Greater Baltimore HIV Health Services Planning Council © 2008-2012, InterGroup Services, Inc.
Anne Arundel County • Baltimore City • Baltimore County • Carroll County • Harford County • Howard County • Queen Anne's County
Information Portal
Health Insurance Premiums & Cost-sharing Asst. Scorecard Archive
Health Insurance Premiums & Cost-sharing Asst. — EMA Period 2 Scorecard © 2008-2012, InterGroup Services, Inc.
FY Ranking EMA Award Initial Allocation Reprogramming Total Allocation % of Award Carryover Total Alloc.
2010 M7 $16,870,407 $117,978 $0 $117,978 0.70% $0 $117,978
Current Performance
Reporting Period Period 1 Period 2 YTD FY10
Dates in Period 8/10-0/10 1/10-2/10 8/10-2/10
Months in Period 5 2 7
Expenditures Period 1 Period 2 YTD FY10
Projected Dollars $49,158 $19,663 $68,821
Percent 41.67% 16.67% 58.33%
Actual Dollars $32,947 $14,798 $47,745
Percent 27.93% 12.54% 40.47%
Variance Dollars $-16,211 $-4,865 $-21,076
Percent -13.74% -4.12% -17.86%
Clients Period 1 Period 2 YTD FY10   Units Period 1 Period 2 YTD FY10
Projected Clients 670 268 938 Projected Units 7,491 2,996 10,487
Percent 41.67% 16.67% 58.33% Percent 41.67% 16.67% 58.33%
Actual Clients 1,995 194 2,189 Actual Units 16,265 6,025 22,290
Percent 124.07% 12.06% 136.13% Percent 90.47% 33.51% 123.99%
Variance Clients 1,325 -74 1,251 Variance Units 8,774 3,029 11,803
Percent 82.40% -4.60% 77.80% Percent 48.81% 16.85% 65.65%
About Current Performance
  Grantee Comments Period   Questions to Consider
Fiscal: Initial allocation is $91,146. 1 Fiscal: Initial allocation sheet to PC reports $117,978 initial allocation.
Program: Program:
Fiscal: Allocation was reduced by 14 percent ($16,000) in FY 2010. Expenditures at the 7 month period are 50 percent of the total funds in category in FY 2009. 2 Fiscal: This category is very close to tolerance level with a variance of 5.94 percent.
Program: Service units are at 100% of the total units of FY 2009. The high volume of clients seen and vouchers distributed is because drugs required are outside of the MADAP formulary. Client service numbers are 9% greater than projected in FY 2009. Program: Client and unit performance are higher than projected at this period. Grantee comments on performance suggest a well performing category. Why is there a recommendation for reducing funds?
* This is the difference between the current expenditures and where the current expenditures should be at this point in the year based upon the total allocation (plus carryover) and the assumption that expenditures are spread evenly over the year.
** This is the difference between last year's actual expenditures at this point in the year and where the expenditures should have been based upon the final expenditure and the assumption that expenditures would be spread evenly over the year. (If the current-year bar is similar to the prior-year bar, then the current year is following the prior year's pattern and is on track to meet the current projection [should it continue to follow the prior year's pattern]). Note: This bar should always be at zero variance for the final period of the year (as the actual expenditure is exactly equal to where expenditures should be at that time of year given the final expenditure.


- page 2 -

Historical Performance © 2008-2012  InterGroup Services, Inc.    (ph) 410.662.7253
Funding/Fiscal
FY EMA Award Allocat. to Category Allocat. + Reprogram. % of Award Amount Spent $ Unspent
(No Carry.)
2010 $16,870,407   $117,978 $117,978 0.70% $47,745 $70,233
2009   $17,433,707 $140,000 $110,000 0.63% $91,570 $18,430
2008   $15,625,276 $101,105 $108,521 0.69% $88,428 $20,093
2007   $16,308,921 $100,584 $162,809 1.00% $162,794 $15
Clients
FY Project. Actual Vari. Cost Per
Client 		Af.-Am.
Percent 		WICY
Percent
2010 1,608 2,189 581 $21 95.0% 40.0%
2009 1,575 1,933 358 $47 93.0% 38.0%
2008 1,540 2,070 530 $42 89.0% 35.0%
2007 1,353 2,082 729 $78 94.0% 38.0%
Planning
Unmet Need
As of the last (2010) consumer survey 32 percent of the 426 respondents reporting a need for Health Insurance Premiums & Cost-sharing Asst. said they could not get it.
Clients survey year (FY 2009): 1,933
Est. percent of need met: 68%
Est. clients needing service: 2,842
Clients served (2010): 2,189
Est. clients not served (2010): 653
Cost per client (2010): $21
Cost to meet need:    $13,713 
Other Funding Streams
RW Part A EMA $117,978



RW Part A EMA
Other Funding
Final Analysis
Unspent (including carryover/adjust.): $70,233
FY 2011 Info EMA Award: $16,164,474

Browse Scorecards By Year
Home
Greater Baltimore
HIV Health Services
Planning Council
Primary Web Site
Quick Links
Browse Categories
Browse Scorecards
By Period
By Category
To report a problem with the mechanics of the web site, please click here. All content-related comments should be referred directly to the planning council support office at +1 (410) 662-7253.