The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20040401 STATE OF COLORADO COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES AND COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH CARE POLICY&FINANCING /�.ov•Coto -fit Colorado Benefits Management System •.�-,� 455 Sherman Street,Suite 390 * I -4 � * Denver,Colorado 80203 Phone: (720)570-5233 � I.76* FAX: (720)570-5202 www.cbma.atate.co.us Bill Owens Governor M.m Livingston Hammes Eras a Direeler.CDHS And Kam Reinensoa EnevM Director.CDHCPF January 12, 2004 Subject: Colorado Benefits Management Systems (CBMS)Update Dear State Legislators, County Commissioners, and County Directors of Human Services: This letter is intended to provide an update regarding the Colorado Benefits Management System (CBMS) project. We are providing updates in three areas, {`Minoring Production in Pilot," "Ensuring that CBMS is Adequately Tested," and "Enhanced Federal Funding." Mirroring Production in Pilot — Update (a.k.a., "Production" versus "Non-Production" Pilot) Since our last letter to you (on September 16, 2003) we provided additional documentation regarding the project's decision to Pilot CBMS in a "Non-Production" environment to Marie Peer, the President of the Colorado Social Services Directors Association(CSSDA) in a letter dated October 7, 2003. The full text of that letter is attached for your review [see Attachment A —CBMS Pilot Letter to CSSDA 10-7-03]. The bottom line is that to do a"Live Production Pilot" of CBMS would add at least 10- 12 months to the current effort and would increase the cost of the project by approximately$22.5 — 33 million and add little real value. Therefore, the Pilot for CBMS will be a Non-Production Pilot. The CSSDA letter also addressed the potential impacts that could accrue if the "Benefit Freeze Flag"were to remain in place for an extended period. While the "Benefit Freeze Flag"remains on a case, the case will continue to receive the same level of benefits as it did at the time of conversion. The "Benefit Freeze Flag"is set on those cases that were converted from one of the Legacy systems, and will remain on the case until benefits are authorized in CBMS or the State runs a job to remove the flag from all cases. The letter stated that there would likely be real costs experienced by the Program Areas if cases were not updated timely(which could happen if the benefit freeze flag were to remain active for an extended period). it i/I/7 Page 1 of 5 2004-0401 C_� -6c/- c�/ /7e S • January 12, 2004 Subject: Colorado Benefits Management System (CBMS) Update Page 2 of 5 Ensuring that CBMS is Adequately Tested In our last letter to you(on September 16, 2003) we addressed testing in some detail, including an attachment that described the State's testing model, listing ten different elements of testing that will be completed before CBMS is implemented. This month, we would like to share with you how the CBMS team has focused its testing efforts to ensure that program areas are receiving attention commensurate with the numbers of clients served by those areas. The team has done an analysis that compares the number of cases (and/or clients) served by each program area to the test case coverage that the CBMS Test Team will provide [see Attachment B—CBMS Testing Ratios]. The analysis revealed a very high correlation between the two. The bottom line here is that extensive testing of CBMS functions has already been completed (beginning in July 2002), and testing is scheduled to continue well into 2004. In addition,we are prioritizing our testing efforts to ensure that programs that serve large numbers of clients are proved first. Enhanced Federal Funding — Update On November 18, 2003, the Joint Budget Committee asked the following question regarding the use of enhanced federal funding from the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 (PRWORA) for use by the CBMS Project: Question: Can the department please provide an updated spending plan for the CBMS project which accounts for the federal PRWORA funds by Friday the 21st? I am interested in how the department plans to spend this funding with regard to county assistance in data input. How many temporary hires will help with the effort, are counties receiving any of the funds directly to train their own employees? Along with the spending plan, can the department please provide its assumptions and calculations for the use of the money? The department responded to the JBC as follows: Response: As you know there are three primary categories of use for this money. First is the small piece that was to hire temporary employees to assist with catching up on eligibility determinations at the CHP+ administrative contract site. That work is underway and is part of the Department of Health Care Policy and Financing's administrative budget so will not appear in the spending plan. Second is the piece that relates to the core CBMS system (the substance of your second question). Third is the largest component, the use of the money to support the county efforts in conversion/implementation. January 12, 2004 Subject: Colorado Benefits Management System (CBMS) Update Page 3 of 5 Before describing the process for refining the use of the funds, it is important to state that the data entry work will begin in May and could run through October 2004, depending upon the size. Work that would continue into FY 04-05 would require a roll forward. The data entry work would not occur before April 2004. Having said that, the departments have been working with the counties and Medical Assistance (MA) Sites to ensure that their concerns are addressed and suggestions considered. In addition, we have been working with Purchasing to ensure that we are taking the correct administrative track to procure the services. With respect to the county input, we have met with the group of 14 metro counties that meet monthly and have discussed the concept and the approach taken to date. It was at this group that the counties first expressed their support for recalling the county allocations in the first place and then their support for the leading usage of the funds. The Colorado Social Services Directors Association (CSSDA) has also been involved in understanding the intent and the issues and has been providing feedback. Based on county input, we explored two approaches, first, creating work teams to deploy statewide to do the work on site. This approach did not have the benefit of the economies of scale with respect to stretching the dollars. We have also worked on having a central entity receive the data sheets from the counties and enter the data centrally — this is the preferred direction because it makes the most efficient use of the resource. Some counties were concerned that the State envisioned this data group going into the county files to create the data sheets and also to enter them into CBMS. We reassured them that this was not intended. The counties will continue with the work they are now performing to pull the data contained now in hard file and transfer the data to the forms for entry into CBMS. They will then copy the sheets and send them to the central location/s for data entry. Counties are interested in assurances that the work effort will include rigorous quality assurance measures; this is a priority for the State as well. The counties are now providing feedback to the CBMS project team as to whether or not they will be using the central data entry function. This is necessary to estimate the final "size" of the project. We have confirmation that most of the large counties(e.g., Denver is in) do intend to use the central data entry function, but are still collecting that information. We note that the CCI winter conference is next week and we anticipate more discussion and feedback there. Specifically articulated county concerns include: 1. Quality control—data integrity. 2. Order of data entry by county—who will decide what county's information will be entered first, second, etc. and how will the decision be made? January 12, 2004 Subject: Colorado Benefits Management System (CBMS)Update Page 4 of 5 3. Counter-productive—if the county technician updates the case in CBMS—how will the data entry team know not to touch the case and possibly override information that is more current? 4. Communication between data entry team and agency—how will it occur when questions about the data arise? 5. Central data entry staff program knowledge—will the staff understand the assistance program to the extent they can recognize data entry errors they may make and correct appropriately? 6. Error in data entry that affects benefits and results in either under or overpayment—who is responsible for claim and/or retro payment and if it is a Food Stamp case how will it affect the error rate? We are working through these issues. Initial information from Purchasing was that we would have to procure these services utilizing a Request for Proposals (RFP) approach because of the size of the workload. We continued exploring purchasing options on alternative tracks and are very pleased to be working with the Colorado Department of Personnel and Administration, Division of Central Services, Document Solutions Group, a State owned and operated document conversion center—one of the largest in the State of Colorado. Being able to work with a State agency is significantly streamlining this effort. The Document Solutions Group has met with the project team and is now getting a feel for the project size, the kind of data that must be entered with respect to expected number of fields of information, and how they might best set up. The Document Solutions Group is scheduled to visit several counties in December to test the data entry effort to assist them in estimating the resource need for the project. [Update, subsequent to the response to the JBC: The visits to the counties did not happen in December 2003. The project team is currently working with the Document Solutions Group during the month of January 2004 to gather enough information for estimating the needed resources]. Out of that analysis, will come the pricing information. Because the Document Solutions Group is a State agency, they will require Cash Fund Spending Authority commensurate with the project expenditures. It is anticipated that when the departments submit the formal, final Supplemental Request for Figure Setting on March 1, 2004, we will include the companion request on behalf of the Department of Personnel and Administration's Document Solutions Group to ensure adequate spending authority. We are also discussing with the Document Solutions Group the possibility of having them assist the pilot counties/MA sites with their data entry needs during Pilot and there is interest. In working with the project in the pilot environment,the Document Solutions • January 12, 2004 Subject: Colorado Benefits Management System (CBMS)Update Page 5 of 5 Group would have a good preview of the effort that would be required when CBMS is implemented and enable them to refine their plan of action. The project team is also working toward identification of any areas of work that are not well covered for the county rollout phase in order to apply any residual of the funding to supporting counties in that way. Counties are aware of this effort as well. If at any time you feel that your concerns or questions are not being adequately addressed, do not hesitate to contact Michael Whitlock, the CBMS Project Manager, at 720-570-5205. Sincerely, • IMM Kare Reinertson a Li ing on H mons Executive Director Ex cutive Dire tor Department of Health Care De ment of Human Services Policy and Financing Cc: CBMS Executive Oversight Committee oar STATE OF COLORADO COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES AND COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH CARE POLICY&FINANCING 'Lc e Fd Colorado Benefits Management System ", 455 Sherman Street.e�dte 390G., Denver,Colorado 80403 Phone: (720)570-5435 FAX: (720)570-5202 www.cbma,state.co.m B9 Uusae tenor Mn~eh 6mmnm Lumen neam,CD. r ammaem.me a..mnesu r.Q racer October 7, 2003 Marie J. Peer, President CSSDA County Social Services Directors Association Moffat County DSS 595 Breeze Street Craig, CO 81625 Dear Marie: In response to your request of September 23, 2003, the CBMS project team has completed a high level analysis of the proposal for a "live production pilot" and extending the "flag" that freezes payments and benefits to clients at the level last delivered through the Legacy systems. Regarding "Live Production Pilot" When the original plan for the single release strategy was developed, there was extensive effort expended for several months involving numerous resources from the project. In order to complete a comparable analysis, the project would require several months to complete a new project plan and as a result, could not achieve the April 2004 implementation date. Attached is a high level compilation of issues that would have to be addressed and a projected cost to do a "live production pilot" When the decision was made in March 2003 to implement CBMS through a single release scenario, the CBMS project resources were re-focused on only those tasks needed for a single release strategy. There are numerous risks and issues associated with a staggered release (and a production pilot would be part of a staggered release) because benefits would be issued through both CBMS and Legacy systems concurrently. Therefore, extensive modifications would be required to both the Legacy and CBMS systems. The initial time frame for planning and subsequent execution of the plan would add at least 10 - 12 months to the current effort. In addition, numerous issues with a staggered release, which were identified by the counties and the project team for the original rollout strategy, would require resolution. The overall cost of the new rollout strategy would be approximately$22.5 —33 million. Oir Mission is to Design end Ddhrer Quality Human Services that Improve the Safety and Independence of the Pecge of Cdaado Regarding "Benefit Freeze Flag" • In regards to the "Benefit Freeze Flag" there are three different processes occurring with "freezing". The first process is in CBMS, when the design of the freeze flag was developed flexibility was built into CBMS to allow the flag to be removed for all counties at a designated time. Thus, there are no project costs associated with how long the flag stays in place or when the flag is removed. The second process pertains to costs incurred in the program area, it should be noted that there would likely be real costs experienced by the Program Areas if cases were not updated timely (which could happen if the benefit freeze flag were to remain active for an extended period). For example, a client whose benefits should have run out could continue to receive the benefit amount that was specified in Legacy for several months until a worker updated the case. While this cost would not be a project cost, it would nonetheless be a real cost to the State. The third process is in regards to the Legacy System. When the information is converted from the legacy system to CBMS, the legacy system will be frozen as it was when the information was converted. The legacy system will then remain frozen for a year in the event the system was needed due to a catastrophe failure of CBMS. Sincerely, ary ivin sto Hammons Karen Reinertson xecutive D ector Executive Director olorado Department of Human Services Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing Cc: CBMS Executive Oversight Committee (EOC) County Proposal Analysis • Concept The CBMS project team's understanding of the county proposal is that it would include three counties (Arapahoe, Broomfield, and Fremont) going live on CBMS in April 2004, with the remaining counties and the MA sites remaining on the Legacy systems until July 2004, at which time they would convert to CBMS (assuming a successful pilot). General Issues • The team does not believe that having three counties "go live" in April 2004 would meet the expectations of the Executive Directors, the JBC, or the IMC of an April 2004 implementation date. The extension into the next fiscal year does not fit the budget that has been approved by the JBC and the Federal agencies. • The extension of the project schedule would have a cost impact. • The project team believes that including at least one MA site in the Pilot is expected by many of the stakeholders and the details of how to include an MA site in a limited roll-out is not clear. Processing Issues • Actions that would need to occur to support a "live" production pilot include: o The Legacy systems would require modifications to allow for them to continue "live" operation. Examples of changes include: • Prevent updates for clients that have been transferred to CBMS. • Prevent dual processing. • Ability to "turn off" clients as they are converted to CBMS. Converting by county is technically more complex. o The Interfaces would require modification for Legacy systems and CBMS. • Prevention of dual processing of clients. • Prevention of duplicate reporting. • Management of dual maintenance. • Outgoing interfaces would need to be modified to combine interface data from Legacy systems and CBMS. Third party receivers of interfaces would not likely accept two file formats. Conversations with several third parties have indicated that they would not accept multiple files. Some interfaces have new layouts and are not compatible with the data available in the Legacy systems. A solution for the resulting non-compatibility would have to be determined. • Incoming interfaces would have to be modified to split the incoming files, depending on where the client is being processed (Legacy systems or CBMS). A request would be made to third parties to determine if they would provide separate files, especially if the file format has changed. o The Conversion programs would require modification to allow selectively loading clients by county. Changes would be major to be able to accommodate two conversion passes. This would include redesign, programming, and testing changes to the current conversion process. County Proposal Analysis o A resolution to processing inter-county transfers, claims, and restorations during rollout (while clients could be represented in both CBMS and Legacy) would be needed. The statement that the counties can work out agreements relating to county transfers would need to be explored to understand any other implications to the systems. This issue was analyzed extensively a year ago and no workable solution was determined at that time. o Legislative/policy changes would need to be made to both Legacy systems and CBMS. o The User Practice Area was part of the mitigation plan to support a non- production pilot and may not be feasible to do at the same time as a production pilot due to competing needs for resources (both hardware and people)to support these two large environments. o The leases for the training sites would have to be re-negotiated for a longer period of time. Leases for equipment at training sites would also have to be re- negotiated for an extension of time. o Implementation support for over the Shoulder Support Staff would have to be extended to cover a longer rollout time frame. Projected Costs Category Estimated Cost Extension of EDS resources $1.5 — 2 million /month Training Site lease extension $20,000/month Continuation of State's project costs $600,000/month Changes to and Maintenance of $125,000/month Legacy Systems Total Projected Cost $2.25— 2.75 million/month Given that the team estimates that 10 to 12 additional months would be required, the total estimated cost would range between $22.5 and $33.0 million. Department of Human Services Programs High Level Program Group Sub-Program ` + rihiti.'' Number Of Number Of ' '. `i ".......'tai=. Cale by Major Prg (HLPG) ''t`.' r Decision Test Scenarios ' 11.4"48:W.11111_ Groups Tables I :tt_cisto,M. Percentage of ' .,:t5tf., Tests performed Overall Ratio 1 Percent of ". Percent Decision _ - v ate of Tests Tables Colorado Works Total L. 142 84 r i i i i 100.00% 28.38% 29.52% Basic Cash Assistance ` -)t 5= 45 .1111,.k.l Ma o. State Diversion r, b: . 4 fw L + /' 4 76° Emergency Ass't of Legal l , 0 1?61 ,i 0.00% Immigrants �« s - Workforce Develounent L..............,..k_-._ 35 _u»---ii5/8 a ° ., County Diversion Total L 8 '"7 L— -a ' ' ' 2.36% 1.66% Count Diversion L _...__. 7 : ..,.a,.,J. .,r if l '. 1/ 11' , .. Family Preservation TotalL +t'oi �[ _.1CI1II1 11 II ' , k��'fi 2.36% 1.66% Famil Preservation av'=,(" L „; i ri/ o,;. 11' Non-Monetary Svcs(On-Hold Total 'l 0 0 f At The Request Of Program ' '. Management) _s E _ ';'"'411.:E10.00% 0.00% Non-Monetar Services s Adult Financial Total -7-- - 173 100 .I0II., Y 4,1„ I I I 1° , '. 33.78% 35.97% OAP A HCA 4.00% • OAP A AFC 2 .10% OAPNFPNA 2 't..,,, 2.00°0 OAP A 12 12.00° OAP B HCA 4 ;j 4.00% OAP B AFC all 2.00% OAP B NF PNA ;i" 2.00% I OAP B l2 a 12.00% I OAP C Aged or Disabled 2 2.00% Adult Financial(Con't) AND S51/CS Disabled HCA 4 4.00% CBMS Ratio test to applicants 10-31-2003 FINAL.xls Page 1 of 7 CDHS Department of Human Services Programs High Level Program Group Sub-Program '.'i'ltl4 .t e:'! Number Of Number Of r .'"'R "` +. Cale by Major Prg (HLPG) t i:JS a Decision Test Scenarios fillie1eO11,1411.:: Groups • Tables iir.fzrntr41 Percentage of I (?/.t.".0:.: Tests performed Overall Ratio i Percent of Percent Decision � s ` 'as of Tests Tables AND SSI/CS Disabled AFC I 2 &.' 9' 2.00% AND SSI/CS Disabled NF �1 2 t(;. itt 2.00% PNA e • . - AND SSI/CS Disabled .,a 4 B@ B'{,'^^ 4.00% State AND Disabled ₹ ,., 10 l 10011{,±‘,;,1 iI 10.00% AND SSI/CS Disabled historical 'gt€4'; 0.00% Grandfathered { , i AB/SSI-CS Blind HCA t1 4 =344', 4.00% AB/SSI-CS Blind AFC "`¢7 2 s441.0 VI 2.00% AB SSI/CS Blind NF PNA i s 2 4 '4 4'.. 2.00% AB SSI/CS Blind i u , 2 ,_ta'e8 i'. 2.00% AB SSI/CS Blind .'1 historical p f4(pTi' 0.00% Grandfathered State AND Disabled HCA 4 :si„ 4.00% - State AND Disabled NF I 'I° i 2 • 5- ,, 2.00% PNA _ . . i . Medically Correctable ` 1: 2 f ;g I(@' , 2.00% State AB Blind HCA 4 c 44 04. 4.00% State AB Blind PNA 2 : t .'it8'3 2.00% State Aid to the Blind(AB) 4 ^t'0. 4.00% AB Treatment 2 =f'v'a 2.00% Repatriate 2 2.00% Emergency Ass't for Legal o Im ts a 0.00%Burial '1 4 4.00% L ,. . _ . Food Stamps Total 124 95 •" 100.00% 32.09% 25.78% Food Stamps 58 61.05% CBMS Ratio test to applicants 10-31-2003 FINAL.xls Page 2 of 7 CDHS . Department of Human Services Programs High Level Program Group Sub-Program f'9"'er7 s"? Number Of Number Of f ii.'ytt +a p.0 Cale by Major Prg (HLPG) Decision Test Scenarios. f P-+'f1"�iT!i,x, Groups Tables f•nxlrtx". Percentage of f w Tests Performed Overall Ratio I - Percent of . a ?,{. Percent Decision f - - of Tests Tables •0, • 1M I' :i• .._. mar,-r.. 37 38.95% Expedited Food Stamps Total. 100.00% o 0 SS 1.01 /n 3.12/u Expedited Food Stamps ' 3 '" .; 100.00% Disaster Food Stamps i I ` [ 0.00% 2.29% Disaster Food Stamps - 'illEIMIIII _. DHS Grand Total. ' 4k1 I-- . 100.00% 100.00% CBMS Ratio test to applicants 10-31-2003 FINAL.xls Page 3 of 7 CDHS Department of Healthcare Policy and Financing Programs High Level Program Group Sub-Program + tiroii:i t0 `+ Number Of Number Of "''s Ott'iki. a Calc by Major Prg (HLPG) i •• ,,4r,; Decision Test Scenarios I '',11n, ,,:iihinil Groups Tables to,,,iorfy. Percentage of "P.:('. d Tests performed Overall Ratio i•ercent of -'t Percent Decision - of Tests Tables Presumptive Eligiblity Total p"` 46 IMISIMEIE ,diailly04 100.00% [ im'"'IP'.. 1.67% 4.29% 1 F? ',j 33.33% Breast&Cervical Cancer = Presumptive Eligibility 4 Pregnant Woman- Initial a:r= 1 t c 33.33% Pregnant Woman- 1 ., 'Tut,...), 33.33% Extended a CHP+ Prenatal i ;� licid'i,191 0.00% Presumptive Eligibility [.. 4,... _„_I. Family Medical Total ,,,t. 210a r .;I Ii I 100.00% rV,;4 26.11% 19.57% Psych<21 3 1 wfi 6.38% "1931 3sa 7Y, 6 12.77% Transitional Medicaid 4, 6 , .?..i j 12.77% 4 month Extended ;' • 4 F 417. 8.51% Qualified Pregnant Aiitni,i 4.26% Woman t Expanded Pregnant °' r 7" 6.38% Woman 3 Eligible"needy"Newborn 8.51% Prenatal State Only `,- 1 •`'j 2.13% Ii Qualified Child 3 6.38% Ribicoff Child 4 8.51% Expanded Child 4 8.51% 'I Refugee 2 4.26% EMS (for all programs; not • 4 . program) 5 "'r. 10.64% Adult Medical Total 182 32 100.00% 17.78% 16.96% CBMS Ratio test to applicants 10-31-2003 FINAL.xls Page 4 of 7 CDHCPF . Department of Healthcare Policy and Financing Programs High Level Program Group Sub-Program f— 0 r.ix.at"' Number Of Number Of . "bi i,..fl in Calc by Major Prg (HLPG) ,.71., :,,, ' Decision Test Scenarios '141.!?4;F;Ittil Groups Tables !I 4.7.)"trrt Percentage of r teal Tests performed Overall Ratio •�' rercentot Percent Decision . of Tests Tables SSI Mandatory .14<, 15 i y 46.88% SSI Mandatory:Zebley „ 0 , ID 0.00% SSI Mandatory: DAC , , 4 It;t1tCtit 12.50% SSI Mandatory-PASS 3 D.Mtg1.4,` 9.38% a Pickle ;; 3 d m�tt 9.38% Widow s, 4 ('4l ,tS 12.50% OAP-B Med(Tested in f 0.00% AF) . 0 , OAP-A Med (Tested in "„, _`ro4t. 0.00% AF) I 1J4 15' j 0 __ OAP-A Med . 65 Psych 0 ' `t ' 0.00% OAP-A Med j;,,n.0.; 0.00% Grandfathered ! 0 , OAP-HCP(B)(Tested in y vPtW�:7 0.00% AF) t 0 OAP-HCP(A)(Tested inQ 0.00% AF 0 hid Wel are ub-Adopt 1 0.00% SSI Eligible(Not tested in CBMS) 0 Breast and Cervical 9.38% Cancer 3 I 0.00% Refugee(Not listed as HLPG for AM,see FM) 0 Long Term Care Total ss: 35S 3�1 i, if(ja 100.00°lo 17.78% 33.08% NF/30 Day Medicaid 1 3.13% HOBS EBD 3 9.38% CBMS Ratio test to applicants 10-31-2003 FINAL.xls Page 5 of 7 CDHCPF Department of Healthcare Policy and Financing Programs High Level Program Group Sub-Program r'=-q r.ill•nr Number Of Number Of r xj ,a i.c,t‘4 7,'al s Cale by Major Prg (HLPG) • tt;,• Decision Test Scenarios ' "TtT `, Groups Tables I I i.Ty Percentage of fr -.Ad..' Tests Tests performed Overall Ratio Y - rca Percent of i.:(avmo. Percent Decision of Tests Tables HCBS DD atnr l - l � ' 1s 9.38% HCBS SLS �-.,;1� 2 ( '" 6.25% HCBS MI 4 k. _ ;74 12.50% HCBS BI "I IA' 3 i . 9.38% HCBS PLWA ' »"", 3 t i&Sd 9.38% ti HCBS PACE 4 i r, & 12.50% HCBS CHCBS 4 . 3 4 ?ice ;a 9.38% HCBS CHRP i 24 6.25% HCBS CES c 4 9up`;:7*".( 12.50% HCBS CMW e 0 613j6 0.00% y,,.. Me.icare avngs '' , 0401.4.10 100.00% Program Total m 129 10 •• ''" 5.56% 12.02% 2 ' LL^ 20.00% QI-2 ,' QMB Qualified Medicare I ,;'. 40.00% Beneficiary 4 I SLMB Special Low 20.00% Income Medicare Beneficiary • 2 QM Medicare Qualifying 20.00% Individual - 2 '.. w�'' wr. •1 ''' 0.00% Disabled Individual 0 I CHP+ Total - 109 30 lli, ill. 100.00% 16.67% 10.16% CHP+ 30 100.00% CHP+ Prenatal 0 0.00% Family Planning Waiver 0 0.00% CBMS Ratio test to applicants 10-31-2003 FINAL.xls Page 6 of 7 CDHCPF Department of Healthcare Policy and Financing Programs High Level Program Group Sub-Program f .. ;1 Number Of Number Of l �1�P .!!e <_rn"1 Cale by Major Prg (HLPG) i Decision Test Scenarios .4 ono '; Groups CI Tables 'te.; Percentage of Tests performed Overall Ratio ercen o 1 i Percent Decision - � .,, of Tests Tables CICP Total 42a 100.00% 14.44% 3.91% CICP 26 100.00% HCPF Grand Total 1 073 180 100.00%. 100.00• CBMS Ratio test to applicants 10-31-2003 FINAL.xls Page 7 of 7 CDHCPF Hello