Recommendation: The Administrator of FNS should develop and implement a process, documented in policies and procedures, to analyze SNAP state-level root causes to identify potential similarities among the states and develop and implement SNAP agency-level corrective actions, if appropriate, to help address them. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Agriculture: Office of the Secretary: Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services: Food and Nutrition Service
Status: Open

Comments: In commenting on our draft report, USDA stated that the Food and Nutrition Service should formalize its existing processes into a standard operating procedure to analyze the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programs (SNAP) state-level root causes to identify potential similarities among states, in order to improve development and implementation of SNAP agency-level corrective actions, if appropriate.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Agriculture should revise USDA's procedures to include processes for monitoring the progress and measuring the effectiveness of improper payment corrective actions. The process for measuring the effectiveness of corrective actions should clearly demonstrate the effect USDA's corrective actions have on reducing improper payments. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: In commenting on our draft report, USDA stated that a proposed action plan will be developed to revise USDA's procedures for monitoring the progress and measuring the effectiveness of improper payment corrective actions. Processes will focus on the impact corrective actions have on the root causes of improper payments.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Education should revise and document Education's process for measuring the effectiveness of its corrective actions based on its new statistical estimation methodology for Direct Loan and Pell Grant improper payments. This process should clearly demonstrate the effect Education's corrective actions have on reducing improper payments. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Education: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open

Comments: In commenting on our draft report, Education stated that Federal Student Aid (FSA) will continue to evaluate and refine its processes to measure corrective actions and the effectiveness of these actions. Further, Education stated that FSA's measurement of corrective action effectiveness and root cause identification will gain additional precision as FSA collects annual improper payment data and builds upon the new baseline of statistically valid improper payment estimates. Education stated that FSA annually measures the overall effectiveness of its corrective action plans collectively against the improper payment reduction targets, rather than measuring the effectiveness of each individual corrective action. However, OMB guidance directs agencies to measure the effectiveness of each individual corrective action annually.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Health and Human Services should document in policies and procedures HHS's improper payment corrective action plan process. As part of these procedures, HHS should include processes for (1) establishing planned completion dates, (2) monitoring the progress of implementing corrective actions, and (3) measuring the effectiveness of improper payment corrective actions. The process for measuring the effectiveness of corrective actions should clearly demonstrate the effect HHS's corrective actions have on reducing improper payments. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open

Comments: In commenting on our draft report, HHS elaborated on the improper payment corrective action plan process that is called for in OMB guidance. HHS stated that OMB guidance provides agencies the flexibility to measure the effectiveness of corrective actions and believes that this flexibility is vital to its oversight processes to reduce improper payments.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Treasury should determine whether Treasury's current improper payment root cause analysis provides sufficiently relevant information that can be used as a basis for proposed corrective actions in reducing EITC improper payments and, if not, update the analysis using more timely data to ensure their reliability for identifying root causes of EITC improper payments. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open

Comments: In commenting on our draft report, Treasury stated that each year it indicates in its corrective action plan that IRS will continue to work with Treasury to develop legislative proposals that will improve refundable credit compliance and reduce erroneous payments.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Treasury should update Treasury's strategy for addressing the root causes of EITC improper payments to include (1) coordinating with other agencies to identify potential strategies and data sources that may help in determining EITC eligibility and (2) determining whether legislative changes are needed, and developing proposals as appropriate, to help reduce EITC improper payments, such as those related to the inability to authenticate taxpayer eligibility. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open

Comments: In commenting on our draft report, Treasury stated that each year it indicates in its corrective action plan that IRS will continue to work with Treasury to develop legislative proposals that will improve refundable credit compliance and reduce erroneous payments. Although Treasury has made certain legislative proposals, it has not made proposals to specifically help address EITC eligibility criteria issues. Additionally, Treasury's strategy does not include identifying and proposing additional legislative changes needed to help reduce EITC improper payments.

Recommendation: The Commissioner of SSA should develop and implement a process, documented in policies and procedures, to measure the effectiveness of SSA's corrective actions for OASDI and SSI improper payments. This process should clearly demonstrate the effect SSA's corrective actions have on reducing improper payments. (Recommendation 7)

Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: In commenting on our draft report, SSA stated that it will determine the most cost-effective strategies to remediate the underlying causes of payment errors and monitor, measure, and revise the strategies as needed.

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary of Labor for the Employee Benefits Security Administration should evaluate whether targeted oversight in response to information received is effective for ensuring compliance with MH/SU parity requirements. If this evaluation determines the current targeted oversight approach results in significant program risks, the Employee Benefits Security Administration should develop a plan to more effectively enforce MH/SU parity requirements and if necessary seek additional oversight authority, as warranted. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Labor: Employee Benefits Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: DOL agreed with this recommendation. In February 2020, DOL reported that its Employee Benefits Security Administration plans to evaluate its targeted approach to MH/SU parity enforcement. When we confirm what actions DOL has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Administrator of CMS should evaluate whether targeted oversight in response to information received is effective for ensuring compliance with MH/SU parity requirements for non-federal governmental plans. If this evaluation determines the current targeted oversight approach results in significant program risks, CMS should develop a plan to more effectively enforce MH/SU parity requirements and if necessary seek additional oversight authority, as warranted. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open

Comments: HHS agreed with this recommendation. In August 2020, HHS reported that CMS has developed a two-part evaluation to determine whether targeted oversight of non-federal governmental plans is effective for enforcing MH/SU parity requirements. According to HHS, this evaluation will include (1) a review of non-federal governmental plan documents for compliance with MH/SU parity requirements and (2) a survey of state enforcement authority and regulatory best practices for ensuring MH/SU parity compliance. As of August 2020, HHS reported that the first part of the CMS evaluation is underway.

Recommendation: The Administrator of CMS should work with states and relevant federal agencies to collect accurate and complete data on blood lead screening for Medicaid beneficiaries in order to ensure that CMS is able to monitor state compliance with its blood lead screening policy, and assist states with planning improvements to address states' compliance as needed. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In June 2020, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) officials said that obtaining complete data on blood lead screenings for children enrolled in Medicaid will not be possible, but that the agency is committed to improving the accuracy and completeness of the data. For example, in February 2020, CMS reported that the agency is planning to use a new data system-as states meet certain data quality and completeness benchmarks for the system-to generate the report that includes states' blood lead screening data. CMS stated that this will improve the agency's and states' ability to assess gaps in blood lead screening data. This is a positive step, yet any new data system will also need to consider how to help address known limitations in the current blood lead screening data, such as the under-counting of blood lead screening tests not paid for by Medicaid. To implement this recommendation, CMS should address limitations in blood lead screening data to better monitor compliance with the agency's blood lead screening policy.

Recommendation: The Administrator of CMS should regularly assess the appropriateness of performance measures and targets for the EPSDT benefit, and take any necessary actions to ensure their relevance and use, including adding, changing, or removing measures, or targets, and regularly communicating performance measures and targets to states. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open

Comments: In June 2020, CMS officials reiterated that they do not concur with this recommendation, in part because the agency does not have the authority to set binding targets for every EPSDT measure. As we stated in our report, our recommendation does not assume that targets should be set for every measure--rather, that CMS needs to regularly assess the appropriateness of performance measures and targets for the EPSDT benefit and communicate them to states. This includes assessments of the CMS-416 performance measures, such as the participant and screening ratios. which CMS officials acknowledge have limitations.

Recommendation: The Administrator of CMS should conduct regular evaluations of state performance by comparing states' performance measurement data with CMS's EPSDT targets to identify gaps in states' performance and areas for improvement. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open

Comments: In June 2020, CMS officials reiterated that they do not concur with this recommendation, in part because the agency provides states with information about their performance on ESPDT measures reported on the Child Core Set, including a state's performance relative to other states' performance. We noted the limitations of this approach in our report; descriptions of a state's performance relative to other states is subject to change over time. For example, because the median is the midpoint of all states' performance, it ensures that half of states will not meet it, regardless of their individual performance. A fixed target--or targeted improvement goal, such as the one developed as part of the Oral Health Initiative--would provide states with the opportunity to measure performance over prior years' results, which is a more meaningful measure that all states can strive to achieve.

Recommendation: The Administrator of CMS should assist states with planning needed improvements, including providing focused assistance, to resolve gaps in states' performance in meeting CMS's EPSDT targets. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open

Comments: In June 2020, CMS officials reiterated that they do not concur with this recommendation, in part because the agency does not believe that it is productive or appropriate to set targets for every EPSDT measure. As we stated in our report, our recommendation does not assume that targets should be set for every measure. However, developing additional targets on performance measures critical to beneficiaries' health and well-being could help improve oversight of EPSDT. Targeted technical assistance could be valuable for CMS to provide to states after identifying gaps in states' performance relative to EPSDT targets. Doing so would allow CMS to share additional strategies to help states plan and implement needed improvements.

Recommendation: The Administrator of CMS should develop a plan with time frames and interim milestones for using T-MSIS data to generate the necessary data from the Child Core Set to improve EPSDT oversight and streamline state reporting. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open

Comments: In June 2020, CMS officials said that they are currently exploring the feasibility of using T-MSIS data to generate certain Child Core Set measures. Specifically, the agency is conducting a pilot with five Child Core Set measures. CMS officials said that they will use the pilot's results to determine the timeline for generating the additional Child Core Set measures through T-MSIS. GAO will continue to follow the agency's progress on this activity.

Recommendation: The Administrator of CMS should ensure the agency's Medicaid third-party liability guidance is consistent with federal law related to

• the requirement for states to apply cost avoidance procedures to claims for labor, delivery, and postpartum care services,
• the requirement for states to make payments without regard to potential third-party liability for pediatric preventive services unless the state has made a determination related to cost-effectiveness and access to care that warrants cost avoidance for 90 days, and
• state flexibility to make payments without regard to potential third-party liability for pediatric services provided to child support enforcement beneficiaries. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open

Comments: On November 14, 2019, CMS issued an Informational Bulletin providing further guidance to Medicaid Bipartisan Budget Act (BBA) of 2018 and changes to Medicaid Provisions Passed in April 2019-Third Party Liability in Medicaid and CHIP. The intent of the information Bulletin is to further clarify CMS guidance issued in the agency's June 2018 Bulletin on key provisions related to third party liability in Medicaid and CHIP. The Bulletin also addresses April 2019 changes to the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013. The bulletin clarifies CMS guidance on two of the three issues we identified in our 2019 report. The bulletin notes that (1) effective February 9, 2018 a state is required to use standard coordination of benefits cost avoidance when processing claims for prenatal services which now includes labor and delivery and postpartum care claims, and (2) effective October 1, 2019, a state is required to make payments without regard to third party liability for pediatric preventive services unless the state has made a determination related to cost-effectiveness and access to care that warrants cost avoidance for 90 days. However, with regard to the third issue, the bulletin notes that, effective April 18, 2019, a state is allowed 100 days to pay claims related to child support enforcement, but does not note that states may choose to make payment within 30 days, if the state determines doing so is cost-effective and necessary to ensure access to care. We will continue to monitor CMS guidance on payments related to child support enforcement to assess whether the recommendation is fully implemented.

Recommendation: The Administrator of CMS should determine the extent to which state Medicaid programs are meeting federal third-party liability requirements and take actions to ensure compliance as appropriate. Such actions can include ensuring that state plans reflect the law. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open

Comments: As of February 2020, we are unaware of any actions taken by CMS to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: In light of the need for accurate and complete information on children's access to health services under Medicaid and CHIP, the requirement that states report information to CMS on certain aspects of their Medicaid and CHIP programs, and problems with accuracy and completeness in this state reporting, the Administrator of CMS should work with states to identify additional improvements that could be made to the CMS 416 and CHIP annual reports, including options for reporting on the receipt of services separately for children in managed care and fee-for-service delivery models, while minimizing reporting burden, and for capturing information on the CMS 416 relating to children's receipt of treatment services for which they are referred.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Status: Open

Comments: In August 2019, CMS stated that the agency's long-term plan is to use the Transformed Medicaid Statistical Information System (T-MSIS) to analyze information on children's receipt of Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment (EPSDT) services. As of June 2020, CMS had developed a new CMS-416 reporting form that gives states the option of having CMS calculate the measures for the report using T-MSIS. CMS stated that it intends to implement this option for states for fiscal year 2020 CMS-416 reports, which are due in April 2021. As of August 2020, the new CMS-416 form was undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act review. CMS is also exploring using T-MSIS to generate the Core Set of Children's Health Care Quality Measures for Medicaid and CHIP, some of which are included in the CHIP annual report. As of June 2020, CMS had begun a pilot test to generate five of the Core Set measures using 2018 T-MSIS data. GAO considers this recommendation open and will continue to monitor CMS's progress towards its long-term goal of using T-MSIS to monitor children's receipt of EPSDT services.

Recommendation: To meet its fiduciary responsibility of ensuring that section 1115 waivers are budget neutral, the Secretary of Health and Human services should better ensure that valid methods are used to demonstrate budget neutrality, by developing and implementing consistent criteria for consideration of section 1115 demonstration waiver proposals.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: As of January 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) had taken some action to address GAO's 2002 recommendation. In August 2018, HHS issued written guidance through a State Medicaid Directors Letter documenting four key changes it made in 2016 to its budget neutrality policy. These changes addressed some, but not all of the questionable methods GAO identified in its reports. To fully address this recommendation, HHS should also address these other questionable methods, such as setting demonstration spending limits based on hypothetical costs-what the state could have paid-rather than payments actually made by the state. GAO has found that the use of hypothetical costs has the potential to inflate spending limits and thus threatens budget neutrality of demonstrations