Request to make validation configurable - poMaintainCertificationAssistant:ERR_CERTIFICATION_XRV_FROM_DATE_DOB

Hi Maribeth,

We have reviewed your enhancement suggestion. Based on the information provided, our understanding of your request is as follows:
* Make the following validation 'BPOMAINTAINCERTIFICATIONASSISTANT.ERR_CERTIFICATION_XRV_FROM_DATE_DOB' a configurable validation, to support where applying for new born whose DOB occurs after first of month and certification being from first of month.

The theme is aligned with our current multi-year strategy for our product and we have accepted your suggestion as a consideration for a future release. Not all items under consideration will make it into a release. As plans are confirmed, you will be notified when a specific release includes this enhancement.

Thank you for taking the time to share your ideas with us. We are committed to involving our users in building our product roadmap and appreciate your suggestions.

Regards,
Shane McFadden, Cúram SPM Product Management team

Hi Shane,

This issue seems to have gotten rather confused so let me see if I can help clear things up. We have inherited a very messy codebase in Missouri that contains a lot of decompiled OOTB code that has been modified. One such piece of decompiled code is from the class MaintainCertificationAssistant. In this class's validateCertification() method there are validations to ensure a certification period does not fall outside of a person's life span. To do this, OOTB asks three questions:

1) Does the certification period start before the primary client's date of birth?
2) Does the certification period start after the primary client's date of death?
3) Does the certification period end after the primary client's date of death?

For each question, if the answer is in the affirmative, then a validation error has occurred and a corresponding error message will be raised.

All three of these validations have been disabled via non-compliant customization in Missouri. As these are validations, we would prefer to instead disable these via compliant configuration using ValidationConfiguration.dmx.

For the second and third validations, IBM would appear to agree with us that these validations should be configurable and disabled by default as exactly that configuration change was added to OOTB around the time of Curam v6.2 in the HCR component. The previous vendor to the State, however, apparently missed incorporating this change and removing the customizations for the second and third validations when they upgraded Missouri to Curam v6.2.

The first validation, however, remains non-configurable and enabled by default. We would like for this validation to also be made configurable. We are not asking for the validation to be disabled by default. We can accept that disabling the validation will be a custom configuration. We just want to stay compliant with IBM's Curam development guidelines and remove these non-compliant customizations.

Now, you are probably thinking "OK, but what's the business justification?" That's a great question to which I wish I knew the answer. This is a change that was made over six years ago with the only documentation being a comment in the code stating "Remove DOB validation from certification because there's no guarantee that the primary client will be born before the first of the month". So I guess you could say our business justification is our certification periods are failing to create under limited scenarios where the period must start prior to the primary client's date of birth. That's the best justification I can give you.

Best regards,
Jason

Hi Maribeth,

Thanks for your update but unfortunately this does not clarify the business requirement. This latest update now mentions two separate validations and that both need to be made configurable. The original request was only that the validation of certification from date against date of birth should be made configurable.

From your latest update:
"1) Removal of validation
curam.message.BPOMAINTAINCERTIFICATIONASSISTANT.ERR_CERTIFICATION_XRV_FROM_DATE_DOD"

- This was not part of the original request. Please clarify if this is now being requested also.

Also from your latest update:
"2) Removal of validation
curam.message.BPOMAINTAINCERTIFICATIONASSISTANT.ERR_CERTIFICATION_XRV_FROM_DATE_DOB

When System Creates new PDC, there is Certification start and end date calculation. Start date will application start date and end date will be Start date plus 11 Month, but instead 12 months gets add and throwing a warning message to the system. Then if the system create any additional evidence and try to do apply changes in the same transaction, this warning message will be treating as Error message and system is ending up by displaying this Error message. So state has non compliantly overriden the OOTB class MaintainCertificationAssistant to remove the DOB validation code from certification because there's no guarantee that the primary client will be born before the first of the month. Please refer the attached doc."

The above was provided as the explanation of the business need for making the validation of certification from date against date of birth configurable. The description here however is not discussing date of birth so it's unclear how this relates to validating certification from date against date of birth. This seems to be indicating that on creating a certification on a product delivery case, the end date of the certification is set to application date plus 12 months instead of application date 11 months. It is unclear how this difference in the value of the certification end date pertains to validating against the date of birth. So we are still trying to understand the business need for this particular request.

Thank you,
Shane McFadden, Cúram SPM Product Management team

The zip file mentioned in the RFE will be sent via email from Maribeth.McIntyreKane@dss.mo.gov.

Hello again. Below is additional feedback I received from the developer. Please advise if you have additional questions.

Regards,

Maribeth Kane

Business scenario's -

1) Removal of validation
curam.message.BPOMAINTAINCERTIFICATIONASSISTANT.ERR_CERTIFICATION_XRV_FROM_DATE_DOD

When modifying certain types of evidence, state wants to treat it as if it was an annual review which results in the extension of the certification period. There is a validation that prevents the creation of certification periods if their certification start/end date is after the death of the HOH. So state wants to remove this validation that blocks the creation of certification periods on finalize determination.

eg: person date of death : 8/16/2020
New certification start date and end date : 8/1/2020 to 7/31/2021

This validation prevents creating the certification dates. As these validations are not configurable, State has non compliantly overriden the OOTB class MaintainCertificationAssistant to remove the validation code. Please refer the attached doc

2) Removal of validation
curam.message.BPOMAINTAINCERTIFICATIONASSISTANT.ERR_CERTIFICATION_XRV_FROM_DATE_DOB

When System Creates new PDC, there is Certification start and end date calculation. Start date will application start date and end date will be Start date plus 11 Month, but instead 12 months gets add and throwing a warning message to the system. Then if the system create any additional evidence and try to do apply changes in the same transaction, this warning message will be treating as Error message and system is ending up by displaying this Error message. So state has non compliantly overriden the OOTB class MaintainCertificationAssistant to remove the DOB validation code from certification because there's no guarantee that the primary client will be born before the first of the month. Please refer the attached doc.

If these validations are configurable, The attached non compliant customization is not required to implement the state requirements.

Hello. Yes - the comments added in my last entry were from the developer. I will circle back with him and will let him know your comment. More detail will be provided here upon receipt.

Thank you,

Maribeth Kane

Hi Maribeth,

Can you confirm that your previous response was intended for this RFE or a different RFE?

If so how is it related to your request to make the validation configurable?

Also, the steps for the business scenario that enabled you to reach the validation would be very useful to provide.

Thank you,
Shane McFadden, Cúram SPM Product Management team

Hello. Following are our developer's comments regarding your request for more information. Please let me know if you have additional questions.

Regards,

Maribeth Kane

State has a requirement that Certification end date should always be the end date of 11th Month from the start date instead of 12 Month. To accomplish this requirement, team needs to customize MaintainCertificationAssistant class which is not available for customization in a compliant manner. Whenever a new certification is being created or existing certification is being modified, validation happening on the certification start date and end date which is failing due to the difference in certification frequency and error message is coming “The period of this certification is different to the certification frequency”.

There is a need from IBM team to provide either a hookpoint to provide a custom calculation of the next certification date be made available or FrequencyPattern be extended to handle returning the last day of the month when using the monthly pattern.

Hello. Thank you for your response. I am still waiting to hear from the developer regarding your query. As soon as I hear back from him, I will post his response here.

Regards,

Maribeth Kane

Hi Maribeth,

In order to evaluate your request, we require that you provide more detail so that we can fully understand your requirements.

Out-of-the-box while the primary applicant can be a newborn (by indicating that the application filer is not applying for benefits), we have validations out-of-the-box that prevent the DOB of the primary applicant from being before the start date of the application.
So can you please provide us with a full business scenario and mention any other customizations you may have made in this scenario that results in the validation message being displayed?

Thank you,
Shane McFadden, Cúram SPM Product Management team

Hi Maribeth,

Thank you for your enhancement request.
We require some further analysis to determine whether or not this enhancement can be considered in a future release.
I will provide another response when our investigation is complete.

Thank you,
Shane McFadden, Cúram SPM Product Management team