By Gina Macris

For the last five-and-a-half months, Rhode Island has been considering eight proposals for an electronic case management system to keep track of services for adults with developmental disabilities.

In part, the electronic system would satisfy demands for up-to-date information so that federal officials could better gauge the state’s compliance with a 2014 consent decree requiring it to shift to community-based daytime services to comply with provisions of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

But the solicitation also indicates that the design of the electronic case management system could conflict with implementation of other requirements of the consent decree, which call for individualization of services and a more flexible approach to delivering them.

Among the vendors submitting proposals is Deloitte Consulting, the company involved in the chaotic rollout of a statewide public assistance benefits computer system known as the Unified Health Infrastructure Project (UHIP), which went live last September. 

At last count, more than 10,000 individuals, which include those with disabilities, are experiencing difficulties with food stamps and other public assistance and medical benefits, according to state officials. And UHIP has contributed to confusion about caseload estimates, used by policy makers to calculate demands on the budget that begins July 1.

Deloitte and the state are still trying to fix UHIP and are negotiating a financial settlement for the $364 million project, although the company recently gave the state a $27 million credit, primarily to cover the cost of re-hiring workers previously let go to help de-bug the system.

The state is appealing a federal fine of $805,197 over the implementation of the project, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office is investigating separate allegations that the federal-state Medicaid program was billed for services that were not provided in connection with the UHIP rollout.

The language of the 116-page request for proposals concerning  the developmental disability program, issued last fall,  indicates that the state Department of Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities and Hospitals (BHDDH) would conduct business as usual in its funding and delivery of services in two key areas:

• The use of a mathematical formula to translate the results of a standardized needs assessment called the Supports Intensity Scale (SIS) into one of five levels of funding, which in turn would define the scope of services, or “service packages.”
• The continuation of a fee-for-service billing system for private providers, which pays out only when a service is provided face-to-face, in 15-minute increments during the day, and in 24-hour segments for residential programs, with rates subject to change on a quarterly basis.

The solicitation remains active even as the Division of Developmental Disabilities has signaled it is gearing up for an overhaul of existing regulations to comply with the consent decree. And in a report filed with the U.S. District Court in April, the state agreed to explore new approaches to funding to follow-up on statistics that showed at least one third of private agencies don’t have the ability to expand the kinds of services the consent decree demands.

The independent federal court monitor who is overseeing implementation of the consent decree, Charles Moseley, has said that funding must respond to the individual’s “goals and preferences” as expressed in an individual support plan.

In other words, the money should follow the person, rather than the other way around, as is currently the case.

During the month of May, the Division of Developmental Disabilities and the Sherlock Center on Disabilities at Rhode Island College have invited the public to attend presentations on the central idea behind personalizing services, or "person-centered" thinking; the notion that individuals with disabilities should have more control over their lives.

The regulatory overhaul will be based on that personalized approach, with families, consumers, and providers participating in the rule-writing, Kerri Zanchi, the division director, said at a recent public forum. 

Asked after the meeting how how changes in practice brought about by the new regulations would be funded, Zanchi said, “When we figure out what it (the service system) would look like, then we need to figure out the funding for it.”

The consent decree, meanwhile, also criticizes the fee-for-service reimbursement model for private providers as insufficiently flexible to accomplish the its goals, which focus on individualized community-based supports for jobs and leisure activities.

In response, BHDDH has established a pilot program for supported employment, which provides bonuses for staff training, job placement, and job retention. It has resulted in 40 new jobs since January, according to a BHDDH official.

But in light of the recent survey indicating gaps in providers’ ability to take on new clients, BHDDH has agreed to take a deeper look at funding.

Through a BHDDH spokeswoman, state officials declined to comment on the solicitation for proposals while bids are under evaluation. The eight bids were opened last Nov. 29, according to the website of the state purchasing office.

The request for proposals appears to respond, at least in part, to complaints about data collection expressed by both Moseley, the consent decree monitor, and the U.S. Department of Justice.

Moseley has said the information was so inadequate that it was impossible to tell whether the state was meeting employment targets and other requirements.  Just a year ago, state officials were struggling to come up with an accurate count of the total number of adults with developmental disabilities who were protected by the agreement.

Since then, the state has adopted a work-around to the existing system that can respond to specific queries from the monitor or the U.S. Department of Justice, but not on a real-time basis. The patchwork approach enlists data collected quarterly by the Sherlock Center on Disabilities at Rhode Island College. 

The budget for the electronic case management system has not been made public. The request for proposals (RFP) anticipated an initial three-year contract period beginning March 1.

Asked about the apparent delay, the BHDDH spokeswoman, Jenna Mackevich, said in an email that “it’s important that the agency take the time necessary to thoroughly evaluate proposals and conduct its due diligence during the purchasing process. “

During the evaluation period, the state also has allowed the expiration of a 120-day ban on vendors changing their proposals, which is spelled out in the RFP. The RFP said the state would consider not only price but various aspects of functionality in the proposals as part of its evaluation.  Vendors would be required to demonstrate their products.

To keep costs down, the state is seeking “off-the-shelf” software with customization not to exceed 15 percent. 

According to the RFP, the new electronic case management system would computerize all record-keeping for the developmental disability service system, allowing access by families, providers, and BHDDH staff for multiple purposes.

Besides Deloitte, the vendors are Consilience Software, of Texas;  Eccovia Solutions, Inc., of Utah; FELCOM, Inc., of Maryland;  FOOTHOLD, Inc. of New York; Mediware, of Virginia; Netsmart Technologies, Inc., of Kansas; and Therap Services, Inc., of Connecticut.