Local Agency Advisory Group
Meeting Summary
Date: 06/09/2015, 9:30 AM – 12 PM
State WIC Staff:
MAXIMUS Staff:
Local Agency Staff:
Rick Chiat, Betsy Clarke, Carol Rowe, Kate Franken, Pat Faulkner
Sarah Newhouse, Ellen Thompson
Jane Samuelson, Jessica Allred, Christina Blomme, Ellie White, Renee, Heather Teason, Stephanie Olson,
Deb Boe, Mary Peck
Topic: The Role of the Advisory Group for e-WIC Planning & Implementation
The Local Agency (LA) Advisory Group discussed the role they envision playing in the process as MN WIC
prepares for the transition to e-WIC. Ideas included providing perspective/guidance on topics such as:
-
Which approach to e-WIC (smart card vs. online) best fits the needs of MN WIC agencies
The training approach taken to prepare staff and participants for e-WIC. Ideas included:


-
Special considerations for rural participants, and participants for whom English is a second language
Input from staff members who were former WIC program participants – peer counselors and other
staff
How to balance preparing stakeholders for e-WIC, while managing expectations given the 5 year
timeline
Members of the Advisory Group see their role as being a champion of this change, and feel that being wellinformed will allow them to develop a strong understanding of the impact that it will have on staff, vendors
and participants.
Topic: e-WIC Q&A
Prior to the meeting, MAXIMUS provided an e-WIC orientation webinar to Local Agency staff. MAXIMUS
answered questions stemming from this presentation and related to the transition to e-WIC. The following
is a summary of questions and answers about e-WIC that were addressed during the meeting.
Q: Is there an advantage of one technology over another (smart card vs. online) when it comes to
vendor monitoring?
A: The same data is available with either technology. When making the change to e-WIC, the challenge
states face is trying to figure out how to look at the new data available in order to determine which
data elements or patterns may indicate that fraudulent activity is occurring.
Betsy Clarke noted that MN received extremely positive feedback from USDA about the current
approaches that are being taken to monitor fraudulent activity in the paper environment. She
commented that these practices will continue during the transition to e-WIC, and be enhanced as MN
adopts new technology.
Q: Which option (smart cards/off-line or online) are most states currently choosing?
A: Currently, more states are moving toward the online approach. Many states using offline technology
were early adopters who selected it because it was the best option available at the time, given the
state of the technological infrastructure with which they had to work. States that chose offline more
recently have done so for similar reasons; they have lots of disconnected clinics, or serve rural areas
that have weaker telecommunications infrastructures. States with stronger telecommunication
capabilities often elect for an online approach. The benefit of being able to modify a client’s account
remotely is often cited as an incentive to the online approach.
Q: How difficult is it for vendors to perform the UPC updates every day?
A: This is a simple process for vendors. The system automatically downloads the new Approved Products
List (APL) file; the file feeds into the vendor’s system to match-up with the UPCs list. The master UPS
list is always bigger than the vendor’s list, because no vendor sells every WIC-approved item. Vendors
also typically have the ability request an updated APL on-demand.
e-WIC Q&A, CONTINUED
Q: Will WIC participants receive training?
A: Yes - the e-WIC processor is often involved in collaborating with the state to develop this training.
Trainings for participants often aims to:
-
Better acquaint participants with issuance quantities,
Help participants read their balance (e.g., cereal is issued in ounces)
Orient participants to new processes, such as aggregated benefits for the family and the in-store
experience
Q: How does e-WIC impact the participant experience at check-out?
A: As with any change, there can be challenges up front, but overall, participants report preferring e-WIC
to paper checks. Challenges include initial participant orientation to use of the new card, and
participants occasionally discovering that an item they’ve always purchased is no longer approved.
Benefits include a more immediate, straight-forward check out process. Many participants report that
aggregated benefits for the whole family are also easier to track.
Topic: Overview of HuBERT e-WIC Functions
•
•
This topic was postponed, and will be covered in a future meeting.
Reminder: With e-WIC, HuBERT will operate the same, until the user reaches the benefit issuance screen.
Topic: Discussion, Feedback and Questions Specific to e-WIC Impact on Clinics
The Advisory Group engaged in a discussion related to the impact on clinics caused by the transition to e-WIC.
The following questions reflect topics the group discussed, and the answers provided by MN WIC and MAXIMUS.
Q: How many card issuance devices are typically located in a clinic? How is clinic flow impacted?
A: Card issuance depends somewhat on clinic flow; who issues the card, at what point in the visit. Some clinics
opt for a card reader at every work station. A benefit to an online system is that typically just a mag stripe
reader is needed. These are inexpensive (e.g., bulk rate: $30/unit). Smart cards require a device that can read
the card, as well as a keypad, because this is how participants select their pin. These are slightly more
expensive because it is a more robust device.
MAXIMUS (Ellen) reminded the meeting participants that while it useful to think about the impact of e-WIC to
clinic flow; it is also very early in the process. States often do not do this until a processor is procured, and
they are much closer to implementation. She encouraged meeting participants to begin to think about these
things, but reassured them they do not need to have all of the answers.
Q: Have there been any time studies that look at e-WIC vs. paper FI issuance?
A: In early e-WIC projects, USDA required that states to include time studies in their evaluations, but there
haven’t been any long term studies. There are challenges at looking at a state’s early e-WIC data particular for
the first three months since almost every time a participant comes to the clinic for an appointment a card is
issued, which can have an impact on appointment time. Some states also implement a new MIS during e-WIC
implementation, so it is important not to overgeneralize one state’s experience. MAXIMUS shared that after
working in other states, rolling out on a Wednesday is recommended, because the shorter week is easier on
staff. MAXIMUS also suggested scheduling less aggressively in the beginning to allow more time for
appointments and troubleshooting issues that arise.
Q: Will e-WIC transform the way we handle reports of lost benefits?
A: Yes. Losing the card is different from losing a check. First, cards all require a PIN for use, and without the PIN,
the benefits on the card cannot be accessed. If a participant shares their PIN with someone, and that person
engages in unauthorized use of the card, there is nothing that can be done; those benefits are gone. States
typically have policies outlining cardholder responsibilities that address PIN sharing. But if a participant, for
example, loses their card and then deactivates it before any fraudulent activity occurs, the participant
experiences no loss of benefits.
Discussion, Feedback and Questions Specific to e-WIC Impact on Clinics, CONTINUED
Q: Will MN get rid of paper folders that are given to participants at time of issuance?
A: States typically continue to give something to participants, but usually opt for something smaller, that is closer
to the size of the card. Some states let clinics decide, and other make a decision for the entire state.
Topic: Review & Discussion of LA e-WIC Survey and Potential Participant Survey
MAXIMUS presented the survey for local agencies in an effort to gain feedback to improve the survey’s design.
The primary focus is to assess preferred methods of communication and training, gain an understanding of the
environment in which a clinic operated (i.e., how far participants travel to the clinic), and general feedback and
concerns about e-WIC.
•
•
•
•
Specific changes were made directly to the survey draft, which will be provided to MN WIC for final approval.
The group offered feedback about the proposed surveys, including wording modifications, and elimination of
unnecessary questions.
The group decided that due to the nature of data being provided by the respondents, it would not be an
anonymous survey. It was noted that it can be helpful to know who from an agency completed a survey, in
case additional follow-up is helpful.
It was clarified that MN WIC is seeking one response per agency.
Discuss the participant survey.
• Agreed that one should be done
• Suggested that it include questions about the food list and how to adapt it for e-WIC
Topic: Future Agenda Topics
The group discussed future meeting plans for the advisory group. The consensus was that the group would like to
incorporate e-WIC-related topics into the agenda of their existing, scheduled meeting times. The group agreed that
they could also consider the possibility of extending the quarterly advisory group meetings.
The following list represents topics proposed for future meeting agendas of the Local Agency Advisory Group:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Updates on planning progress
Lessons learned based on survey results
Sharing information gleaned from Vendor Advisory Group meetings
Choosing a replacement to the WIC folders
Input as to which technology is chosen
Organizational impact to clinic workflow
Reporting related to e-WIC
Timing of roll-out
Policies related to lost/stolen cards
The food guide – what should it look like in the future / mobile app?
Lessons learned from other states: how to make e-WIC work best for MN families