Managing DCF SAMH Services to Create Systems of Care Goals, Requirements, Timetable, Alternative Structure, Provider Choice

Managing DCF SAMH Servicesto Create Systems of Care

Goals, Requirements, Timetable, Alternative Structure,

Provider Choice

Lucia Maxwell, FADAA, 10-2009 2

DCF Has Pursued the Goal of Managed Systems of Care for a Decade• Commission on Mental Health and Substance

Abuse recommended services integration/ pre-paid reimbursement in 2001.

• SB 1258 (2001) DCF & AHCA contract with same ME pilots in 2 areas of the state

• SB 2404 (2003) DCF to contract with MEs statewide by 2006; prepaid capitation

• HB 1843 (2004) Shift Medicaid MH to HMOs• Provider Networks bill proposed (2007)• SB 2626 (2008) Managing entity law• SB 2612 (2009) Definition of a DCF client


DCF Managed Care Initiatives• Case rate pilots, children’s demonstration networks,

DCF enrollment form to help define client eligibility• Integration of DCF and Medicaid funds first proposed,

but Medicaid policy surpassed this initiative.• DCF leadership proposed at one time a provider

network in partnership with an MCO. • There have been Managing entity pilots in Districts #

1, 4, 8, 11, 12 and the Suncoast, some more than 10 years old.

• DCF statewide work groups in 2005-2006 recommended basic elements for provider networks and managing entities.


Managing Entity Contracts Statewide 2009

43% of $537,180,002 DCF funds contracted for SAMH community services are expected to be contracted to a Managing Entity or similar model by the end of 2009.


Schedule for Implementation in remaining areas of the state

• Select model by January 1, 2010.• Complete Regional implementation plan by

January 31, 2010.• Report progress quarterly beginning July 1,

2010 on 6 stages of implementation, and how baseline functions will be addressed.

• Full implementation by July 1, 2011.


Provider choice• Contracting with a Managing Entity is

optional, providers participate voluntarily.• State law requires providers be represented

on ME Boards.• Participating in planning allows you to

influence the decision, unless you choose to oppose any and all change.

• Consensus of providers and stakeholders to select a model does not require universal agreement.


DCF Expressed Goals for Systems Management

• Move from numerous contracts to one accountable entity, allows the department to take on broader planning, training and systems development role.

• More flexible, innovative management (private contractor outside state government.)

• Unify funding streams (DCF, Medicaid, JJ, DOC, Healthy Kids.)

• Improve access to care and service continuity. • More efficient and effective delivery of services,

fiscally effective use of resources.


DCF Goal Statements

• “Statewide initiatives such as . . . co-occurring can more effectively be woven into the fabric of the statewide system as a rule, not the exception”

• “. . . will enable the Department to more effectively focus its resources on the development of good public policy, setting systemic quality and performance goals, community development . . ., interagency coordination . . .”


DCF Goal Statements

• There has been “inadequate state leadership to. . . unify traditionally funded programs and Medicaid” (implies long term goal)

• “The approach emphasizes UM, CQI, and training and t/a . . . activities that currently cannot be accomplished on a systemic basis across the state . .

• “Managed care principles, strong collaborations and stakeholder involvement will help remove fragmented systems of care.”


The role of “Stakeholders” is critical

• Definition: Individuals served, family members, community agencies such as child welfare, the courts, law enforcement, health agencies, local government and “others with demonstrated interest. “

• Stakeholders participate in planning and administration, comprise the agency Board of Directors, participate in councils and committees to provide strategic direction and oversight. DCF “strong preference” for majority stakeholders on ME Board.

• Stakeholder oversight of finances, quality of care and

interagency collaboration is emphasized.


System of care

• Services coordinated and developed into a network accessible and responsive to individuals in need, families and community stakeholders.

• Vision includes interagency collaboration and unification of funding streams (DCF, Medicaid, JJ, DOC) at the point of client service.

• Critical administrative functions are centralized and coordinated among partners and stakeholders to optimize resources and service delivery.


What is not a system of care?• Silo-ed agencies making independent decisions about

services development (no joint planning).• Data systems not interoperable, no integrated

information about persons served in the community.• Treatment decisions not based on data.• No person centered focus on navigating the

community service system (identifying issues, barriers, “pathways” for clients).

• No community standards of care, recognized and enforced (best practices, QI).

• No single point of access for community stakeholders.• Competitive, not collaborative. • No will to enforce system change.


National trends in health care require systems of care• Era of the corporation: favor large organizations, favor

technology, favor organized systems

• Financing and delivery through provider networks • Health information exchange among providers serving the same

person - physical and behavioral health, allied and social services

• Data driven medicine: comparative effectiveness research, data based treatment decisions, provider profiling, benchmarking

• Consumer focused management approach, medical home, case management

• Provider joint contracting (blending public and private financing, insurance requirements for parity)

• The decline of “fee for service” – move to lump sum financing, cost containment, pay for performance.


National trends in BH reinforce systems of

care - NIATx 2009 national conference agenda

• Integration with primary care, e.g. Screening Brief Intervention Referral and Treatment

• SA/MH integration

• National Outcome Measures, concurrent documentation, benchmarking

• Aligning incentives in payment and accountability with Quality Improvement

• Process improvement, learning communities

• Asset based community development


ME 10 Basic Functions Requiredno matter what model is chosen

1. System of Care Development and Management

2. Utilization Management

3. Network/ Subcontract Management

4. Quality Improvement

5. Technical Assistance and Training


10 Basic Functions Requiredno matter what model is chosen

6. Data collection, Reporting and Analysis

7. Financial Management

8. Planning

9. Board Development and Governance

10. Disaster Planning & Responsiveness


What are the components of an ME?

1. Tax exempt, non profit corporation to contract with DCF for all funds, single contract, for the area.

2. Representative Community Board, a governance structure and decision-making protocols. (sub area councils?)

3. Executive Director (reports to the Board)4. Management staff and an operational infrastructure

to perform contracting, financial accountability, UM, CQI, clinical monitoring, training, and planning.

5. Central data system w/ significantly expanded capacity. claiming and payment processing systems.

6. Contracts with a providers representing a continuum of services, and responsive to the needs of special populations.


Provider network definition

• Direct service organizations that are under contract with a managing entity.

• Together constitute a comprehensive array of behavioral health services.

• To include emergency, acute care, residential, outpatient, recovery support, and consumer support services.


DCF Contracts with Managing Entities

DCF region

ME staff employed by BOD

Provider A Provider B Provider C Provider D

Managing Entity Corp Board of Directors(providers, consumers, community stakeholders)


Alternatives for a tax exempt corporationNOTE: The corp will have a Board of Directors representing

community SA/MH stakeholders, with authority for this contract.

• New corporation formed by providers and stakeholders

• A lead agency (works best in smaller or rural areas where one provider clearly has superior capacity for management)

• Another community agency (difficult to ensure focus, priority, comprehensive knowledge of the service system, control, absence of conflict of interest, the invested people at the table.)

• Health plan or hospital system (unlikely that behavioral health will be emphasized, more difficult for community goals to be realized or what stakeholders believe is best for the system of care.)


Alternatives for operational infrastructure

• Recruit Executive Director, who selects management staff

• Use lead agency’s staff, recruit to fill gaps in expertise

• Contract with a community agency which has the expertise ( in board development, strategic planning, quality improvement, utilization management, planning, training, evidenced based practices for publicly purchased, safety net behavioral health services)

• Contract with Managed Care Organization (most only have experience with insurance plans, capitation, corporate for profit culture.)

• A combination of the above


Information System Requirements • Comply with DCF and community health

system standards for interoperability• Financial and clinical monitoring and

performance review• Associate services, costs, and outcomes at

individual and aggregate client levels• Interactive system to inform clinical decisions• Electronic Health Records capability• Claiming and payment process system,

(Medicaid billing in future?)


Alternatives for Information System

• Build your own data systems over time.• Buy services from an established

Managing Entity with capacity.• Use one network provider’s data

system, expand as necessary.• Purchase services or capacity from a

Managed Care Organization or a hospital system.


Considerations in model selection

• Most important: sustainability, long term benefit to the community, since the community will make a substantial investment, including service dollars.

“Is this entity the best custodian of the community’s investment, now and into the future? ……Does the organization share the community’s goals for our BH system, by its vision, mission, and core values?”

• Accessibility/ responsiveness to stakeholders• Capability to mobilize the community to participate in e.g.

planning, performance review, advocacy• Responsive and workable administrative services organization

for providers, to achieve required admin. efficiencies?


Other considerations• An infrastructure to enable community BH

providers to jointly contract with other payers? Does this choice enable us, now or in the future, to integrate funding streams to match clients to a payer at the point of service?

• Knowledge, linkages, capability to change services and service models, adopt a new commitment to quality and EBPs, and to create a coordinated system of care,

• Compatibility with health care reform


What are the advantages to providers of becoming part of a system of care?

• Spread the costs of new IT.• Access to expert resources and training.• Transfers commonsense admin systems to become

shared, centralized functions (group purchasing of insurance & vehicles, standard policy development, preparation for accreditation reviews, some HR, data reporting, peer review, training).

• Can enhance diversity by providing services to smaller agencies w/out funds to invest in IT or other systems.

• Organizes and enhances stakeholder collaborations (to approach hospitals, insurers, community agencies), brings a network of credentialed services to the table, a continuum of care.


System of Care Advantages• Enables providers to jointly contract w/ payers

who require more sophisticated data systems, service protocols, and a Single Signature Contract.

• More players, more clout for advocacy, better bargaining position for contract negotiations

• Communities can use reliable, consistent statewide data and advocacy to increase rates and funding.

• Stronger, more responsive, more sustainable system of care.


Financing of Managing Entities- Initially “there may be reduction in service dollars”- DCF expects eventual costs savings from: Transfer of functions, $ from regional/ circuit offices “Other changes” in state administration Network management of tx capacity (utilization

management) e.g. review deep end services for less costly alternatives

“Streamlining” the provider network Reduce DCF dollars for provider indirect/ admin costs

(those functions which duplicate ME capacity)• Current ME administrative rates vary between 4.5%

and 6.85%“The Regional Director and SAMH Program Director should be

able to identify resources allocated for ME administration.”


Geographic (service) area may be: a county, circuit, region or multi-regional area Considerations in selecting service area:• Traditional consumer service patterns.• Longstanding relationships between business

entities.• If area is too small, insufficient administrative and

service dollars to develop infrastructure without impacting services.

• If the area is too large, difficult to be responsive and need multiple management sites.

• Must have adequate provider network for continuum. • ME central office must be accessible to public and

stakeholders, in proximity to local governments, courts, and community agencies.


Community education and planningto select a management modelRegional offices have the responsibility to organize

meetings of stakeholders.Goal: learn about and discuss models• Formal and informal meetings with the public,

specific groups, government reps, contracted providers, stakeholders

• Consensus means not that all agree but all understand the model, the rationale for selection, how the community will move forward to implement the management system.

• Core group of stakeholders may partner with DCF in development of Regional Implementation Plan.


DCF guidance to regions: affirm the mandate

“With resistance and insufficient dialogue, the community remains trapped in the current service delivery system. Change has been mandated by the Florida Legislature and the Department believes a managing entity or similar model must be implemented to optimize resources and service delivery.”


FADAA’s position has been…..

• If you have no choice but to be on the train, why not position yourself to be one of the drivers?

• The most successful systems of care will grow from community providers who take responsibility: they have the knowledge and the relationships to make this work.

• Providers may organize a network and come up with a plan to develop the Managing Entity capacities and functions required.

• FADAA is available to provide support in any way we can.


Providers in networks say…..

• Strong agencies have much to gain….tend to expand and prosper if willing to embrace change, and to LEAD

• Average capacity agencies can use this environment to grow, to prove themselves

• Weak agencies will have the tools to improve, need not spend dollars on admin. Infrastructure.


DCF’s managed care solution is provider friendly• An alternative to contracting with traditional for profit

Managed Care Organizations, who use restrictive approvals to enforce changes in the service system

• The DCF model emphasizes communities and stakeholders

…..BUT providers can sabotage collaborations by 1) working only to preserve historical services and market position, and 2) refusing to support more efficient centralized administrative systems that create cost savings.

• Providers have the knowledge and the long standing relationships which enable them to develop real systems of care in their communities…..

Documents

Managing DCF SAMH Services to Create Systems of Care Goals, Requirements, Timetable, Alternative Structure, Provider Choice