Efficient Forums

[Continuing from Colorado Benefits Management System - Part 1]

OK, so who wins this chess game now that Bobby Fisher is dead? Well, it is complicated and very political. Depending on whom the Kings and Queens (state officials and foundations) listen to will dramatically affect the ultimate outcome.

If they choose wisely, I believe that everyone actually can win.

If they choose to continue to do business in the same manner as in the recent past …choosing EDS to do CBMS and other large high-cost professional services vendors to do CSTARS (motor vehicle registration), Genesis (unemployment insurance), and SCORE (voter registration and election system) … the outcome will most certainly be another train wreck. (see references and links below).

No use crying over spilled milk (or spent taxpayers money), and since I can’t do anything about the past, my optimistic side is focused on devising a win-win solution for the known problems relating to the CBMS front end (these problems revolve around the CBMS application completion process). My vision will dramatically simplify and improve the application process for virtually all the various benefits programs, including those of CBMS.

The solutions we are able to quickly deploy will allow for state officials to save face (by keeping the back end of CBMS intact) and will drastically reduce costs for the counties while allowing them to better serve their clients and manage their caseloads. The non-profits will be happy and continue to help the needy and counties with collaborative outreach and applications completion assistance.

But best of all, the solutions allow the needy to receive the benefits they qualify for more timely, and children will get fed! (I am assuming of course that the back end of CBMS isn’t flawed as well. If it is also flawed, well then, at least the State won’t have the front-end users and counties to blame anymore.)

I had the opportunity to get a tour of the Jefferson County (Colorado) Division of Human Services facility yesterday, and it was certainly eye opening and alarming. I believe more strongly now than ever that the people tasked with delivering the benefit services are incredibly hardworking and passionate people. Their goal is to do the best they can with the tools they have. It is one thing to talk about how bad CBMS is. It is another thing to actually see the wasted hours and expense each county is strapped with because the CBMS front end is so inefficient. CBMS is clearly not working, and if I hear a state official say “CBMS is completely fine. It’s the users that are messing up the applications,” I may have to scream!

The Better Way

So, as I mentioned, there is a better way. The Efficient Benefits Application Solution Service, or eBASS, uses the Efficient Forms Transaction Origination Platform and allows caseworkers and clients to quickly complete the applications for all the benefits a client qualifies for. In fact, the solution also quickly determines what programs a client qualifies for and then asks a series of logic-driven questions to gather the data required for all the various benefit programs. The solution forces required questions to be answered so applications are in good order.

One of the most important benefits of eBASS is the way that all benefit program applications can be completed in one sitting from any authorized caseworker, or authorized non-profit caseworker. While CBMS may handle food stamps, TANF, Medicaid and several other programs, it does not handle all the programs. Clients are forced to complete additional paperwork for various other programs like CCAP, LEAP, pre-school assistance, or other county-specific assistance programs, costing them time and costing taxpayers money. The eBASS interview streamlines this application process and completes all the appropriate applications. This benefit is simply not offered by any other provider, and I do not believe any other provider is even contemplating this feature, even though so much of the data gathered on one app is need for every other app.

While there are many key features of the eBASS solution, that isn’t really the point. I will continue to post on this subject from time-to-time and will keep you informed at how we are making out in our quest to help solve the front-end problems in CBMS.

More Reading

If you are interested, check out one of the many articles on the State of Colorado’s troubles with large scale software projects:

Fix it or Ditch it?
By Andra Coberly, Fort Collins Now
January 30, 2008

Steven R. Nickerson © The Rocky
New system to register motor vehicles just the latest to misfire for state (note: link may be down. Here’s a copy of the original)
By Ann Imse, Rocky Mountain News
May 16, 2007

• CBMS: Colorado Benefits Management System, developed by EDS at a cost of $223 million. It fouled up welfare benefits and left poor people without critical cash.The federal government has demanded an $11 million sanction for money that CBMS incorrectly paid out in food stamps.

• Genesis: Developed by Accenture under a $40.8 million contract with the state Department of Labor to track unemployment insurance. The state said the system had a 20 percent error rate. The two sides agreed to cancel the contract. Colorado paid Accenture $27 million.

• SCORE: Statewide Colorado Registration and Election system, developed by Accenture under a $10.5 million contract. When Accenture missed a federal deadline for completion of the new statewide voter registration database, the secretary of state canceled the contract and hired a different company to do the job.

• ERP: Enterprise Resource Planning system was developed by SAP at a cost of $38 million to track Colorado Department of Transportation finances, personnel and project management. About 3,300 employees had their payroll checks messed up up last winter. The system continues to be altered and staff are getting extra training.

If you got a chance to read my last entry regarding medical insurance, you probably noticed that I get a bit passionate about some things. Like the medical insurance problem, I hate when politicians play games. If the government (federal, state or local) establish programs that are meant to benefit people in need, like Food Stamps, TANF, SCHIP or pre-school assistance, then the government should make it readily available for those who qualify for the programs.

(I won’t go into my personal political views on whether these programs should have been setup in the first place. I get to have this argument every Christmas and at least once in the summer at my family reunion in Minnesota. Ultimately, I want to keep this focused and, frankly, more relevant to the point of this blog.)

Over the last six months, I have met with several non-profit organizations, foundations, state and local officials, social workers, and cases workers. While I have heard varying different reasons why people can’t get the benefits they qualify for, it seems that the political chess games (that may end up using hungry children as pawns) can often be to blame.

The Players in This Chess Game

To avoid referring to the various combatants in the game with loaded identifiers, like black and white, right or left, top or bottom, I will use “Them” guys and “Those” guys”.

For “Them” Guys

The King and Queen are represented by the federal, state and local officials and legislative branches that control the purse, and are responsible to provide services to those in need on behalf of the taxpayers. When asked, “Them” guys don’t want to leave any child behind. They want every child to have food, and they always suggest they are doing what it takes to see that everyone who qualifies receives the benefits they deserve. They make statements like, “We are not hearing of any problems” … but often times, “Them” guys’ King and Queen aren’t listening to their constituents.

For “Those” Guys

The King and Queen are represented by the endowed foundations that also control a substantial purse. Their ultimate charter is to provide services and/or fund programs that give back to the needy. Often times, they get tied up in wars with “Them” guys, suggesting more needs to be done to help the disadvantaged.

The Game

The castles, knights and rooks for “Them” and “Those” guys are made up of hardworking individuals fighting the battles on the front lines. “Them” guys have case workers and administrators at the Department of Health and Human Services and other offices responsible for administering the benefits programs. “Those” guys have case workers and administrators for non-profit organizations. All of these people seem to want to deliver the services the best way they can. But, they are hampered by the tools to carry out their task, much like these pieces in a chess game.

For instance in Colorado, many local news outlets have criticized the Colorado Benefits Management System (CBMS) application that has cost the taxpayers over $220 million. At best, the case workers who use the application are forced to use a clunky, ill-conceived, inefficient solution that causes them to struggle to do their jobs and to serve the needy. In fact, I have been told it can take up to three hours for a case worker to assist a client with completing the CBMS form which is 35 pages!

Three hours is bad enough, but the problem compounds if there are errors on the form. It may take weeks to inform a client that additional information is needed, and with strict deadlines, clients only get several days to submit changes. This turns the three hour initial meeting into another meeting (take a number, please), and if the deadline isn’t met, come back (take another number) and start the whole process over again. I could go on and on … suffice it to say, case workers are strapped to service their case loads with the current tools.

Non-profit case workers can’t use CBMS and struggle to give any real assistance, except for advice on what benefits a client may qualify for. They listen to the tragic stories from people who wait months and months to get the benefits they qualify for. Worse yet, they hear the numerous stories of clients who quit trying to apply for benefits they qualify for because of multiple erroneous rejections …

The pawns in this whole game are the needy people.

While the Kings and Queens for “Them” guys pay $220 million to a large corporate vendor and have little to show for it, the castles, knights and rooks are forced to use the expensive and wasteful CBMS application, and they are forced to defend it and the decisions of the King and Queen!

While time is wasted defending this position, children go hungry!!!! This isn’t hungry like I might have known as a kid (You go to bed with out supper, young man!), this is go hungry like the school lunch is the only meal you get for a week.

What gets me is that all the players (state, counties, cities, non-profits, foundations, EDS - the vendor, and citizens all want the same thing: children to be fed, people to receive the benefits they qualify for in a timely manner (it has been proven that this allows people to get off benefits sooner), and to administer these programs as cost effectively as possible. So while “Those” guys point fingers at “Them” guys and “Them” guys point back and defend a broken system, people don’t eat.

Efficient Benefits Application Solution Service

To top it all off, while years are wasted bantering, a solution exists today!

This solution can make it easy for clients to apply, make it easy for case workers to serve more clients each day, make it easy for non-profit case workers to help lift the burden felt by county case workers, and allow foundations to substantially fund the solution. Clients could immediately get the benefits they need in a timely manner and without errors.

Essentially, the solution can solve the problem, make the Kings and Queens happy, make the soldiers happy, and make the people happy.

The solution is Efficient Benefits Application Solution Service (EBASS) by Efficient Forms.

Our goal is to have the solution deployed this year in Colorado, but it will take the counties, states and foundations to come together to help us help them solve this major problem. We can do it very quickly and very cost effectively. We have several counties and foundations interested in giving it a chance. I will use my next posting to detail the solution and to potentially post some links to a demo.

[see also: Hmmmmmm. Maybe CBMS is not doing so well.  by Don McCubbrey]