As you may already know from the time between my postings, I do not have time anymore! I am looking for a guest blogger to post to this site. If interested, please contact me via hhscsurvivalist@yahoo.com.
Looking for serious activists! I need help!
Sunday, August 13, 2006
Celia Hagert: Want welfare? Don't count on Texas' new, inadequately staffed system for help
08:17 AM CDT on Thursday, August 3, 2006
Most of us have never had to think about how families in need sign up for public help such as health care and food stamps. Right now, however, an important debate is brewing in the Texas Capitol over the question: How should we sign up people for help?
Since the state's new system for determining eligibility was launched six months ago, more than 100,000 kids have lost their health insurance and the state has left thousands of families without food.
Two years ago, the Legislature told the Health and Human Services Commission to find a way to deliver help with less money. Lured by the private sector's promise of savings, the commission signed a five-year, $899 million contract with the Texas Access Alliance, a consortium of private companies anchored by Accenture LLP.
Under the contract, the private sector promised to modernize the system by using call centers and the Internet. The state told 2,000 of its employees they were losing their jobs and launched the new system in Travis and Hays counties.
The commission claimed that a modernized system run by private companies would reduce workload for staff and improve services to clients. Clients would benefit from state-of-the-art technology, and taxpayers would save hundreds of millions of dollars. This sounds good in theory, but the reality has been a disaster.
Public assistance has become harder to get, and claimed savings never materialized. In May, the state postponed extending the new system and begged a thousand state workers to stay on the job.
We certainly shouldn't go forward with the plan, but we probably shouldn't go back. We need a different direction altogether.
It turns out that signing up for public assistance is not like buying movie tickets on Fandango.
For many reasons, including a desire to hold down costs, the state has a complicated set of rules
about who is entitled to what. It also must verify eligibility.
No one opposes the vision of a state-of-the-art system that increases access to services while saving money. Both are worthy goals. But the state erroneously assumed that poorly trained, low-wage workers could do the jobs of highly trained, higher-wage state employees. In fact, the savings promised by the plan's backers came not from more efficient ways to help clients, but by cutting staff and paying less.
The state's old way of doing things also meant running this complicated system with too few people. Despite growing numbers of Texans in need, the Legislature cut eligibility staff by 40 percent between 1997 and 2004. This doubled workload and compromised services. Disruptions in benefits were common. No one was satisfied with the old way of doing things, which looks good only by comparison.
Whether you get help now might just as well be determined by rolling dice. It is morally reckless to gamble with the well-being of the 4 million Texans who depend on public services – mostly children, the elderly and people with disabilities.
No matter how the state divides duties between the public and private sectors, it needs enough trained staff. As citizens who want to ensure that those who need help get help, we have to be willing to pay for it.
Celia Hagert is a senior policy analyst at the Center for Public Policy Priorities in Austin. Her e-mail address is hagert @cppp.org
Most of us have never had to think about how families in need sign up for public help such as health care and food stamps. Right now, however, an important debate is brewing in the Texas Capitol over the question: How should we sign up people for help?
Since the state's new system for determining eligibility was launched six months ago, more than 100,000 kids have lost their health insurance and the state has left thousands of families without food.
Two years ago, the Legislature told the Health and Human Services Commission to find a way to deliver help with less money. Lured by the private sector's promise of savings, the commission signed a five-year, $899 million contract with the Texas Access Alliance, a consortium of private companies anchored by Accenture LLP.
Under the contract, the private sector promised to modernize the system by using call centers and the Internet. The state told 2,000 of its employees they were losing their jobs and launched the new system in Travis and Hays counties.
The commission claimed that a modernized system run by private companies would reduce workload for staff and improve services to clients. Clients would benefit from state-of-the-art technology, and taxpayers would save hundreds of millions of dollars. This sounds good in theory, but the reality has been a disaster.
Public assistance has become harder to get, and claimed savings never materialized. In May, the state postponed extending the new system and begged a thousand state workers to stay on the job.
We certainly shouldn't go forward with the plan, but we probably shouldn't go back. We need a different direction altogether.
It turns out that signing up for public assistance is not like buying movie tickets on Fandango.
For many reasons, including a desire to hold down costs, the state has a complicated set of rules
about who is entitled to what. It also must verify eligibility.
No one opposes the vision of a state-of-the-art system that increases access to services while saving money. Both are worthy goals. But the state erroneously assumed that poorly trained, low-wage workers could do the jobs of highly trained, higher-wage state employees. In fact, the savings promised by the plan's backers came not from more efficient ways to help clients, but by cutting staff and paying less.
The state's old way of doing things also meant running this complicated system with too few people. Despite growing numbers of Texans in need, the Legislature cut eligibility staff by 40 percent between 1997 and 2004. This doubled workload and compromised services. Disruptions in benefits were common. No one was satisfied with the old way of doing things, which looks good only by comparison.
Whether you get help now might just as well be determined by rolling dice. It is morally reckless to gamble with the well-being of the 4 million Texans who depend on public services – mostly children, the elderly and people with disabilities.
No matter how the state divides duties between the public and private sectors, it needs enough trained staff. As citizens who want to ensure that those who need help get help, we have to be willing to pay for it.
Celia Hagert is a senior policy analyst at the Center for Public Policy Priorities in Austin. Her e-mail address is hagert @cppp.org
States Stumble Privatizing Social Services
Saturday, August 05, 2006
By Christine Vestal -
It sounds like a good idea: Replace state employees with a high-tech contractor to more efficiently screen thousands of applications for state support, and save taxpayers millions.
- That's what Texas and Indiana policy-makers thought. But early results of a privately run social services project in Texas and troubles with the bidding process in Indiana have caused both states to put their bold privatization plans on hold. Last year, Texas chose Bermuda-based high-tech consulting firm Accenture to run the entire eligibility process for Medicaid, food stamps, Temporary Aid for Needy Families (TANF), long-term care and Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). In January, the state launched a pilot privatization program in Travis and Hayes counties near Austin.The plan was to expand it county-by-county, with rollout completed by December 2006. But computer glitches and procedural problems cropped up immediately.
Some 27,000 kids in the pilot program inadvertently were dropped from health insurance coverage, and poor, elderly and handicapped applicants routinely were put on hold for more than 20 minutes, with more than half of all callers hanging up. Thousands waited longer than federal rules permit to find out whether they qualified for urgently needed state assistance, according to state officials.
And in a highly publicized gaffe, Accenture employees mistakenly faxed more than a hundred long-term care applications containing Social Security numbers and sensitive medical information to a Seattle warehouse.
Texas officials are optimistic they can correct the problems and eventually expand the project. But for now, expansion is off indefinitely.
"We recognize that modernizing a system of this size and complexity is never easy," Texas Health & Human Services Commissioner Albert Hawkins said. "But we remain focused on implementing a system that finally allows Texans to choose how they want to apply for services, is built on modern technology and makes the most of limited state resources.
"The pilot program will continue, and most problems already have been corrected, says agency spokeswoman Stephanie Goodman. The 27,000 kids scheduled to lose CHIP coverage were reinstated before they lost service, telephone wait times have been cut to less than two minutes and state workers have taken over processing new applications to allow Accenture to catch up on its backlog, she said.
The state will cut Accenture's contract fee by approximately $50 million because of work not completed between January and June, Goodman said.
Meanwhile in Indiana, Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) put the brakes on his state's search for a social services contractor amid charges of favoritism.
Daniels took over decision-making authority for a proposed 10-year, $1 billion contract last month to quell accusations of preferential treatment by the state's Health and Human Services chief, a former employee of Dallas-based Affiliated Computer Systems, one of the bidding companies.
Indiana state employees complain that Daniels's call for privatization jeopardizes their futures, despite his promise that no state jobs will be eliminated. And advocates for the poor say the secret bidding process, initiated by executive order, leaves no opportunity for public comment and undermines public accountability.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R), up for re-election this year, has heard similar complaints.
Independent gubernatorial candidate and state comptroller Carol Keeton Strayhorn has called for a probe of Texas' privatization contract, and Democratic gubernatorial hopeful Chris Bell has joined a chorus of critics demanding a return to public welfare screening.
Since 1995, when the federal government revamped most welfare programs, states have been free to hire private firms to administer social service block grants and entitlement programs as a cost-cutting measure. But until now, states have given businesses only a limited role, such as providing debit cards for food stamps and developing computer systems to track welfare applications.
Advocates for the poor worry that putting too much responsibility in the hands of profit-motivated companies could endanger the vulnerable people the programs are intended to help.
Federal rules require state employees to make final decisions for some entitlement programs, but letting a private contractor make the initial eligibility cut could have a profound effect on welfare outcomes, they say.
Supporters of privatization argue that antiquated state eligibility systems no longer are cost-effective, and say improvements best can be accomplished by a high-tech, profit-motivated contractor with incentives to operate efficiently.
Texas policy-makers say their plan not only will save taxpayer dollars but modernize the social services eligibility process, allowing people to apply for support over the Internet, by fax, through call centers and at self-serve kiosks. Currently social services applicants must travel to their local social service offices during business hours and wait in line to talk to a caseworker.
Daniels, who left his post as Bush's top budget advisor to run for governor in 2003, grabbed headlines this year when he privatized an Indiana toll road, granting a 75-year lease to a foreign consortium for $3.8 billion.
Most agree that the state welfare eligibility process - with long lines, limited office hours and error rates in the 25 percent rage -- needs improvement. But advocates for the poor argue that the problems result from underfunding and understaffing, not lack of expertise.
"The only people with experience in the complex and sensitive work of determining welfare eligibility are state workers. Why would you hire a high-tech company to do that?" asks Stacey Dean of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, an advocacy group for the poor.
Other privatization critics argue that transferring public services to private companies has been plagued by quality-of-service problems for the last two decades. The concept makes sense and state policy-makers always are eager to save money, but in practice, privatization has failed more than it has succeeded, says Mildred Warner, a privatization expert at Cornell University.
In an analysis of privatization of state and local services over the last 20 years, Warner concluded that the majority of projects failed because of deteriorating quality of service. And in more than half the cases, the projects did not save taxpayer dollars, she said.
Send your comments on this story to
letters@stateline.orgletters at stateline dot org . Selected reader feedback will be posted in the Letters to the Editor section. Source: Contact Christine Vestal at
cvestal@stateline.orgcvestal at stateline dot org - © 2006 stateline.org
By Christine Vestal -
It sounds like a good idea: Replace state employees with a high-tech contractor to more efficiently screen thousands of applications for state support, and save taxpayers millions.
- That's what Texas and Indiana policy-makers thought. But early results of a privately run social services project in Texas and troubles with the bidding process in Indiana have caused both states to put their bold privatization plans on hold. Last year, Texas chose Bermuda-based high-tech consulting firm Accenture to run the entire eligibility process for Medicaid, food stamps, Temporary Aid for Needy Families (TANF), long-term care and Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). In January, the state launched a pilot privatization program in Travis and Hayes counties near Austin.The plan was to expand it county-by-county, with rollout completed by December 2006. But computer glitches and procedural problems cropped up immediately.
Some 27,000 kids in the pilot program inadvertently were dropped from health insurance coverage, and poor, elderly and handicapped applicants routinely were put on hold for more than 20 minutes, with more than half of all callers hanging up. Thousands waited longer than federal rules permit to find out whether they qualified for urgently needed state assistance, according to state officials.
And in a highly publicized gaffe, Accenture employees mistakenly faxed more than a hundred long-term care applications containing Social Security numbers and sensitive medical information to a Seattle warehouse.
Texas officials are optimistic they can correct the problems and eventually expand the project. But for now, expansion is off indefinitely.
"We recognize that modernizing a system of this size and complexity is never easy," Texas Health & Human Services Commissioner Albert Hawkins said. "But we remain focused on implementing a system that finally allows Texans to choose how they want to apply for services, is built on modern technology and makes the most of limited state resources.
"The pilot program will continue, and most problems already have been corrected, says agency spokeswoman Stephanie Goodman. The 27,000 kids scheduled to lose CHIP coverage were reinstated before they lost service, telephone wait times have been cut to less than two minutes and state workers have taken over processing new applications to allow Accenture to catch up on its backlog, she said.
The state will cut Accenture's contract fee by approximately $50 million because of work not completed between January and June, Goodman said.
Meanwhile in Indiana, Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) put the brakes on his state's search for a social services contractor amid charges of favoritism.
Daniels took over decision-making authority for a proposed 10-year, $1 billion contract last month to quell accusations of preferential treatment by the state's Health and Human Services chief, a former employee of Dallas-based Affiliated Computer Systems, one of the bidding companies.
Indiana state employees complain that Daniels's call for privatization jeopardizes their futures, despite his promise that no state jobs will be eliminated. And advocates for the poor say the secret bidding process, initiated by executive order, leaves no opportunity for public comment and undermines public accountability.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R), up for re-election this year, has heard similar complaints.
Independent gubernatorial candidate and state comptroller Carol Keeton Strayhorn has called for a probe of Texas' privatization contract, and Democratic gubernatorial hopeful Chris Bell has joined a chorus of critics demanding a return to public welfare screening.
Since 1995, when the federal government revamped most welfare programs, states have been free to hire private firms to administer social service block grants and entitlement programs as a cost-cutting measure. But until now, states have given businesses only a limited role, such as providing debit cards for food stamps and developing computer systems to track welfare applications.
Advocates for the poor worry that putting too much responsibility in the hands of profit-motivated companies could endanger the vulnerable people the programs are intended to help.
Federal rules require state employees to make final decisions for some entitlement programs, but letting a private contractor make the initial eligibility cut could have a profound effect on welfare outcomes, they say.
Supporters of privatization argue that antiquated state eligibility systems no longer are cost-effective, and say improvements best can be accomplished by a high-tech, profit-motivated contractor with incentives to operate efficiently.
Texas policy-makers say their plan not only will save taxpayer dollars but modernize the social services eligibility process, allowing people to apply for support over the Internet, by fax, through call centers and at self-serve kiosks. Currently social services applicants must travel to their local social service offices during business hours and wait in line to talk to a caseworker.
Daniels, who left his post as Bush's top budget advisor to run for governor in 2003, grabbed headlines this year when he privatized an Indiana toll road, granting a 75-year lease to a foreign consortium for $3.8 billion.
Most agree that the state welfare eligibility process - with long lines, limited office hours and error rates in the 25 percent rage -- needs improvement. But advocates for the poor argue that the problems result from underfunding and understaffing, not lack of expertise.
"The only people with experience in the complex and sensitive work of determining welfare eligibility are state workers. Why would you hire a high-tech company to do that?" asks Stacey Dean of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, an advocacy group for the poor.
Other privatization critics argue that transferring public services to private companies has been plagued by quality-of-service problems for the last two decades. The concept makes sense and state policy-makers always are eager to save money, but in practice, privatization has failed more than it has succeeded, says Mildred Warner, a privatization expert at Cornell University.
In an analysis of privatization of state and local services over the last 20 years, Warner concluded that the majority of projects failed because of deteriorating quality of service. And in more than half the cases, the projects did not save taxpayer dollars, she said.
Send your comments on this story to
letters@stateline.orgletters at stateline dot org . Selected reader feedback will be posted in the Letters to the Editor section. Source: Contact Christine Vestal at
cvestal@stateline.orgcvestal at stateline dot org - © 2006 stateline.org
Good, tenured, caseworkers are now in tears!
Our workers, with years of experience and great stats, are now in tears over their jobs! They can no longer function with the stress at the offices caused by this TIERS boondoggle!
This month, supervisors were given the directive to 'do something about the leadtime' which was running at 28 days in some of the offices, more than 30 in others. Lead time is the time between when the application is actually received and the date we can get them scheduled. Not scheduled timely? Delinquent.
Hello? Is anyone home? Why, do they suppose the lead time is so high? Could it be because we are SHORT STAFFED?! So, the supervisors in one (possibly more) office decided that each worker- temps included - would get a stack of 40 1010's- some reviews, some pure apps- they get to figure out how and when those will get seen- whether it be on their workday- or after hours, or in between regular appts.....what? How the hell does one do that, when they are already overloaded?
So, because they did that- the 'lead time' looks like it's being 'taken care of'. That's just "fudging" the numbers, something the heads at HHSC seem to be very good at. But hey! Problem solved, right?
Workers are now giving up their family and personal time, just to work extra hours, weekends included, so they can try to stay on top of their jobs. NOT WORKING! There's still too much work to be done (DAMN YOU, TAA, ACCENTURE AND HHSC!)
This is occurring Statewide and is taking a serious toll....we have workers out on sick leave all the time, workers in tears when it just gets to be too much (which is everyday), workers who have always been dedicated to their jobs are now wanting to leave. After all, when you compare your health to the job...what do you think is more important!
This month, supervisors were given the directive to 'do something about the leadtime' which was running at 28 days in some of the offices, more than 30 in others. Lead time is the time between when the application is actually received and the date we can get them scheduled. Not scheduled timely? Delinquent.
Hello? Is anyone home? Why, do they suppose the lead time is so high? Could it be because we are SHORT STAFFED?! So, the supervisors in one (possibly more) office decided that each worker- temps included - would get a stack of 40 1010's- some reviews, some pure apps- they get to figure out how and when those will get seen- whether it be on their workday- or after hours, or in between regular appts.....what? How the hell does one do that, when they are already overloaded?
So, because they did that- the 'lead time' looks like it's being 'taken care of'. That's just "fudging" the numbers, something the heads at HHSC seem to be very good at. But hey! Problem solved, right?
Workers are now giving up their family and personal time, just to work extra hours, weekends included, so they can try to stay on top of their jobs. NOT WORKING! There's still too much work to be done (DAMN YOU, TAA, ACCENTURE AND HHSC!)
This is occurring Statewide and is taking a serious toll....we have workers out on sick leave all the time, workers in tears when it just gets to be too much (which is everyday), workers who have always been dedicated to their jobs are now wanting to leave. After all, when you compare your health to the job...what do you think is more important!
Worker tells of training problems with state contractor
Accenture group failed to give her knowledge she needed, she claims
By Corrie MacLaggan
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFFFriday, August 11, 2006
When Amanda Morris started working at a private office that enrolls Texans in public assistance, she was trained to enter information into a computer about people who want to apply for benefits.
But she immediately found that most cases didn't involve signups. Clients needed to renew benefits, make changes to their accounts or update their address.
And she didn't know how to do that.
"I trained for three weeks and was put onto the floor with about 2 percent knowledge of how to do my job," said Morris, 21, who works for a temp agency and has been on assignment since March with the San Antonio office of state contractor Texas Access Alliance.
Problems with worker training are one of the reasons the state has indefinitely delayed statewide rollout of that contractor's new call-in system to enroll Texans in food stamps, Medicaid and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.
Morris' account sheds more light on the problems. A former Texas Access Alliance employee in San Antonio, who asked that her name not be used because it might affect her current job, said Morris' story matches her experience.
The state is paying more than $800 million over five years to the Texas Access Alliance, a consortium of private companies led by Accenture LLP, for the system, which has been in a pilot stage in Travis and Hays counties since January. The privatization was intended to save the state money.
Since the contractor took over, benefits recipients have reported getting inexplicably dropped from public assistance, talking to customer service representatives who couldn't answer their questions and being asked for information they'd already provided.
In response, the private group has retrained its call center employees and overhauled training for new hires, spokeswoman Mindy Brown said this week. Texas Access Alliance "has turned a major corner," she said.
"Our training is intensive and depends on each employee's role," Brown said. "If an employee feels they need additional training to do their job correctly, all they need to do is to speak with their supervisor and additional instruction can be arranged."
Stephanie Goodman, a spokeswoman for the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, said the reports of improved quality is a positive sign but that the state has not yet evaluated that. "We'll measure the success of the training by how well the call-center representatives
respond to client questions and concerns," she said.
Morris, for one, said training sessions she's attended recently were just as ineffective as the original.
She admits she's bitter about her job: her boyfriend was one of several dozen people laid off from the San Antonio office earlier this summer, and she wishes she earned more than her $12-per-hour salary. But she says that as a former recipient of food stamps and Medicaid, she's concerned about the experiences of the 3 million Texans who receive public assistance.
"You have no idea how (messed) up this is getting," said Morris, who works with applications and renewals but does not take calls. "There's misorganization regarding documents. Information gets linked incorrectly or lost altogether."
For example, Morris said she recently found that a public assistance recipient had submitted an address change. But an employee flagged the file to indicate a change of state residency, instead. And another employee who handled the case didn't catch the error. So the family was sent a letter asking about their Texas residency, Morris said.
Morris attributes problems like this to a lack of training and co-workers who are "purposely lazy." In May, Health and Human Services Executive Commissioner Albert Hawkins announced that no new applications will be processed in the privately run San Antonio call center until the contractor improves.
Alton Martin, CEO of Customer Operations Performance Center, Inc., a New York-based call-center consultant, said the training problems aren't surprising.
When he asks call-center representatives at various sites whether they felt ready for their job, "about half the time they'll say training was really bad or nonexistent or not appropriate to the task."
Martin, whose company is not working with the Texas contract but has worked with Accenture on other projects, said that call center quality issues often stem from the contract.
"Maybe the state wasn't rigorous enough," said Martin, who works in Austin. "Lots of times people want to throw the vendor under the bus . . . (But) if you want a fast car, ask for a fast car."
Goodman, though, said the state has set a high bar and is doing its own quality checks.
The private call centers — located in San Antonio, Austin, Midland and Athens — are expected to replace some state offices where Texans sign up for public assistance. The new system gives Texans more ways to apply for public assistance — mail, fax, Internet and phone — as well as in person.
Mary Katherine Stout of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, which advocates for limited government, said those who argue for the state to resume public assistance enrollment overlook problems with the outdated state system.
She recently visited a state benefits office in Fort Worth and found that despite having appointments, Texans were waiting hours. One public assistance recipient told Stout she has a rule of thumb for visiting the state office: pack a lunch.
cmaclaggan@statesman.com; 445-3548.
By Corrie MacLaggan
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFFFriday, August 11, 2006
When Amanda Morris started working at a private office that enrolls Texans in public assistance, she was trained to enter information into a computer about people who want to apply for benefits.
But she immediately found that most cases didn't involve signups. Clients needed to renew benefits, make changes to their accounts or update their address.
And she didn't know how to do that.
"I trained for three weeks and was put onto the floor with about 2 percent knowledge of how to do my job," said Morris, 21, who works for a temp agency and has been on assignment since March with the San Antonio office of state contractor Texas Access Alliance.
Problems with worker training are one of the reasons the state has indefinitely delayed statewide rollout of that contractor's new call-in system to enroll Texans in food stamps, Medicaid and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.
Morris' account sheds more light on the problems. A former Texas Access Alliance employee in San Antonio, who asked that her name not be used because it might affect her current job, said Morris' story matches her experience.
The state is paying more than $800 million over five years to the Texas Access Alliance, a consortium of private companies led by Accenture LLP, for the system, which has been in a pilot stage in Travis and Hays counties since January. The privatization was intended to save the state money.
Since the contractor took over, benefits recipients have reported getting inexplicably dropped from public assistance, talking to customer service representatives who couldn't answer their questions and being asked for information they'd already provided.
In response, the private group has retrained its call center employees and overhauled training for new hires, spokeswoman Mindy Brown said this week. Texas Access Alliance "has turned a major corner," she said.
"Our training is intensive and depends on each employee's role," Brown said. "If an employee feels they need additional training to do their job correctly, all they need to do is to speak with their supervisor and additional instruction can be arranged."
Stephanie Goodman, a spokeswoman for the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, said the reports of improved quality is a positive sign but that the state has not yet evaluated that. "We'll measure the success of the training by how well the call-center representatives
respond to client questions and concerns," she said.
Morris, for one, said training sessions she's attended recently were just as ineffective as the original.
She admits she's bitter about her job: her boyfriend was one of several dozen people laid off from the San Antonio office earlier this summer, and she wishes she earned more than her $12-per-hour salary. But she says that as a former recipient of food stamps and Medicaid, she's concerned about the experiences of the 3 million Texans who receive public assistance.
"You have no idea how (messed) up this is getting," said Morris, who works with applications and renewals but does not take calls. "There's misorganization regarding documents. Information gets linked incorrectly or lost altogether."
For example, Morris said she recently found that a public assistance recipient had submitted an address change. But an employee flagged the file to indicate a change of state residency, instead. And another employee who handled the case didn't catch the error. So the family was sent a letter asking about their Texas residency, Morris said.
Morris attributes problems like this to a lack of training and co-workers who are "purposely lazy." In May, Health and Human Services Executive Commissioner Albert Hawkins announced that no new applications will be processed in the privately run San Antonio call center until the contractor improves.
Alton Martin, CEO of Customer Operations Performance Center, Inc., a New York-based call-center consultant, said the training problems aren't surprising.
When he asks call-center representatives at various sites whether they felt ready for their job, "about half the time they'll say training was really bad or nonexistent or not appropriate to the task."
Martin, whose company is not working with the Texas contract but has worked with Accenture on other projects, said that call center quality issues often stem from the contract.
"Maybe the state wasn't rigorous enough," said Martin, who works in Austin. "Lots of times people want to throw the vendor under the bus . . . (But) if you want a fast car, ask for a fast car."
Goodman, though, said the state has set a high bar and is doing its own quality checks.
The private call centers — located in San Antonio, Austin, Midland and Athens — are expected to replace some state offices where Texans sign up for public assistance. The new system gives Texans more ways to apply for public assistance — mail, fax, Internet and phone — as well as in person.
Mary Katherine Stout of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, which advocates for limited government, said those who argue for the state to resume public assistance enrollment overlook problems with the outdated state system.
She recently visited a state benefits office in Fort Worth and found that despite having appointments, Texans were waiting hours. One public assistance recipient told Stout she has a rule of thumb for visiting the state office: pack a lunch.
cmaclaggan@statesman.com; 445-3548.
Wait Taken Out of Welfare, But Critics Just Aren't Happy
Note from Blogger: I have read articles by this twit in the past. She went into the office with her opinion already formed and failed to ask the right questions.....Like, maybe, why they had to wait so long? Maybe because we no longer have the staff available to do the job?
Visit to welfare field office demonstrates why change is desperately needed
By Mary Katherine Stout
Published: 07-31-06
Six months ago the state launched an ambitious plan to overhaul the way applications for government assistance are handled. But the plan has taken a pummeling at the hands of the state employees union and advocates for bigger government; they have relished the bad news and missteps dominating news reports of the new system.
Like the blacksmiths of a previous age facing the advent of the automobile, critics are calling for it to end before it can begin. (It's already begun - and it does not work!)
By making use of modern tools – such as the Internet and phone that have become standard conveniences today – the new system is designed to control costs, increase efficiency and greatly improve client accessibility. Rather than relying on in-person interviews in a field office with limited hours of operation, the new system allows applicants extended hours by phone, and 24-hour access online.
On July 10th, 30 House members sent Texas Health and Human Services Commissioner Albert Hawkins a letter, expressing support for the new system and its promise to “bring administration of human services programs in Texas into the 21st century.”
Two days later, 60 other members of the Texas House sent an entirely different letter to Commissioner Hawkins urging him to cancel the state’s contract for this new, privatized health and human services eligibility system. They asked him to “commit the remaining resources to rebuild the human services eligibility system that, as little as two years ago, was among the best in the country.”
The contrast in positions could not be more stark.
One side claims the old way is best and should be rebuilt, while the other believes privatization will modernize the system.
Of course, the old system – this “best in the country” system – is still largely intact and serves most recipients of the state’s health and human services programs, since the new system isn’t available statewide. (NO, it is it not intact! Most offices are operating at less than 50% staffing, and that's quoting a high percentage. Some offices don't even have stafff anymore!)
And as critics pan the new system, they seem to hold a romanticized notion of the old ways. Perhaps they should consider what the “old” system looks like.
I drove to a field office outside the “pilot” area to see this old system in action.
I sat for two hours in a room with dozens of people, many of whom arrived long before I did, and would remain long after I left.
One man had been in the same office the day before, only to be told that his application couldn’t be finished before the end of the work day, and he would need to return the next day. On day two he arrived 50 minutes early for an 11 o’clock appointment, but was not seen until after 4 p.m.
As one woman waited for more than three hours for her appointment, she said the rule of thumb for these appointments was to “pack a lunch.” Not long after, she learned her name had been called while stepping outside, missing her “appointment.” She was instructed to return the next day, despite protests she had other state-required appointments to keep and difficulty in finding transportation.
Considering her instructions to return the next day, perhaps she will also begin taking a sleeping bag.
Waiting clients were called for their appointments by name, without regard to privacy. (That's not nearly as bad as TAA mailing a client someone else's COMPLETED application! Or providing a fax number to a warehouse in Seattle!)
We sat in a waiting room with white walls and no reading material; no information on finding a job, getting a degree, locating community resources, getting parenting guidance or child care. Some of those waiting attended to their children. Many talked on their cellular phones.
Most people spent hours just waiting – unproductively.
Perhaps I went to the one office in the state, on the one day of the year, for the two hour period, where things were just terribly wrong, but I doubt it.
While many would argue this is the result of short-staffed offices, the reality is that there is no excuse for a horse-and-buggy system when considering the technology now available.
A system that treats people with such lack of dignity, and with no respect for their time, is simply indefensible. (Wouldn't have to have been that way had that office had enough workers to do the job!)
At one time many of the new system’s critics would have agreed. For years they were quoted in newspapers pointing to the inconvenience of going to a field office for an in-person interview, highlighting the virtues of one-stop shopping, and demanding change based on reports of dissatisfaction. Dissatisfaction with the system they now claim is superior to all others.
Reports of real problems in the new system cannot be taken lightly, and taxpayers should demand efficiency for every tax dollar. But calls to end the rollout and return to the old way are simply insufficient.
To ignore the opportunity to deliver services more efficiently for taxpayers and more conveniently for the recipients, despite having the resources to do so, is unacceptable.
The state must move forward using well-established technologies that deliver better efficiency for taxpayers, along with greater convenience for the recipients of state benefits. (Should we do this at the expense of the client's need for their benefits? New technology would have been welcomed by state workers years ago....why did we have to enable TAA / Accenture to profit from the "new technology plan"???? Now they are making money, our state workers are killing themselves to get the job done and our clients are doing without benefits!)
Mary Katherine Stout is the director of the Center for Health Care Policy Studies at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a non-profit research institute based in Austin.
Visit to welfare field office demonstrates why change is desperately needed
By Mary Katherine Stout
Published: 07-31-06
Six months ago the state launched an ambitious plan to overhaul the way applications for government assistance are handled. But the plan has taken a pummeling at the hands of the state employees union and advocates for bigger government; they have relished the bad news and missteps dominating news reports of the new system.
Like the blacksmiths of a previous age facing the advent of the automobile, critics are calling for it to end before it can begin. (It's already begun - and it does not work!)
By making use of modern tools – such as the Internet and phone that have become standard conveniences today – the new system is designed to control costs, increase efficiency and greatly improve client accessibility. Rather than relying on in-person interviews in a field office with limited hours of operation, the new system allows applicants extended hours by phone, and 24-hour access online.
On July 10th, 30 House members sent Texas Health and Human Services Commissioner Albert Hawkins a letter, expressing support for the new system and its promise to “bring administration of human services programs in Texas into the 21st century.”
Two days later, 60 other members of the Texas House sent an entirely different letter to Commissioner Hawkins urging him to cancel the state’s contract for this new, privatized health and human services eligibility system. They asked him to “commit the remaining resources to rebuild the human services eligibility system that, as little as two years ago, was among the best in the country.”
The contrast in positions could not be more stark.
One side claims the old way is best and should be rebuilt, while the other believes privatization will modernize the system.
Of course, the old system – this “best in the country” system – is still largely intact and serves most recipients of the state’s health and human services programs, since the new system isn’t available statewide. (NO, it is it not intact! Most offices are operating at less than 50% staffing, and that's quoting a high percentage. Some offices don't even have stafff anymore!)
And as critics pan the new system, they seem to hold a romanticized notion of the old ways. Perhaps they should consider what the “old” system looks like.
I drove to a field office outside the “pilot” area to see this old system in action.
I sat for two hours in a room with dozens of people, many of whom arrived long before I did, and would remain long after I left.
One man had been in the same office the day before, only to be told that his application couldn’t be finished before the end of the work day, and he would need to return the next day. On day two he arrived 50 minutes early for an 11 o’clock appointment, but was not seen until after 4 p.m.
As one woman waited for more than three hours for her appointment, she said the rule of thumb for these appointments was to “pack a lunch.” Not long after, she learned her name had been called while stepping outside, missing her “appointment.” She was instructed to return the next day, despite protests she had other state-required appointments to keep and difficulty in finding transportation.
Considering her instructions to return the next day, perhaps she will also begin taking a sleeping bag.
Waiting clients were called for their appointments by name, without regard to privacy. (That's not nearly as bad as TAA mailing a client someone else's COMPLETED application! Or providing a fax number to a warehouse in Seattle!)
We sat in a waiting room with white walls and no reading material; no information on finding a job, getting a degree, locating community resources, getting parenting guidance or child care. Some of those waiting attended to their children. Many talked on their cellular phones.
Most people spent hours just waiting – unproductively.
Perhaps I went to the one office in the state, on the one day of the year, for the two hour period, where things were just terribly wrong, but I doubt it.
While many would argue this is the result of short-staffed offices, the reality is that there is no excuse for a horse-and-buggy system when considering the technology now available.
A system that treats people with such lack of dignity, and with no respect for their time, is simply indefensible. (Wouldn't have to have been that way had that office had enough workers to do the job!)
At one time many of the new system’s critics would have agreed. For years they were quoted in newspapers pointing to the inconvenience of going to a field office for an in-person interview, highlighting the virtues of one-stop shopping, and demanding change based on reports of dissatisfaction. Dissatisfaction with the system they now claim is superior to all others.
Reports of real problems in the new system cannot be taken lightly, and taxpayers should demand efficiency for every tax dollar. But calls to end the rollout and return to the old way are simply insufficient.
To ignore the opportunity to deliver services more efficiently for taxpayers and more conveniently for the recipients, despite having the resources to do so, is unacceptable.
The state must move forward using well-established technologies that deliver better efficiency for taxpayers, along with greater convenience for the recipients of state benefits. (Should we do this at the expense of the client's need for their benefits? New technology would have been welcomed by state workers years ago....why did we have to enable TAA / Accenture to profit from the "new technology plan"???? Now they are making money, our state workers are killing themselves to get the job done and our clients are doing without benefits!)
Mary Katherine Stout is the director of the Center for Health Care Policy Studies at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a non-profit research institute based in Austin.
Letter to Austin American Statesman & reply
DEAR SIRS:
I AM A DISABLED TEXAN, UNDER THE AGE OF 65, YET STILL RECEIVE BENEFITS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS IN THE QMB AND FOOD STAMP PROGRAM. BECAUSE I AM DISABLED, IT IS VERY HARD FOR ME TO TAKE THE REQUIRED TIME TO UTILIZE THE NEW AND "IMPROVED" PROGRAM. I HAVE HAD MAJOR NECK AND BACK SURGERY THIS YEAR ALONE, WITH SERIOUS LIFE THREATENING COMPLICATIONS WITH THE BACK SURGERY I AM STILL TRYING TO RECUPERATE FROM. I DO NOT SEE WHAT WAS WRONG WITH THE SYSTEM THAT IS TRIED AND TRUE. WHY FIX SOMETHING THAT IS NOT BROKEN?
SINCERELY,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
*****************************************
Thank you for your insight. I'm sorry to hear about your difficult situation. Sounds like for you things would have been better the old way. Thanks again for writing.
Sincerely,
Corrie MacLagganHealth and human services reporter
Austin American-Statesman
305 S. Congress Ave.Austin, TX 78704
512.445.3548
I AM A DISABLED TEXAN, UNDER THE AGE OF 65, YET STILL RECEIVE BENEFITS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS IN THE QMB AND FOOD STAMP PROGRAM. BECAUSE I AM DISABLED, IT IS VERY HARD FOR ME TO TAKE THE REQUIRED TIME TO UTILIZE THE NEW AND "IMPROVED" PROGRAM. I HAVE HAD MAJOR NECK AND BACK SURGERY THIS YEAR ALONE, WITH SERIOUS LIFE THREATENING COMPLICATIONS WITH THE BACK SURGERY I AM STILL TRYING TO RECUPERATE FROM. I DO NOT SEE WHAT WAS WRONG WITH THE SYSTEM THAT IS TRIED AND TRUE. WHY FIX SOMETHING THAT IS NOT BROKEN?
SINCERELY,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
*****************************************
Thank you for your insight. I'm sorry to hear about your difficult situation. Sounds like for you things would have been better the old way. Thanks again for writing.
Sincerely,
Corrie MacLagganHealth and human services reporter
Austin American-Statesman
305 S. Congress Ave.Austin, TX 78704
512.445.3548
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE FROM TEXAS STATE EMPLOYEES UNION
July 18, 2006 CONTACT WILL ROGERS@ 512/448-4225 OR wrogers@cwa-tseu.org
Ample reasons to fire Accenture
Austin-The Texas State Employees Union today said that failure by Accenture to carry out terms of its call center contract with the state Health and Human Service Commission provides ample grounds for canceling the contract.
"Accenture, for example, was supposed to train call center staff to process applications for services and to have integrated key software components that were essential to making the call centers work, but it failed to do either," Gross said. "These failures and others caused thousands of people to not get services or to experience unacceptable service delays."
The Austin American Statesman reported today that an HHSC attorney said that he couldn't find "anything that I've seen that represents something that in my opinion would require termination."
TSEU conducted a quick review of one portion of one section of the contract and found two serious breaches.
According to Section 10.03 (A), Accenture prior to implementation of call center pilot was supposed to have trained Texas Access Alliance (the call center subcontractors) personnel, but either didn't do so or did a very poor job.
Since the call centers have been put on hiatus, call center staff have been sent to local state eligibility offices for on-the-job training. Essentially, HHSC is now doing what it contracted with Accenture to do.
According to Section 10.03 (B), Accenture prior to implementation of the pilot was to have completed "integration of TIERS and MAXe3," two software applications whose integration was supposed to have made it possible for information gathered at the call centers to be seamlessly transferred to HHSC computers.
However, this integration is still not complete, and failure to complete this integration caused delays in providing services to people in need and in some cases caused eligible applicants to not receive services.
"We found these two major violation of the contract after a cursory review of just one small section of the contract" Gross said. "I'm sure this is just the tip of the iceberg."
Gross reiterated that TSEU supports the call made last week by a bi-partisan group of 60 state House members to cancel the Accenture contract and to use the money earmarked for it to rebuild the state's health and human services delivery capacity, which has atrophied since HHSC decided to privatize eligibility services.
To date, HHSC has paid Accenture more than $100 million even though the company has been unable to deliver the services stipulated in the contract that it signed last summer.
July 18, 2006 CONTACT WILL ROGERS@ 512/448-4225 OR wrogers@cwa-tseu.org
Ample reasons to fire Accenture
Austin-The Texas State Employees Union today said that failure by Accenture to carry out terms of its call center contract with the state Health and Human Service Commission provides ample grounds for canceling the contract.
"Accenture, for example, was supposed to train call center staff to process applications for services and to have integrated key software components that were essential to making the call centers work, but it failed to do either," Gross said. "These failures and others caused thousands of people to not get services or to experience unacceptable service delays."
The Austin American Statesman reported today that an HHSC attorney said that he couldn't find "anything that I've seen that represents something that in my opinion would require termination."
TSEU conducted a quick review of one portion of one section of the contract and found two serious breaches.
According to Section 10.03 (A), Accenture prior to implementation of call center pilot was supposed to have trained Texas Access Alliance (the call center subcontractors) personnel, but either didn't do so or did a very poor job.
Since the call centers have been put on hiatus, call center staff have been sent to local state eligibility offices for on-the-job training. Essentially, HHSC is now doing what it contracted with Accenture to do.
According to Section 10.03 (B), Accenture prior to implementation of the pilot was to have completed "integration of TIERS and MAXe3," two software applications whose integration was supposed to have made it possible for information gathered at the call centers to be seamlessly transferred to HHSC computers.
However, this integration is still not complete, and failure to complete this integration caused delays in providing services to people in need and in some cases caused eligible applicants to not receive services.
"We found these two major violation of the contract after a cursory review of just one small section of the contract" Gross said. "I'm sure this is just the tip of the iceberg."
Gross reiterated that TSEU supports the call made last week by a bi-partisan group of 60 state House members to cancel the Accenture contract and to use the money earmarked for it to rebuild the state's health and human services delivery capacity, which has atrophied since HHSC decided to privatize eligibility services.
To date, HHSC has paid Accenture more than $100 million even though the company has been unable to deliver the services stipulated in the contract that it signed last summer.
Friday, July 28, 2006
Lawmakers hear update on Accenture contract Problems persist despite
By Corrie MacLaggan mailto:cmaclaggan@statesman.com
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Thursday, July 27, 2006
Despite some improvements in the state's system to enroll Texans in public assistance, many are still improperly being denied benefits, a House panel heard Wednesday from organizations that work closely with some of the 3 million Texans who receive food stamps, welfare and Medicaid.
The Texas Health and Human Services Commission and Accenture LLP, the lead contractor in a state agreement worth more than $800 million over five years, have come under fire recently for the private company's call centers.
The contractor is enrolling recipients in the Travis County and Hays County pilot area; Health and Human Services Executive Commissioner Albert Hawkins this year delayed rolling out the system statewide.
The contractor is already handling statewide applications for children's Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program.
The system "has real and urgent problems that require real and urgent solutions," said Carlos Uresti, a San Antonio Democrat and the chairman of the House Government Reform Committee.
The most emotional testimony came when a Missouri City mother told the committee that the health insurance of her 9-year-old son, who has special needs, was inexplicably canceled.
"We need for you to really look and understand that it's the children here that we're sacrificing," Lorna Harvey, holding back tears, told the panel.
Problems with the eligibility system, one of several components of the contract with Accenture, include long wait times and inadequate training of customer service representatives.
Hawkins said other components of the contract, including the maintenance of TIERS, the computer backbone of the enrollment system, are mainly going well. He told legislators that he'd give the contractor an 'A' grade for those efforts. But for the eligibility system, which involves closing some offices where Texans apply for public assistance and taking applications by phone, mail, fax and Internet?
Incomplete, he said. (That's the best he could come up with?)
CHIP enrollment has continued to decline since the Texas Access Alliance, Accenture's group, took over the program in November. It's about 300,000, down from 500,000 in 2002.
Representatives from Accenture, which has received about $103 million so far for all aspects of its state contract, attributed some of the problems with its work to CHIP.
"We are working hard to make it easy for the people of Texas to receive services for which they qualify," said Randy Willis, managing director for delivery excellence with the USA Government Operating Unit of Accenture.
"We are not where we want to be . . . but we are seeing progress."
But Barbara Best, Texas executive director of the Children's Defense Fund, a national child advocacy organization, said she has been documenting recent cases of eligible children disenrolled from services because of processing errors. For example, some children who were denied services for being noncitizens are in fact citizens who have been receiving public assistance for years.
"I fear that these cases represent thousands more of families who never make it through the process," Best said.
A bipartisan group of 60 legislators earlier this month signed a letter asking Hawkins to cancel the contract with Accenture. The same week, a group of 30 Republican representatives indicated their support for the system.
The system has become a gubernatorial campaign issue.
"The privatization of Texas Health and Human Services has been a horrible waste of money," Democratic candidate Chris Bell said Wednesday. "The Accenture contract is just one example of the culture of corruption and corporate cronyism recommended by Comptroller (Carole Keeton) Strayhorn and signed into law by Governor Perry."
A spokesman for Strayhorn, an independent candidate who as comptroller is investigating the state's contract with Accenture, said that problems at the Health and Human Services Commission "are a direct result of this governor's failed leadership and misplaced priorities."
Independent candidate Kinky Friedman's campaign spokeswoman said that
letting a private company run the state's public assistance enrollment was "an experiment gone awry."
Robert Black, a campaign spokesman for Perry, said some wrinkles are to be expected in any major transition.
"But the governor still firmly believes that the reforms put in place by the legislature are the right way to go, that the state will see tremendous savings and that ultimately the consumers of these benefits are going to see much better service," he said.
cmaclaggan@statesman.com; 445-3548
Additional material by staff writer Jason Embry.
The story so far
The state hired the Texas Access Alliance, a private consortium headed by Accenture LLP, to run a call-in system for Texans to apply for Medicaid, food stamps and other benefits. Four call centers are set to replace some benefits offices under the contract, which originally was projected to cost $899 million and lead to the elimination of 2,900 state jobs.
Venting concerns over public aid
* A pilot program began in Travis and Hays counties in January. The system was supposed to go statewide later this year, but that plan was put on hold because of problems.
* Customers have complained of long waits, problems getting benefits and incorrect information from Accenture.
* The cost of the contract and the number of jobs that will be eliminated have been reduced because of the problems.
*State officials had projected $646 million in savings through the plan.
Officials said Wednesday that they think 'the savings expectations will be satisfied.'
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Thursday, July 27, 2006
Despite some improvements in the state's system to enroll Texans in public assistance, many are still improperly being denied benefits, a House panel heard Wednesday from organizations that work closely with some of the 3 million Texans who receive food stamps, welfare and Medicaid.
The Texas Health and Human Services Commission and Accenture LLP, the lead contractor in a state agreement worth more than $800 million over five years, have come under fire recently for the private company's call centers.
The contractor is enrolling recipients in the Travis County and Hays County pilot area; Health and Human Services Executive Commissioner Albert Hawkins this year delayed rolling out the system statewide.
The contractor is already handling statewide applications for children's Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program.
The system "has real and urgent problems that require real and urgent solutions," said Carlos Uresti, a San Antonio Democrat and the chairman of the House Government Reform Committee.
The most emotional testimony came when a Missouri City mother told the committee that the health insurance of her 9-year-old son, who has special needs, was inexplicably canceled.
"We need for you to really look and understand that it's the children here that we're sacrificing," Lorna Harvey, holding back tears, told the panel.
Problems with the eligibility system, one of several components of the contract with Accenture, include long wait times and inadequate training of customer service representatives.
Hawkins said other components of the contract, including the maintenance of TIERS, the computer backbone of the enrollment system, are mainly going well. He told legislators that he'd give the contractor an 'A' grade for those efforts. But for the eligibility system, which involves closing some offices where Texans apply for public assistance and taking applications by phone, mail, fax and Internet?
Incomplete, he said. (That's the best he could come up with?)
CHIP enrollment has continued to decline since the Texas Access Alliance, Accenture's group, took over the program in November. It's about 300,000, down from 500,000 in 2002.
Representatives from Accenture, which has received about $103 million so far for all aspects of its state contract, attributed some of the problems with its work to CHIP.
"We are working hard to make it easy for the people of Texas to receive services for which they qualify," said Randy Willis, managing director for delivery excellence with the USA Government Operating Unit of Accenture.
"We are not where we want to be . . . but we are seeing progress."
But Barbara Best, Texas executive director of the Children's Defense Fund, a national child advocacy organization, said she has been documenting recent cases of eligible children disenrolled from services because of processing errors. For example, some children who were denied services for being noncitizens are in fact citizens who have been receiving public assistance for years.
"I fear that these cases represent thousands more of families who never make it through the process," Best said.
A bipartisan group of 60 legislators earlier this month signed a letter asking Hawkins to cancel the contract with Accenture. The same week, a group of 30 Republican representatives indicated their support for the system.
The system has become a gubernatorial campaign issue.
"The privatization of Texas Health and Human Services has been a horrible waste of money," Democratic candidate Chris Bell said Wednesday. "The Accenture contract is just one example of the culture of corruption and corporate cronyism recommended by Comptroller (Carole Keeton) Strayhorn and signed into law by Governor Perry."
A spokesman for Strayhorn, an independent candidate who as comptroller is investigating the state's contract with Accenture, said that problems at the Health and Human Services Commission "are a direct result of this governor's failed leadership and misplaced priorities."
Independent candidate Kinky Friedman's campaign spokeswoman said that
letting a private company run the state's public assistance enrollment was "an experiment gone awry."
Robert Black, a campaign spokesman for Perry, said some wrinkles are to be expected in any major transition.
"But the governor still firmly believes that the reforms put in place by the legislature are the right way to go, that the state will see tremendous savings and that ultimately the consumers of these benefits are going to see much better service," he said.
cmaclaggan@statesman.com; 445-3548
Additional material by staff writer Jason Embry.
The story so far
The state hired the Texas Access Alliance, a private consortium headed by Accenture LLP, to run a call-in system for Texans to apply for Medicaid, food stamps and other benefits. Four call centers are set to replace some benefits offices under the contract, which originally was projected to cost $899 million and lead to the elimination of 2,900 state jobs.
Venting concerns over public aid
* A pilot program began in Travis and Hays counties in January. The system was supposed to go statewide later this year, but that plan was put on hold because of problems.
* Customers have complained of long waits, problems getting benefits and incorrect information from Accenture.
* The cost of the contract and the number of jobs that will be eliminated have been reduced because of the problems.
*State officials had projected $646 million in savings through the plan.
Officials said Wednesday that they think 'the savings expectations will be satisfied.'
Job Postings! (Does it look like we're going backwards, folks?)
These are positions coming available in my Region. Wouldn't be hard to figure which one that is but this is public knowledge anyway. You know - if they had bothered to listen to the people who actually did the work and dealt with the recipients, and hadn't played their games, we might not be in such a predicament now!
ART Staff
1 Lead Worker (B6).
4 Senior Disposition Workers (B5).
1 Unit Secretary (A10). This position will be housed in Marshall.
ME
1 ME Manager (B15). This is a state wide position that may be filled in any of the regions throughout the state.
2 ME Assistant Managers (B14). These are also state wide positions. The locations have yet to be determined. They probably will not be posted until the Manager job is filled.
2 Unit Supervisor ME (B7). Selected applicants for these positions would be placed in their current location contingent on available space.
2 Lead Worker ME (B6). Selected applicants for these positions would be placed in their current location contingent on available space.
2 Unit Secretary ME (A10). These positions will be housed with the selected Unit Supervisor.
4 Senior Disposition Worker ME (B5). Selected applicants for these positions would be placed in their current location contingent on available space.
8 Disposition Worker ME Call Center (B4). These positions are not new, however when they become vacant they will be filled via the perpetual postings. Staff interested in these positions should apply to both the ME Disposition Worker perpetual posting and the Call Center ME Disposition Worker posting. ME Call Center staff will be housed in their current location contingent on space available.
ART Staff
1 Lead Worker (B6).
4 Senior Disposition Workers (B5).
1 Unit Secretary (A10). This position will be housed in Marshall.
ME
1 ME Manager (B15). This is a state wide position that may be filled in any of the regions throughout the state.
2 ME Assistant Managers (B14). These are also state wide positions. The locations have yet to be determined. They probably will not be posted until the Manager job is filled.
2 Unit Supervisor ME (B7). Selected applicants for these positions would be placed in their current location contingent on available space.
2 Lead Worker ME (B6). Selected applicants for these positions would be placed in their current location contingent on available space.
2 Unit Secretary ME (A10). These positions will be housed with the selected Unit Supervisor.
4 Senior Disposition Worker ME (B5). Selected applicants for these positions would be placed in their current location contingent on available space.
8 Disposition Worker ME Call Center (B4). These positions are not new, however when they become vacant they will be filled via the perpetual postings. Staff interested in these positions should apply to both the ME Disposition Worker perpetual posting and the Call Center ME Disposition Worker posting. ME Call Center staff will be housed in their current location contingent on space available.
Monday, July 17, 2006
Why did the chicken cross the road?
DR. PHIL
The problem we have here is that this chicken won't realize that he must first deal with the problem on "THIS" side of the road before it goes after the problem on the "OTHER SIDE" of the road. What we need to do is help him realize how stupid he's acting by not taking on his "CURRENT" problems before adding "NEW" problems.
OPRAH
Well, I understand that the chicken is having problems, which is why he wants to cross this road so bad. So instead of having the chicken learn from his mistakes and take falls, which is a part of life, I'm going to give this chicken a car so that he can just drive across the road and not live his life like the rest of the chickens.
GEORGE W BUSH
We don't really care why the chicken crossed the road. We just want to know if the chicken is on our side of the road, or not. The chicken is either against us, or for us. There is no middle ground here.
COLIN POWELL
Now to the left of the screen, you can clearly see the satellite image of the chicken crossing the road...
ANDERSON COOPER- CNN
We have reason to believe there is a chicken, but we have not yet been allowed to have access to the other side of the road.
JOHN KERRY
Although I voted to let the chicken cross the road, I am now against it! It was the wrong road to cross, and I was misled about the chicken's intentions. I am not for it now, and will remain against it.
NANCY GRACE
That chicken crossed the road because he's GUILTY! You can see it in his eyes and the way he walks.
PAT BUCHANAN
To steal the job of a decent, hardworking American.
MARTHA STEWART
No one called me to warn me which way that chicken was going.I had a standing order at the Farmer's Market to sell my eggs when theprice dropped to a certain level. No little bird gave me any insiderinformation.
DR SEUSS
Did the chicken cross the road? Did he cross it with a toad? Yes, the chicken crossed the road, but why it crossed I've not been told.
ERNEST HEMINGWAY
To die in the rain. Alone.
JERRY FALWELL
Because the chicken was gay! Can't you people see the plaintruth in front of your face? The chicken was going to the "otherside." That's why they call it the "other side." Yes, my friends, that chicken is gay. And if you eat that chicken, you will become gay too. I say we boycott all chickens until we sort out this abomination that the liberal media whitewashes with seemingly harmless phrases like"the other side." That chicken should not be be crossing the road. It's as plain and simple as that!
GRANDPA
In my day we didn't ask why the chicken crossed the road. Somebody told us the chicken crossed the road, and that was good enough.
BARBARA WALTERS
Isn't that interesting? In a few moments, we will be listening to the chicken tell, for the first time, the heart warming story of how it experienced a serious case of molting, and went on to accomplish its life long dream of crossing the road.
JOHN LENNON
Imagine all the chickens in the world crossing roads together, in peace.
ARISTOTLE
It is the nature of chickens to cross the road.
BILL GATES
I have just released eChicken2005, which will not only crossroads, but will lay eggs, file your important documents, and balance your check book. Internet Explorer is an integral part of eChicken. This new platform is much more stable and will never cra...#@&&^( C \..... reboot.
ALBERT EINSTEIN
Did the chicken really cross the road, or did the road move beneath the chicken?
BILL CLINTON
I did not cross the road with THAT chicken. What is your definition of chicken?
AL GORE
I invented the chicken!
COLONEL SANDERS
Did I miss one?
STATE of TEXAS
We are not really concerned as to Why the chicken crossed. Rather we are determined to alleviate the burdens the chicken had in crossing said road. Difficulties like not having access to alternate crossing strategies. Therefore, so that the Chicken will gain greater access to the Other Side of the Road, & save precious taxpayer monies, we will Privatize the Road. The private corporation will install a fee booth on both sides of the road. The private company’s employees will man the booths and provide much easier access to the benefit of road crossing. Additionally, the chicken will apply by computer online for permission. With this new process the chicken will provide information and verification as to WHY he wanted to cross. Once all verification is submitted the booth attendants will receive a task on their computer screen allowing the chicken to pass or to request new information. In this way all the chickens of the STATE of TEXAS will be better served. AND, the STATE of TEXAS will save $$$ by not having to maintain the road.
Note from Blogger: Again, this was received from another "source". I do know of the author but will not list his name in case he would rather it was "protected". Author from the State of Texas - if you wish to identify yourself, feel free. I enjoyed Texas' response to the dilemma of the chicken! It is so true! :)
The problem we have here is that this chicken won't realize that he must first deal with the problem on "THIS" side of the road before it goes after the problem on the "OTHER SIDE" of the road. What we need to do is help him realize how stupid he's acting by not taking on his "CURRENT" problems before adding "NEW" problems.
OPRAH
Well, I understand that the chicken is having problems, which is why he wants to cross this road so bad. So instead of having the chicken learn from his mistakes and take falls, which is a part of life, I'm going to give this chicken a car so that he can just drive across the road and not live his life like the rest of the chickens.
GEORGE W BUSH
We don't really care why the chicken crossed the road. We just want to know if the chicken is on our side of the road, or not. The chicken is either against us, or for us. There is no middle ground here.
COLIN POWELL
Now to the left of the screen, you can clearly see the satellite image of the chicken crossing the road...
ANDERSON COOPER- CNN
We have reason to believe there is a chicken, but we have not yet been allowed to have access to the other side of the road.
JOHN KERRY
Although I voted to let the chicken cross the road, I am now against it! It was the wrong road to cross, and I was misled about the chicken's intentions. I am not for it now, and will remain against it.
NANCY GRACE
That chicken crossed the road because he's GUILTY! You can see it in his eyes and the way he walks.
PAT BUCHANAN
To steal the job of a decent, hardworking American.
MARTHA STEWART
No one called me to warn me which way that chicken was going.I had a standing order at the Farmer's Market to sell my eggs when theprice dropped to a certain level. No little bird gave me any insiderinformation.
DR SEUSS
Did the chicken cross the road? Did he cross it with a toad? Yes, the chicken crossed the road, but why it crossed I've not been told.
ERNEST HEMINGWAY
To die in the rain. Alone.
JERRY FALWELL
Because the chicken was gay! Can't you people see the plaintruth in front of your face? The chicken was going to the "otherside." That's why they call it the "other side." Yes, my friends, that chicken is gay. And if you eat that chicken, you will become gay too. I say we boycott all chickens until we sort out this abomination that the liberal media whitewashes with seemingly harmless phrases like"the other side." That chicken should not be be crossing the road. It's as plain and simple as that!
GRANDPA
In my day we didn't ask why the chicken crossed the road. Somebody told us the chicken crossed the road, and that was good enough.
BARBARA WALTERS
Isn't that interesting? In a few moments, we will be listening to the chicken tell, for the first time, the heart warming story of how it experienced a serious case of molting, and went on to accomplish its life long dream of crossing the road.
JOHN LENNON
Imagine all the chickens in the world crossing roads together, in peace.
ARISTOTLE
It is the nature of chickens to cross the road.
BILL GATES
I have just released eChicken2005, which will not only crossroads, but will lay eggs, file your important documents, and balance your check book. Internet Explorer is an integral part of eChicken. This new platform is much more stable and will never cra...#@&&^( C \..... reboot.
ALBERT EINSTEIN
Did the chicken really cross the road, or did the road move beneath the chicken?
BILL CLINTON
I did not cross the road with THAT chicken. What is your definition of chicken?
AL GORE
I invented the chicken!
COLONEL SANDERS
Did I miss one?
STATE of TEXAS
We are not really concerned as to Why the chicken crossed. Rather we are determined to alleviate the burdens the chicken had in crossing said road. Difficulties like not having access to alternate crossing strategies. Therefore, so that the Chicken will gain greater access to the Other Side of the Road, & save precious taxpayer monies, we will Privatize the Road. The private corporation will install a fee booth on both sides of the road. The private company’s employees will man the booths and provide much easier access to the benefit of road crossing. Additionally, the chicken will apply by computer online for permission. With this new process the chicken will provide information and verification as to WHY he wanted to cross. Once all verification is submitted the booth attendants will receive a task on their computer screen allowing the chicken to pass or to request new information. In this way all the chickens of the STATE of TEXAS will be better served. AND, the STATE of TEXAS will save $$$ by not having to maintain the road.
Note from Blogger: Again, this was received from another "source". I do know of the author but will not list his name in case he would rather it was "protected". Author from the State of Texas - if you wish to identify yourself, feel free. I enjoyed Texas' response to the dilemma of the chicken! It is so true! :)
I love my job I love my job I love my job....
Nope, still not working.
I used to love my job I used to love my job I used to love my job..................Today, I wanted to walk out! I have hundreds of changes due by this cutoff, which is Wednesday as you all know. I have lost my supervisor and now I have to do my job as well as hers. I can't even answer my phone anymore because if I did, I'd never get anything done (which I'm not anyway because I'm constantly handling complaints at the front desk!) Our workers can't even get their work done timely now but we are expected to "loan" workers to other offices?!? This has gotten completely out of hand!
Now they say that Worker IVs can no longer be "acting supervisors". WELL HELL - Get me a damn supervisor so I don't have to do that job also! These idiots have really pissed me off now!
Anyone reading this an attorney? Know an attorney? We need a class action lawsuit against the State of Texas!
Note from blogger: Received from a "front line staff", names and offices always protected, of course.
I used to love my job I used to love my job I used to love my job..................Today, I wanted to walk out! I have hundreds of changes due by this cutoff, which is Wednesday as you all know. I have lost my supervisor and now I have to do my job as well as hers. I can't even answer my phone anymore because if I did, I'd never get anything done (which I'm not anyway because I'm constantly handling complaints at the front desk!) Our workers can't even get their work done timely now but we are expected to "loan" workers to other offices?!? This has gotten completely out of hand!
Now they say that Worker IVs can no longer be "acting supervisors". WELL HELL - Get me a damn supervisor so I don't have to do that job also! These idiots have really pissed me off now!
Anyone reading this an attorney? Know an attorney? We need a class action lawsuit against the State of Texas!
Note from blogger: Received from a "front line staff", names and offices always protected, of course.
NOTE FROM BLOGGER: This is not HHSC related but I found it absurd and ridiculous! We have got to change the administration in Texas!!!!!
NEWSclips Date: July 17, 2006
Death row for doctors? Absurd - but possible By Editorial Board Austin American-Statesman Imagine a Texas doctor facing the possibility of the death penalty for performing an abortion on a willing minor or even a grown woman. Although some of the most extreme opponents of abortion might welcome just such a prosecution, the idea probably sounds far-fetched to most Texans.
But the Texas District and County Attorneys Association says in a guide to state laws enacted in 2005 by the Legislature that just such a prosecution is possible, even if it is "undoubtedly an unintended consequence" of an effort to limit abortions by teenage girls and women in their third trimester unless their health was endangered.
This interpretation of the law, which even abortion activists reject, is worrisome. Remember, abortion itself remains legal, even constitutionally protected under several U.S. Supreme Court rulings. Lawmakers say they never intended to make doctors vulnerable to a capital murder charge, but this is Texas, where an ambitious prosecutor in a strongly anti-abortion county might well decide to score some political points by bringing just such a case if the opportunity arose.
State Rep. David Swinford, chairman of the House State Affairs Committee, doesn't think the association is right - but he's concerned enough to have asked Attorney General Greg Abbott for a formal legal opinion.
Here's the situation:
A law passed in 2003 makes killing an "unborn child" at any stage of pregnancy a capital murder offense. But a legal defense to such a charge is that a doctor was performing a legal abortion.
Then, in 2005, the Legislature passed a law that requires pregnant girls under 18 to have parental permission or a court order to get an abortion and bars most third trimester abortions. Put the two laws together, the prosecutors' guidebook points out, and a doctor who aborted the pregnancy of a woman in her seventh or higher month of pregnancy or a minor who did not have parental or court permission theoretically could face a capital murder charge.
Even anti-abortion groups are shying away from such an interpretation, though apparently more because of political reality than principled objection to the idea of such a prosecution. Kyleen Wright, president of Texans For Life Coalition, said murder prosecutions were not the intent of the new law and: "We're not trying to get out ahead of public opinion."
Those who oppose abortion want eventually to make it illegal, she said, with "stiff measures to act as a deterrent" - though not capital punishment.
After all, she said, even among abortion opponents there are diverse views about the morality of capital punishment.
Sarah Wheat, spokeswoman for NARAL Pro-Choice Texas, said she welcomed the request for the attorney general's opinion because "when it comes to abortion, you can't assume anything."
Wheat is right. Somewhere in Texas a prosecutor is looking at the new abortion law and thinking, "Hmm . . ."
http://online.dshs.state.tx.us/oc/newsclips/default.htm
NEWSclips Date: July 17, 2006
Death row for doctors? Absurd - but possible By Editorial Board Austin American-Statesman Imagine a Texas doctor facing the possibility of the death penalty for performing an abortion on a willing minor or even a grown woman. Although some of the most extreme opponents of abortion might welcome just such a prosecution, the idea probably sounds far-fetched to most Texans.
But the Texas District and County Attorneys Association says in a guide to state laws enacted in 2005 by the Legislature that just such a prosecution is possible, even if it is "undoubtedly an unintended consequence" of an effort to limit abortions by teenage girls and women in their third trimester unless their health was endangered.
This interpretation of the law, which even abortion activists reject, is worrisome. Remember, abortion itself remains legal, even constitutionally protected under several U.S. Supreme Court rulings. Lawmakers say they never intended to make doctors vulnerable to a capital murder charge, but this is Texas, where an ambitious prosecutor in a strongly anti-abortion county might well decide to score some political points by bringing just such a case if the opportunity arose.
State Rep. David Swinford, chairman of the House State Affairs Committee, doesn't think the association is right - but he's concerned enough to have asked Attorney General Greg Abbott for a formal legal opinion.
Here's the situation:
A law passed in 2003 makes killing an "unborn child" at any stage of pregnancy a capital murder offense. But a legal defense to such a charge is that a doctor was performing a legal abortion.
Then, in 2005, the Legislature passed a law that requires pregnant girls under 18 to have parental permission or a court order to get an abortion and bars most third trimester abortions. Put the two laws together, the prosecutors' guidebook points out, and a doctor who aborted the pregnancy of a woman in her seventh or higher month of pregnancy or a minor who did not have parental or court permission theoretically could face a capital murder charge.
Even anti-abortion groups are shying away from such an interpretation, though apparently more because of political reality than principled objection to the idea of such a prosecution. Kyleen Wright, president of Texans For Life Coalition, said murder prosecutions were not the intent of the new law and: "We're not trying to get out ahead of public opinion."
Those who oppose abortion want eventually to make it illegal, she said, with "stiff measures to act as a deterrent" - though not capital punishment.
After all, she said, even among abortion opponents there are diverse views about the morality of capital punishment.
Sarah Wheat, spokeswoman for NARAL Pro-Choice Texas, said she welcomed the request for the attorney general's opinion because "when it comes to abortion, you can't assume anything."
Wheat is right. Somewhere in Texas a prosecutor is looking at the new abortion law and thinking, "Hmm . . ."
http://online.dshs.state.tx.us/oc/newsclips/default.htm
More articles....
Houston Chronicle
7/16/2006
Since the Texas Health and Human Services Commission approved an $899 million contract with a consortium led by Bermuda-based Accenture, very little has gone right. The people who've paid for the blunders are the state's poor, particularly children and the elderly.
Since the state instituted the privatization effort, enrollment and reinstatement rates in the Children's Health Insurance Program have slumped; hundreds of persons have erroneously been denied Medicaid and food stamp eligibility; and applications were mistakenly directed to a Seattle warehouse. Planned layoffs of state caseworkers, which were supposed to result in big savings, were canceled as overwhelmed call centers were forced to return thousands of cases to state employees.
Now 60 Texas state representatives, including eight from Houston, have signed a letter to Health and Human Services Commissioner Albert Hawkins calling for the Texas Access Alliance headed by Accenture to pay the ultimate price by having the contract revoked. The missive, written by Rep. Patrick Haggerty, R-El Paso, asks Hawkins "to cancel the contract with Accenture for nonperformance and commit the remaining resources to rebuilding the human services eligibility system that, as little as two years ago, was among the best in the country."
A group of 30 Republican legislators, including some in the leadership team of House Speaker Tom Craddick, earlier sent out their own letter supporting Accenture. Craddick has defended the contractor in comments to the Houston Chronicle editorial board and Gov. Rick Perry also opposes canceling the contract. So far more than $90 million has been paid to the group.
Commissioner Hawkins has said state officials are considering levying penalties against Accenture for its performance.
In attempting to minimize the damage, Hawkins delayed full implementation of the contract and postponed the layoff of state workers for a year. It's now clear that the sweeping privatization plan approved by HHS commissioners has harmed the access of poor Texans to critical safety net services and failed to provide the big savings that were the deal's rationale.
At minimum, HHS officials need to develop much tighter monitoring procedures of the new call centers to guarantee proper handling of applications and eligibility screening. Accenture should be financially penalized for its failure to meet promised service levels and its contract revoked if problems continue.
State cancels $171M Medicaid contract with ACS Lee Weisbecker Triangle Business Journal
7/14/2006
The North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services on Friday canceled its $171 million contract with Texas-based Affiliated Computer Services, ACS, to provide the state with a
new Medicaid claims paying system.
DHHS officials began sending out the notice to terminate after the close of business and couldn't be reached for further comment.
The action follows a dispute between DHHS secretary Carmen Hooker Odom and ACS over costs, staffing levels and delivery schedules in supplying the hardware and software needed to get the new claims system up and running.
The North Carolina Medicaid system currently pays over $8 billion in medical bills for over a million low-income recipients annually.
Outside of large highway projects, the contract is the largest in state government.
In an earlier action, Hooker Odom had given the company, which has set up such processing systems in 31 states, until July 13 to resolve the state's objections, particularly in the area of staffing and contract deliverables.
"ACS has failed to satisfy either of the above requirements for cure,"
Hooker Odom says in her notice terminating the five-year agreement.
She also directs the company to cease all work on the contract, preserve work product related to it and cancel any subcontracts on the job.
In letters on the dispute to various state officials and in a briefing on the issue before a panel of lawmakers at the General Assembly this week, ACS officials called any termination action unjustified and pinned the problems on DHHS' mismanagement over several months.
ACS has also said that termination would result in legal action.
Whatever the outcome of that prospective battle, the state will continue to pay Medicaid claims. Another Texas-based company, Electronic Data Systems, EDS which operated the system for 25 years before losing a contract rebid to ACS in 2004, has continued to pay claims while the new system was being put in place.
EDS will carry on with that function until DHHS rebids the contract.
Triangle Business Journal reported in its June 30 issue that state information technology chief George Bakolia had issued an ultimatum to Hooker-Odon to resolve the ACS contract or he would suspend approval for it.
7/16/2006
Since the Texas Health and Human Services Commission approved an $899 million contract with a consortium led by Bermuda-based Accenture, very little has gone right. The people who've paid for the blunders are the state's poor, particularly children and the elderly.
Since the state instituted the privatization effort, enrollment and reinstatement rates in the Children's Health Insurance Program have slumped; hundreds of persons have erroneously been denied Medicaid and food stamp eligibility; and applications were mistakenly directed to a Seattle warehouse. Planned layoffs of state caseworkers, which were supposed to result in big savings, were canceled as overwhelmed call centers were forced to return thousands of cases to state employees.
Now 60 Texas state representatives, including eight from Houston, have signed a letter to Health and Human Services Commissioner Albert Hawkins calling for the Texas Access Alliance headed by Accenture to pay the ultimate price by having the contract revoked. The missive, written by Rep. Patrick Haggerty, R-El Paso, asks Hawkins "to cancel the contract with Accenture for nonperformance and commit the remaining resources to rebuilding the human services eligibility system that, as little as two years ago, was among the best in the country."
A group of 30 Republican legislators, including some in the leadership team of House Speaker Tom Craddick, earlier sent out their own letter supporting Accenture. Craddick has defended the contractor in comments to the Houston Chronicle editorial board and Gov. Rick Perry also opposes canceling the contract. So far more than $90 million has been paid to the group.
Commissioner Hawkins has said state officials are considering levying penalties against Accenture for its performance.
In attempting to minimize the damage, Hawkins delayed full implementation of the contract and postponed the layoff of state workers for a year. It's now clear that the sweeping privatization plan approved by HHS commissioners has harmed the access of poor Texans to critical safety net services and failed to provide the big savings that were the deal's rationale.
At minimum, HHS officials need to develop much tighter monitoring procedures of the new call centers to guarantee proper handling of applications and eligibility screening. Accenture should be financially penalized for its failure to meet promised service levels and its contract revoked if problems continue.
State cancels $171M Medicaid contract with ACS Lee Weisbecker Triangle Business Journal
7/14/2006
The North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services on Friday canceled its $171 million contract with Texas-based Affiliated Computer Services, ACS, to provide the state with a
new Medicaid claims paying system.
DHHS officials began sending out the notice to terminate after the close of business and couldn't be reached for further comment.
The action follows a dispute between DHHS secretary Carmen Hooker Odom and ACS over costs, staffing levels and delivery schedules in supplying the hardware and software needed to get the new claims system up and running.
The North Carolina Medicaid system currently pays over $8 billion in medical bills for over a million low-income recipients annually.
Outside of large highway projects, the contract is the largest in state government.
In an earlier action, Hooker Odom had given the company, which has set up such processing systems in 31 states, until July 13 to resolve the state's objections, particularly in the area of staffing and contract deliverables.
"ACS has failed to satisfy either of the above requirements for cure,"
Hooker Odom says in her notice terminating the five-year agreement.
She also directs the company to cease all work on the contract, preserve work product related to it and cancel any subcontracts on the job.
In letters on the dispute to various state officials and in a briefing on the issue before a panel of lawmakers at the General Assembly this week, ACS officials called any termination action unjustified and pinned the problems on DHHS' mismanagement over several months.
ACS has also said that termination would result in legal action.
Whatever the outcome of that prospective battle, the state will continue to pay Medicaid claims. Another Texas-based company, Electronic Data Systems, EDS which operated the system for 25 years before losing a contract rebid to ACS in 2004, has continued to pay claims while the new system was being put in place.
EDS will carry on with that function until DHHS rebids the contract.
Triangle Business Journal reported in its June 30 issue that state information technology chief George Bakolia had issued an ultimatum to Hooker-Odon to resolve the ACS contract or he would suspend approval for it.
Bell joins welfare screener critics The Democratic governor hopeful urges HHS to drop privatization deal, keep jobs in Texas
Houston Chronicle
Clay Robison
7/14/2006
AUSTIN - Democratic gubernatorial nominee Chris Bell said Friday the state should cancel an $899 million human services privatization contract that also has come under fire from Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn and many legislators.
"It's every bit as nightmarish as the reports indicate," Bell said of the contract awarded to Accenture LLP for screening applicants for public assistance programs.
The Bermuda-based company, which manages a consortium of subcontractors called Texas Access Alliance, has been attacked by social services advocates, who say low-income Texans are losing benefits because of inadequate staffing and training at private call centers.
The contract is part of a massive reorganization of health and human services agencies ordered by the Legislature in 2003 in an effort to streamline the delivery of public services and reduce costs.
HHS leader still backs plan
Health and Human Services Commissioner Albert Hawkins, an appointee of Gov.
Rick Perry, isn't backing down from the contract, and neither is Perry.
Hawkins, however, has slowed down the privatization effort to try to address complaints about a call center pilot program, including lost or backlogged applications, long wait times on phone lines and eligible recipients being cut from services.
The commissioner has canceled plans to lay off hundreds of state workers who were to have been replaced by contract employees.
Perry spokeswoman Kathy Walt has said the governor is unhappy with the privatization problems but has "utmost confidence that Commissioner Hawkins will address the issues."
Earlier this week, 60 members of the Texas House, 12 Republicans and 48 Democrats, called for the state to cancel the Accenture contract and use the money to "rebuild a community-based system that works."
But 30 other legislators, all Republicans, urged Hawkins to continue the transition to privatization.
Strayhorn, running for governor as an independent, announced plans two months ago to investigate the contract. Spokesman Mark Sanders said Friday that Strayhorn didn't want to comment on whether the contract should be canceled until after the investigation has been completed.
"It's a huge contract with huge problems," Sanders said.
Strayhorn also targeted
Bell has criticized Strayhorn for once advocating privatization of some health and human services programs.
Sanders said the privatization approved by the Legislature and the Health and Human Services Commission was broader than the comptroller had recommended as a cost-cutting measure in 2003.
Bell said screening of public assistance applicants should be handled by state employees.
Spokeswoman Jill Angelo said earlier this week that Texas Access Alliance was working with the state and had made "significant progress over the past several months to improve performance."
Second thoughts Absent remarkable improvement, the state should cancel the massive contract with a private company hired to screen applicants for state assistance.
Clay Robison
7/14/2006
AUSTIN - Democratic gubernatorial nominee Chris Bell said Friday the state should cancel an $899 million human services privatization contract that also has come under fire from Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn and many legislators.
"It's every bit as nightmarish as the reports indicate," Bell said of the contract awarded to Accenture LLP for screening applicants for public assistance programs.
The Bermuda-based company, which manages a consortium of subcontractors called Texas Access Alliance, has been attacked by social services advocates, who say low-income Texans are losing benefits because of inadequate staffing and training at private call centers.
The contract is part of a massive reorganization of health and human services agencies ordered by the Legislature in 2003 in an effort to streamline the delivery of public services and reduce costs.
HHS leader still backs plan
Health and Human Services Commissioner Albert Hawkins, an appointee of Gov.
Rick Perry, isn't backing down from the contract, and neither is Perry.
Hawkins, however, has slowed down the privatization effort to try to address complaints about a call center pilot program, including lost or backlogged applications, long wait times on phone lines and eligible recipients being cut from services.
The commissioner has canceled plans to lay off hundreds of state workers who were to have been replaced by contract employees.
Perry spokeswoman Kathy Walt has said the governor is unhappy with the privatization problems but has "utmost confidence that Commissioner Hawkins will address the issues."
Earlier this week, 60 members of the Texas House, 12 Republicans and 48 Democrats, called for the state to cancel the Accenture contract and use the money to "rebuild a community-based system that works."
But 30 other legislators, all Republicans, urged Hawkins to continue the transition to privatization.
Strayhorn, running for governor as an independent, announced plans two months ago to investigate the contract. Spokesman Mark Sanders said Friday that Strayhorn didn't want to comment on whether the contract should be canceled until after the investigation has been completed.
"It's a huge contract with huge problems," Sanders said.
Strayhorn also targeted
Bell has criticized Strayhorn for once advocating privatization of some health and human services programs.
Sanders said the privatization approved by the Legislature and the Health and Human Services Commission was broader than the comptroller had recommended as a cost-cutting measure in 2003.
Bell said screening of public assistance applicants should be handled by state employees.
Spokeswoman Jill Angelo said earlier this week that Texas Access Alliance was working with the state and had made "significant progress over the past several months to improve performance."
Second thoughts Absent remarkable improvement, the state should cancel the massive contract with a private company hired to screen applicants for state assistance.
Saturday, July 15, 2006
State welfare screener draws more fire 60 in the House urge head of HHS to cancel contract
July 13, 2006, 2:17PM
By CLAY ROBISON
Copyright 2006
Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau
AUSTIN - Sixty members of the Texas House, Republicans and Democrats, Wednesday called for the state to cancel a controversial, $899 million privatization contract to screen applicants for public assistance programs.
Their letter to Health and Human Services Commissioner Albert Hawkins, however, followed on the heels of a competing letter, signed by 30 Republican legislators, including several members of House Speaker Tom Craddick's leadership team, urging Hawkins to continue his agency's privatization transition.
The dueling messages mark the latest episode in a continuing furor over the privatization of health and human service programs, including the contract with Accenture LLP, a company hired to screen applicants for children's health insurance and other assistance programs.
Hawkins, an appointee of Gov. Rick Perry, said through a spokeswoman that he remained committed to the privatization effort, part of a massive reorganization of health and human services agencies ordered by the Legislature in 2003.
Perry spokeswoman Kathy Walt said the governor "is not pleased that the company (Accenture) hasn't been able to address the issues as quickly as contemplated" but didn't support canceling the contract.
Accenture, which manages a consortium of subcontractors called Texas Access Alliance, has been under attack for weeks from social services advocates and some legislators, who say low-income Texans are losing benefits because of inadequate staffing and training at private call centers.
Hawkins has canceled plans to lay off hundreds of state workers who were to have been replaced by contract employees.
And Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn has made Accenture's performance an issue in her independent race for governor, announcing two months ago that she would investigate the contract.
Spokeswoman Jill Angelo said Texas Access Alliance was working with the state to meet its requirements and has made "significant progress over the past several months to improve performance."
State Rep. Patrick Haggerty, R-El Paso, said he and 59 colleagues seeking the contract's cancellation are concerned about the Bermuda-based company's "poor performance during the pilot phase of the project and want to protect (our) communities and constituents from similar calamities."
The letter, dated Wednesday and written on Haggerty's letterhead, was signed by 11 other Republicans and 48 Democrats. It urged Hawkins to use the contract money to "rebuild a community-based system that works and does not waste tax dollars on broken contractual promises."
The competing letter, signed by state Rep. John Davis, R-Houston, and 29 other Republicans, was faxed to Hawkins on Monday. Davis, the budget and oversight chairman for the House Human Services Committee, said the timing wasn't coincidental.
He said he learned the Haggerty letter was being circulated and wanted to assure Hawkins that many lawmakers supported the agency's privatization efforts.
"We recognize that the new system has experienced challenges. Frankly, this is not unexpected given the size of this transformation," Davis said in his letter.
But, he said, the agency's pilot program in Travis and Hays counties was the first step toward modernizing the application process.
"So far, more than 540,000 Travis and Hays residents have accessed the pilot program by phone and over 5,000 people statewide have applied for benefits online. These early results prove Texans want access to these services through modern means," Davis added.
Spokeswoman Stephanie Goodman said Hawkins "certainly understands the concerns about performance but remains committed to the long-term goals of the program, which are to create a system that works better and is more efficient."
Haggerty said lawmakers were alarmed by the report of dozens of Texans "who slipped through the cracks" after their Medicaid and food stamp applications were faxed into a "black hole" in Seattle.
The Houston Chronicle reported last month that dozens of applications with personal and medical financial data were mistakenly faxed by applicants to a warehouse in Seattle after a wrong number was listed on an information sheet.
clay.robison@chron.com
By CLAY ROBISON
Copyright 2006
Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau
AUSTIN - Sixty members of the Texas House, Republicans and Democrats, Wednesday called for the state to cancel a controversial, $899 million privatization contract to screen applicants for public assistance programs.
Their letter to Health and Human Services Commissioner Albert Hawkins, however, followed on the heels of a competing letter, signed by 30 Republican legislators, including several members of House Speaker Tom Craddick's leadership team, urging Hawkins to continue his agency's privatization transition.
The dueling messages mark the latest episode in a continuing furor over the privatization of health and human service programs, including the contract with Accenture LLP, a company hired to screen applicants for children's health insurance and other assistance programs.
Hawkins, an appointee of Gov. Rick Perry, said through a spokeswoman that he remained committed to the privatization effort, part of a massive reorganization of health and human services agencies ordered by the Legislature in 2003.
Perry spokeswoman Kathy Walt said the governor "is not pleased that the company (Accenture) hasn't been able to address the issues as quickly as contemplated" but didn't support canceling the contract.
Accenture, which manages a consortium of subcontractors called Texas Access Alliance, has been under attack for weeks from social services advocates and some legislators, who say low-income Texans are losing benefits because of inadequate staffing and training at private call centers.
Hawkins has canceled plans to lay off hundreds of state workers who were to have been replaced by contract employees.
And Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn has made Accenture's performance an issue in her independent race for governor, announcing two months ago that she would investigate the contract.
Spokeswoman Jill Angelo said Texas Access Alliance was working with the state to meet its requirements and has made "significant progress over the past several months to improve performance."
State Rep. Patrick Haggerty, R-El Paso, said he and 59 colleagues seeking the contract's cancellation are concerned about the Bermuda-based company's "poor performance during the pilot phase of the project and want to protect (our) communities and constituents from similar calamities."
The letter, dated Wednesday and written on Haggerty's letterhead, was signed by 11 other Republicans and 48 Democrats. It urged Hawkins to use the contract money to "rebuild a community-based system that works and does not waste tax dollars on broken contractual promises."
The competing letter, signed by state Rep. John Davis, R-Houston, and 29 other Republicans, was faxed to Hawkins on Monday. Davis, the budget and oversight chairman for the House Human Services Committee, said the timing wasn't coincidental.
He said he learned the Haggerty letter was being circulated and wanted to assure Hawkins that many lawmakers supported the agency's privatization efforts.
"We recognize that the new system has experienced challenges. Frankly, this is not unexpected given the size of this transformation," Davis said in his letter.
But, he said, the agency's pilot program in Travis and Hays counties was the first step toward modernizing the application process.
"So far, more than 540,000 Travis and Hays residents have accessed the pilot program by phone and over 5,000 people statewide have applied for benefits online. These early results prove Texans want access to these services through modern means," Davis added.
Spokeswoman Stephanie Goodman said Hawkins "certainly understands the concerns about performance but remains committed to the long-term goals of the program, which are to create a system that works better and is more efficient."
Haggerty said lawmakers were alarmed by the report of dozens of Texans "who slipped through the cracks" after their Medicaid and food stamp applications were faxed into a "black hole" in Seattle.
The Houston Chronicle reported last month that dozens of applications with personal and medical financial data were mistakenly faxed by applicants to a warehouse in Seattle after a wrong number was listed on an information sheet.
clay.robison@chron.com
Been too busy to post!
I have been way too busy to post lately - Sorry about that!
I've worked tons of OT this week and can barely drag myself home after work. I am so grateful for my "friend" who has picked up my child from daycare EVERY DAY THIS WEEK because I could not get out of the office in time. Last weekend, I actually brought some work home with me. I absolutely refused to do so this weekend!
My child now asks me everyday when I get home "How was your day, mama? Is there anything I can do to make you feel better?". He is such a sweetheart but it seems our roles are reversing. He is the one worrying about me when I am the parent and should be the one worrying about him. Thank God for little angels!
All of our lives (and our health) are being affected by this. Our client's are being affected. The Texas budget is being affected. How much longer can they expect us to maintain? We are getting more and more complaints about "rudeness" on the part of the workers. We have never, as an agency, been deliberately rude to anyone, but as one who has to deal with alot of complaints, I can't really blame the workers. They don't deliberately mean to be rude but they are so overwhelmed and exhausted that their emotions are now affecting their jobs. Some of the clients are understanding but as you all know, each one is focused on their own needs. When they can't feed their kids, of couse they get upset or angry. When their child is scheduled for surgery or needs meds and they lose their Medicaid, of course they get upset or angry. Wouldn't you?
Please check the list below for your State Rep. If they signed the letter to stop this madness, don't forget to call or write them a thank you! If they did not, ask they why not?
I am so ashamed of what the current administration has allowed to happen to Texas. I certainly hope that in the next election, we can rid ourselves of the "powers that be".
I've worked tons of OT this week and can barely drag myself home after work. I am so grateful for my "friend" who has picked up my child from daycare EVERY DAY THIS WEEK because I could not get out of the office in time. Last weekend, I actually brought some work home with me. I absolutely refused to do so this weekend!
My child now asks me everyday when I get home "How was your day, mama? Is there anything I can do to make you feel better?". He is such a sweetheart but it seems our roles are reversing. He is the one worrying about me when I am the parent and should be the one worrying about him. Thank God for little angels!
All of our lives (and our health) are being affected by this. Our client's are being affected. The Texas budget is being affected. How much longer can they expect us to maintain? We are getting more and more complaints about "rudeness" on the part of the workers. We have never, as an agency, been deliberately rude to anyone, but as one who has to deal with alot of complaints, I can't really blame the workers. They don't deliberately mean to be rude but they are so overwhelmed and exhausted that their emotions are now affecting their jobs. Some of the clients are understanding but as you all know, each one is focused on their own needs. When they can't feed their kids, of couse they get upset or angry. When their child is scheduled for surgery or needs meds and they lose their Medicaid, of course they get upset or angry. Wouldn't you?
Please check the list below for your State Rep. If they signed the letter to stop this madness, don't forget to call or write them a thank you! If they did not, ask they why not?
I am so ashamed of what the current administration has allowed to happen to Texas. I certainly hope that in the next election, we can rid ourselves of the "powers that be".
TEXAS STATE EMPLOYEES UNION EMAIL BROADCAST UPDATE TO MEMBERS
July 13, 2006
Human Services call center plan/ Accenture contract
60 LEGISLATORS SIGN LETTER: CANCEL THE CONTRACT, REBUILD HHSC
* 30 others sign letter supporting Accenture contract
* all signers listed in this broadcast
* see TSEU's website (http://www.cwa-tseu.org/ at High Tech Boondoggle) for copies of the letters
* See also Press Releases and Press Clippings on TSEU's web site for more
On July 12 State Rep. Pat Haggerty ( R El Paso) released a letter to HHSC ExecutiveChairman Albert Hawkins that calls on the commissioner to cancel the contract with Accenture,commit resources to rebuild the HHSC community-based eligibility system, and to demand arefund from Accenture. TSEU worked closely with Rep. Haggerty's staff on the project,contacting dozens of legislators to explain the issues and ask for their support. The letter was signed by a bi-partisan group of 60 state representatives.
The letter applauds Commissioner Hawkins' decision to delay the rollout of theAccenture/call center plan and to rescind the layoff notices for HHSC employees. It goes on to note that Texas faces a severe funding crunch, and that the state should not throw good money after bad by continuing to fund the call center plan or the Accenture contract. The letter continues: "In light of all these issues, we ask you to consider the following proposal to rebuild a community-based system that works and does not waste tax dollars on broken contractual promises. We ask you to cancel the contract with Accenture for non-performance and commit the remaining resources to rebuild the human services eligibility system that, as little as two years ago, was among the best in the country. In addition, we ask you to consider demanding that Accenture return some of the payments for which Texas has not received the products and/or services as promised."
The legislators who signed the letter (in order as they appear on the letter):
Rep. Pat Haggerty (R) El Paso
Rep. Elliott Naishtat (D) Austin
Rep. Dawnna Dukes (D) Austin
Rep. Rick Hardcastle ( R) Vernon
Rep. Charlie Geren (R) Fort Worth
Rep. Tony Goolsby ( R) Dallas
Rep. Mike "Tuffy" Hamilton ( R) Mauriceville
Rep. Yvonne Gonzalez Toureilles (D) Alice
Rep. Jim Dunnam (D) Waco
Rep. Brian McCall ( R) Plano
Rep. Toby Goodman ( R) Arlington
Rep. Bryan Hughes ( R) Marshall
Rep. Joe Pickett (D) El Paso
Rep. Delwin Jones ( R) Lubbock
Rep. Robert Puente (D) San Antonio
Rep. Tracy King (D) Eagle Pass
Rep. Bob Griggs ( R) North Richland Hills
Rep. Pete Gallego (D) Alpine
Rep. Rafael Anchia (D) Dallas
Rep. Carter Casteel (R) New Braunfels
Rep. David Farabee (D) Wichita Falls
Rep. Hubert Vo (D) HoustonRep. Garnet Coleman (D) Houston
Rep. Chuck Hopson (D) Jacksonville
Rep. Craig Eiland (D) Galveston
Rep. Bob Hunter ( R) Abilene
Rep. Allan Ritter (D) Nederland
Rep. Roberto Alonzo (D) Dallas
Rep. Mark Homer (D) Paris
Rep. Donna Howard (D) Austin
Rep. Ruth Jones McClendon (D) San Antonio
Rep. Juan Escobar (D) KIngsville
Rep. Richard Raymond (D) Laredo
Rep. Marc Veasey (D) Fort Worth
Rep. Rick Noriega (D) Houston
Rep. Stephen Frost (D) Atlanta
Rep. Jim McReynolds (D) Lufkin
Rep. Armando Martinez (D) Weslaco
Rep. Senfronia Thompson (D) Houston
Rep. Eddie Rodriguez (D) Austin
Rep. Lon Burnam (D) Fort Worth
Rep. Dora Olivo (D) Houston
Rep. David Leibowitz (D) San Antonio
Rep. Scott Hochberg (D) Houston
Rep. Norma Chavez (D) El Paso
Rep. Ana Hernandez (D) Houston
Rep. Ryan Guillen (D) San Diego
Rep. Alma Allen (D) Houston
Rep. Jessica Farrar (D) Houston
Rep. Mike Villarreall (D) San Antonio
Rep. Yvonne Davis (D) Dallas
Rep. Abel Herrero (D) Corpus Christi
Rep. Aaron Pe a (D) Edinburg
Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer (D) San Antonio
Rep. Terry Hodge (D) Dallas
Rep. Jose Menendez (D) San Antonio
Rep. Joaquin Castro (D) San Antonio
Rep. Paul Moreno (D) El Paso
Rep. Joe Deshotel (D) Port Arthur
Rep. Chente Quintanilla (D) El Paso
30 LEGISLATORS SIGN TO SUPPORT ACCENTURE & CALL CENTER PLAN
After the release of the letter initiated by Rep. Haggerty, Rep. John Davis ( R Houston) pulled together 30 legislators, all Republicans, to sign a letter supporting the discredited callcenter plan and the contract with Bermuda-based Accenture. The letter claims that the call center system "provides Texans with new channels of access," and that it "has handled more than 2.8 million phone calls" and "processed more than 6.8 million documents and mailed more than 1.5 million pieces of correspondence." The letter does not address the plummeting number of Texans who successfully navigate the system and begin to receive benefits or the 12,000-case backlog that has been transferred from the call centers to state employees. It does concede that "the new system has experienced challenges."
Signers of the letter supporting the Accenture contract:
John Davis ( R -Houston)
Jim Pitts ( R -Waxahachie)
Suzanna Gratia Hupp ( R -Lampassas)
Warren Chissum ( R -Pampa)
David Swinford ( R -Amarillo)
Beverly Wooley ( R -Houston)
Dan Gattis ( R -Georgetown)
Robert Talton ( R -Pasadena)
Ruben Hope Jr. ( R -Conroe)
Fred Brown ( R -Bryan)
Bill Callegari ( R -Houston)
Bill Keffer ( R -Dallas)
Joe Nixon ( R -Houston)
Jerry Madden ( R -Plano)
Buddy West ( R -Odessa)
Ken Paxton ( R -McKinney)
Rob Eisler ( R -The Woodlands)
Jim Jackson ( R -Carrollton)
Betty Brown ( R -Athens)
Bill Zedler ( R -Arlington)
Larry Taylor ( R -League City)
Leo Berman ( R -Tyler)
Corbin Van Arsdale ( R -Houston)
Debbie Riddle ( R -Houston)
Linda Harper-Brown ( R -Irving)
Mary Denny ( R -Flower Mound)
Glenda Dawson ( R -Pearland)
Jodie Laudenberg ( R -Rockwall)
Joe Driver ( R -Garland)
Valerie Corte ( R -San Antonio, temporary for Frank Corte)
*****************************************************************************
To contact TSEU for more information or for materials: Austin: 512 448-4225 Houston: 713 661-9030 San Antonio: 210 354-2900 Dallas: 214 631-7863 Harlingen: 956 428-0251 Lubbock: 806 741-0044
For information about contacting your state legislators, go to the TSEU websitehttp://www.cwa-tseu.org/hhsc_fdstmp_contact.html
To add your name to the list for these broadcasts (you must be a TSEU member):
send an email to tseubroadcast@cwa-tseu.org Put "subscribe me" in the subject line Put your full name and work location in the text of the email
Human Services call center plan/ Accenture contract
60 LEGISLATORS SIGN LETTER: CANCEL THE CONTRACT, REBUILD HHSC
* 30 others sign letter supporting Accenture contract
* all signers listed in this broadcast
* see TSEU's website (http://www.cwa-tseu.org/ at High Tech Boondoggle) for copies of the letters
* See also Press Releases and Press Clippings on TSEU's web site for more
On July 12 State Rep. Pat Haggerty ( R El Paso) released a letter to HHSC ExecutiveChairman Albert Hawkins that calls on the commissioner to cancel the contract with Accenture,commit resources to rebuild the HHSC community-based eligibility system, and to demand arefund from Accenture. TSEU worked closely with Rep. Haggerty's staff on the project,contacting dozens of legislators to explain the issues and ask for their support. The letter was signed by a bi-partisan group of 60 state representatives.
The letter applauds Commissioner Hawkins' decision to delay the rollout of theAccenture/call center plan and to rescind the layoff notices for HHSC employees. It goes on to note that Texas faces a severe funding crunch, and that the state should not throw good money after bad by continuing to fund the call center plan or the Accenture contract. The letter continues: "In light of all these issues, we ask you to consider the following proposal to rebuild a community-based system that works and does not waste tax dollars on broken contractual promises. We ask you to cancel the contract with Accenture for non-performance and commit the remaining resources to rebuild the human services eligibility system that, as little as two years ago, was among the best in the country. In addition, we ask you to consider demanding that Accenture return some of the payments for which Texas has not received the products and/or services as promised."
The legislators who signed the letter (in order as they appear on the letter):
Rep. Pat Haggerty (R) El Paso
Rep. Elliott Naishtat (D) Austin
Rep. Dawnna Dukes (D) Austin
Rep. Rick Hardcastle ( R) Vernon
Rep. Charlie Geren (R) Fort Worth
Rep. Tony Goolsby ( R) Dallas
Rep. Mike "Tuffy" Hamilton ( R) Mauriceville
Rep. Yvonne Gonzalez Toureilles (D) Alice
Rep. Jim Dunnam (D) Waco
Rep. Brian McCall ( R) Plano
Rep. Toby Goodman ( R) Arlington
Rep. Bryan Hughes ( R) Marshall
Rep. Joe Pickett (D) El Paso
Rep. Delwin Jones ( R) Lubbock
Rep. Robert Puente (D) San Antonio
Rep. Tracy King (D) Eagle Pass
Rep. Bob Griggs ( R) North Richland Hills
Rep. Pete Gallego (D) Alpine
Rep. Rafael Anchia (D) Dallas
Rep. Carter Casteel (R) New Braunfels
Rep. David Farabee (D) Wichita Falls
Rep. Hubert Vo (D) HoustonRep. Garnet Coleman (D) Houston
Rep. Chuck Hopson (D) Jacksonville
Rep. Craig Eiland (D) Galveston
Rep. Bob Hunter ( R) Abilene
Rep. Allan Ritter (D) Nederland
Rep. Roberto Alonzo (D) Dallas
Rep. Mark Homer (D) Paris
Rep. Donna Howard (D) Austin
Rep. Ruth Jones McClendon (D) San Antonio
Rep. Juan Escobar (D) KIngsville
Rep. Richard Raymond (D) Laredo
Rep. Marc Veasey (D) Fort Worth
Rep. Rick Noriega (D) Houston
Rep. Stephen Frost (D) Atlanta
Rep. Jim McReynolds (D) Lufkin
Rep. Armando Martinez (D) Weslaco
Rep. Senfronia Thompson (D) Houston
Rep. Eddie Rodriguez (D) Austin
Rep. Lon Burnam (D) Fort Worth
Rep. Dora Olivo (D) Houston
Rep. David Leibowitz (D) San Antonio
Rep. Scott Hochberg (D) Houston
Rep. Norma Chavez (D) El Paso
Rep. Ana Hernandez (D) Houston
Rep. Ryan Guillen (D) San Diego
Rep. Alma Allen (D) Houston
Rep. Jessica Farrar (D) Houston
Rep. Mike Villarreall (D) San Antonio
Rep. Yvonne Davis (D) Dallas
Rep. Abel Herrero (D) Corpus Christi
Rep. Aaron Pe a (D) Edinburg
Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer (D) San Antonio
Rep. Terry Hodge (D) Dallas
Rep. Jose Menendez (D) San Antonio
Rep. Joaquin Castro (D) San Antonio
Rep. Paul Moreno (D) El Paso
Rep. Joe Deshotel (D) Port Arthur
Rep. Chente Quintanilla (D) El Paso
30 LEGISLATORS SIGN TO SUPPORT ACCENTURE & CALL CENTER PLAN
After the release of the letter initiated by Rep. Haggerty, Rep. John Davis ( R Houston) pulled together 30 legislators, all Republicans, to sign a letter supporting the discredited callcenter plan and the contract with Bermuda-based Accenture. The letter claims that the call center system "provides Texans with new channels of access," and that it "has handled more than 2.8 million phone calls" and "processed more than 6.8 million documents and mailed more than 1.5 million pieces of correspondence." The letter does not address the plummeting number of Texans who successfully navigate the system and begin to receive benefits or the 12,000-case backlog that has been transferred from the call centers to state employees. It does concede that "the new system has experienced challenges."
Signers of the letter supporting the Accenture contract:
John Davis ( R -Houston)
Jim Pitts ( R -Waxahachie)
Suzanna Gratia Hupp ( R -Lampassas)
Warren Chissum ( R -Pampa)
David Swinford ( R -Amarillo)
Beverly Wooley ( R -Houston)
Dan Gattis ( R -Georgetown)
Robert Talton ( R -Pasadena)
Ruben Hope Jr. ( R -Conroe)
Fred Brown ( R -Bryan)
Bill Callegari ( R -Houston)
Bill Keffer ( R -Dallas)
Joe Nixon ( R -Houston)
Jerry Madden ( R -Plano)
Buddy West ( R -Odessa)
Ken Paxton ( R -McKinney)
Rob Eisler ( R -The Woodlands)
Jim Jackson ( R -Carrollton)
Betty Brown ( R -Athens)
Bill Zedler ( R -Arlington)
Larry Taylor ( R -League City)
Leo Berman ( R -Tyler)
Corbin Van Arsdale ( R -Houston)
Debbie Riddle ( R -Houston)
Linda Harper-Brown ( R -Irving)
Mary Denny ( R -Flower Mound)
Glenda Dawson ( R -Pearland)
Jodie Laudenberg ( R -Rockwall)
Joe Driver ( R -Garland)
Valerie Corte ( R -San Antonio, temporary for Frank Corte)
*****************************************************************************
To contact TSEU for more information or for materials: Austin: 512 448-4225 Houston: 713 661-9030 San Antonio: 210 354-2900 Dallas: 214 631-7863 Harlingen: 956 428-0251 Lubbock: 806 741-0044
For information about contacting your state legislators, go to the TSEU websitehttp://www.cwa-tseu.org/hhsc_fdstmp_contact.html
To add your name to the list for these broadcasts (you must be a TSEU member):
send an email to tseubroadcast@cwa-tseu.org Put "subscribe me" in the subject line Put your full name and work location in the text of the email
Bipartisan group of 60 state representatives calls on state to fire Texas Access Alliance
30 Republican representatives say to stick with the public assistance outsourcing project, despite problems.
By Corrie MacLaggan <
mailto:cmaclaggan@statesman.com>
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Thursday, July 13, 2006
A bipartisan group of 60 state representatives asked Texas officials Wednesday to cancel a controversial five-year contract with a private consortium to enroll Texans in food stamps, Medicaid and welfare.
The letter to state officials from 48 Democrats and 12 Republicans was the largest showing of discontent among lawmakers with the progress of the problem-riddled Texas Access Alliance project, which is anchored by Accenture LLP.
Albert Hawkins Health and Human Services commissioner lauded for delaying system.
Dawnna Dukes Austin representative says constituents had problems.
Dan Gattis Jr. One of 30 representatives who support contract.
* House members' HHSC letter
http://alt.coxnewsweb.com/statesman/news/13callcenters_HouseMembersHHSCLetter.pdf
* Letter to Albert Hawkins
http://alt.coxnewsweb.com/statesman/news/13callcenters_LettertoAH.pdf>
But 30 Republican representatives sent their own letter to state officials saying that despite problems with training and technology, they support the work of the alliance, which has an $899 million contract to run call centers that would replace some state offices where Texans apply for public assistance. (Wonder how much those 30 received in campaign contributions from Accenture? If anyone knows, please comment!)
Both groups of lawmakers commended Health and Human Services Executive Commissioner Albert Hawkins for halting the statewide expansion of the new eligibility system until concerns can be resolved.
The state has paid the private group $103 million so far, state officials said.
"At this point it is unclear what work, if any, is being done by Accenture, or what, if any 'deliverables' have been delivered as promised," the 60 legislators wrote. (My sources inform me that all they are doing now is gathering and scanning documents....it seems State workers are actually doing the eligibility determinations.)
But Health and Human Services Commission spokeswoman Stephanie Goodman said "the notion that (the Texas Access Alliance) isn't currently doing any work is wrong." (Yeah - we all know what a mouthpiece Goodman is!)
And Texas Access Alliance spokeswoman Jill Angelo said the companies in the group are "working with the state to meet their requirements and have made significant progress over the past several months to improve performance." (Like what? The workload in the State local offices is still increasing!)
A pilot phase of the new system, originally expected to save the state $646 million over five years, started in January in Hays and Travis counties.
But many applicants encountered long hold times or representatives who couldn't answer their questions. (Lets not forget the long lines the appicants/clients are encountering in the non-rolled out areas because of staffing shortages, caused by HHSC and Accenture! I've heard the lines outside the offices in Houston are blocks away from the front doors!)
In May, Hawkins canceled plans to lay off 1,000 state workers, though other state jobs had already been eliminated as the private group took over some of the state's duties.
The 60 legislators say they are alarmed that an error with the privately run system led to dozens of applications with sensitive personal information being faxed to a warehouse in Seattle.
But state officials say a review shows that the documents were most likely sent to Seattle because of random misdials by public assistance applicants. (Do you honestly expect us to believe that thousands of people misdialed the exact same number? It has already come out that Accenture listed the wrong fax number. Why don't they just admit that instead of trying to imply that all these Texans were so stupid that they dialed the wrong number?!)
State officials point out that the new eligibility system provides the 3 million Texans who receive public assistance with more options: They can now apply for services by phone, fax or Internet or in person, rather than just in person. (Why didn't they give these 3 millions Texans the option to do that without crumbling the system already in place? Again, how much money did Accenture "donate" to ensure the legislators let them jump in and destroy a working system already in place?)
And the letter from 30 Republicans says the fact that more than 540,000 Travis and Hays County callers have accessed the pilot system by phone shows that low-income Texans want new channels of access. (Nope. It shows that they were left no choice but to use the "new channels"....even when it caused their benefits to be delayed or lost. It's not like they can "take their business" elsewhere.)
Democrat Mark Strama of Austin was among 60 representatives who did not sign either letter.
Strama said he was more interested in weighing in on policy decisions that affect public assistance than in whether Texas Access Alliance was properly delivering services.
"You'd have to know an awful lot about the contract, about the technology and their success or failure in delivery to make a judgment on that," Strama said.
But Rep. Dawnna Dukes, an Austin Democrat who said she has heard from many constituents who have been improperly denied services or who have had their public assistance renewal delayed, signed the letter asking Hawkins to cancel the contract. (You go, girl!)
"With the State of Texas having the highest uninsured rate in the nation, it is a travesty that those who are eligible for such vital services are not receiving them due to nonperformance of a private contractor," Dukes said.
cmaclaggan@statesman.com; 445-3548
Central Texans' stands
Signed letter asking state to cancel Texas Access Alliance contract:
State Reps. Dawnna Dukes, D-Austin; Donna Howard, D-Austin; Elliott Naishtat, D-Austin; Eddie Rodriguez, D-Austin
Signed letter in support of the new enrollment system for public assistance:
Reps. Dan Gattis, R-Georgetown; Suzanna Hupp, R-Lampasas.
Did not sign either letter:
Reps. Robby Cook, D-Eagle Lake; Harvey Hilderbran, R-Kerrville; Terry Keel, R-Austin; Mike Krusee, R-Williamson County; Patrick Rose, D-Dripping Springs; Mark Strama, D-Austin
More on the OES jobs....
OES Employees:
At times a current regular status OES employee may desire to apply for
a legacy (old world) temporary position. The temporary position may
have a higher salary, be in a more appealing work location, allow for
learning new skills, or in general just be more attractive to the
individual. We want these employees to retain regular status so they
can continue to receive all current benefits associated with being in regular status.
Our solution to this issue is to continue posting these legacy jobs as
temporary using perpetual postings. However, if a current regular
status employee applies and is selected, he/she will remain in regular
employment status. All legacy jobs are "time limited" in that they
will all go away when the new eligibility system rolls out. All
externally selected applicants will be hired as temporary. We will
add wording to the perpetual postings of temporary jobs to allow for this change.
If you are interested in applying for a temporary position in the
legacy system and you are a regular status OES employee,
* Apply to the temporary postings. Upon selecting an applicant for the
job, the hiring authority will determine if the selected applicant is
an OES regular status employee. If so, the hiring authority will
process the hire so that the selected applicant will be flagged as a
regular status employee, not a temporary. Hiring managers will receive
detailed instructions under separate cover.
* As a reminder, priority consideration rules do not apply to jobs in
the legacy system.
Current OES staff who previously accepted a temporary position and had
their employment status changed from regular status to temporary
status will be identified and his/her employment status will be
revised to regular status effective as soon as possible.
This new posting and selection process will be effective July 17, 2006.
Questions should be directed to State Operations through the
appropriate regional director.
Jerry Wallace
Director of State Operations
Office of Eligibility Services
Aw, Jerry. Tell it to us in simple English! Our minds are too tired to try to decipher this.....When/if the rollout happens, do those regular status employees go back to the jsap job or will they get to keep their "new title / position"?
At times a current regular status OES employee may desire to apply for
a legacy (old world) temporary position. The temporary position may
have a higher salary, be in a more appealing work location, allow for
learning new skills, or in general just be more attractive to the
individual. We want these employees to retain regular status so they
can continue to receive all current benefits associated with being in regular status.
Our solution to this issue is to continue posting these legacy jobs as
temporary using perpetual postings. However, if a current regular
status employee applies and is selected, he/she will remain in regular
employment status. All legacy jobs are "time limited" in that they
will all go away when the new eligibility system rolls out. All
externally selected applicants will be hired as temporary. We will
add wording to the perpetual postings of temporary jobs to allow for this change.
If you are interested in applying for a temporary position in the
legacy system and you are a regular status OES employee,
* Apply to the temporary postings. Upon selecting an applicant for the
job, the hiring authority will determine if the selected applicant is
an OES regular status employee. If so, the hiring authority will
process the hire so that the selected applicant will be flagged as a
regular status employee, not a temporary. Hiring managers will receive
detailed instructions under separate cover.
* As a reminder, priority consideration rules do not apply to jobs in
the legacy system.
Current OES staff who previously accepted a temporary position and had
their employment status changed from regular status to temporary
status will be identified and his/her employment status will be
revised to regular status effective as soon as possible.
This new posting and selection process will be effective July 17, 2006.
Questions should be directed to State Operations through the
appropriate regional director.
Jerry Wallace
Director of State Operations
Office of Eligibility Services
Aw, Jerry. Tell it to us in simple English! Our minds are too tired to try to decipher this.....When/if the rollout happens, do those regular status employees go back to the jsap job or will they get to keep their "new title / position"?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
