[CAIA Intake] IVC Forms: 10-7959a, CHAMPVA Claim Form

[marywang2]

Content, accessibility, information architecture (CAIA) new initiative collaboration request

Use this ticket to request collaboration on a new initiative with the sitewide content, accessibility, and information architecture (CAIA) team.

About your team

• Team name: IVC Forms
• OCTO product owner: Premal Shah
• Product name: 10-7959a CHAMPVA Claim Form
• Product manager: Mary Wang
• Slack channel: ivc-forms
• Dedicated content writer on your team (if you have one): n/a
• Dedicated a11y specialist on your team (if you have one): Rachael Penfil

About your initiative

Which of these descriptions best fits the work we’ll partner on?

Select all that apply.

• [x] Digitizing a new form
• [ ] Creating a new digital tool
• [ ] Updating an existing form or tool
• [ ] Translating a form or tool into Spanish
• [ ] Adding new unauthenticated content to VA.gov
• [ ] Updating existing unauthenticated content on VA.gov
• [ ] Something else: insert description

What's the nature of your initiative and desired outcomes?

Our team will be digitizing the claim form for CHAMPVA (10-7959a). We would like CAIA's support in reviewing updates to content and structure.

Collaboration timeframe

Note: We work on nearly every OCTO product and manage all unauthenticated content on VA.gov, so we will need to prioritize intake requests based on overall workload and VA and OCTO priorities.

Is this work tied to a Congressional mandate, change in law or policy, or upcoming event with a specific deadline?

• [ ] Yes
• [x] No
• [ ] I’m not sure

Where are you at in your timeline?

Tell us briefly about what you're working on now (such as initial discovery, wireframing, or usability research planning) and add any known dates for upcoming milestones or deadlines.

wireframing and stakeholder research.

Will you release this new product incrementally (for example, release to 25% of users to start)?

• [x] Yes

• [ ] No

  *Note: **If you check yes, we’ll reach out to discuss details about the content in the react widget. We use these widgets to display entry points for new products to a certain percentage of users who visit our static pages. Please refer to this GitHub reference for dynamic content.

• [x] I acknowledge that if I change the launch to be incremental, or change it from incremental to 100%, I must notify CAIA of this change as there is additional work involved that may impact deadlines.

Collaboration cycle

Which phases of the collaboration cycle have you completed?

Select all that apply.

• [ ] Design intent
• [ ] Midpoint review
• [ ] Staging
• [ ] None. This initiative isn’t going through the collaboration cycle.

Collaboration cycle ticket

If you’re going through the collaboration cycle, provide your ticket number and link:

• Ticket Number: 85200

Supporting artifacts

Provide links to any supporting artifacts that can help us better understand your initiative and begin collaboration. Include artifacts like your product outline, user flows, mockups and prototypes, or any draft content.

• Figma - in progress
• Product outline

Next steps

• [x] Post a link to this issue in the #sitewide-content-sitewide-content-accessibility-ia slack channel and tag @Terry Nichols, and we’ll then acknowledge receipt. We'll then review the artifacts in more detail and work with you to determine timing for collaboration. Depending on the work, we may schedule a kickoff meeting to better understand how we'll partner together.
• [ ] Review the remaining next steps in the VFS team tasks section here.
• [ ] If you also need engineering support from the public websites team, fill out their intake request form as well: Open a public websites intake request
• [ ] If you're requesting a page/URL redirect, a URL change, or a vanity URL, submit an additional request for this work: Open a redirect, URL change, or vanity URL request
• [ ] If you're creating an experimental design, also contact the design system team: Read more about experimental designs
  Suggest an addition or update to the design system team
• [ ] If you're requesting a11y support for usability research, submit a research support request next: Open an a11y research support request
• [ ] If you are requesting content support, please share your content source of truth (preferably as a SharePoint document).

[strelichl]

Hi @marywang2, following up here with our plan for timing. As you know, Aliyah is our only health writer (including all the 10-10 work), so we’ll need to take a two-part approach to this: she can get a list of initial questions to you early next week, and then flow back in to provide a more substantial review the week of June 3. And if you can get it as close to ready for that review that would be great, though of course we understand things change. Thanks for your understanding and flexibility on this!

[strelichl]

also @marywang2 please let us know when you're thinking of scheduling midpoint, it's helpful to have as much advance notice as possible to make sure we can plan content needs amid our other ongoing product work. Thanks!

[marywang2]

Thanks @strelichl! Appreciate the update and the estimate for timing. We are aiming tentatively for 5/30 for midpoint review (although nothing has been formally scheduled yet). @syd-hoeper @jamiefiore

[aliyahblackmore]

Hi folks @syd-hoeper @jamiefiore (cc @strelichl)

Laura and I spent about 30 minutes taking a look at this Figma file. We left some initial content related questions in there so that you all can make any needed additional adjustments.

I got access to the Figma file a few minutes ago, so when you all reply please tag me in the comments.

We also noted areas where we'll need to make additional content updates and we'll pick up our full review/content updates during the week of June 3, as Lily mentioned.

I also want to track and circle back to the conversation about third party representatives and POA:

Because filing a claim will likely result in a payment (via check), we do have some concerns about fraud if the form doesn't require a third party rep (like a non-spouse or parent) to submit a document showing they have the legal authority to submit the form on behalf of the beneficiary.

Generally, on VA.gov forms that allow third party reps, there is some sort of document requirement that proves that the person has legal authority to submit or sign the form on behalf of the applicant or beneficiary.

If you all move forward with including an "Other" option on the relationship to beneficiary section, that's likely okay. But before the form launches to production, we'd need to get clarity around document requirements.

[aliyahblackmore]

Just cross posting from Slack:

Syd is going to share the "ready for content review" Figma file with us by end of this week.

[aliyahblackmore]

Hi folks @syd-hoeper @jamiefiore @marywang2 (cc @strelichl)- just cross posting some updates from here related to the ongoing third party rep/signer documents conversation and questions across the IVC forms (Figma comment for reference)

• With regards to the proof that the third party has the authority to fill out this form or other IVC forms on behalf someone (if it isn't already on file) and not asking for this proof because of the Paper Work Reduction Act, our OCTO lead (Danielle) advised that whether or not the online form asks a third party rep/signer to upload proof is a question that you all need to flag with your OCTO leads for further guidance.

• Syd shared yesterday that the IVC forms aren't allowed to ask for documents for third party rep/signers because of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) - this section specifically (link).

[aliyahblackmore]

Tracking here that Syd just shared this "ready for content review" Figma file. This is the most up to date design file.

[aliyahblackmore]

Tracking some updates here following yesterday's bi weekly sync:

• Product team is going to confirm with their stakeholders whether there are any third party signer documents someone should submit with their application. And they'll consider whether these documents can be optional in the form.
• The current form designs explain that someone would need to have these documents on file, but there isn't any content that explains what someone should do it they don't already have one of these documents on file. We may need to revisit this before testing.

[aliyahblackmore]

Hi folks @marywang2 @syd-hoeper @jamiefiore - just cross posting my Slack message from last week:

• As Lily previously shared with you all, I'm starting my fuller content review of the CHAMPVA claims designs this week (starting to take a closer look today).

• If all of my content feedback isn't ready by Tuesday or if you all aren't able to adjust your designs based on feedback before Midpoint, you'll need to note clearly in the Midpoint submission (as Laura mentioned on Slack on 5/28) that the form content hasn't gone through CAIA collab yet. This is for Rebecca's awareness.

• Syd also shared this current design flow with their product team earlier today - and I noted via Slack that if there are any design flow changes that they need to make this week, I'll need to revisit those areas before you all go to testing. You all should also note for governance in your Midpoint artifacts that there may have been (if this is the case) design flow changes from this week that impact content and CAIA hasn't looked at those areas yet.

(cc: @strelichl @laurwill)

[aliyahblackmore]

Cross posting from Slack:

Just an update here - I left off at the "enter your claims" screens - I'll pick up from that section tomorrow and wrap up feedback.

• There are a few outstanding stakeholders questions that we'll need to revisit before testing. Content adjustment TBD.
• And I added comments to those "Not listed" fields that pop up -- there may be an accessibility flag for that, so I recommended some other text if you all add a new screen if someone selects that option.

[aliyahblackmore]

Cross posting updates from Slack:

@syd-hoeper @jamiefiore (cc: @laurwill @strelichl )

I'm all done with a full review of the content in these CHAMPVA Claims Figma designs. And as Syd confirmed last week, I put my comments and feedback in the section labeled "Design Annotations."

• Based on some of the conversations in the Figma comments from the product team, there are a few areas that the product team still needs clarity on from stakeholders. And it seems like there's still an outstanding question about whether the beneficiary is paid directly after they submit their claim.

• I made adjustments to content based on the information you all shared in your designs and flagged a few outstanding questions (for example - areas that are misaligned with the PDF version of the form). We’ll need to revisit these outstanding questions before you all take this form to testing so that I can update the content accordingly and ensure that the information accurately describes the process/required documents.

---

:bulb:These are a few of the items that need stakeholder confirmation/clarity (see Figma for all comments/questions) :bulb:

• Third party rep next steps and what a third party rep vs. a POA/fiduciary should do to show that they have the authority (if it's not already on file).

• Medical vs. pharmacy claims

  • Specifics about "anything else" and "prescriptions"

• Work-related injury/condition and workers’ compensation

  • A few questions here that I’ll need answers to in order to better frame the content. For example - how do they "coordinate" with workers’ comp?

• "Automotive" related injury or condition

  • This isn’t mentioned at all on the PDF version of the form, so curious to know if your stakeholders asked for the question to be framed in this way. And I have similar questions from the workers' comp screen here.

• For the itemized billing statement screen -

  • You didn’t include the content for the "Where to find this information" section, so I’m not sure what’s in that drop down. Once you share it, I can take a look at that before you all go to testing.
  • Are the UB04 and CMS 1500 forms examples of types of additional supporting documents someone can submit in additional to an itemized billing statement? Are there other types of supporting document someone can submit to support their medical claim?
  • Are the procedure and diagnosis code examples what the codes start with? What do those letters mean?

• EOB

  • What does "matching date of service" mean? Is "what they paid for" what the insurance paid for or the health care provider?

• Prescription medications

  • Clarification on the type of document that would have this information - I shared two versions of content (one is based on the design info and one is based on the static page info)

• The form designs don't include any screens re: Kaiser Permanente. If someone has Kaiser Permanente, can they use the online form to submit a claim?

• A few questions on the confirmation screen about the appeals process and claim payments.

[aliyahblackmore]

Update here:

• Product team has the post-midpoint content/designs ready for me to review. Syd shared that we can use this new section in FIgma: https://www.figma.com/design/Tfhq5h2LwXEeEEtFBAAFOv/CHAMPVA-Claims-(10-7959a)?node-id=961-139667&t=RhigrqhkKCc3r4rD-11
• And I'll plan to take a look at the content/designs next week (cc: @strelichl)

[aliyahblackmore]

• Cross posting the new link Syd shared on 6/24 https://www.figma.com/design/Tfhq5h2LwXEeEEtFBAAFOv/CHAMPVA-Claims-(10-7959a)?node-id=961-139667&t=tvA1U3a22SAxoLmh-11

• And as mentioned on Slack, I'll continue my review of the screens tomorrow.

cc: @strelichl

[aliyahblackmore]

Hi @syd-hoeper (cc: @strelichl @laurwill)

I'm all done with a full review of the post-midpoint designs. And as Syd confirmed on 6/24, I put my comments and feedback in this section.

Based on some of the conversations in the Figma comments from the product team, there are a few areas that the product team still needs clarity on SMEs. And it seems like there's still an outstanding question about whether the beneficiary is paid directly after they submit their claim and the types of relationships that can sign on behalf of a beneficiary.

I made adjustments to content based on the information you all shared in your designs and flagged a few outstanding questions (for example - areas that are misaligned with the PDF version of the form). We’ll need to revisit these outstanding questions to ensure the information describes the process/required documents.

---

Here's a summary of some of the outstanding areas/questions that need VA partner/SME clarity and confirmation (some of these questions were tracked in my pre-midpoint feedback and we can revisit these areas):

Global note across - brackets will dynamically fill the beneficiary’s name or "your/you" - as Syd confirmed. The first beneficiary screen that asks for the name is the exception.

Relationship to beneficiary

• The PDF form includes an open field text, but no relationship types (i.e. spouse, parent, friend). The product team included iterations of the relationship type, but they're still waiting to get SME/VA partner confirmation about these relationship types. For right now they’re leaving in the options they chose (parent, child, relationship not listed).
• I noted in Figma comments that my recommendation is that they get more information from their SMEs to confirm these relationships and we can revisit.

Third party signer beneficiary address selection

• This is a new screen you all added post-midpoint. I added guidance in Figma on how to address the drop down options.
• As noted, that isn’t an approach for all IVC forms - once the 10-10D post testing designs are ready for my full review I’ll take a look at what’s there.
• And if you all haven’t already, check in with the design system folks about this address selection approach - I’m not seeing anything in the designs system about address selection.

Other health insurance screens

• Hint text "This included coverage..." - we should revisit this once you all get confirmation from your VA partners/SMEs that this accurately described the information they want to collect here.

Insurance type

• We should revisit these when you all get information from your SMEs about using more descriptive terms for the insurance types.
• Syd, I think that your decision to match the descriptions with the PDF is fine for right now! But as mentioned, we don’t usually match PDFs 1:1 or we usually try provide descriptive information for terms that may be less clear or known so we’re providing more clarity. We should revisit after you all chat more with your VA partners.

Itemized billing statement

• Laura has an outstanding question about this - she’ll ask SMEs when she sends out the static page for a review
• I just re-tracked the pre-midpoint content recommendation for the screen - it wasn’t in this new design area.
• And I included a few notes about what still needs SME clarification or an accuracy review. For example, the code examples seem to be types of codes, so I adjusted that on the screen to clarify. And the PDF version of the form doesn’t include a "DX' code, but the online form does - so we’d want that to be consistent based on what's accurate.

Work related/Auto-related accidents

• Still need SME clarity about what they consider an automotive accident - it seems like it’s a car, truck, or motorcycle, but they’ll need to confirm this.
• And on both screens, there’s hint text to explain that VA will reach out to workers’ comp insurance or auto insurance - how will they have this information or how will they confirm that someone has either type of insurance?
• And if someone doesn’t have workers’ comp or auto insurance, can they file a claim for either type of accident?

Confirmation screen

• Does the EOB have information about what VA will pay to the beneficiary? This is a claim for reimbursement - so I wonder if "what you'll have to pay..." is accurate here.
• Can CHAMPVA claim appeals only happen by mailing a letter and requesting an appeal? Or do these claims follow the same decision review or appeal options for other claims at VA? If so, we need to adjust the language here. It's my understanding that this would follow the decision process outlined here: https://www.va.gov/decision-reviews/

[marywang2]

Hi @aliyahblackmore @strelichl I'm not sure if I open a new ticket for the react widget content, but here is the id: form107959a. Please let me know if you need anything further, thank you!

[aliyahblackmore]

Update here

Content adjustments/recommendations for the CHAMPVA Claim confirmation screen and email are in Figma. :link:CHAMPVA claim link

There are a few questions flagged across the OHI/1010D/and CHAMPVA Claim forms around consistency in the designs (i.e. "Your application details" and the Signer name vs. Applicant name). I can address those areas when you all reply.

[aliyahblackmore]

Update here

Mary and Jamie joined office hours to talk about FMP reg and other emails.

• We confirmed that we'll move forward with making the CAIA content adjustments to the confirmation emails now. The adjustments across 1010D/OHi/CHAMPVA claim, where applicable, will align. And when CAIA has standard VA notify content, we'll circle back if there are any future adjustments that need to happen.

• We confirmed on the call that we'll move the contact information up under "What to expect next" and remove the header "How to contact us about your application."

https://www.figma.com/design/Tfhq5h2LwXEeEEtFBAAFOv/CHAMPVA-Claims-(10-7959a)?node-id=2031-36584&t=rovv5p1wtryW8AqS-4

[aliyahblackmore]

Update here:

Product team will follow up about whether claimants with Kaiser can use the online claim form (discussed in 9/19 meeting) (content considerations still TBD: If they don't allow these claimants to use this form, the static and form intro page will need adjustments. If they do allow these claimants to use this form, the designers may need additional instructions on the upload screen if claimants with Kaiser need to submit additional information).

[aliyahblackmore]

Update here:

• I'm joining the first half of the teams research roadmapping session to listen in. They'll review the form recommendations, assess impact, and prioritize next steps.

• Jamie shared their research synthesis earlier today.

• It seems like some of the feedback in the synthesis connects to a few of the pre-research questions here. We can assess what questions they team may still need answers on from their SMEs.

• And I'll check in with the team again about whether people with Kaiser can use the online form (discussed in 9/19 meeting).

cc: @jamiefiore @syd-hoeper @strelichl

[aliyahblackmore]

Update here:

Product team reviewed their research findings and began scoring each recommendation for impact (i.e. prioritizing when the update may happen).

I added a few follow up questions and comments about the recommendations in their Mural:

1- Intro page - finding # 2 shares that participants read the requirements in depth. But the recommendation is that the screen should include all of the requirements and supporting document information. The form intro page does currently include all of the form requirements and supporting documents- curious to know if there were specific piece of information participants didn't understand (like any of the supporting documents)?

2- Additional info component on upload screen - initial content rec pre-research was to remove this. But there were some recommendations on adjustments (Figma comment) if the team wanted to move forward with it. Was there any feedback that showed participants want this information here?

3- Codes for billing - discovery work on number of digits for codes.

[aliyahblackmore]

Update here:

Rachel asked for a review of the some sponsor/rep adjustments to the beginning of the forms. I. reviewed and confirmed with them that as long as it's true that someone selecting "Veteran a claim for my spouse/dependent" is always the Sponsor, then the updated flow works.

I also re- tracked a few other pre-midpoint notes/comments (we can revisit some of the SME/accuracy things after staging, but before the incremental launch):

1. Since they can only use this form to file one claim - we can use "dependent" instead of "dependents". I adjusted this earlier on in the flow. :link:Link
2. I adjusted the content on the sponsor screen for veterans filling out the form for a spouse or dependent. When we use the term "sponsor" in VA content, we generally define it on first mention. So let's do this here and we can revisit in any future post MVP updates to this form and the 1010D. I added this "You selected that you're the Veteran filling out this form for your spouse or dependent. This means that you're their sponsor (this is the Veteran or service member the beneficiary is connected to). Enter your information here. We'll use your information to confirm the beneficiary's eligibility." :link:Link
3. Use "confirm" instead of "verify" - I tracked a similar comment on the 1010D screens.
4. I recommended some adjustments to the health insurance policy list&loop content to re-track some of the pre-midpoint recommendations for Syd. For example, moving "You can add up to...." to the first screen in the list& loop and on the review policies screen. The design as is without those adjustments may get flagged in staging review. :link: Link
5. List&loop alert and destructive screens - the health insurance review screen is missing the warning alert that's in the mock form pattern library. And the section is missing the destructive screens. Once you all add the destructive screens , I can add review that content. If they exists elsewhere in Figma, let me know. :link:Link
6. The file upload screens/destructive screens - when you all add the destructive screen designs, I can review. I flagged a similar comment on the 1010D designs. And I re-tracked some previous pre-midpoint feedback that I shared with Syd. For example, on the upload screens I don't think you all need the additional info component there. And there's a SME accuracy question on what you all call the pharmacy document. The static page uses "itemized billing statement". :link:Link
7. Confirmation screen - I added a link to the previous convo re: what happens after someone files a claim. As of midpoint review, that was still TBD and I recommended you all align with your SMEs.

[aliyahblackmore]

Update here (cross posting from Slack):

Met with Rachel and Andrea to review questions on the upload screen.

• I copied over the design/content for the destructive screens. Rachel, I'll just need you to drag them to the correct area in the auxiliary section.
• We clarified the content on the supporting document upload screen. The content in my comment just replaced "document" with "statement" and placed the Note above the list.
• And I linked the previous convo re: the confirmation screen. That's a SME question re: the accuracy of the information there. That's something that should get clarified before launch.

And Rachel flagged that they'll likely make many of the other updates post-MVP.

Re: my thoughts on critical pre-MVP updates (these are a few other things I noticed after our call):

• There are a few comments that call out content that was previously flagged for SME accuracy reviews to ensure you all accurately describe what happens (i.e. workers' comp). If there are any notes from your SMEs around accuracy on certain pieces of information, those are definitely areas that are important to update before MVP.
• The destructive modals are necessary for MVP launch - if they aren't already in staging or any other artifacts you all are using, that'll likely get flagged as "must" feedback during your staging review.
• And many of the other comments re-track content from the previous designs (i.e. aligning content with our VA style standards). Those would be great to adjust for MVP, if possible - and it looks like you already adjusted some of those screens!