A new partnership between Grand Traverse County and a local in-home senior care provider is the latest in a series of proposed changes at the county’s Commission on Aging (COA).

County administrators hope to contract with Comfort Keepers Traverse City to take over management of services and staff training at COA. COA offers programs designed to maintain and improve the quality of life for residents 60 years old and older to keep them living in their homes, including housecleaning, health care, yard maintenance and heating assistance. According to County Deputy Administrator Jennifer DeHaan, an ongoing internal review of COA has revealed the department is not in compliance with Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) standards.

“We’re trying to make some quick corrections to the challenges the Commission on Aging is facing,” DeHaan says, describing the proposed partnership with Comfort Keepers as “an administrative fix (to address HIPAA compliance).”

According to a memo from DeHaan and County Administrator Tom Menzel to county commissioners, COA’s non-compliance with HIPAA puts the county “in a position of liability if we were to be audited.” The failure to meet federal standards also jeopardizes an approximately $40,000 annual reimbursement COA receives from the Area Agency on Aging of Northwest Michigan (AAANM) for senior services. COA needs to come into compliance with HIPAA standards by the end of January to avoid an interruption in reimbursement from AAANM.

Comfort Keepers already provides on-call and back-up services to COA clients, a contractual arrangement that’s been in place for more than a decade. Expanding the partnership to a management services agreement would “capitalize upon the expertise and professional resources of a national company…to make sure that (COA) services meet all standards for care and compliance,” according to DeHaan and Menzel’s memo.

Administrators stress that the agreement would not outsource county jobs, nor change any of the services provided to area seniors. “The COA is a county department, and the field staff would continue to be county employees that will maintain all the benefits and compensation as county employees,” Menzel and DeHaan wrote. “The development of (an agreement with Comfort Keepers) will not change any of the current services to COA clients.”

Comfort Keepers would provide professional training to COA staff, access to the company’s technology and resources for senior care, and relationships with third-party payors and other partners to “enhance services to clients,” according to the proposal. County residents who use COA services “will continue to be COA clients under the management oversight of Comfort Keepers.” County commissioners would still retain control over the fee structure for COA services; the county will also still seek to fill the vacant director position at COA. The new hire will be responsible for oversight of the Comfort Keepers contract and “ensuring services meet COA standards.”

Administrators did not provide the estimated cost of a management contract with Comfort Keepers, nor a recommended length of time for the agreement to be in place; those details are still being prepared, according to DeHaan. Due to “the urgency” caused by AAANM’s January deadline to meet HIPAA compliance or be cut off from reimbursement, Menzel and DeHaan say they plan to bring both the proposed Comfort Keepers contract and a renewal of the AAANM agreement to commissioners later this month for approval. “At that time, we will have additional information as you consider this recommendation,” they wrote to commissioners.