Community Rehabilitation Program(CRP) Quality Scorecard

1. Community Rehabilitation Program(CRP) Quality Scorecard

2. CRP Quality Scorecard CRP QUALITY DELIVERABLES • Provider Fact Sheet (4/1/14) • (methods for consumers to consider for informed choice selection of provider) • Web-based Provider System (7/31/14) • (used by consumers, providers, staff) • Satisfaction Surveys (4/1/14) • (consumers & counselors)

3. CRP Quality Scorecard CRP QUALITY DELIVERABLES (continued) • CRP Scorecard and Reports (6/30/14) • Provider manual chapter on CRP Quality System and use (8/30/14) • CRP monitoring policy/procedure (8/1/14) • CRP training (9/30/14) • Staff training (9/30/14)

4. CRP Quality Scorecard CRP QUALITY FACTS: • 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.

5. CRP Quality Scorecard 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.

6. CRP Quality Scorecard 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.

7. CRP Quality Scorecard 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.

8. CRP Quality Scorecard STANDARDS • Workgroup meeting choices: • Face-to-face • Go To Meeting (online) • Video Conference • Teleconference • Timeline: Recommendations completed by June 30, 2014

9. CRP Quality Scorecard 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

10. CRP Quality Scorecard 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.

11. CRP Quality Scorecard 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.

12. CRP Quality Scorecard 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.

13. CRP Quality Scorecard 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%)

14. CRP Quality Scorecard 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. “PlacementRate”)

15. CRP Quality Scorecard ADDITIONAL SCORECARD ITEMS Fiscal • 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

16. CRP Quality Scorecard 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.

17. CRP Quality Scorecard IDEAS FROM OTHER STATES Demographics • Population(s) served – gender, age…. • Disability type(s) – (primary) • Job type (occupational codes)

18. CRP Quality Scorecard 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

19. CRP Quality Scorecard QUALITY MEASURES • Wages per hour • Hours per week • Benefits

20. CRP Quality Scorecard 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

21. CRP Quality Scorecard 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

22. CRP Quality Scorecard 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

23. CRP Quality Scorecard 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)