*** The Health Care Programs Manual (HCPM) has been replaced by the Minnesota Health Care Programs Eligibility Policy Manual (EPM) as of June 1, 2016. Please refer to the EPM for current health care program policy information. ***
Effective: June 1, 2010 |
|
29.20.15 - PARIS Match Examples |
Archived: June 1, 2016 |
This section provides examples of PARIS match procedures.
Medical Assistance (MA) and Food Support (FS) Active with Same Worker.
Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP) and MA Active with Same Worker.
FS and MA Active with Different Workers.
MFIP, Child Care Assistance Program (CCAP) and MA Active with Different Workers.
MinnesotaCare and FS Active with Different Workers.
MA and FS Active with Same Worker
Example:
Carol is a household of one and is active on MA and FS. Jennifer is her worker. Jennifer receives a DAIL message that Carol was matched through the PARIS Interstate Match. The match information indicates that the match was with Iowa.
Action:
1. Jennifer reviews the case upon receipt of the PARIS DAIL message to determine if Carol is active on the case. Jennifer determines that Carol is active on MA and FS on the case noted in the DAIL message.
2. Jennifer determines that Carol is not active or does not affect eligibility on any other public assistance case in Minnesota.
3. Jennifer further reviews the case to determine if the match information is known. The file shows that Carol recently moved to Minnesota, and that she already provided a copy of her new Minnesota Driver’s License.
4. Jennifer updates the PARIS resolution status in MAXIS to show that Carol provided verification of Minnesota residence.
5. Jennifer enters case notes to document the PARIS match resolution. No further action is needed.
Note: If any person matched is active or affects eligibility in any other public assistance program case, advise other workers of information received.
Example:
Michael and his girlfriend, Sylvia, are both active on FS on Sylvia’s case. Michael is also active on his own MA case. Sandy is the worker for both cases. Sandy receives two DAIL messages, one for each case, that Michael was matched through the PARIS Interstate Match.
Action:
1. Sandy reviews both cases upon receipt of the PARIS notification to determine if Michael is active. Sandy determines that Michael is active on MA and FS on the cases noted in the DAIL message.
2. Sandy determines that Michael is not active or does not affect eligibility on any additional public assistance case in Minnesota.
3. Sandy further reviews both cases to determine if the match information is known. There is no information in either case file to explain the match information.
4. Sandy codes MAXIS to send the MAXIS PARIS Interstate Match Notice to request verification of Michael’s Minnesota residency for both the MA case and the FS case. Each notice will be addressed to person 01 on that case (Sylvia is person 01 on the FS case and Michael is person 01 on the MA case). Within the body of both notices it will list Michael as the matched person.
5. Michael responds to the requests and provides verification of his Minnesota residency.
6. Sandy updates the PARIS resolution status in MAXIS for both cases.
7. Sandy enters case notes to document PARIS match resolution. No further action needed.
MFIP and MA Active with Same Worker
Example:
Jenny and her two sons Ben, age 2, and Tom, age 4, are active on MFIP and MA. Elizabeth is their worker. Elizabeth receives a DAIL message that Ben was matched through the PARIS Interstate Match.
Action:
1. Elizabeth reviews the case upon receipt of the PARIS notification to determine if Ben is active on the case. Elizabeth determines that Ben is active on this case in Minnesota.
2. Elizabeth determines that Ben is not active and does not affect eligibility on any other public assistance case in Minnesota.
3. Elizabeth further reviews the case to determine if the match information is known. There is no information in the case to explain the match.
4. Elizabeth codes MAXIS to send the MAXIS PARIS Interstate Match Notice to inform Jenny (member 01 on the case) of the match on Ben and to request verification of Ben’s Minnesota residency.
5. Jenny calls Elizabeth to let her know that Ben has moved to Texas to live with his father.
6. Elizabeth removes Ben from the household and redetermines eligibility for MFIP and MA for the remaining members.
7. Elizabeth updates the PARIS resolution status in MAXIS.
8. Elizabeth enters case notes to document the PARIS match resolution.
9. Elizabeth reviews the case to determine if there is an overpayment.
FS and MA Active with Different Workers
Example:
David and his brother Christopher are both active on Christopher’s FS case. Sarah is the worker for this case. David is also open on a separate MA case with Amy as his worker. Sarah and Amy both receive DAIL messages that David was matched through the PARIS Interstate Match. Sarah is the first to review the case.
Action:
1. Sarah reviews the FS case upon receipt of the PARIS notification to determine if David is active on the case. Sarah determines that David is active on this case in Minnesota.
2. Sarah notes that Michael is also active on MA in Minnesota with Amy as his worker.
3. Sarah further reviews the case to determine if the match information is known. There is no information in the case file to explain the match information. Sarah contacts Amy to find out if she has any information to explain why the match occurred. Amy has no information either.
4. Both Sarah and Amy generate a PARIS Interstate Match Notice to request verification of David’s Minnesota residency. Sarah sends the notice to Christopher who is person 01 on the FS case. Amy sends the notice to David who is person 01 on the MA case.
5. Christopher contacts Sarah to let her know that David has already moved to Illinois and that he will follow him soon. The match information indicates that Illinois is the matched state.
6. Sarah reminds Christopher to advise her of his residency change within 10 days of his move.
7. Sarah removes David and redetermines eligibility for FS. She also determines if there is an overpayment.
8. Sarah updates the PARIS resolution status in MAXIS for the FS case.
9. Sarah enters case notes to document the PARIS match resolution.
10. Sarah contacts Amy, the health care worker, to advise her of the changes.
11. Amy reviews the MA case and closes David’s MA case based on the information received.
12. Amy updates the PARIS resolution status in MAXIS for the health care case.
13. Amy enters case notes to document the PARIS match resolution.
MFIP, CCAP and MA Active with Different Workers
Example:
Jake, his wife Brenda, and their child Kim, who is an auto newborn, are on MFIP, CCAP, and MA. Deb is the worker for the MFIP and MA programs. Mary is the worker for the CCAP. Deb receives three DAIL messages - for Jake, Brenda, and Kim - because they each matched through the PARIS Interstate Match. Deb is the first worker to review the case.
Action:
1. Deb reviews the case upon receipt of the PARIS match to determine whether the matched clients are active. Deb determines that all three are active on the MFIP and MA case.
2. Deb notes that clients are also active on CCAP in Minnesota with Mary as their worker.
3. Deb further reviews the case to determine if the match information is known. There is no information in the case file to explain the match information.
4. Deb contacts Mary to find out if she has any information to explain why the match occurred. Mary has no information.
5. Deb generates three MAXIS PARIS Interstate Match Notices (one for each matched person) to inform the clients of the match and to request verification of the matched clients’ Minnesota residency. All notices will be addressed to person 01 on the case and each will list the specific matched person.
6. Mary receives Alerts that the notices have been sent.
7. After 10 days, Deb has not received a response from the matched clients. Deb notifies Mary that there has been no response.
8. Deb documents in case notes that no response has been received. She closes all MAXIS cases. Because Kim is matched, her eligibility will also close, even though she is an auto newborn.
9. Mary documents in MEC² that no response has been received and closes child care assistance.
10. Deb updates the PARIS resolution status in MAXIS for each person.
11. Both workers review for possible overpayments and referral to their county fraud unit.
Example:
Cindy is active on MinnesotaCare. Her worker is Darren. Darren receives the PARIS Match InfoPac Report advising him that Cindy matched through the PARIS Interstate Match.
Action:
1. Darren reviews the case upon receipt of the PARIS match to determine whether Cindy is active on MinnesotaCare. Darren determines that Cindy is active.
2. Darren also determines that Cindy is not active and does not affect eligibility on any other public assistance case in Minnesota.
3. Darren further reviews the case to determine if the match information has already been resolved or is explained by information in the case. There is no information in the case file to explain the match information.
4. Darren prints and mails the Request for Proof of Residence (DHS-6035) to inform Cindy of the match and request verification of her Minnesota residency.
5. Darren receives a phone call from Cindy informing him that she no longer resides in Minnesota.
6. Darren closes Cindy’s MinnesotaCare.
7. Darren enters case notes to document the PARIS match resolution.
MinnesotaCare and FS Active with Different Workers
Example:
Steve, his wife Julie, and their child Jodie, who is an auto newborn, are all active on Julie’s MinnesotaCare case. Carlos is their MinnesotaCare case worker. All household members are also active on Julie’s FS case with worker, Pam. Steve is matched in Nebraska. Carlos receives the PARIS Match InfoPac Report advising him of this match. Pam receives a MAXIS DAIL message. Carlos is the first to act on the match resolution.
Action:
1. Carlos reviews the case upon receipt of the PARIS match to determine whether Steve is active on MinnesotaCare. Carlos determines that Steve is active.
2. Carlos notes that the family is also active on FS in Minnesota with Pam as their worker.
3. Carlos further reviews the case to determine if the match information is known. There is no information in the case to explain the match information.
4. Carlos contacts Pam to find out if she has any information to explain why the match occurred. Pam does not have any additional information
5. Carlos prints and mails the Request for Proof of Residence (DHS-6035) to inform the clients of the match and to request verification of Steve’s Minnesota residency. Carlos sends the notice to Julie because she is person 01 on the MinnesotaCare case.
6. Pam codes MAXIS to send the MAXIS PARIS Interstate Match Notice, to inform the clients of the match and to request verification of Steve’s Minnesota residency. The notice is sent to Julie because she is person 01 on the FS case.
7. After 10 days, neither Carlos nor Pam has received a response from the household which they communicate to each other.
8. Carlos documents in case notes that no response has been received.
9. Carlos closes MinnesotaCare eligibility for Steve and Julie. Carlos does not close eligibility for Jodie, the auto newborn. For health care programs, non-matched auto newborns meet an exception.