Appendix K. What scope of work is to be included in the Estimated Hourly Rate?

Transcription

1 The following questions on the Data Analytics Vendor contract were compiled from submitted written questions and the Responder s Conference on January 30, Staff at the Minnesota Department of Human Services prepared answers to questions. Category Question Response Appendix G Appendix G refers to an attached template for providing a breakdown of costs. Can you provide a link to the template? Is the template intended to show a breakdown of costs for the Total Estimated Cost or the Estimated Hourly Rate shown on Appendix G? A link to the Cost Proposal/Budget Template is available on the Minnesota Accountable Health Model - SIM Minnesota website. Using the template you should provide a breakdown of all costs that go into the Total Estimated Cost for the project. The estimated hourly rate shown on Appendix G is specific to deliverable II.B.E and is the average hourly rate that would be used for IHP specific consultation. Within the cost proposal template, you should note proposed staff from the primary responder s organization in section A. If additional contractors will be used by the responder (for example, hiring external consultants or staff to fulfill some or portions of any work plan tasks), include them in Section C of the Appendix G Appendix I Appendix K Please clarify if this will be a fixed price contract covering all tasks/deliverables specified in II.B. If not a fixed price contract, please clarify the contract type. What scope of work is to be included in the Estimated Hourly Rate? To qualify for resident status, must the vendor have paid unemployment or income taxes in all 12 months prior to the proposal submission, or will payment of taxes in any of the preceding 12 months meet the requirement? Can the state provide more detail on the required information security and compliance standards? Cost Proposal Template. The contract will be a deliverables based contract with payment based on services performed or work delivered after it is accomplished. Scoring for the cost proposal for this RFP is based on the total estimated cost (total proposed budget amount) submitted in Appendix G. Responders will need to provide a breakdown of expected billable amounts by deliverable component in the proposal which may include, but is not required to include, estimated hourly staff time and expense rates for each component. For deliverable 2.B.2.E only, the responder should use an average hourly rate for an estimated 600 hours. To claim resident vendor status, a person, firm or corporation must have paid taxes in MN within the 12 preceding months, as well as meet the other qualifying criteria specified in statute, as referenced in Appendix I. Additional information can be found in the DHS Information Security Policy or at the MNITs website. Page 1 of 11 Updated: 2/17/2015

2 I.C Page 5, Section I.C refers to a tool for developing targets and goals to assess progress. Who developed the tool? If it was developed by a contractor, are they eligible to bid on this RFP? The MN Continuum of Accountability Matrix tool was developed by state SIM staff with the input and assistance of SIM Taskforce members. It is being used to assess maturity along a spectrum of organizations participating in SIM activities more generally; for example, to determine if access to SIM funded grants has moved the organization on this matrix. It is not directly used in measuring IHP's eligibility for shared savings which is based on contractually arranged cost and quality targets. References to the Matrix and related assessment tool can be found at the Minnesota Accountable Health Model - SIM Minnesota website on the Resources I.C I.C How is the MN Accountable Health Model current program being run? (e.g number and types of staff, existing projects and timeframes) How will the projects related to any other areas identified in the Drivers description coordinate with this project (e.g. HIT/HIE/E.H.R.)? page from the Quick Links box. Minnesota's SIM activity is led by an executive committee from both MDH and DHS, with the advice of the Community Advisory and Multi-Payer Task Forces and state staff workgroups. This RFP is a component of the Data Analytics work and is related to support of the Integrated Health Partnership (IHP, formerly called 'HCDS') demonstration, implemented through the Care Delivery and Payment Reform unit at DHS' Health Care Administration. The unit currently has 4 team members including a policy/project lead, informatics lead, analyst, and research scientist. The IHP project began in 2012, and will continue to be part of the agency's payment reform initiatives into the future. The MN Accountable Health Model is a State Innovation Model federal grant, currently in year 2 of 3, to test and accelerate the adoption of accountable care models like IHP in MN. The HIT/HIE (Driver 1) and the data analytic activities (Driver 2) are part of the same SIM workgroup. Driver leads and staff from the various SIM projects meet regularly to coordinate activities. All of the projects are supporting the objective of encouraging expansion of accountable care in MN, and IHPs are part of many of the SIM projects. Does DHS expect IHPs to provide data to populate reports? What data sources are currently being used to support the production of the dashboards and data packages, including data for the social services supports and behavioral health services? If reporting is not currently being done on the social and behavioral health services, what data sources are anticipated to be used for future reporting? Does DHS have an estimate of the number of reports required for this? How many internal reports does DHS currently have? IHPs are expected to supply provider rosters. They are also required to report quality measures to the Statewide Quality Reporting Measurement System (SQRMS). IHPs are not expected to provide additional data. Current data resources include behavioral health and some limited social service information. DHS is interested in incorporating additional social service and social determinants of health information in the future but has not identified all necessary or possible data sources. DHS does not have an estimated number but is looking for value over quantity. There are currently two reports, one that catalogs overall attributed numbers and counts by gain and loss reason categories. The second reports total cost and risk for attributed population. Page 2 of 11 Updated: 2/17/2015

3 What is the frequency of the data being received? IHP s receive data on a monthly and quarterly basis. The URL to the IHP RFP and sample contract is not working. Can vendors receive information about the IHP arrangements? The link to the 2014 IHP RFP which includes a sample IHP contract as an appendix has been restored on the IHP page of the DHS website. How can I obtain a copy of the sample files/layouts for the standard data packages with which IHPs are equipped? Who developed the current data packages and who is currently producing them? Is the developer/producer eligible to bid on this Analytics RFP? Will DHS continue to use the SAS Portal? Would the state consider an optional or alternative platform to provide online and real-time report access for participants, or should the response be focused solely on the improvement of the current platform? Do current reports provide information by individual physician or physician group, or are the reports at the total IHP/ACO level? Will the data for this project be made available to the contractor for processing remotely or will the data need to be processed at a state data center? Is MN's all-payer claims database (APCD) a possible data source for this project (comparative data)? What other data source(s) will be available? Will the winning bidder have access to the APCD for this A link to the reference guide for existing reports and the layout for current utilization data files are available at the Minnesota Accountable Health Model - SIM Minnesota website (select RFPs along the top navigation, then Data Analytics ) The monthly reports were developed by internal state staff, based on available information from ACG's comprehensive care management report output. Quarterly reports were originally developed by FORMA ACS, a contracted actuarial consulting services firm. At this time all reports are being produced by internal state staff. They are being delivered using a SAS Web Report tool. Vendors who facilitated the original reports and reporting tools would be eligible to bid on this Analytics RFP. Yes, DHS plans to continue to use the SAS Portal. The response should be focused on the deliverables outlined. Proposal of an alternative platform as a solution in the near-term to the described deliverables is not desired. DHS may consider use of an alternative, optional platform in addition to current solutions near the end of the contract terms if the responder has a detailed and well justified transition plan. Some reports include information about the physician or group seen most or seen last by an individual patient, or can be sorted or filtered by IHP location. reports are at the IHP level only. Utilization detail files also include paid-toprovider identifiers, but do not include service level cost information per legislative restriction. Responders can propose solutions that best satisfy the deliverables. Data can be made available to the contract for processing remotely as long as the responder meets necessary security and data management requirements. Use of the APCD is limited by statutory requirements and is managed through the Minnesota Department of Health. It is not currently a source of data being used for this project. The winning bidder would not have access to the APCD without separate arrangements with MDH, and potential access costs are not known. However, DHS is open to recommendations and suggestions regarding use of Page 3 of 11 Updated: 2/17/2015

4 project, and if so is there a licensing cost that should be built other available data sets. into the proposal? Does the state anticipate that the IHP user group sessions would be held in-person or via teleconference? If in-person, will the vendor need to provide the meeting space? How many resources does DHS envision the selected vendor will provide and what is the approximate breakdown of skillset or responsibility? Is the data received identified or de-identified (e.g., for members and providers data)? Are IHPs getting details for services outside their organization? What components of the existing solution are looking to be enhanced through the scope of the work outlined in the RFP? We understand nine providers began participating in the demonstration in 2013 or When do you anticipate additional organizations participating? Do you own the hardware for Driver 2 or does the responder need to include this in the pricing? Since IHPs are spread across the state, we anticipate that sessions will be primarily web/teleconference based. However, in person meetings at DHS offices in conjunction with WebEx for those who could not attend in person could be accommodated if desired by IHPs. In-person meetings where they make sense in conjunction with other IHP or SIM functions could also be considered. When inperson options make sense and are included, the vendor could assist in planning/coordinating but would not be expected to provide the meeting space. DHS is looking for responders to propose the necessary resources to accomplish the outlined deliverables. Data received currently by IHPs includes recipient and provider identifiers. IHPs get utilization detail for services occurring outside their organization, but do not get provider paid amounts at a service level, due to legislative restrictions. Analytic staff has prioritized provider reports at the expense of time and attention to internal programmatic reports. Through this RFP, we are seeking improved program reports that look across IHPs, examine possible shifts to costs and services, and compare attributed to non-attributed populations. For reports available to IHPs, DHS is looking to improve action-ability of the information, improved benchmarking, and additional clinical level analysis. In both areas, additional suggestions are encouraged. Six additional providers began IHP contracts in 2015, as currently listed on DHS IHP webpage. We anticipate additional growth in the number of participating providers in 2016, but can t speculate on which providers or how many could be added. DHS currently owns the hardware being used to provide analytics related to IHPs. Purchase of additional hardware is not anticipated for this project. Page 4 of 11 Updated: 2/17/2015

5 II.B To what extent should vendor have the capability to create reports? Will DHS provide a report writing resource to work from a vendor supplied template, or will a resource with a specific reporting capability be required? In what language are the current reports written? For deliverables under part B (Technical Assistance to IHPs), vendor would not be expected to create reports; DHS does have some report writing resources that could work from vendor specifications. However, additional vendor capacity to accelerate creation of reports could be an advantage. Current reports are developed in SAS. II.B II.B II.B. II.B.1 What is the expected service model to support ad-hoc questions? Does the state require a specific staffing model? What is the reporting count and level of support (hours) provided currently? Describe further what is meant by "uninterrupted access" and what the vendor's role is, if any, in providing this access. Is DHS satisfied with their ability to provide such access, or should the proposal include the review and recommendation of possible alternatives that could better satisfy this requirement? Will the contractor be required to implement risk adjustment methodologies, using appropriate software? No specific service or staffing model is proscribed. DHS is looking for qualified responders to propose the method through which they could best respond to questions and requests for assistance. Please refer to the current IHP Reporting Reference information for the report count information, available on the Minnesota Accountable Health Model - SIM Minnesota website. Approximately 80 hrs. /wk. (2FTE) are dedicated to IHP data analytics; the majority of this time is spent on operationalizing and producing existing reports. An objective of this RFP is to increase the amount of direct support available to IHPs on use of the data. Uninterrupted delivery of certain information is a contractual obligation of DHS to the IHPs. The vendor is not expected to provide this access; however, work plans will not be considered if they include or result in a period of time where the IHPs do not receive the currently supplied monthly reports. DHS is reasonably satisfied with current access solutions, but is less satisfied with our current capability to provide technical assistance and rapid responses to questions, or to provide guidance on improved use, interpretation and understanding of the information. DHS recognizes that there is always room for improvement and would be open to alternatives that could better satisfy requirements in the future but is not looking for those proposals as part of this contract. No, the contractor will not be required to implement risk adjustment methodologies. Does the existing solution already have preferred methodologies for predictive and population risk, care coordination indices and performance scores? Or is the MN Accountable Health Model looking for the vendor to propose new methodologies? The existing solutions utilize predictive and population risk and care coordination indices from Johns Hopkins ACG software. This project is not seeking proposed new methodologies. DHS anticipates continuing to utilize ACG for at least the next 5 years. The state would, however, consider additional tools to supplement or complement ACG. Would the state consider alternative risk methodologies in addition to ACGs? Page 5 of 11 Updated: 2/17/2015

6 II.B.1 If the contractor is required to conduct analysis of recipient level data, would the contractor be working within the DHS data domain or will the contractor be required to securely receive and maintain the data internally? Either is feasible. Responders should propose the route that fits best with their work plan and ability to receive and handle PHI. II.B.1(a-c) II.B.1.a It is unclear if the expectation of the contractor is to serve in a consultant role (advice only) vs. data programming role (hands-on, run analysis on the data). Since these roles require very different levels of effort can you clarify the expected analytic role for each task? What skill sets are required of the contractor? Will DHS staff be familiar with the data sources and platforms available to support report development? Will the selected vendor be receiving one aggregated date feed from the State, or will there be multiple sources? If the latter, can you estimate the number of data sources? II.B.1.a Who developed the dashboard referenced on Page 6 (Section 11.B.1) and if developed by a contractor, are they eligible to bid on this Analytics RFP? II.B.1.a II.B.1.c II.B.1.c Will the vendor be creating a new data warehouse to support reporting? If a new data warehouse is designed, will it be onsite or managed by the vendor? Does the Department currently have an existing Data Warehouse that collects and integrates information to be consumed for Analytics? If so, what is the data architecture and model structure? Does DHS expect the contract to provide consulting services only related to risk adjustment or provide any data analytics or regular running of the grouper(s) with reports back to DHS? Will there be a licensing fee the contractor will need to pay or does the state have a license the contractor can use for the ACG work referenced in II.B.1.C? For internal reporting (analytic consultative services to DHS), the contractor would be expected to create some content and conduct analysis, but should also be able to provide transferable knowledge, table shells or necessary detailed specifications so that state staff could recreate or modify as needed after the conclusion of the contract. For technical assistance to IHPs, the expected role is primarily consultative since there is greater dependency on use and integration with the existing SAS Portal. DHS staff with whom the contractor would be working closely is very knowledgeable of existing data sources and reasonably familiar with the report development platform. The responder should propose the mechanism for data sharing that aligns best with their work plan for satisfying the outlined deliverables. This could be in the form of an aggregated feed, access to existing reports, or other mechanisms where feasible. No data source besides existing Medicaid encounter information is assumed. The dashboard was developed by internal state staff using excel and SAS Business Intelligence tools. Responders should propose the necessary resources to accomplish the outlined deliverable. We do not anticipate that creation and management of a new data warehouse would be required to support internal reporting as DHS has an established data warehouse. Additional information about the data warehouse model could be reviewed with the successful bidder as necessary. DHS is seeking consultative services, and would expect that the responder is familiar with risk adjustment methodology and applications especially use and output available from Johns Hopkins ACGs. The contractor would not be expected to pay additional licensing fees, nor be expected to process or run ACG software, but should be familiar with output available from ACG. Page 6 of 11 Updated: 2/17/2015

7 II.B.1.c What version of ACG is being used now and using what data source? What capabilities are currently enabled? DHS has an operational license and is currently using the DXRX-PM model in ACG Version for the IHP project. Risk and care coordination output after running the DHS Medicaid enrollment, claim and pharmacy history through the risk adjuster tool are stored in views in the DHS data warehouse for use in reporting. II.B.1.d Can you be more specific on the expectations related to how often the regular written status reports are to be delivered? Status updates would be needed on a quarterly basis and be timed such that relevant information could be incorporated into progress reports prepared by DHS to CMS/CMMI related to all SIM grant funded activities. II.B.1.d II.B.2 II.B.2 II.B.2 II.B.2.a Deliverable 1.D requests that we provide expected costs for the outlined activities. However, Section III.E Cost Proposal states that we should not include any cost information in the technical requirements part. Please advise/clarify. Is the IHP Administrator responsible for receiving and disseminating these recommendations to participating providers or is it expected that the Contractor in conjunction with DHS and the IHP Administrator share recommendations on a 1:1 basis with practicing providers? Does reference to providers on pg. 7 refer to the ACO entity and/or the sub-providers that comprise the ACO? Does the term within participating providers refer to individual practices within the IHP? How does the state propose to address IHP questions regarding data and reporting accuracy? For example, will the vendor be required to provide documentation of underlying data and calculation of specific metrics or is the scope limited to explaining underlying principles and methods used to calculate the metrics? What assumptions should be made about the quality of the data? Is there a preferred format of the reference materials such as Microsoft Word or PowerPoint? Responders should prepare and manage project plan timelines both as part of the RFP proposal and as a contracted deliverable. Include the proposed project management approach including high-level timelines in the Technical Requirements Proposed Work Plan. Include any costs associated with this project management deliverable in the Cost Proposal information. Recommendations would be shared with the IHP Administrator(s), but the responder can propose alternative plans for disseminating and providing recommendations to participating providers. The term provider refers to both the IHP/ACO entity and the sub-providers that make up the IHP. Participating providers refers to the individual practices, locations or organizations that make up the IHP. IHP questions regarding reporting and data accuracy would be addressed by the state in collaboration with the IHPs and MCOs as it is currently done. The scope of vendor support and documentation is specific to resources that promote the understanding and use of the information. While no data is perfectly clean, responding vendors can assume that the data quality and accuracy is good and that they will not need to scrub the data as part of the scope of work. Data integrity of claims and encounters is monitored on a regular basis by DHS. Preferred format allows ease for editing and distribution. To make reference materials accessible via the current reporting portal, they were written in Microsoft Word. Page 7 of 11 Updated: 2/17/2015

8 II.B.2.a Regarding the reference material to accompany reports, would the role of the contract be more case management or actuarial support to review savings calculators? DHS envisions this task as providing ACO management support. Reference materials would provide tips on the use, interpretation and application of the reports, not actuarial support/review of savings. II.B.2.a II.B.2.a-c II.B.2.b Does DHS envision this task in 11.B.2.A as more a review of the shared savings of the ACOs or as case management to see how ACOs can improve performance? In the available Medicaid IHP data, is there a link between providers and their associated practices or will the vendor need to identify those provider-practice relationships? This task will require detailed data about an IHP and its outcome data. Will the contractor be required to identify the necessary data to be collected? Will the contractor be required to collect and maintain this data? This task refers to use of available data to highlight potential areas for ACO performance improvement. IHPs are provided quarterly shared savings performance results as well as a number of other metrics, but assistance for some in identifying which metrics are of most significance or what they should focus on remains a challenge. An example product that could satisfy this deliverable would be a periodic executive summary/cover sheet for each IHP of the top three items of interest in their reports. The available link to a provider and their associated practice is through the identifiers submitted on a claim. A reference associating providers to their IHP organization exists, but there is no additional reference to definitively link a single provider to a single practice across other Medicaid data. The contractor would be expected to provide the best possible recommendations given available data and should include any suggestions regarding data gaps and how to address these gaps where necessary. Collection or maintenance of additional data are not required as part of the contract deliverables, although vendors may propose solutions that include this work, if applicable. II.B.2.e II.B.2.e III.B Will DHS manage and prioritize the consultation requests from the IHPs? In reference to the IHP specific consultation, which analytic tools are currently in place that we will be expected to use? Are there page limits in the Evidence of Work Product, Relevant Responder Experience, Resumes of Lead Responder Staff and Financial Stability sections? The contractor should propose mechanisms for tracking and managing requests for assistance. DHS is not anticipating prioritizing or managing IHP requests. There are no presupposed expectations that the vendor use specific analytic tools - only that they have expertise and knowledge regarding Medicaid ACOs that would allow them to identify key priorities and strategies for IHPs using available Medicaid information. As needed and unless prohibited by privacy and security rules or conflict of interest, DHS would make available Medicaid data and reports currently in place for IHPs. Vendors could also use their own analytic tools where applicable. Beyond what is provided by DHS, IHPs also have varied analytic tools and capacities of their own. They use different E.H.R.s and internal reporting platforms, and have different internal processes for accessing and using the data. There are no page limits to these sections. Responders are encouraged to keep materials to necessary and relevant information only. Page 8 of 11 Updated: 2/17/2015

9 III.B.2 Can you provide any additional milestone dates (besides start and end) regarding completion of the work described? DHS is looking for the responders to propose work plans. Responders should anticipate, at minimum, quarterly status reports reflecting progress toward prioritized deliverables. Some 2015 dates to consider include IHP quarterly user groups tentatively scheduled for 4/20, 7/28 and 10/26 and SIM Learning Days III.C.5 III.D.1 III.D.2; Appendix I III.E III.E III.E III.E Is the six percent preference calculated on the total available points or a six percent of the evaluation points specific to the respondent? Does the veteran-owned small business need to be the prime contractor of services in order to receive the preference? Will you only accept a response from MN based companies, or is the RFP open to companies from other states as well? Should travel (pg 21 and 43 Section V1.C) be included in the total estimated cost and/or estimated hourly rate in Appendix G? Does funding exist for DHS to purchase proprietary analytics technology utilized by a company's healthcare consulting services division? The second paragraph in the cost proposal section makes reference to rate(s) whereas Appendix G has only one line for estimated hourly rate. Please clarify if there are rates in addition to the Estimated Hourly Rate. Should the cost proposal cover only the first year or also the anticipated extension for year 2? If two-year period, will the scope vary between years 1 and 2? scheduled for May in St. Cloud, MN. The six % preference is applied after the calculation of the total evaluation points when the responder of the proposal meets the criteria for certified Targeted Group Businesses and Individuals or Economically Disadvantaged Businesses and Individuals. The preference is applied when the primary contractor with whom DHS would contract meets the criteria for the veteran-owned small business. The RFP is open to companies from other states. The "Resident Vendor Status Form" is only required if the responder is claiming resident vendor status. Travel should be included in the total estimated cost. At this time, DHS does not have funding reserved for the purchase of additional proprietary technology. However, as part of their proposed work plan for satisfying deliverables, responders can include costs of leveraging alternative proprietary technology as long as the plan includes related timelines and costs for integrating, transitioning or sustaining support for the solutions beyond the term of the contract. There may be different rates and costs associated with the deliverables, and these should be specified in the Cost Proposal Template and summed to provide the Total Estimated Cost for the project. The cost proposal should cover both years. Responders should include in their work plan the timeline for addressing the deliverables in the RFP. Work plans can span both years 1 and 2. Please note that renewal for year 2 would be for an additional 9 months through December 2016 rather than April Budgeting should be done according to the template for April 2015 December 2015, and January 2016 December 2016 periods. III.E What is the budget for this project? A total of $3 million has been budgeted for this project. Page 9 of 11 Updated: 2/17/2015

10 IV.C.2 Must the 8 courtesy copies be received by the closing date or postmarked by the closing date? Responses must be received in SWIFT by the closing date. Courtesy copies are for the convenience of reviewers and will not be reviewed, regardless of postmark date, if not accompanied by a complete submitted response in SWIFT by 2/27. Reviewers will begin assessing proposals on 3/3/15. Responders are encouraged to have courtesy copies also received by the 2/27 closing date as mail room processing can sometimes be delayed. What tools or skills do most internal staff have now? Data analytics team members are SAS or SQL users. They are analysts familiar with DHS claims and encounter data and have general health care experience. Will the vendor provide technical assistance and/or educational support to the non-health providers in the ACO arrangement? What role will the vendor play in integrating information between health providers in the ACO and non-health providers affiliated with the ACO? What systems for clinical information are you expecting to receive the information from? Will this information be provided in the file formats or is the expectation that the vendor integrate directly into various EMR systems? Would you expect the vendor to interact directly with CMS on your behalf? Yes, the vendor would provide assistance and educational support for any formal partner in the IHP which may include non-health providers. However, most IHPs consist of health care provider systems. The vendor could play a role in the integration of information between providers (health or non-health providers) affiliated with the ACO if requested as an area of assistance needed under the IHP specific consultation deliverable. The vendor could also provide consultation and guidance to DHS related to use of non-health data under deliverable II.B.1.b-c. DHS is not currently receiving clinical information directly. Providers use the Minnesota Department of Health s Statewide Quality Reporting & Measurement System to report clinical outcome information. DHS receives necessary numerator/denominator information for these clinical quality outcomes to calculate the impact on shared savings. DHS does not expect to provide clinical information to responders as part of this proposal, and there is no expectation of integration directly with various EMR systems at this time. However, the topic of clinical and administrative data aggregation may be a topic of interest that an IHP wishes to explore through IHP specific consultation. No, the vendor would not interact directly with CMS on behalf of DHS for this project. How much on-site time is expected? There is no pre-supposed amount of on-site time expected. DHS is looking for vendors to propose work plans and associated costs that can best fulfill the deliverables. Page 10 of 11 Updated: 2/17/2015

11 Will there be more than one vendor awarded a contract? DHS is looking to award a single vendor contract as a result of this procurement. There are no other SIM Data Analytics vendor procurements planned. If a single vendor is unable to satisfactorily provide all requested deliverables, DHS may prioritize deliverables and forgo use of a contracted vendor supported by SIM funding for other tasks. We anticipate releasing an RFP in 2015 to directly award grants to IHP providers to pursue specific, individual data analytics projects. How will projects supported through planned IHP data analytic grants coordinate with this project? Will the analytics vendor be required to perform attribution processing? Does the state have a master data management process to develop, assign and store master provider and patient indices or will the vendor be responsible for developing these within the scope of this contract? The two projects complement one another. The IHP Data Analytics project is intended to build the capacity for DHS to provide consistent and effective tools for all providers participating in the IHP demonstration going forward. We expect this project to most benefit IHPs that don t already have established data analytic resources. The IHP analytic grants are being made available to recognize that several IHPs already have existing data analytics vendor relationships, or are ready to advance more specific projects. No. The State has an attribution methodology established in contracts with IHPs which it will continue to perform internally. The State has established processes for assigning and maintaining provider and recipient identifiers. The vendor would not be responsible for developing these within the scope of this contract. Page 11 of 11 Updated: 2/17/2015