Electronic Visit Verification Market

Part
01
of one
Part
01

Electronic Visit Verification Market

Implementation of the Electronic Visit Verification technology across the U.S. states is gradually taking shape with a few months remaining before the deadline. Most of the states that were lagging are in the process of selecting a statewide aggregator vendor, a process likely to end before the end of the year. Generally, the adoption of EVV solutions varies across states, with some already reaping the benefits of the technology, while some are still undecided regarding which model to implement. The sections below uncover in-depth information on EVV implementation statuses for the undecided states as at December 19, 2019.

I. Overview of the EVV Market & Requirements Under The 21st Century Cures Act

EVV Compliance Aspects of the 21st Century Cures Act

II. The Current Opportunities in the States that as of December 19, 2019, were Either Undecided Regarding EVV Implementation

Alaska

Idaho

Iowa

Kentucky

  • The Kentucky Department for Medicaid Services (DMS) is currently working with Tellus, LLC, to launch an EVV system in Kentucky. In this regard, providers will receive appropriate training on how to use the cost-free Tellus application.
  • Tellus allows integration with other EVV systems; therefore, providers within Kentucky can use their EVV systems as long it is compatible with Tellus for DMS reimbursement.
  • Kentucky has complied with EVV requirements via its Good Faith Exemption request approved by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to extend the deadline for implementing an EVV system to January 01, 2021.

Maine

Montana

  • Montana is still undecided about which aggregator to use and the EVV model to adopt. The state received the Good Faith Exemption to push the deadline for implementation to January 01, 2021.
  • Based on this information, it is assumed that there are an aggregator and vendor-technology opportunities in Montana State as it remains undecided on which model and aggregator to use.
  • Montana's current opportunity regards its EVV system request for proposal; however, the site with the RFP is inactive. Unfortunately, the Montana Medicaid web page lacks a specific page for the EVV system.

New Jersey

North Dakota

Wyoming

  • Wyoming's status shows that the state is currently in the contract negotiations stage and that the contractor would be announced once they have signed the contract.
  • The Wyoming Department of Health, Division of Healthcare Financing, is planning to procure an EVV technology for the state via a future Request for Proposal (RFP). In this regard, there are future opportunities regarding submitting an RFP for consideration.
  • Wyoming has remained compliant with EVV requirements based on its Good Faith Exemption request, which the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services granted it to delay the implementation of the project to January 1, 2021.
  • Since the Wyoming EVV system status is in the contract negotiations phase, it is unlikely that more opportunities regarding EVV still exist. Meantime, the state remains undecided regarding which EVV model to implement.

III. Competitive Analysis of the Current Competitive Landscape of the EVV Market

Axis Care

Axxess

ClearCare (WellSky)

Sandata

Healthstar

FirstData

Research Methodology

Your research team examined the detailed 21st Century Cures Act to uncover more details regarding its requirements about EVV solutions, its regulatory environment, and compliance aspects. This information was unearthed from the Medicaid Government database and news and insights published by technology vendors like Samsung. Regarding the states that, as of December 19, 2019, were either undecided, we checked each of their health departments, which are responsible for the implementation of EVV in their states. Luckily, we found most of the information regarding the statuses of the undecided states, their progress, vendor information, and the technologies they are using, as available. Unfortunately, these states did not provide the selection criteria they are using to determine which EVV solution works best. On that note, we found out that most of the states' selection criteria are influenced by the requirements of EVV per state, and the available EVV vendors in the state.

Moreover, stakeholder participation during the process included inputs from all parties, which are also likely to have influenced or informed the selection criteria. About the competitor information provided, we checked those details on each of the competitors' websites, specifically their EVV solutions pages. Further, we relied on reviews of existing EVV platforms, news publications, and announcements made by specific vendors to uncover details about the states these vendors are currently serving, the technologies they are using, and the impact they have had so far. Overall, the information above answers all aspects of the EVV market, especially regarding implementation statuses statewide, technologies in use, and the impact these solutions have had.
Sources
Sources