20%
14%
0%0% 0%0%
6% 7%
2%
27%
0%0%
0% 0%
0%
Am.
Indian
African
American
More than
One
Other/Unk
Client Count
Utilization
Site Visits

Key Factors





Grantee has demographic data
Reviews conducted at random, not from Providers
Real time reporting to Providers
Goal to reduce administrative time spent compiling data
Process




Site Visits are performed annually
Monitoring tool is automated
Data Collection is done on site
Reporting can be finalized within 5 days
Site Visit Tool
Site Visit Tool - Cont
Site Visit Tool - Reporting
Grant Management

Key Factors






Core 75% and Supportive 25% Tracking
Formula/Supplemental Tracking
Tracking of Sub Contractors
Balancing to Internal Government Finance System
Timely Reporting of Grant Performance and Expenditures
Goal to Reduce Administrative time to compile data
Process




All data is stored in system
Financial and Programmatic monitoring workflow
Site Visits and CQM Site Visits data is compiled
Grant Performance and Expenditure Reporting can be
completed timely
Grant Management Database
OUTCOMES

Streamlining the system

Data Driven decision process

Timely client level reporting

Relational Data





Identify unmet need/service gaps
Client Level Data - Demographics
Service Category
Anecdotal information accounted for
Technical Assistance



Real time TA
TA needs can be addressed at Provider and service level
Goto meeting



Travel Time
Can help them directly at their computer
Can watch them do data entry – real time
Benefits

Reduced Administrative Costs

Grantee



Integrated tools reduce manual data entry and compilation of data
 Site visit/ Grant Management database
Adhoc and custom reporting
 Queries can be run quickly without having to collect data from multiple
providers
 Standardized data can compile and aggregate data easily and quickly
Providers




Data connectors (reduce double data entry)
 Importer transactions – 6500 transactions / month = 55 hours
Adhoc reporting
 Less administrative burden by compiling and reporting data manually to the
AA
Variance check points
Providers can quickly check grant compliance/monitor their own activity
Requirements



Understanding what is needed
Developing processes and standards
Technology should be used to reduce time on
mundane tasks





Data Entry
Data Compilation – Standard Requirements
Adhoc tools available to answer questions
Validation tests to ensure data is accurate
Technical Assistance for staff and providers
Lessons Learned





Without Buy-In systems will fail
Implementation timelines must be realistic
Include a PDSA cycle
Develop a plan with flexibility
Technical Assistance is critical
Contact Information

Kevin McNeal
Maricopa County
301 W Jefferson, Suite 3200
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
602-506-6181
[email protected]

Julie Young
TriYoung Business Solutions, Inc
8024 N 24th Ave, Suite 302
Phoenix, Az 85021
602-424-1700
[email protected]