Download
dhhs coe meeting agenda august 19 2010 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
DHHS COE Meeting Agenda August 19, 2010 PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
DHHS COE Meeting Agenda August 19, 2010

DHHS COE Meeting Agenda August 19, 2010

176 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

DHHS COE Meeting Agenda August 19, 2010

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. DHHS COE Meeting AgendaAugust 19, 2010 • Welcome • Introductions • Contract Compliance Reporting • Questions and Answers • DHHS Open Windows Update

  2. Office of Procurement & Contract Services SFY 2009 - 2010 Contract Report for Center of Excellence August 2010

  3. Contracts Review by OPCS SFY 2007 - 2010

  4. Average Number of Days to Review Contracts or Amendments Q4(RFPs not included)

  5. Average Number of Days Contract or Amendment Approvals by Division - Q4(RFPs not included)

  6. Average Number of Days SFY 2010 Q1 – Q4

  7. Average Number of Days to Review Contracts or Amendment SFY 2010

  8. Average Number of Days Contract or Amendment Approvals by Division - SFY 2010 (RFPs not included)

  9. Total Average Number of Days to Review Contracts SYF 2007 to SFY 2010

  10. Timely Approvals DHHS Q4 SFY 2010

  11. Timely Approvals DHHS Q1 thru Q4 2010

  12. Timely Approvals by Division Q3 & Q4(RFPs not included)

  13. Timely Approvals by Division Q1 & Q2(RFPs not included)

  14. Approval Time FramesQ4 SFY 2010(data based on contracts requiring OPCS approval) All division contracts require approval before the effective date Divisions sending all contracts for approval before effective date (Q4 - SFY 2010) • Division of Health Service Regulation • Division of State Operated Healthcare Facilities • Division of Aging and Adult Services • Vocational Rehabilitation • Division of Economic Opportunity • Office of the Secretary, Executive Management

  15. Timely Approvals DHHS SFY 2010(RFPs not included)

  16. Timely Approvals by Division SFY 2010(RFPs not included)

  17. Timely Approvals by Division SFY 2007 – SFY 2008(RFPs not included)

  18. Timely Approvals by Division SFY 2009 – SFY 2010(RFPs not included)

  19. Timely Approvals Trend Analysis SFY 2007 – SFY 2010

  20. Goal for Approval Time FramesSFY 2010(data based on contracts requiring OPCS approval) All division contracts require approval before the effective date Divisions sending all contracts for approval before effective date (SFY 2010) • Division of State Operated Healthcare Facilities • Division of Vocational Rehabilitation

  21. Goal for Approval Time Frames SFY 2010(data based on contracts requiring OPCS approval) Approval more than 30 days prior to effective date Divisions rising above the 50% mark (SFY 2010) • The Division closest to this goal isDSS with 31% of their contracts • Next is OOS with 25% of their contracts

  22. Compliance Rating SFY 2010 Q4 76% in Compliance *Goal – 95%

  23. Compliance Rating SFY 2010 Trend Q1 thru Q4 29% 45% 80% 76% % in compliance

  24. Compliance Rating Q3 & Q4

  25. Compliance Rating Q1 & Q2

  26. Department Compliance Trend Analysis Q 1 – Q 4 SFY 2010

  27. Contract ComplianceQ4 SFY 2010(data based on contracts requiring OPCS approval) Division contract compliance should strive to achieve a 95% rate • Division of Health Service Regulation – 100% • Division of Aging and Adult Services – 100% • Division of vocational Rehabilitation – 100% Divisions at or above above the 75% mark (Q4-10) • Division of State Operated Healthcare Facilities– 94% • Division of Public Health – 92% • Division of Economic Opportunity – 86%

  28. Department Compliance RateSFY 2010

  29. Compliance Rating by DivisionSFY 2010

  30. Goal for Contract ComplianceSFY 2010(data based on contracts requiring OPCS approval) Division contract compliance should strive to achieve a 95% rate • Division of Health Service Regulation – 96% • Division of State Operated Healthcare Facilities– 95% Divisions at or above above the 75% mark (SFY 2010) • Division of Public Health – 86% • Division of Mental Health – 78%

  31. SFY 2007 to 2010 Overall Compliance Comparison

  32. SFY 2007 to 2010 Overall Compliance Trend Analysis

  33. SFY 2007-SFY 2010 Compliance Comparison Trend Analysis No Division consecutively met the 95% compliance goal across the past (4) years. No Division consecutively remained above the 75% mark (4) years in a row. Compliance ratings for all divisions over the last three years have fluctuated or remained flat with the exception of Division of Public Health and State Operated Healthcare Facilities. These two divisions were the only Divisions to show consistent and positive compliance improvement across all years (54%, 64%, 83% and 86%) and (30, 45, and 95) respectively. Best compliance holding was 66% for SFY09. There was no correlation to be made when comparing the impact on Compliance across the quarters within each SFY. Lowest compliance was 28% in Qtr 3, SFY08, best was 80% in Qtr. 3, SFY10. Although, Open Window and the need for greater accuracy for public view may have contributed to higher non compliance issues for “Other Edits” in SFY10. Health Service Regulation has consistently maintained a 96% compliance rating over the past (2) years. State Operated Healthcare Facilities showed the biggest compliance improvement from SFY08 to SFY10 (70%) followed by Health Service Regulation (50%), followed by the Division of Public Health (25%). Four divisions achieved an average compliance rating of 70% across all (4) years. Vocational Rehabilitation(77%) , Health Service Regulation,(76%) Public Health (73%) and Mental Health (71%).

  34. Compliance Rating by Area SFY 2010 Q4

  35. Areas of Compliance by Division Q4

  36. Compliance Rating by AreaSFY 2010 Q1 thru Q4 Approval process Required Documents Timely Approval Performance Measures COE Review Other Edits

  37. Annual Compliance Rating by AreaSFY 2010

  38. Areas of Compliance by Division SFY 2010

  39. SFY 2010 Top Three Compliance Issues The top major compliance issues for SFY 2010 are Required Documents, Timely approval and Edits. Division Meeting or Exceeding Compliance goal: Required Documents: DHSR, DIRM, DMA, SOHF, DMH, DAAS, DPH, DVR, Rural Hlth, Exec. Mgt. Timely Approval: DVR and SOHF Edits: DHSR, DIRM and SOHF

  40. Contract Approval ProcessSFY 2010 (RFPs not included) Correct approvals and signatures Out of the contracts or amendments reviewed by OPCS, percentage that had all required approvals: 100% Q1  97% Q2  98% Q3  100% Q4 99% SFY 2010

  41. Required Documents SFY 2010 (RFPs not included) Includes all required documentation Out of the contracts or amendments reviewed by OPCS, percentage that had all required documentation: 83% Q1  98% Q2  99% Q3  94% Q4 92% SFY 2010

  42. Timely Approvals SFY 2010 (RFPs not included) Submitted to OPCS before effective date Out of the contracts or amendments reviewed by OPCS, percentage that were sent through timely approvals: 54% Q1  79% Q2  91% Q3  90% Q4 77% SFY 2010

  43. Performance Measures SFY 2010 (RFPs not included) Contract includes required measures Out of the contracts or amendments reviewed by OPCS, percentage that had all performance measures: 95% Q1  99% Q2  99% Q3  98% Q 4 98% SFY 2010

  44. COE ReviewSFY 2010 (RFPs not included) COE Review was completedChairs or designee approved contracts and/or amendments Out of the contracts or amendments reviewed by OPCS, percentage that went through a COE review: 100% Q1  100% Q2  100% Q3  100% Q4 100% SFY 2010

  45. Other Items Identified in the Review - SFY 2010 (RFPs not included) Edits, budget corrections, encumber funds, incorrect data, contract system Out of the contracts or amendments reviewed by OPCS, Percentage that did not require edits or other revisions: 58% Q1  61% Q2  93% Q3  86% Q4 73% SFY 2010

  46. Areas of Compliance Trend Analysis SFY 2007 – 2010

  47. SFY07-SFY10 Top Three Compliance Issues- Analysis Required Documents, Timely Approval and Edits remain an area of opportunity across all three years. Timely approval fluctuated across all three years, best was 88% compliance rating in SFY07, worst was 83% in SFY10 Required Documents have improved across all three years from a low of 86% to 92% compliance, but goal still remain unmet. Edits had improved consistently from a low of 75% to 84% compliance respectively from SFY07 to SFY09, but decreased to 73% in SFY10.

  48. Performance Measure Quality Rating • A basic 3 point rating scale is utilized to determine the quality of measures in PBCs. • Scale: 1=Average; 2 = Good and 3 = Excellent Rating Definition • Demand: The intended beneficiaries/targeted population/ and number of units to be served in the contract are clearly identified and defined • Input: The amount of resources required to provide the services to the customer are clearly identified • Output: The quantity of the services expected to be completed or provided to the customer are clearly identified • Outcome: Outcome measures are aligned with the contracts goals and objectives and clearly reflect a result, consequence, or a particular benefit • Service Quality: Quality measures clearly evaluate customer satisfaction with the service or product provided or the appropriateness of the service being provided or how the service was provided • Efficiency: Cost relationship of input to outputs to outcomes are identified