Commission authorizes split of developmental‑services electronic health record; up to $250,000 allocated from fund reserves
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
The board unanimously approved a contract amendment to create a separate instance of the electronic health record for the county developmental disabilities organization, citing state regulation and conflict‑of‑interest concerns; up to $250,000 of Developmental Supports fund balance was authorized for the effort.
Johnson County commissioners voted Aug. 14 to authorize an amendment to the county’s electronic health record (EHR) contract to establish a separate instance for the department that oversees developmental disability supports.
Chris Lanane presented the item and said separation is needed to comply with state regulations and to reduce conflict‑of‑interest risks without changing system functionality. The amendment affects the county’s contract for behavioral/developmental EHR services provided by the vendor identified in staff materials as Welligent.
Commissioner Ashcraft moved the measure and Commissioner Allenbrand seconded. The motion authorized an amendment to contract (referenced in briefing materials) to create a separate EHR instance for the Johnson County developmental supports organization, authorized allocation and expenditure of Developmental Supports fund balance reserves for FY2025 in an amount not to exceed $250,000, and delegated management of the contract to the JCDS governing board. The measure passed 7‑0.
Why it matters: County staff and commissioners characterized the change as compliance work to align the county’s data systems with state rules and to address a potential conflict between direct service provision and oversight roles. Staff said no county general‑fund dollars will be used for the project and that the proposal had been reviewed and approved by the Johnson County Developmental Supports governing board prior to the commission meeting.
Implementation and oversight: The motion delegated day‑to‑day authority to the JCDS governing board to manage the contract within budget and policy parameters. Commissioners asked whether the information Ashcraft requested about appointments and reorganization could be provided prior to meetings; legal staff and others said that level of review can be done before a meeting when requested.
What was not decided: The motion approved the amendment and the funding authorization; it did not change program operations or services, and staff said functionality for providers will remain essentially the same while the technical instances are split.