cmips user manual

cmips user manual

In 1978, California enacted Welfare and Institutions Code 12302.2 that mandated a payroll and payment system for the IHSS program to be known as the Case Management, Information and Payrolling System (CMIPS). In later years, CMIPS was modified to also support the Waiver Personal Care Services (WPCS) program, and Home and Community-Based Services (HCB) program. The case management function keeps track of over 620,000 active recipients, as well as pending applicants, terminated recipients, pending providers, and terminated providers. CMIPS has approximately 6,000 end users across the fifty-eight (58) California counties, the CDSS APD, Department of Health Care Services (DHCS), and the OSI CMIPS Office. CMIPS also ensures timely exchange of information with more than a 100 interface partners, including all California counties.The IHSS Program consists of five (5) programs: The WPCS program is administered by the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS). The CDSS APD is the CMIPS executive sponsor and has lead responsibility for the success of the IHSS Program and their supporting systems. The in-home personal care services include housecleaning, meal preparation, laundry, shopping, personal care services (such as dressing and feeding), paramedical services accompaniment to medical appointments, and protective supervision to Medi-Cal eligible and low-income elderly and disabled people. CMIPS is regularly updated to leverage technology innovation to better support the IHSS program. In 2017, the IHSS Electronic Services Portal (ESP) was established and the Electronic Timesheets Solution (ETS) was created. The ETS allows IHSS and WCPS Providers to submit timesheets on-line and their Recipients to approve the timesheets on-line or by telephone.http://www.olikon.it/public/anutelNewsProdotti/50h82-service-manual.xml

• cmips user manual, clips user manual, cmips ii user s manual, cmips user manual, cmips user manual, cmips user manual.

This new on-line electronic timesheet capability provides a significant improvement over the use of paper timesheet because it gets timesheets into the system faster by avoiding mailing time and has built-in guidance to prevent timesheet errors. Providers can log-in to their on-line secured account to view the status of their timesheet and payment. Like the rest of CMIPS, the new portal is being continually improved to add more features. In early 2018 we added the ability for Providers to request direct deposit on-line. In 2019 and 2020, the ESP is being leveraged to meet the Electronic Visit Verification (EVV) federal mandate which requires information to be electronically collected for the type of services performed with date, time, and location. For more information about EVV, please visit the CDSS EVV website. As of June 2019, CGI Technologies and Solutions, Inc (CGI) is the primary CMIPS vendor and provides system maintenance and operations, help desk, case management support, payroll processing, program support services, and reporting. The California Department of Technology (CDT) Data Center hosts the CMIPS production and test infrastructure, operates the statewide network, and provides Technology Recovery (TR) services. I like specially the possibility to have your code and Google scaling to the number of Servers you need, transparently, in the same architecture they use with Google App. I notice also that Google Compute Engine charges per 10 minute intervals. Thanks for the clarification Few charge by the day. You can only launch smaller models. From f1-micro (1 core in Shared CPU) to n1-standard-2 (2 vCPU and 7.5 GB RAM). The only one we have found to have additional support for Sun (Oracle) Solaris SPARC is CloudSigma. I’ve my google account in Catalan, but as it is not available automatically it showed everything. I would have preferred to browse all the process in English instead but there was no way to change the language for the registration process.http://www.jastrzab.gmina.waw.pl/pliki/50h13-service-manual.xml

That’s why some screen captures are in Spanish, until I was registered, and so able to switch to English. I guess that’s a measure for validation like Amazon does. That’s a good point. This is one of the points I insisted to Amazon when I was in their offices in Dublin. It’s always cool to know that there will be a maintenance if you plan to release something. Date of the last creation of the images is provided clearly. Everything was up to date. The Ubuntu base image was created on 2014-12-17 Tricky spaces at the end doesn’t raise an error. In fact the instances have a private address that is mapped (NAT) to the public Ip. This is very important to know as some programs may require special configurations. As you may know one of the things that is very important for SEO is the response time. With a super-low latency your website will always have faster response times to google. I was sondering so if this translates in that instances in google cloud would probably have a better Page Rank. The general consensus is we do nothing to favor sites hosted on GCP and any latency benefit if one existed will be negligible in terms of SEO. This gives them a massively scaleable way to serve content and benefit from automatic caching. No CDN needed. “ Fortunately there is a Web SSH Client and the console sends the keys to Web SSH Client, so you can access the Server and add whatever you need. SSH port is open to worldwide by default. (And I can assure there are robots trying to access your Server from the very first moment) You cannot stop an instance, and if you shutdown the server from command line the machine stops and you’re not able to restart it. Fortunately the disk is not deleted by manually shutdowning and you can generate a snapshot and launch a new instance using this snapshot. However documentation tells that: Many use snapshots for doing backups, but generating an snapshot of a live system, not stopped, could end in a corrupted mysql database in the snapshot.

Really not appealing. One may except from this to have a snapshot and launch of new instance, but only clones the properties, like the base image used. It works better that Azure but don’t trust it at all. It approximates and aggregates. One ends looking for one single server, and in the past hour. You must create a snapshot and then launch a new instance from this. And they try from the very first moment. I’m seeing this in several providers lastly, like Azure. I guess they do for performance, (to avoid having swap -that goes over the network- overloading the host and network) but it’s annoying to have to setup the swap for every instance. (having no swap is bad many times, as if it exceeds the threshold of available memory applications crash or are killed, swap is recommended in many cases) There was no capacity it said. I had to test in US zones. This discount is applied automatically, with no sign-up or up-front commitment required. If you use an instance for 100% of the billing cycle, you get a 30% net discount over our already low prices. I can’t say certainly what CPU model they are using. That’s a very good point when auto-scaling. In the case of the f1-micro as the CPU is shared, there is no number. The highcpu has the same CPU power than the same number of cores called standard, but the standard has more RAM. These caps are dependent on the number of cores that a virtual machine has. Each additional core increases the network cap. All caps are meant as maximum possible performance, and not sustained performance. Depending on your needs, you may need to make sure your virtual machine allows for your desired persistent disk throughput. For more information, see the Persistent Disk page. The documentation tells: Is sad, because everyone needs to send email to a email server, even a WordPress send emails with the password to their users. One is to use one of the proxy services we list in the help. The other is to contact Google and ask for it to be unblocked.

I do see others using it and have been doing my best to steer them to fio. FIO is a tool that allows you the most control over the experiment. You can control queue depth size (ie number of outstanding IO’s), the size of ios, whether or not they bypass the Filesystem cache (ie direct IO), etc.” The hypervisor then handles when the data is effectively sent to the network Storage. As the purpose of CMIPS is offering realistic info to the Start ups about what they can expect from the Cloud providers and what not, sending 5 GB to write overruns the different layers of cache that may exist and offers a more trustworthy impression of which sustained data is really supported. Despite it tells “standard disk” and induces one to think on magnetic disk, it looks to me like those are also SSD disks. Perhaps not so performant, but good enough.Working with network storage is always challenging at those scales but it has no sense that magnetic disks perform much more better than SSD disks. That’s because the TRIM nature of the SSD disks that makes necessary to erase old content before writing, and that is slow in terms of cycles.They also referred me to the documentation about disk, that is really excellent.Other options for typical programs are 4 KB or 8 KB, 16 KB. The tests on disk performance requires a set of own tests and articles. As the scenario can change completely using other software like Hadoop that uses 64 MB Blocks or bigger, and writes large chunks. This is very important to take into consideration for Cassandra clusters, for example. Local SSD is available for gcloud command line tool version 0.9.37 and higher. It claims to “provide insight into many common open source servers with minimal configuration. Understand trends unique to your Cassandra cluster or Nginx servers.” It looks contradictory to me.And at Storage level? I believe the variation in your results is because the command you are using writes data out to the page cache.

Any Server bellow 200 cores can be tested. Max threads in the system: 505827Comparing the CMIPS score, it is much much more powerful than the Amazon cluster instance c3.8xlarge, the most powerful instance tested to the date. And it doesn’t require any special cluster’s kernel. More CMIPS score is better: Here I explain the basic mechanics of the source code for the CPU and RAM speed benchmarks. That’s cool if you need more CPU and less RAM, so you avoid paying that extra. That part is the most limited as the most powerful server, 8 cores, scores 1859 CMIPS, in the low band. In the other hand the great part is that the price for a 8 CPU with 512 MB of RAM is very interesting. But taking in count that Linode charges per day, and so is not useful for Scaling up and down we can say that LunaCloud has the cheapest price per unit of power from the providers reviewed up to date (as said CPU maxed and memory minimized to 512 MB). Without proper guidance, at least one county handles certain exceptions by printing and sending blank replacement timesheets to providers, while other counties initially review and attempt to correct exceptions before resorting to issuing replacement timesheets. If counties were able to identify providers with recurring timesheet problems or delays, they would be able to more effectively target their support efforts to ensure that subsequent timesheets are submitted accurately and payment is issued promptly. Currently, providers seeking this information must contact their county or the State, resulting in large call volumes at the counties and limiting the ability of county staff to focus on those providers who continue to have difficulties preparing and submitting valid timesheets. As discussed in the Introduction, the TPF scans and processes timesheets and then imports the timesheet data into CMIPS II. For timesheets without exceptions, CMIPS II processes and sends the payment information to SCO so that it can issue paychecks.

However, the TPF sends timesheets with exceptions—such as those missing signatures or containing unreadable entries—to the applicable county office. The county is then responsible for taking action to enable the provider to be paid. Because Social Services has not issued adequate guidance to counties for handling timesheet exceptions, counties have developed their own processes, which can result in delayed payments if these processes do not handle the exceptions in an efficient manner. In some cases, guidance has been conflicting. For example, the CMIPS II User Manual issued by Social Services directs county staff to review the timesheet and take appropriate action based on their respective county’s processes, but also states that workers must issue a replacement timesheet in almost every instance in which a timesheet is determined to contain an error. However, the systems and administrative branch chief at Social Services explained to us that counties should be handling exceptions by first attempting to read the timesheet and contacting the provider to confirm the entry, and then making a payment correction and processing payment. If the county cannot determine the correct entry or is unable to contact the provider, it should send a replacement timesheet to the provider. Because Social Services has not issued these specific instructions to counties, there is inconsistency in the manner in which counties handle timesheet exceptions. Specifically, four of the five counties we visited—Sacramento County, San Bernardino County, San Diego County, and the City and County of San Francisco—stated that they attempt to resolve certain exceptions by initiating timesheet corrections. The fifth, Los Angeles County, does not require county staff to review timesheets for corrections they could make and instead directs its staff to issue blank replacement timesheets to the affected providers and have them correct their own exceptions.

Some exceptions inherently take longer to resolve, such as when a timesheet is missing a signature. In such cases, the county generally mails the provider a blank replacement timesheet to complete and mail to the TPF, thereby prolonging the payment process. From November 2013 through July 2016, more than 189,000 timesheets statewide were missing either a recipient signature, a provider signature, or both signatures. However, as shown in Figure 3, the most prevalent timesheet exception category that caused a delay was an unreadable entry, which the county may be able to resolve quickly by reviewing the scanned image of the timesheet or calling the provider to determine the correct entry and then making the adjustment directly in CMIPS II. When the four counties made corrections within CMIPS II to resolve timesheet exceptions, payments to providers were processed in four business days, on average. In contrast, the average for all five counties was more than 14 business days to resolve timesheet exceptions in those instances when they issued replacement timesheets. In reviewing a copy of the timesheet, we were able to read the entry that the TPF had rejected. However, in accordance with its policy, Los Angeles County sent a blank replacement timesheet to the provider for resubmission, rather than having its staff review the timesheet or attempt to correct the entry. This process essentially restarted the timesheet process and resulted in the provider’s paycheck being issued 13 business days after the TPF received her initial timesheet—nine days longer than the average time we noted when counties made payment corrections to resolve timesheet exceptions. Exceptions resulting from these additional errors may require the need for completion of yet another replacement timesheet, which would compound the delay even further.

From November 2013 through July 2016, the five counties we visited had more than 333,000 original timesheets with exceptions for which at least one replacement timesheet was issued to resolve the exception. Of these, roughly 90 percent—or 299,000 original timesheets—were processed at the TPF after the provider submitted a single replacement timesheet. However, the remainder—roughly 34,000 timesheets—were processed at the TPF only after the provider submitted two or more replacement timesheets, which resulted in delayed payments to providers averaging 24 business days, or nearly five weeks. Providers may incur a financial hardship if payments are delayed. Specifically, several recipients and providers testified at legislative hearings in 2016 describing hardships that providers have faced when their paycheck was delayed, such as not being able to buy food or pay rent. Beyond such financial difficulties, delays in payment processing may force providers to seek other employment with more stable methods for receiving payment, resulting in recipients having to find other caregivers. The provider would then need to complete only those sections that contained the unreadable data or missing signature, minimizing the chance of making an additional error. Nonetheless, without adequate guidance from the State, counties may continue to send replacement timesheets to providers without requiring their staff to review the scanned image of the timesheet or to work with the provider in an attempt to make corrections, thus contributing to payment delays for providers. From November 2013 through July 2016, counties reported more than 30,000 lost, stolen, or damaged paychecks statewide. The Social Services IHSS program manual states that counties shall make a request for a replacement paycheck expeditiously, but no sooner than five days from the date the original paycheck should have been received.

Additionally, Social Services instructed HPE to respond to paycheck inquiries by informing providers that their paychecks should arrive within 10 business days of the issue date and to refer them to the county after this time frame. However, the counties we visited provide differing information to providers regarding the length of time they must wait before reporting a lost or stolen paycheck. For example, the acting division manager at Sacramento County stated that the county requires providers to wait 10 calendar days from the issuance of the check before requesting a replacement; whereas, San Bernardino County informs providers that they must wait 10 business days, which generally equates to an extra four calendar days. SCO will place a stop payment on a check and issue a duplicate check after seven business days, and it does not have a separate wait time for providers. According to Social Services’ system and administrative branch chief, the wait time before reporting a paycheck lost or stolen is intended to account for the mail transit time of issued paychecks. As a result, we believe a more reasonable amount of time for providers to wait before reporting a paycheck lost or stolen is five business days, which allows the average two to three business days for mail delivery, plus two extra days for any unforeseen circumstances. We recognize the inherent risk that a provider may receive his or her paycheck after reporting it as lost or stolen, and that SCO’s process of issuing a replacement paycheck requires it to issue a stop payment on the original paycheck. This subsequent step will result in the provider experiencing an additional delay while waiting for the replacement paycheck and may be frustrating for providers if they receive the original paycheck after requesting a replacement.

However, we believe Social Services should allow providers to request replacement checks expeditiously and inform them of the risk they incur in relinquishing their rights to the original paychecks. CMIPS II was designed to support counties in managing the IHSS program, to monitor and control program activities and expenditures, and to specifically identify problem areas. However, representatives from the five counties we visited believe that the reports do not adequately perform this function. For example, CMIPS II generates a timesheet exceptions report that is intended to help county staff assess their workload when processing timesheets with exceptions, identify areas where additional training on timesheet completion for providers and recipients may be needed, and assess potential fraud or authorization issues for submitted timesheets. However, the counties informed us that the CMIPS II timesheet exceptions report does not allow them to filter the data in the manner they need to manage staff workload. Additionally, the CMIPS II timesheet exceptions report does not allow counties to identify trends in exceptions over time, because it removes exceptions from the report within one pay period after they are resolved. Consequently, providers could conceivably continue to make the same errors on their timesheets without drawing the attention of the county. Representatives from the counties we visited confirmed that in order to track providers who have recurring problems with their timesheets they would have to develop their own customized reports or track this information manually. In response to our inquiries, Social Services’ systems and administrative branch chief told us that Social Services has recently requested that HPE report additional data to track providers who repeatedly incur exceptions on their timesheets.

However, we observed that the format of these data downloads does not allow counties to sort and filter the data to perform specific analyses as needed. In fact, the five counties we visited had developed their own processes to sort the exception data from CMIPS II in ways that enable them to follow up with specific groups of providers and to manage staff workload. Examples of the types of sorting they perform include sorting by exception type, preferred language of the provider, and county staff member assigned to the exception. San Diego County’s provider services manager exports the CMIPS II data into a spreadsheet and manually reformats it to produce a report that can be sorted and used to track exceptions over time. The City and County of San Francisco creates a custom report of a similar nature. In two other counties—Los Angeles County and San Bernardino County—staff collect and track some exception data manually outside of CMIPS II. Sacramento County’s payroll manager told us that because she was unable to use the exception data to balance her staff’s workload, her staff manually track payment corrections used to address exceptions and she uses these data instead. Moreover, time spent creating these reports takes county staff away from their objective of directly assisting providers who have difficulty completing timesheets or who have consistently experienced payment delays. The deputy director of the adult programs division at Social Services agreed that current CMIPS II reports do not allow counties to sort and filter data sufficiently to enable them to manage staff workload or to target providers with certain types of exception problems. According to the systems and administrative branch chief, Social Services has not had sufficient resources for implementing changes to improve the timesheet exceptions report because resources have been devoted to legislative mandates, such as overtime rules, since CMIPS II’s implementation.

Although we recognize that these mandates have required a significant investment of resources, making these changes to the reporting function would allow counties to be more effective in tracking and analyzing trends in timesheet exceptions and paycheck delays. For example, San Diego County processed 15,022 phone calls in September 2016 alone, which the public authority deputy director stated were mostly from providers checking on the status of their paychecks. Each of the five counties we visited, and most of the 10 other counties we spoke with, stated that the majority of the phone calls they receive from providers pertain to inquiries about the status of their timesheets or paychecks. Although the five counties we visited did not maintain records on the specific reasons for provider calls, Santa Cruz County did track this information and found that more than 62 percent of the calls received from January 2013 to November 2016 involved status checks on provider timesheets or paychecks. Additionally, the State maintains a call center operated by HPE specifically designated for providers to obtain information about the status of their timesheets and paychecks, and this call center averaged more than 50,000 calls per month from July 2015 to July 2016. These high call volumes demonstrate that providers desire frequent status updates and suggest that the State could be more efficient at communicating these updates. Automatic status updates have become a standard function of modern technology, such as tracking the status of a postal delivery or a food delivery. Social Services could incorporate similar functionality into CMIPS II that would notify providers via their preferred method of communication—email, text message, or automated phone call—when their timesheet is received at the TPF, when payment information is approved and sent to SCO for processing, and when their paycheck is printed.

The notification could also communicate to providers whether any exceptions were noted on the timesheet that prevent payment from being processed and could direct them to a specific point of contact at the county with whom they could work to address the exceptions. This feature will allow providers to submit their timesheets using a website and receive immediate notifications regarding whether Social Services has accepted and processed their timesheets for payment. We further discuss Social Services’ plans for electronic time reporting in the Other Areas We Reviewed section. Its representative informed us that as of January 2017, approximately 83 percent of providers have opted to use electronic timesheets, meaning that 17 percent of its providers still use paper timesheets. In California, if 17 percent of providers continue to use paper timesheets after electronic time reporting is implemented, roughly 78,000 providers would still be exclusively using the paper method. These providers would likely benefit from automated status updates. Additionally, providers who take advantage of electronic time reporting may still want to know the status of their paychecks, even after submitting their timesheets electronically, and having this functionality in CMIPS II could meet that need. Automatically sending these notifications to providers would have the added benefit of likely reducing the number of calls that counties receive about the status of timesheets and paychecks, which would allow the counties to focus their resources on other aspects of timesheet processing, such as identifying common timesheet issues and developing training for providers to address those issues. For example, counties should attempt to correct timesheets with unreadable entries or entries that exceed 24 hours in a day by reviewing the timesheet, contacting the provider if necessary to clarify the intended entry, and making a timesheet correction in CMIPS II.

Additionally, Social Services should review a random sample of exceptions at least quarterly to ensure that the counties are following its new procedures. Social Services should develop a plan by August 2017 that outlines actions, such as assessing the cost and seeking funding from the Legislature if necessary, that will be taken to create the functionality. Social Services should also train county staff on the most effective use of these reports. As a result, since achieving statewide implementation of CMIPS II in November 2013, neither entity has been able to determine whether HPE is meeting its contractual obligations, resulting in potential missed opportunities to identify deficiencies in the timesheet process. As described in the Introduction, Social Services is the primary state agency responsible for the IHSS program and has an agreement with OSI to contract with HPE and to jointly ensure successful operation of IHSS and CMIPS II. OSI’s contract with HPE requires HPE to process timesheets within five business days of receipt, and for OSI to assess penalties for timesheets that are not processed promptly. Therefore, we would expect that Social Services would exercise its oversight role to ensure that OSI was enforcing the contract and would review the exception data from HPE’s reports to identify problems with timesheet protocols or with county processes. We would further expect that OSI would monitor these reports to ensure that HPE processes timesheets promptly and submits the required data, and that OSI would assess penalties when appropriate. However, while Social Services’ agreement with OSI specifies that OSI has primary responsibility for managing HPE, it also states that Social Services is responsible for overseeing and participating in the review of HPE’s activities and for actively monitoring status reports from OSI.