State outlines timeline, outreach and supports for conflict‑free case management rollout

State officials told the Human Services Committee on Wednesday that Vermont is implementing federally required conflict‑free case management across multiple home‑and‑community‑based programs, with two statewide case management organizations selected and a go‑live date set for Oct. 1, 2025.

The change affects Choices for Care, developmental disabilities (DD) and brain‑injury programs and aims to separate case‑management duties from direct service provision, state officials said. “The purpose of having a conflict free system is to protect the right of individuals who are engaged in home and community based services. And this, as you know, is a federal requirement,” Angela McMahon, director of the adult services division, said during the committee briefing.

The nut graf: Agency staff described a staged transition, outreach and funding supports intended to move case‑management responsibility away from direct service providers and onto two contracted case management organizations to reduce potential conflicts of interest in intake, assessment, funding proposals and service choice.

State officials said the department issued an RFP and executed two statewide contracts for case management. “This means that people will have a choice of which agency will provide case management for them, and those case management organizations will have staff, statewide,” Jennifer Garabedian, division lead for developmental disabilities, said. The organizations identified in the briefing were Benchmark Human Services and the Columbus Organization; both held statewide meet‑and‑greet events for potential enrollees and stakeholders.

Department staff described work already underway: from June 2024 to June 2025 roughly 1,200 people who previously received case management through home‑health agencies were transitioned; officials said about 90% of those transitions are complete. The department designated Area Agencies on Aging (AAAs) to provide case management for some Choices for Care participants and said the next transition phase (adult family care and Flexible Choices participants) will occur between October and December 2025.

Officials described supports intended to reduce disruption during the transition. Both contracted case management organizations were offered start‑up funds; designated agencies, specialized service agencies and brain‑injury providers were offered transition grants sized by the number of individuals they support. “Allowable uses for this funding included advertising and recruiting, staffing over time, staff retention, bonuses, records transfer activities,” Garabedian told the committee. The transcript does not specify dollar amounts for those grants.

Staff outlined the enrollment and handoff process. Individuals and guardians were given an enrollment window through May 30 to choose a case management organization; the department said it will auto‑enroll anyone who does not select by that date during a June placement procedure and will notify people of their assigned organization. Individual transition meetings will begin in July and continue through September, with the department describing the first meeting as a “meet and greet” followed by additional person‑centered planning as needed.

On workforce issues, Garabedian and other presenters said both organizations have begun hiring state directors, case‑manager supervisors and case managers, and that final staffing needs will be clearer once enrollment and geographic assignments are known. Officials said the state set case management standards in the contracts (including limits tied to need and response expectations) and added training resources; a department‑led learning module for home‑and‑community‑based services is planned to support new and existing staff.

Committee members and presenters discussed community engagement: the department held 14 in‑person public meetings and one virtual session, plus 12 meet‑and‑greet events hosted by the case management organizations (eight in person, four virtual), and maintained forums and written communications for providers and participants. Garabedian noted that both case management organizations “took the leap into faith” by advertising before final contract execution and reported strong applicant response rates.

What was not decided or quantified: the briefing did not present specific dollar amounts for transition grants, nor did it provide a final, county‑level staffing census for the contracted organizations. Officials repeatedly described remaining work to finalize hiring, training and local assignments before the October 1 go‑live date.

The committee was offered follow‑up written responses to detailed questions; department staff said they will continue implementation reporting and early stabilization monitoring in October and November after go‑live.