Executive Steering Committee Medicaid Eligibility System Project September 13, 2013

-1-

Minutes from August 16 Meeting

-2-

Readiness for October 1 Changes

-3-

Federal Partner Update Solution Update Project Status Update

-4-

Solution Update

October 1 Release

-5-

Functionality • Minimum Essential Coverage (MEC) Check by Federally Facilitated

Marketplace (FFM)

• Account Transfer Receipt from FFM

Status • Completing Testing with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services

(CMS) and Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA)

• Functionality to be Deployed on September 18 and 23

Considerations • Account Transfer Contains both Applicants and Recipients

• Implementation Support from October 1 to December 16

• Disaster Recovery for New Hardware

Deloitte Go-Live Support

-6-

• Project Manager Peers

• Weekly Marketplace Call

• Request for Information Process

• Focus Calls with CMS

• Situation Room

Solution Development Progress

-7-

Applications development progress by functional track, as of September 6 • Solid green bar indicates actual % complete, shaded portion indicates

planned % complete • Graph shows actual number of objects complete vs. planned number

complete, out of total objects

Overall Testing Schedule

-8-

Schedule for integration and system testing by the Deloitte testing team prior to user acceptance testing (UAT) by DCF is based on the functionality that is developed and ready for testing

Testing Types • Unit Testing: Performed by the developer to test functionality of a single development object prior to being released as part of

a software build • Integration Testing: Performed by the Deloitte testing team to test a functional module comprised of multiple development

objects, or to test multiple modules and the proper interaction among them • System Testing: Performed by the Deloitte testing team to test end-to-end functional processes across the entire system. DCF

expert users who will also participate in or lead User Acceptance Testing may be involved • UAT: System test scripts executed by the end users

Testing Execution Progress

-9-

Integration Testing progress by functional area:

• Solid green bar indicates % of test scripts that have been executed by functional area • Overall, 8% (195/2381) of all scripts have been executed between September 3 and 10 • Based on the two areas currently available for testing (SSP – Apply for Benefits and Worker

Portal – FLORIDA), all test scripts that were planned for testing to-date have been executed

-10-

Project Status Update

October 1 Go Live

11

Planned Functionality

Minimum Essential Coverage (MEC) Check • Federally Facilitated Marketplace (FFM) performs the MEC Check • Check identifies those applicants that already have health insurance coverage

through Medicaid/CHIP (Children’s Health Insurance Program).

Account Transfer (inbound from the Federally Facilitated Marketplace) • If the applicant assesses as potentially eligible for Medicaid/CHIP, the FFM

transfers the individual’s electronic account record to DCF. • DCF captures the federal account transfer data and stores the record in a

database. • Upon receipt of the record, DCF issues a paper notice to the applicant to

inform them of receipt of the application, when to expect a decision and how to apply for current coverage

October 1 Go Live Readiness Assessment

12

Solution Design and Development • Complete

Solution Testing • Federal Data Hub testing underway – delayed 1 week • Florida Healthy Kids (FHK) and Florida Agency for Healthcare

Administration (AHCA) testing underway

Solution Deployment • Scheduled for September 25

Training • Technical support provided by SI vendor • No functional training required

Field Communication • Messaging documents prepared for field

External Agency – MEC Check • FHK providing file to populate ACHA FMMIS system • ACHA / DCF testing data exchange

October 1 Go Live Readiness Assessment

13

Federal Readiness • Multiple agreements (information exchange,

information security, etc.) completed • Testing with federal hub delayed by federal

Centers fro Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)

• MEC check on target • Application acceptance by federal marketplace

on target • Account transfer for states delayed – uncertain

timeframe pending federal information

14

Project Performance Metrics

14

Schedule Performance Index (SPI) and Cost Performance Index (CPI)

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00

1.05

1.10

1.15

1.20

SPI

CPI

15

Project Issues – Executive Steering Committee (ESC) Level Discussion

Issues Comments

Mitigation Plan Pending CMS Approval

Mitigation strategy approved on August 20 with conditional follow up items including submission of updated plan. Plan resubmitted on August 22.

Disaster Recovery services not in place for new hardware

Proposal to purchase the services with contingency funds included in the next agenda item

16

Project Risks – ESC Level Discussion

Risks Comments

None noted

Action Item- Contingency Funds

-17-

Legislative Budget Commission Release- September 12

Items for Consideration • Disaster Recovery Services for New

Hardware • Implementation Support Services • Increased Service Level for Hardware • Self Service Portal Translations • Call Center Ports

Medicaid Eligibility System Project

Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V)

Executive Steering Committee briefing

13 September 2013

Page 19

Topics for discussion

► General IV&V overview

► Overall risk state and trending

► Key indicators

► Overall project performance

► Upcoming IV&V activities

► Supporting information

► Summary of changes

► IV&V ratings summary

► Open deficiencies

Page 20

General IV&V overview

► Overall IV&V risk state for the MES project is Amber (issues and

inefficiencies).

► The project team has closed many deficiencies identified by the IV&V Team.

► The project is within the prescribed schedule control limits.

► No new deficiencies identified since the last report.

► The next IV&V PEAR will be published on 9 October 2013.

Overall IV&V risk state: Amber

Page 21

Overall risk state and trending

Risk state of MES Project Risk state with trending

Indicates that the area being assessed has critical issues that will result in significant risk to the project most likely resulting in either the inability to achieve the outcomes,

inability to meet the projected schedule, or a significant cost over-run. Requires immediate action.

Indicates that the area being assessed has issues that need to be resolved; inefficiencies exist. Current process/method can be used with refinement.

Indicates that the area being assessed did not have significant issues to report. Continued monitoring should be performed.

Indicates that the area being assessed has incomplete information available for a conclusive finding or is not applicable.

As of 11 September 2013

Scope

management

Time

management

Cost

management

Human

resource

management

Procurement

management

Integration

management

Risk

management

Communications

management

Business case

integrity

Complexity

profile

Capability

and

maturity

Decision

framework

Organizational

change

management

Performance

management

Governance

effectiveness

Compliance and

regulatory

Benefits

design and

realization

Requirements

engineering

and design

Methodology

and

development

Technical

infrastructure

Data

management

Security,

BC and DR

Controls

Testing

and

validation

Cutover

and

support

Sustainability

model

Quality

management

G3

G2

G1

G6

G5

G4

G9

G8

G7P1

P2

P3P4

P5

P6P7

P8

P9

T1

T2

T3

T4

T5

T6

T7

T8

T9

Program governanceBenefit realization and

sustainability

Project managementProcesses, controls,

and predictability

Technical solut ionRequirements development,

quality and transition

Program governance

Risk state with trending

G1

G2

G3

G8

G7

G9

G4

G6

G5

P1

P4

P6

P3

P5

P7P8

P2

P9

T2

T1

Technical

solution

Project

management

T3 T5 T6T4

T7 T8 T9

Page 22

Key indicators

Indicator Value Comment

Is the project currently on

schedule?

Yes ► The MES project is within the prescribed schedule control limits.

Do you expect the project to

complete on schedule?

Yes ► The MES project is within the prescribed schedule control limits.

Are there any scope

changes?

No ► No significant scope changes have been identified.

Are there any risks or issues

that the Department is not

successfully managing?

No

Is the project currently within

budget?

Yes ► No significant deviations from the MES project spend plan.

Do you expect the project to

remain within budget?

Yes ► No significant deviations from the MES project spend plan.

Page 23

Overall project performance

This chart shows the SPI and CPI

plotted as points against the

tolerance ranges set up for the

project.

SPI is less than 1.00 and trending

positive:

The project is behind schedule.

It is taking more time to complete

tasks than originally scheduled.

CPI is greater than 1.00 and

trending flat:

The project is under budget.

It is taking less effort to complete

tasks than originally planned.

Conclusions:

The project is behind schedule

and under budget.

The MES project is within the

prescribed schedule control

limits. ► Green area indicates within

tolerance of +/- 10% for both

SPI and CPI.

► Amber area indicates review is

required and corrective actions

may be necessary.

► Red area indicates out-of-

tolerance and corrective actions

are necessary.

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

1.10

1.20

1.30

0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30

SPI

CPIMES project performance

Ahead of schedule and underspentBehind schedule and underspent

Ahead of schedule and overspentBehind schedule and overspent

As of 16 Aug 2013SPI = 0.95CPI = 1.20

Page 24

Upcoming IV&V activities

► Participate in MES project meetings.

► Review materials provided by the MES Project Team.

► Provide informal feedback as required.

► Schedule for September PEAR is as follows:

► Artifact and interview cut-off: 18 September 2013

► Submit draft to DCF Contract Management: 25 September 2013

► Publish final report: 09 October 2013

Page 25

Summary of changes

Item Description

Deficiencies

addressed

► D02 – Schedule status is being reported “green”

despite task slippage.

► D03 – Analysis of schedule data supports the

conclusion that the project is behind schedule.

► D04 – Schedule management plan is not being

followed.

► D05 – Critical path and resource utilization data

are unavailable, impacting situational awareness.

► D06 – The MES PMP does not allow for iterative

project schedule.

► D15 – OCM plan, normally completed during the

project planning phase, has not been approved.

► D16 – Project risks appearing in RAID log are

closed without clear explanation, leading to a lack

of traceability.

► D19 – A project-wide RAM does not exist.

New

deficiencies

► No new deficiencies addressed since the last report.

Risk ratings ► G5 – Organizational change management changed from Amber (issues and inefficiencies) to Green (no

issues).

► G6 – Performance management changed from Amber (issues and inefficiencies) to Green (no issues).

► P2 – Time management changed from Amber (issues and inefficiencies) to Green (no issues).

► P8 – Risk management changed from Amber (issues and inefficiencies) to Green (no issues).

► P9 – Communications management changed from Amber (issues and inefficiencies) to Green (no issues).

Maturity ratings ► No maturity rating changes since the last report.

Interviews

conducted

► Additional interviews conducted since the last report.

► B. Holland – 21 August 2013

Artifacts

received

► Artifacts received include CMS documents, decision framework, finances, meeting agendas and minutes,

organizational change management (OCM) and training, performance scorecard, project management plan

(PMP), risks, actions, issues and decisions (RAID), requirements, schedule, system integrator (SI) PMP

updates, and status reports.

Supporting information

Page 26

IV&V ratings summary

Supporting information

This chart shows a summary of the

IV&V cube facet ratings (red, amber,

green and grey), and open

deficiencies per month since the

BAR.

The number of cube facet risk

ratings has decreased since the

BAR.

The number of open deficiencies

has decreased since the BAR.

Conclusions:

The project risks are decreasing.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Jul-13 Jul-13 Aug-13

Number

IV&V cube facet ratings and open deficiencies per month

Critical Issues Inefficiencies No Issues Not Evaluated Open Deficiencies

Page 27

Open deficiencies

No. Areas Deficiency Implications Recommendations

D14 G4 – Decision

framework

Decision levels are

based on undefined

(high, medium, low)

levels of item

severity/impact.

► Limited capacity to facilitate timely

decision making and forecast typical

challenges (risks and issues) that

could face the project.

► Inability to deliver a solution that

represents the desired outcomes of

the project.

► Misalignment in project operational

decisions to the intended project

objectives.

► Project team members lack the

knowledge around who makes

decisions (power), why they make

them (alignment), and how they

make them (decision process).

► The project management plan should

explicitly define low, medium, and high

severity/impact to reduce ambiguity and

enable clear lines of decision making.

► The project director should ensure that

all project team members are aware of

the decision framework.

Supporting information