Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Conflict Free Case Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State moves forward with conflict‑free case management; two national agencies selected
Summary
Legislative committee heard progress on the state’s federally mandated transition to conflict‑free case management, including selection of Columbus and Benchmark as case management organizations, an Oct. 1 implementation date, funding sources, and procedures for enrollment, data sharing and quality reviews.
State officials briefed a legislative human services committee on the rollout of conflict‑free case management, saying the state has selected two case management organizations through an RFP process and is moving toward an initial implementation date of Oct. 1.
The discussion focused on enrollment, how the state will protect personal data in a new centralized document repository, transition funds for providers and area agencies on aging, and ongoing federal oversight tied to a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) corrective action plan. Committee members and agency staff also discussed payment structure, quality reviews and the option for people to request changes of case manager after an initial transition period.
Why it matters: The change is a federal requirement meant to separate service delivery from case management; state officials described it as necessary to remain in compliance with federal rules. Committee members pressed for clarity about timelines, consumer protections and the budgetary impact on state and local programs.
State staff told the committee organizations were not required to apply for grants but were asked to include transition plans and milestones as part of the state’s granting process. The new system includes a centralized document repository intended to let case managers and direct‑service providers access documents related to individuals receiving services; state staff said the repository is a “brand new data repository” and emphasized caution around privacy safeguards while the system stabilizes.
Officials said transition funds were offered to the two selected case management organizations (Columbus and Benchmark) and to area agencies on aging (AAAs) and other providers that were further along in the work. Enrollment is already underway; state staff reported “strong enrollments” and said initial payments to organizations were close to being issued.
On how people will be matched to case managers and whether they can change afterward, officials said individuals may request a change of direct case manager at any time, but the state will initially ask people to hold changes until after the new system’s first-of‑year stabilization to reduce information‑sharing problems and technical bugs.
Payment and oversight: The state described case management reimbursement as a per‑member, per‑month payment scaled to client acuity. For developmental disability services there are three levels of need and the brain‑injury program uses four levels, officials said; the per‑member payment schedule was included in the RFP and in contracts. Officials also said contracted case management organizations will be subject to annual quality reviews and will be incorporated into updated quality assurance processes comparable to existing developmental services reviews. CMS continues to monitor the state’s corrective action plan, officials said.
Public involvement and selection process: Agency staff said the RFP review included presentations to panels composed of people receiving services, families and advocates; vendor presentations and panel feedback were used in selection. Staff also said they plan to gather consumer feedback during early implementation and stabilization phases and through advisory and steering committees.
Budget: Committee members asked whether federal Medicaid funding that covers most of the work is secure amid national budget uncertainty. Agency representatives said they had seen no indication from CMS that access to the federal funds needed for 2025 would be cut, but they continue to monitor federal developments. Committee members also discussed state budget planning: officials said the cost was included in the governor’s budget and implementation timing had been adjusted internally to an Oct. 1 start.
What was not decided: No formal statutory change or committee vote was taken at the hearing. Staff agreed to provide copies of contracts and case management standards on request.
The committee said it will take follow‑up testimony and progress updates once the transition has been underway for several months.
