Tuesday, 2 June 2003 Application Simplification Workgroup Present: Mary Rydell, Jeffrey Young, Liane Hiramoto, Eiko Cusick, Barbara Luksch, Lillian Koller, and Cassandra Stewart Next meeting: 1 July 2003 at 3:00 PM The purpose of the meeting was to continue our discussion on the children and pregnant women application. 1. Comments on the draft were solicited prior to the meeting and responses were received from Donna Cohen Ross (our mainland consultant), Pat McManaman (Na Loio), Sue Castleberry (CMS), Mary Leach (Maryland Covering Kids), and Med-QUEST (MQD) supervisors. Barbara copied them onto a handout for the workgroup's review. 2. There is still a question from MQD supervisors on pursuing child support and paternity for pregnant women when they request assistance for other children. Policy information has been contradictory, therefore Lillian will have Aileen address the issue in a memo to all eligibility workers. 3. We will make these changes for Draft #3: * Add a question in #1 "What language do you speak best?" * In the clarification comments, add "We are asking this question because." * Make it more evident the applicant can submit separate pregnancy verification OR have the health care provider fill out the form. Both are not required. * Explain in question #3 that family members determine household size. * Delete the question on child care. * Common questions and answers and a list of resources on page six. * Delete information on cooperation and good cause and assets in the Rights and Responsibilities section. 4. Mary explained a state licensed health care provider must verify pregnancy. 5. Maryland is an expansion state that has a separate application for children and pregnant women. Mary Leach explained that determining which application to mail to a caller is not a problem because the staff simply ask who wants health insurance. Also, if the separate application is completed and there is a non-pregnant adult who needs health insurance, they mail the full application and in the meantime screen for the children and/or pregnant woman. Their goal is to get all eligible children and pregnant women into the system as quickly as possible with a maximum approval/denial time of ten days. 6. Donna stated there is not a higher reimbursement rate for people in 1931. Also, twenty states have dropped the asset test for parents in 1931 and if Hawai'i did, too, the parents could use this form. Barbara explained this issue was addressed with the current 1100 form and it was decided to not request asset information for children and pregnant women. 7. Question #7 (as well as #9 on 1100) should be worded to state the person is signing under penalty of perjury. Liane will advise us at the next meeting. Also, the citizenship section in Rights and Responsibilities needs tweaking. 8. Barbara and Liane will meet to outline the field test procedure and timeline. 9. We discussed faxed signatures. Sue Castleberry sent Barbara extensive information on electronic signatures and Mary explained, "While OGC and CMS recommend authentication, it is not a federal requirement that an original be sent it. The only requirements are that the application be signed under penalty of perjury and that the process be allowable under state law." Based on the guidance so far, Hawaii MAY require an original to be sent in but it is NOT a CMS requirement.