ȱ
ȱȂȱ ȱȱȱ
ǻ ǼǱȱȱȱ ȱ
ȱǯȱ £ȱ
ȱȱ ȱȱȱ
ȱǯȱȱ
ȱȱ ȱȱȱ
¢ȱǯȱȱ
¢ȱȱ ȱȱȱ
ȱŗŞǰȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱȱȱ
ŝȬśŝŖŖȱ
ǯǯȱ
ŚŖŚŚŚȱ
ȱȱȱ
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress

ȱȂȱ ȱȱȱǻ ǼǱȱȱȱ ȱ
ȱ
¢ȱ
The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA 97; P.L. 105-33) established the State Children’s Health
Insurance Program (CHIP) under a new Title XXI of the Social Security Act and provided annual
appropriations for CHIP through FY2007. The Children’s Health Insurance Program
Reauthorization Act of 2009 (CHIPRA, H.R. 2, P.L. 111-3), which was signed into law on
February 4, 2009, provided CHIP appropriations through FY2013 and made other changes.
In general, CHIP allows states to cover targeted low-income children with no health insurance in
families with income above Medicaid eligibility levels. States may also extend CHIP coverage to
pregnant women when certain conditions are met. The highest state-reported upper income
eligibility limit for children in CHIP is 350% of the federal poverty level, in New Jersey.
Under CHIP, states may enroll targeted low-income children in a CHIP-financed expansion of
Medicaid, create a new separate state CHIP program, or devise a combination of both approaches.
States choosing the Medicaid option must provide all Medicaid mandatory benefits and all
optional services covered under the state plan. In addition, they must follow the nominal
Medicaid cost-sharing rules or apply the new state plan option for premiums and service-related
cost-sharing as allowed under the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA). In general, separate state
programs must follow certain coverage and benefit options outlined in CHIP law. While some
cost-sharing provisions vary by family income, the total annual aggregate cost-sharing (including
premiums, copayments, and other similar charges) for a family may not exceed 5% of total
income in a year. Preventive services are exempt from cost-sharing.
All states, the District of Columbia, and the five territories have CHIP programs. The territories,
the District of Columbia, and six states use Medicaid expansions; 18 states use separate state
programs; and 26 states use a combination approach. At the national level, nearly 7.4 million
children were enrolled in CHIP during FY2008. In addition, 12 states reported enrolling about
335,000 adults in CHIP through program waivers in FY2008.

ȱȱȱ

ȱȂȱ ȱȱȱǻ ǼǱȱȱȱ ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
Eligibility......................................................................................................................................... 1
Children..................................................................................................................................... 1
Pregnant Women ....................................................................................................................... 2
Legal Immigrants ...................................................................................................................... 3
Adult Coverage ......................................................................................................................... 4
Enrollment and Access .................................................................................................................... 5
Outreach and Enrollment .......................................................................................................... 5
Express Lane Eligibility............................................................................................................ 5
Citizenship Documentation....................................................................................................... 6
Enrollment................................................................................................................................. 6
Benefits............................................................................................................................................ 7
Recent Changes to Mental Health and Dental Benefits ............................................................ 8
Premium Assistance .................................................................................................................. 9
Cost-Sharing.................................................................................................................................. 10
New Data Collection and Reporting Requirements Under CHIP ................................................. 12
Financing and Expenditures .......................................................................................................... 12
Federal Appropriations and Allotments Among the States and Territories ............................. 12
FY2009 Allotment ............................................................................................................ 13
FY2010 Allotment ............................................................................................................ 14
FY2011 and FY2013 Allotments ...................................................................................... 14
FY2012 Allotment ............................................................................................................ 14
Redistribution of Unspent Federal Funds and Appropriations to Address Shortfalls ............. 14
Other Factors Affecting Federal Financing ............................................................................. 16

ȱ
Table 1. CHIP Enrollment and Eligibility Information for the States and the District of
Columbia .................................................................................................................................... 17
Table 2. Cumulative FY1998-FY2007 Federal CHIP Financing, by State and Territory.............. 21
Table 3. FY2008 Federal CHIP Financing .................................................................................... 24

ȱ
Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 27

ȱȱȱ

ȱȂȱ ȱȱȱǻ ǼǱȱȱȱ ȱ
ȱ
he Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA 97; P.L. 105-33) established the State Children’s
Health Insurance Program (CHIP)1 under a new Title XXI of the Social Security Act and
T provided annual appropriations for CHIP through FY2007. The Children’s Health
Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009 (CHIPRA, H.R. 2, P.L. 111-3), which was signed
into law on February 4, 2009, provided CHIP appropriations through FY2013 and made other
changes. CHIP offers federal matching funds to states and territories to provide health insurance
to certain uninsured low-income children and pregnant women. Although specific requirements
apply to eligibility, benefits, and beneficiary cost-sharing, as described below, these rules can be
modified via waiver authority provided in Section 1115 of the Social Security Act.2
¢ȱ
Eligibility for health benefits under CHIP is available to different groups via different federal
authority and mechanisms. These groups have included children, pregnant women, parents and
childless adults. Groups may be covered under the CHIP state plan or via special waiver
authority.
ȱ
In general, Title XXI defines a targeted low-income child as one who is under age 19 with no
health insurance, and who would not have been eligible for Medicaid under the rules in effect in
the state on March 31, 1997. States can set the upper income level for targeted low-income
children up to 200% of the federal poverty level (FPL),3 or 50 percentage points above the
applicable pre-CHIP Medicaid income level. However, “(u)nder current statutory and regulatory
authority, States are able to effectively expand eligibility of all children under 19 years of age to
whatever level they choose.”4 For states seeking CMS approval to expand eligibility, CHIPRA
reduces federal CHIP payments for certain higher-income CHIP children. Specifically, the regular
Medicaid federal matching rate (FMAP), which is lower than the CHIP enhanced matching rate,
will be used for CHIP enrollees whose effective family income exceeds 300% of poverty using
the state’s policy of excluding “a block of income that is not determined by type of expense or
type of income,” with an exception for states that already had a federal approval plan (i.e., New
Jersey) or that had enacted a state law to submit a plan for federal approval (i.e., New York).
Within these general rules, states may provide assistance to qualifying children in two basic ways.
They may cover such children under their Medicaid programs and/or they may create a separate
CHIP program for this purpose. (More details on available benefits under each approach are
described in the next section.) When states provide Medicaid coverage to targeted low-income
children, Medicaid rules typically apply. When states provide coverage to targeted low-income

1 One of the provisions of CHIPRA permits using CHIP as the program’s acronym, instead of SCHIP. This report
reflects this change, using CHIP instead of SCHIP.
2 See CRS Report RS21054, Medicaid and SCHIP Section 1115 Research and Demonstration Waivers.
3 In 2009, the poverty guideline in the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia is $22,050 for a family of four.
(“Annual Update of the HHS Poverty Guidelines,” 74 Federal Register 4199, January 23, 2009).
4 66 Federal Register 2320, January 11, 2001. For additional information on states’ flexibility in counting income for
purposes of determining CHIP eligibility, see CRS Congressional Distribution Memorandum, Overview of Medicaid
and Medicaid-Expansion SCHIP Eligibility for Children and Rules for Counting Income, by April Grady, November
29, 2007, available upon request.
ȱȱȱ
ŗȱ

ȱȂȱ ȱȱȱǻ ǼǱȱȱȱ ȱ
ȱ
children through separate CHIP programs, Title XXI rules typically apply. In both cases, the
federal share of program costs comes from federal CHIP funds (also described in further detail
below).
Title XXI does not establish an individual entitlement to benefits. Instead, Title XXI entitles
states with approved state CHIP plans to pre-determined federal allotments based on a
distribution formula set in the law (explained further below). Targeted low-income children
covered under a CHIP-financed expansion of Medicaid are, however, entitled to the benefits
offered under that program as dictated by Medicaid law. No such individual entitlement exists for
targeted low-income children covered in separate CHIP programs.
States may cover targeted low-income children by expanding their Medicaid programs in the
following ways: (1) by establishing a new optional eligibility group for such children as
authorized in Title XXI, and/or (2) by liberalizing the financial rules5 for any of several existing
Medicaid eligibility categories. Many states with Medicaid-expansion CHIP programs chose the
latter, opting to cover targeted low-income children under existing Medicaid eligibility pathways,
especially Medicaid’s poverty-related child groups, rather than by establishing the Title XXI
optional coverage group.6 Such a strategy reduces the administrative burden of creating and
implementing a new coverage group.7
States may also provide coverage to targeted low-income children by creating a separate CHIP
program. States define the group of targeted low-income children who may enroll in separate
CHIP programs. Title XXI allows states to use the following factors in determining eligibility:
geography (e.g., sub-state areas or statewide), age (e.g., subgroups under 19), income, resources
(assets), residency, disability status (so long as any standard relating to that status does not restrict
eligibility), access to or coverage under other health insurance (to establish whether such
access/coverage precludes CHIP eligibility), and duration of CHIP eligibility.
ȱȱ
Prior to CHIPRA, states were able to cover adult pregnant women (ages 19 and older) in one of
three ways: (1) states could apply for Section 1115 waivers to extend coverage to such pregnant
women; (2) states could provide health benefits coverage, including prenatal care and delivery
services, to unborn children of adult pregnant women through a CHIP state plan amendment

5 Under Medicaid law, Section 1902(r)(2) authority may be used to liberalize income and resource methodologies for a
number of groups, including, for example, poverty-related children (i.e., those under age 6 in families with income up
to 133% FPL and those between ages 6 and 18 in families with income up to 100% FPL). That same authority can be
used to liberalize financial rules for CHIP purposes. Family coverage is provided under Section 1931. This section has
its own provisions for liberalizing income and resource standards.
6 Personal communication with Judy Rhoades, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, June 5, 2003.
7 Because individuals can have other health insurance and still be covered by Medicaid, this approach also allows states
to bring into Medicaid otherwise ineligible higher-income children regardless of their other health insurance status.
Under this strategy, for example, states can provide Medicaid benefits to additional children whose existing health
insurance is limited (sometimes referred to as under-insured). When states liberalize the financial rules for existing
Medicaid eligibility groups, the federal share of the costs for services provided to the subset without other health
insurance—the targeted low-income children—is paid for out of CHIP funds (described in further detail below). The
federal share of the costs for services delivered to the remaining children with other health insurance is paid for by
Medicaid.
ȱȱȱ
Řȱ

ȱȂȱ ȱȱȱǻ ǼǱȱȱȱ ȱ
ȱ
(SPA) as permitted through regulation;8 or (3) states could offer a “family coverage option”
through a group health plan that may include maternity care to adult females in eligible families.
As of October 2007, 17 states offered pregnancy-related services to adults using CHIP funds. Of
those, 6 states used the §1115 waiver authority, and 12 states extended coverage to unborn
children of adult pregnant women through unborn child SPAs (Rhode Island extends coverage to
adult pregnant women through both authorities).9 Of the 12 states that offered pregnancy-related
services to unborn children under the CHIP SPAs,10 all but Tennessee extended coverage to the
unborn children of undocumented aliens who otherwise would not have access to federally
funded pregnancy-related services, except through emergency Medicaid.11
In FY2008, there were 364,161 unborn children enrolled in CHIP, nearly half of whom (176,822,
48.6%) were in California.12
CHIPRA added a new state option to cover pregnant women under CHIP through a state plan
amendment. To implement this option, states must meet certain conditions (e.g., the Medicaid
income standard for pregnant women must be at least 185% FPL but in no case lower than the
percentage level in effect on July 1, 2008; no pre-existing conditions or waiting periods may be
imposed; CHIP cost-sharing protections described below must apply). The upper income level for
pregnant women may be as high as the standard applicable to CHIP children in the state. Other
eligibility restrictions applicable to CHIP children (e.g., must be uninsured, ineligible for state
employee health coverage) also apply. The period of coverage is during pregnancy through the
postpartum period (through roughly 60 days after delivery). States are allowed to temporarily
enroll pregnant women for up to two months until a formal determination of eligibility is made
(referred to as presumptive eligibility). Benefits include all services available to CHIP children in
the state as well as prenatal, delivery and postpartum care. Infants born to these pregnant women
are deemed eligible for Medicaid or CHIP, as appropriate, and are covered up to age one year, at
which point eligibility could be redetermined. States may continue to cover pregnant women
through waivers and the unborn child regulation described above. For the latter case, CHIPRA
clarified that states are allowed to offer postpartum services.
ȱȱ
Prior to CHIPRA, legal immigrants arriving in the United States after August 22, 1996, were
ineligible for Medicaid or CHIP benefits for their first five years here. Coverage of such persons
after the five-year bar was permitted at state option if they met other eligibility requirements for

8 Although the Bush Administration required the care to be directed at the unborn child, the CHIP unborn child SPA
option effectively enables states to provide prenatal care to adult pregnant women including those with incomes at or
above the Medicaid income eligibility thresholds and for individuals who do not qualify for Medicaid (or CHIP) for
other reasons, such as immigration status or incarceration.
9 For more information, see CRS Report RS22785, SCHIP Coverage for Pregnant Women and Unborn Children.
10 Arkansas, California, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas,
Washington and Wisconsin.
11 Illegal immigrants are barred from Medicaid and CHIP eligibility. Such women who otherwise qualify but for their
documentation status have access to emergency care under Medicaid, which includes labor and delivery costs (Section
1903(v)(2) of the Social Security Act).
12 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) analysis of SEDS FY2008, “Unborn Children Chart FY
2008.xls,” January 20, 2009.
ȱȱȱ
řȱ

ȱȂȱ ȱȱȱǻ ǼǱȱȱȱ ȱ
ȱ
that program. For legal immigrants (but not refugees and asylees), the law requires that their
sponsor’s income and resources for those who have signed a legally binding affidavit of support
would be taken into account in determining eligibility. Generally speaking, for federally means-
tested programs (e.g., Medicaid, TANF), the affidavit of support required the sponsor to ensure
that the new immigrant will not become a public charge and makes the sponsor financially
responsible for the individual.
CHIPRA permitted states to waive the five-year bar for Medicaid or CHIP coverage to pregnant
women and children who are (1) lawfully residing in the United States and (2) are otherwise
eligible for such coverage. The CHIP state plan option made available under this provision is
available only to states that (1) elect this state plan option under Medicaid and (2) in the case of
pregnant women coverage, elect the CHIP state plan option (described above) to provide
assistance for pregnant women. For states that elect to extend such coverage, the provision
assured that the cost of care will not be deemed under an affidavit of support against an
individual’s sponsor. In addition, as a part of states’ redetermination processes (i.e., to
redetermine eligibility at least every 12 months with respect to circumstances that may change
and affect eligibility), individuals made eligible under this provision whose initial documentation
showing legal residence is no longer valid will be required to show “further documentation or
other evidence” that the individual continues to lawfully reside.
ȱȱ
Under current law, Section 1115 of the Social Security Act gives the Secretary of Health and
Human Services (HHS) broad authority to modify many aspects of the CHIP programs including
expanding eligibility to populations who are not otherwise eligible for CHIP (e.g., childless
adults, 13 and parents of Medicaid and CHIP-eligible children). Certain states that have covered
adults with CHIP funds were permitted to do so almost entirely through the use of these
waivers.14 Adult coverage waivers, which initially are effective for five years, are subject to
renewal at least every three years. Prior to 2007, waiver renewals for states with adult coverage
waivers were approved, even for those states that were projected to face federal CHIP shortfalls
(e.g., New Jersey, Rhode Island). Beginning in 2007, however, such waiver renewals have not
been approved (e.g., Illinois, Oregon) or states have begun to transition adult populations out of
CHIP coverage (e.g., Wisconsin, 15 Minnesota). As of January 7, 2009, 4 states16 have CMS

13 The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171) prohibits the use of CHIP funds for coverage of non-pregnant
childless adults in any new waivers approved after February 8, 2006.
14 On August 4, 2001, the Bush Administration announced the Health Insurance Flexibility and Accountability (HIFA)
Demonstration Initiative. Using Section 1115 waiver authority, this initiative was designed to encourage states to
extend Medicaid and CHIP to the uninsured, with a particular emphasis on statewide approaches that maximize private
health insurance coverage options and target populations with income below 200% FPL. In other words, states were
permitted and encouraged to direct their unspent CHIP funds towards coverage expansions under the HIFA initiative.
Source: Medicine and Health, “CMS Administrator: McClellan on Value Purchasing, SCHIP, DSH, and Specialty
Hospitals,” March 22, 2004.
15 Under its prior waiver, parents of Medicaid- or CHIP-enrolled children from 100% to 185% FPL were eligible for
CHIP; under the renewal, parents from 100% up to 130% FPL are in Medicaid, with parents from 130% to 185% FPL
in CHIP. Although family income cannot exceed 185% FPL for initial eligibility, parents may continue enrollment as
long as family income does not exceed 200% FPL.
16 States with CMS authority to extend CHIP coverage to non-pregnant childless adults as of (1/14/09) include Arizona,
Idaho, Michigan, and New Mexico. FY2008 CHIP Annual enrollment reports did not show enrollment associated with
Arizona’s childless adult demonstration population despite the fact that the state has CMS authority to provide
coverage to such individuals.
ȱȱȱ
Śȱ

ȱȂȱ ȱȱȱǻ ǼǱȱȱȱ ȱ
ȱ
authority to use CHIP funds to extend coverage to certain childless adult populations, and 7
states17 have such authority to cover parent populations (see Table 1).
CHIPRA terminates CHIP coverage of nonpregnant childless adults by the end of calendar year
2009. States with existing childless adult waivers that were in effect during FY2009 are permitted
to apply for Medicaid waivers to continue coverage for these individuals subject to a specified
budget neutrality standard, but in FY2010 childless adult spending under the waiver will be tied
to the state’s 2009 waiver spending on this population. CHIPRA requires budget neutrality
standards for succeeding fiscal years to be tied to waiver spending in the preceding fiscal year.
Under CHIPRA, coverage of parents is permitted for states with CHIP parent coverage waivers
that were in effect during FY2009, but beginning in FY2012, allowable spending under the
waivers will be subject to a set-aside amount from a separate allotment and will be matched at the
state’s regular Medicaid FMAP unless the state is able to prove it meets certain coverage
benchmarks (related to performance in providing coverage to children). In FY2013, even states
meeting the coverage benchmarks will not get the enhanced FMAP for parents but an amount
between the regular and enhanced FMAPs. Finally, CHIPRA prohibits waiver spending under the
set-aside for parents whose family income exceeds the income eligibility thresholds that were in
effect under the existing waivers as of February 4, 2009.
ȱȱȱ
ȱȱȱ
CHIPRA included provisions to facilitate access and enrollment in Medicaid and CHIP. Besides
the bonus payments described below, CHIPRA authorizes $100 million in outreach and
enrollment grants above and beyond the regular CHIP allotments for fiscal years 2009 through
2013. Ten percent of the allocation will be directed to a national enrollment campaign, and 10%
will be targeted to outreach for Native American children. The remaining 80% will be distributed
among state and local governments and to community-based organizations for purposes of
conducting outreach campaigns with a particular focus on rural areas and underserved
populations. Grant funds will also be targeted at proposals that address cultural and linguistic
barriers to enrollment. Also as a part of the outreach-related provisions, CHIPRA requires the
state plan to describe the procedures used to reduce the administrative barriers to the enrollment
of children and pregnant women in Medicaid and CHIP, and to ensure that such procedures are
revised as often as the state determines is appropriate to reduce newly identified barriers to
enrollment.
¡ȱȱ¢ȱ
In terms of enrollment facilitation, CHIPRA creates a state option to rely on a finding from
specified “Express Lane” agencies (e.g., those that administer programs such as Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families, Medicaid, CHIP, and Food Stamps) to determine whether a child
under age 19 (or an age specified by the state not to exceed 21 years of age) has met one or more

17 States with CMS authority to extend CHIP coverage to parents of Medicaid and/or CHIP eligible children (as of
1/14/09) include Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, and Wisconsin.
ȱȱȱ
śȱ

ȱȂȱ ȱȱȱǻ ǼǱȱȱȱ ȱ
ȱ
of the eligibility requirements (e.g., income, assets, citizenship, or other criteria) necessary to
determine an individual’s initial eligibility, eligibility redetermination, or renewal of eligibility for
medical assistance under Medicaid or CHIP. States will have the option to institute automatic
enrollment through an Express Lane eligibility determination contingent on a family’s consent.
The provision gives states the option to rely on an applicant’s reported income as shown by state
income tax records or returns. Under CHIPRA, states are required to inform families that they
may qualify for lower premium payments or more comprehensive health coverage under
Medicaid if the family’s income were directly evaluated by the state Medicaid agency. CHIPRA
also drops the requirement for signatures on a Medicaid or CHIP application form under penalty
of perjury.
£ȱȱ
The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA) required citizens and nationals applying for Medicaid
who claim to be citizens to provide both proof of citizenship and identity. Before DRA, states
could accept self-declaration of citizenship for Medicaid, although some chose to require
additional supporting evidence. CHIPRA provided a specific alternative, which allows a state to
use the Social Security Number (SSN) provided by individuals and verified by the Social Security
Administration (SSA), and provides an enhanced match for certain administrative costs. (SSNs by
themselves do not denote citizenship, because certain noncitizens are eligible for them.) CHIPRA
also adds a requirement for citizenship documentation in CHIP.
ȱ
Table 1 shows every state’s CHIP program type as well as upper-income eligibility and
enrollment data by population group. The highest state-reported upper income eligibility limit for
children in CHIP is 350% of the FPL, in New Jersey.18 Eleven states and the District of Columbia
(plus four counties and certain children up to age two in California) have CHIP coverage above
250% FPL. An additional 11 states (including California) have income thresholds greater than
200% FPL but less than or equal to 250% FPL. Twenty-two states have upper income limits at
200% FPL. Six states set maximum income levels below 200% FPL.19
The latest official numbers show that CHIP enrollment reached nearly 7.4 million children in
FY2008. Of this total, about 5.3 million were covered in separate state programs, and 2.1 million
were targeted low-income children under Medicaid.
One of the primary uses of waiver authority under CHIP has been to expand coverage for adult
populations, which has proven controversial.20 (See above for further discussion of adult coverage

18 For determining financial eligibility for CHIP and Medicaid, certain types and/or amounts of income are not counted.
These are called “income disregards.” For example, specified dollar amounts may be subtracted from gross income to
calculate net income, which is then compared to the applicable income criterion.
19 States may apply resource, or asset, tests in determining financial eligibility, but are not required to do so. In states
with a resource test, individuals must have resources for which the dollar value is less than a specified standard amount
in order to qualify for coverage. States determine what items constitute countable resources and the dollar value
assigned to those countable resources. Assets may include, for example, cars, savings accounts, real estate, trust funds,
tax credits, etc. Nearly all states have done away with asset tests for CHIP.
20 For example, see the hearing webcast and written testimony for Covering Uninsured Kids: Missed Opportunities for
Moving Forward, held by the Subcommittee on Health, House Energy and Commerce Committee, January 29, 2008, at
(continued...)
ȱȱȱ
Ŝȱ

ȱȂȱ ȱȱȱǻ ǼǱȱȱȱ ȱ
ȱ
under CHIP and changes to CHIP adult coverage made by CHIPRA.) Twelve states reported
enrollment of about 335,000 adults in CHIP in FY2008 (see Table 1). Most of these adults (65%,
or 216,000) were parents. Roughly 111,000 were childless adults, and the remainder (7,829) were
pregnant women. The number of CHIP-enrolled adults in FY2008 is lower than in FY2006
(701,000) and in FY2007 (587,000). This was because several adult-coverage waivers were not
renewed or were scaled back in the latter half of the administration of George W. Bush (see
discussion above).
In FY2008, Michigan, New Mexico, and Minnesota reported more adult CHIP enrollees than
children.
ȱ
As noted above, when designing their CHIP programs, states may cover targeted low-income
children under their Medicaid program, create a new separate CHIP program, or devise a
combination of both approaches.
States that use Medicaid-expansion CHIP programs must provide the full range of mandatory
Medicaid benefits, as well as all optional services specified in their state Medicaid plans. As an
alternative to providing all of the mandatory and selected optional benefits under traditional
Medicaid, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171; DRA) gave states the option to enroll
state-specified groups, including children in CHIP-financed Medicaid expansions, in new
benchmark and benchmark-equivalent benefit plans. These plans are nearly identical to the
benefit packages offered through separate CHIP programs (described below). For any child under
age 21 in one of the major mandatory and optional Medicaid eligibility groups, including targeted
low-income children, the benefits available through the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic,
and Treatment (EPSDT) Program must be provided, whether through a benchmark plan or
otherwise (per CHIPRA). Under EPSDT, children receive well-child care, immunizations, and
other screening services, as well as medical care necessary to correct or ameliorate identified
defects, illnesses, or conditions, including optional services states may not otherwise cover in
their Medicaid programs.
States that choose to create separate CHIP programs may elect any of three benefit options: (1) a
benchmark benefit package, (2) benchmark equivalent coverage, or (3) any other health benefits
plan that the Secretary of Health and Human Services determines will provide appropriate
coverage to the targeted population of uninsured children.21
A benchmark benefit package is one of the following three plans: (1) the standard Blue
Cross/Blue Shield preferred provider option plan offered under the Federal Employees Health
Benefits Program (FEHBP), (2) the health coverage that is offered and generally available to state
employees in the state involved, and (3) the health coverage that is offered by a health

(...continued)
[http://energycommerce.house.gov/cmte_mtgs/110-he-hrg.012908.CoveringUninsured.shtml].
21 When the law establishing CHIP was enacted, existing programs financed entirely by the state in Florida, New York,
and Pennsylvania were designated as meeting the minimum benefit requirements under CHIP (i.e., these programs
were grandfathered into CHIP).
ȱȱȱ
ŝȱ

ȱȂȱ ȱȱȱǻ ǼǱȱȱȱ ȱ
ȱ
maintenance organization (HMO) with the largest commercial (non-Medicaid) enrollment in the
state involved.
Benchmark-equivalent coverage is defined as a package of benefits that has the same actuarial
value as one of the benchmark benefit packages. A state choosing to provide benchmark-
equivalent coverage must cover each of the benefits in the “basic benefits category.” The benefits
in the basic benefits category are inpatient and outpatient hospital services, physicians’ surgical
and medical services, lab and x-ray services, and well-baby and well-child care, including age-
appropriate immunizations. Benchmark-equivalent coverage must also include at least 75% of the
actuarial value of coverage under the benchmark plan for each of the benefits in the “additional
service category.” These additional services22 include prescription drugs, vision services, and
hearing services. States are encouraged to cover other categories of service not listed above.
Abortions may not be covered, except in the case of a pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, or
when an abortion is necessary to save the mother’s life.
All 50 states, the District of Columbia, and five territories have CHIP programs. The territories,
the District of Columbia, and 6 states use Medicaid expansions; 18 states use separate state
programs; and 26 states use a combination approach. Among other types of separate CHIP
programs, data from 200523 indicate that most of the benchmark and benchmark-equivalent plans
are based on a state employees’ health plan, and most secretary-approved plans are modeled after
Medicaid.
ȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱ
CHIPRA made some changes to coverage of mental health and substance abuse services under
CHIP. The new law ensures that, in the case of a state CHIP plan that provides both medical and
surgical benefits and mental health or substance abuse disorder benefits, the predominant
financial requirements (e.g., deductibles, copayments) and treatment limitations (e.g., number of
visits, days of coverage) applicable to such mental health or substance abuse disorder benefits
must be no more restrictive than the predominant financial requirements and treatment limitations
applicable to substantially all medical and surgical benefits covered under the state CHIP plan. In
addition, there can be no separate cost-sharing requirements or treatment limitations applicable
only to mental health or substance abuse disorder benefits. State CHIP plans that include
coverage of EPSDT services (as defined in Medicaid statute) are deemed to satisfy these mental
health parity requirements.
CHIPRA also made modifications to dental care under CHIP. Dental services are now a required
benefit under separate CHIP programs and include services necessary to prevent disease and
promote oral health, restore oral structures to health and function, and treat emergency conditions.
(Dental benefits have always been required for CHIP Medicaid expansion children via EPSDT.)
States have the option to provide dental services through “benchmark dental benefit packages”
modeled after the benchmark plans for medical services described above (e.g., dental benefit
plans under FEHBP, state employee programs and commercial HMO options). The new law also

22 Prior to CHIPRA, these additional services included mental health services. CHIPRA deleted this reference and
added an assurance of mental health parity applicable to separate CHIP programs, described below.
23 CRS analysis of unpublished data from a 2005 survey of state CHIP programs conducted by the National Academy
for State Health Policy (NASHP). For more information about this survey, see
[http://www.chipcentral.org/Files/Charting_CHIP_III_9-21-6.pdf].
ȱȱȱ
Şȱ

ȱȂȱ ȱȱȱǻ ǼǱȱȱȱ ȱ
ȱ
includes provisions for dental education for parents of newborns and dental services through
federally qualified health centers. States must report detailed information in their annual reports
and for EPSDT reporting purposes on, for example, the number of children by age group
receiving various types of dental care. Information on dental providers and covered dental
services will be available to the public via the federal Insure Kids Now website and hotline. GAO
is to conduct a study on children’s access to dental care under Medicaid and CHIP. The report on
this study is to include recommendations for federal and state actions to address barriers to dental
care, and the feasibility and appropriateness of using qualified mid-level providers to improve
access.
Prior to CHIPRA, CHIP funds could never be used to pay for any services of children enrolled in
employer-sponsored coverage. (CHIPRA provided authority for premium assistance programs
described in the next section.) CHIPRA provided a state option under separate CHIP programs,
subject to certain conditions, to provide dental-only supplemental coverage to children enrolled in
group or employer coverage who otherwise meet CHIP eligibility criteria. The provision allows
states to provide dental coverage consistent with the new dental benchmark benefits plans or cost-
sharing protections for dental coverage applicable under CHIP. States may set the upper income
level for this new benefit up to the level otherwise applicable under their separate CHIP
programs. States are not allowed to offer dental-only supplemental coverage unless (1) the state
has implemented the highest income eligibility permitted in federal CHIP statute (or a waiver) as
of January 1, 2009; (2) the state does not limit acceptance of applications for children or impose
any enrollment caps, waiting lists, or similar eligibility limitations under CHIP; and (3) the state
provides benefits to all children in the state who apply for and meet the eligibility standards. In
addition, states may not provide more favorable dental coverage or related cost-sharing
protections for children provided dental-only supplemental coverage than the dental coverage or
related cost-sharing protections for CHIP children eligible for the full range of CHIP benefits.
States would have the option to not apply an eligibility waiting period for children provided
dental-only supplemental coverage.
ȱȱ
Under prior law, states were permitted to pay a beneficiary’s share of costs for group (employer
based) health insurance in CHIP if the employer plan was cost effective relative to the amount
paid to cover only the targeted low-income children, and did not substitute for coverage under
group health plans otherwise being provided to the children. In addition, states using CHIP funds
for employer-based plan premiums were required to ensure that CHIP minimum benefits were
provided, CHIP cost-sharing ceilings were met, and the children to be enrolled have not had
group coverage for a specified period of time (typically four to six months).24 Under Medicaid,
including a Medicaid expansion CHIP program, states may implement a premium assistance
program if the employer plan is comprehensive and cost-effective for the state. Under Medicaid,
an individual’s enrollment in an employer plan is considered cost-effective if paying the
premiums, deductible, coinsurance and other cost-sharing obligations of the employer plan is less
expensive than the state’s expected cost of directly providing Medicaid-covered services. To meet
the comprehensiveness test under Medicaid, states are required to provide coverage for those
Medicaid-covered services that are not included in the private plans. In other words, they must

24 CHIP premium assistance programs approved under state plan authority are referred to as family coverage variance
programs. As of June 7, 2007, there were two states—New Jersey and Massachusetts—with operational family
coverage variance programs under CHIP.
ȱȱȱ
şȱ

ȱȂȱ ȱȱȱǻ ǼǱȱȱȱ ȱ
ȱ
provide “wrap-around” benefit coverage. It has proved prohibitive for many employer plans and
states to meet all of these requirements. To circumvent these restrictions, most states operating
CHIP or Medicaid premium assistance programs do so under waivers.25
CHIPRA created a new state plan option for providing premium assistance and required states to
include a description of the procedures to provide outreach, education, and enrollment assistance
for families of children likely to be eligible for premium assistance subsidies under CHIP. States
have the option to offer premium assistance for Medicaid and CHIP-eligible children and/or
parents of Medicaid and/or CHIP-eligible children where the family has access to employer-
sponsored insurance (ESI) coverage, if the employer pays at least 40% of the total premium, the
employer’s group health plan qualifies as “creditable coverage”26 (as defined by the Public Health
Service Act), and the coverage is offered to all individuals in a nondiscriminatory way (as defined
by the Internal Revenue Code of 1986). Under CHIPRA, a state offering premium assistance may
not require CHIP eligible individuals to enroll in an employer’s plan; individuals eligible for
CHIP and for employment-based coverage may choose to enroll in regular CHIP rather than the
premium assistance program. The premium assistance subsidy will generally be the difference
between the worker’s out-of-pocket premium that included the child(ren) versus only covering
the employee. For employer plans that do not meet CHIP benefit requirements, a wrap-around is
required.
For the child’s coverage using premium assistance, no cost-effectiveness test is required
regarding the cost of the private coverage (plus any necessary wrap-around) relative to regular
CHIP coverage. CHIPRA establishes a separate test for family coverage. If the CHIP cost of
covering the entire family in the employer-sponsored plan is less than regular CHIP coverage for
the eligible individual(s) alone, then the premium assistance subsidy may be used to pay the
entire family’s share of the premium. In states that offered premium assistance, CHIPRA requires
states and participating employers to do outreach. Under CHIPRA, states are permitted to
establish an employer-family premium assistance purchasing pool for employers with less than
250 employees who have at least one employee who is a CHIP-eligible pregnant woman or at
least one member of the family is a CHIP-eligible child. The law stipulates that the new premium
assistance provisions under Medicaid, not CHIP, will apply to children enrolled in a Medicaid-
expansion CHIP program. Finally, CHIPRA amends applicable Federal laws to streamline
coordination between public and private coverage, including making the loss of Medicaid/CHIP
eligibility a “qualifying event” for the purpose of purchasing employer-sponsored coverage. The
provision also requires health plan administrators to disclose to the state, upon request,
information about their benefit packages so states can evaluate the need to provide wraparound
coverage.
Ȭȱ
Cost-sharing refers to the out-of-pocket payments made by beneficiaries of a health insurance
plan. Cost-sharing may include monthly premiums, enrollment fees, deductibles, copayments,
coinsurance and other similar charges.

25 As of September 21, 2007, 10 states reported operating a premium assistance program under CHIP or Medicaid
through waiver authority. (Other states may also be providing premium assistance through state plan amendments.)
26 Benefits provided under a health flexible spending arrangement or a high deductible health plan are specifically
excluded as credible health coverage under CHIPRA.
ȱȱȱ
ŗŖȱ

ȱȂȱ ȱȱȱǻ ǼǱȱȱȱ ȱ
ȱ
Federal law permits states to impose cost-sharing for some beneficiaries and some services under
CHIP. States that cover targeted low-income children under Medicaid must follow the nominal
cost-sharing rules of the Medicaid program. Under these rules, the majority of such children are
exempt. Children who are 18 years of age and enrolled in Medicaid expansions under CHIP may
be subject to service-related cost-sharing (e.g., copayments) at state option.
DRA27 provided states with a new option for premiums and service-related cost-sharing that may
be applied to targeted low-income children under CHIP Medicaid-expansion programs. For
children in families with income under 100% FPL, no premiums are allowed and service-related
cost-sharing is limited to nominal amounts. For children in families with income between 100%-
150% FPL, no premiums may be imposed; however, service-related cost-sharing may be applied
up to 10% of the cost of the item or service rendered. For children in families with income above
150% FPL, premiums are allowed (no limit is specified), and service-related cost-sharing may be
applied up to 20% of the cost of the item or service rendered. For all individuals, the total
aggregate amount of all cost-sharing cannot exceed 5% of family income (on a quarterly or
monthly basis as specified by the state). Preventive services for children are exempt from DRA
cost-sharing. The nominal Medicaid cost-sharing amounts in regulation will be indexed by
medical care inflation. Special rules apply to cost-sharing for prescription drugs, and for
emergency room copayments for non-emergency care. DRA also allows states to condition
continuing Medicaid eligibility on the payment of premiums. Providers may also be allowed to
deny care for failure to pay service-related cost-sharing.
If a state implements CHIP through a separate state program, premiums or enrollment fees for
program participation may be imposed, but the maximum allowable amount is dependent on
family income. For all families with incomes under 150% FPL and enrolled in separate state
programs, premiums may not exceed the amounts set forth in federal Medicaid regulations.
Additionally, these families may be charged service-related cost-sharing, but such cost-sharing is
limited to (1) nominal amounts defined in federal Medicaid regulations for the subgroup with
income below 100% FPL, and (2) slightly higher amounts defined in CHIP regulations for
families with income between 100%-150% FPL. For a family with income above 150% FPL,
cost-sharing may be imposed in any amount, provided that cost-sharing for higher-income
children is not less than cost-sharing for lower-income children and subject to the out-of-pocket
limit of 5% of family income. In addition, states are required to inform families of these limits
and provide a mechanism for families to stop paying once the cost-sharing limits have been
reached.
Preventive services are exempt from cost-sharing for all CHIP families regardless of income. The
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) defines such preventive services to include,
at a minimum, the following: all healthy newborn physician visits, including routine screening
(inpatient and outpatient); routine physical examinations; laboratory tests associated with such
routine physical examinations; immunizations and related office visits; and routine preventive
and diagnostic dental services (for example, oral examinations, prophylaxis and topical fluoride
applications, sealants, and x-rays).

27 P.L. 109-432 modified DRA by specifying cost-sharing rules for individuals in families with income under 100%
FPL. For additional information, see CRS Report RS22578, Medicaid Cost-Sharing Under the Deficit Reduction Act of
2005 (DRA).
ȱȱȱ
ŗŗȱ

ȱȂȱ ȱȱȱǻ ǼǱȱȱȱ ȱ
ȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ ȱ
CHIPRA 2009 contained several provisions to expand and improve data collection and reporting
by both the states and the federal government with respect to CHIP and, for some initiatives, also
for Medicaid. For example, the new law directs the Secretary of HHS to develop child health
quality measures, a standardized format for reporting such information, and procedures to
encourage states to voluntarily report on the quality of pediatric care under both CHIP and
Medicaid. In addition, several reporting requirements were added to states’ annual CHIP reports
including, for example, data on eligibility criteria, access to primary and specialty care, and data
on premium assistance for employer-sponsored coverage. GAO is to conduct a study of children’s
access to primary and specialty care under Medicaid and CHIP.
CHIPRA also established a new federal commission, called the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and
Access Commission, or MACPAC. This commission will review policies under both programs
affecting children’s access to benefits including, for example, payment policies and their impact
on access and quality of care. Regular, on-going reports to Congress are to detail these findings
and are to include recommendations for improving access and quality of care for children under
Medicaid and CHIP.
CHIPRA also required the Secretary of HHS to conduct a new, independent federal evaluation of
10 states with approved CHIP plans that meet certain criteria (e.g., represent different geographic
regions, utilize diverse approaches to CHIP coverage, and have significant portions of uninsured
children). This evaluation will be modeled after the first such federal evaluation undertaken in the
early 2000s. As with the first federal evaluation, the new evaluation will examine, for example,
effectiveness of outreach and enrollment strategies, the effects of cost-sharing on utilization, and
factors related to disenrollment and retention of children.
ȱȱ¡ȱ
Federal financing of CHIP includes three major components: (1) total federal appropriations for
states’ annual CHIP allotments of federal funds among the states and territories, (2) reallocation
of unspent federal funds and appropriations for eliminating states’ shortfalls, and (3) other factors
affecting federal financing including the federal matching rate and caps on administrative
expenses.
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
BBA 97 appropriated a total of approximately $40 billion for CHIP allotments for FY1998 to
FY2007. The funding level by fiscal year varied across time. The total annual appropriation for
each of FY1998-FY2001 was a little more than $4.2 billion. This annual total dropped to under
$3.2 billion in FY2002-FY2004. Then the appropriation rose to about $4.1 billion for FY2005
and FY2006, with a further increase to roughly $5.0 billion in FY2007. The drop in funding for
FY2002-FY2004, sometimes referred to as the “CHIP dip,” was written into CHIP’s authorizing
legislation due to budgetary constraints applicable at the time the legislation was drafted.
ȱȱȱ
ŗŘȱ

ȱȂȱ ȱȱȱǻ ǼǱȱȱȱ ȱ
ȱ
The 110th Congress passed two bills to “reauthorize” CHIP—providing CHIP funding for FY2008
through FY2012 and making other changes to both CHIP and Medicaid. Both H.R. 976 and H.R.
3963 were vetoed by President George W. Bush, with the Congress unable to override these
vetoes. In lieu of reauthorization, the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007
(MMSEA, P.L. 110-173) appropriated funds to provide CHIP allotments for FY2008 and
FY2009, but only to be available through March 31, 2009. Because shortfalls of federal CHIP
funds were still projected to occur in certain states, additional funds besides the allotments were
also appropriated, as discussed in the next section.
CHIPRA provided a national appropriation for CHIP allotments totaling $68.9 billion from
FY2009 to FY2013.28 The national appropriation available for CHIP allotments under CHIPRA
are $10.562 billion in FY2009; $12.52 billion in FY2010; $13.459 billion in FY2011; $14.982
billion in FY2012; and $17.406 billion in FY2013.
The allotment of the annual federal CHIP appropriation among the states is determined by a
formula set in law. Prior to CHIPRA, of the national appropriation ($5 billion for each of
FY2007, FY2008 and FY2009, for example), the territories received 0.25%. The remainder
($4.9875 billion for each of FY2007, FY2008 and FY2009) was divided, or allotted, among the
states based on a formula using survey estimates of the number of low-income children in the
state and the number of those children who were uninsured. These amounts were adjusted by a
geographic adjustment factor and were limited by various floors and ceilings to ensure that a
state’s allotment did not vary substantially from certain past allotments.
Rather than dividing a fixed national appropriation on the basis of state survey estimates, a state’s
allotment is now calculated as described below and if the total of all the states’ and territories’
allotments does not exceed the national appropriation, that will be the state’s allotment.
CHIP allotments are basically separate, sequential funding accounts. For each state and territory,
the account for a given fiscal year is made available at the beginning of that year and remains
available for a certain period of time. Prior to CHIPRA, allotments were available for three years.
However, the CHIP allotments for FY2009 and after will only be available for two years.
Typically, CHIP payments are taken out of the earliest active account. Once that fiscal year
allotment is fully expended, the state can begin drawing from the next available allotment.
ŘŖŖşȱȱ
FY2009 federal CHIP allotments for states29 are the largest of three state-specific amounts:
• the state’s FY2008 federal CHIP spending, multiplied by a growth factor;
• the state’s FY2008 federal CHIP allotment, multiplied by a growth factor; and
• the state’s own projections of federal CHIP spending for FY2009, submitted by
states to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) as of February 2009.

28 Cost estimates from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) indicated that CHIPRA would increase overall outlays
(across all provisions of the bill) by $32.8 billion over five years (FY2009-13), which would be offset primarily by
increases in federal tobacco taxes, estimated to increase on-budget revenue by $32.8 billion over five years.
29 The territories’ FY2009 federal CHIP allotments are calculated as the largest of their federal CHIP expenditures from
FY1999 to FY2008, increased by the allotment increase factor calculated nationally.
ȱȱȱ
ŗřȱ

ȱȂȱ ȱȱȱǻ ǼǱȱȱȱ ȱ
ȱ
The largest of these three amounts will be increased by 10% and will serve as the state’s FY2009
federal CHIP allotment, as long as the national appropriation is adequate to cover all the states’
and territories’ FY2009 allotments.30 If not, allotments will be reduced proportionally.
ŘŖŗŖȱȱ
For FY2010, the allotment for a state (or territory) will be calculated as the sum of the following
four amounts, if applicable, multiplied by the applicable growth factor for the year:
• the FY2009 CHIP allotment;
• FY2006 unspent allotments redistributed to and spent by shortfall states in
FY2009;
• spending of funds provided to shortfall states in the first half of FY2009; and
• spending of Contingency Fund payments (discussed below) in FY2009, although
there may be none.
ŘŖŗŗȱȱŘŖŗřȱȱ
For FY2011 and FY2013, the allotment for a state (or territory) will be “rebased,” based on prior
year spending. This will be done by multiplying the state’s growth factor for the year by the new
base, which will be the prior year’s federal CHIP spending.
ŘŖŗŘȱȱ
For FY2012, the allotment for a state (or territory) will be calculated as the FY2011 allotment and
any FY2011 Contingency Fund spending, multiplied by the state’s growth factor for the year.
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱȱ
At the end of the applicable period of availability, unspent allotments are redistributed to other
states. The rules vary by fiscal year. BBA 97 stipulated that only states that exhausted the relevant
allotment within three years were eligible to receive unspent funds from other states. However,
the Secretary determined how the funds would be redistributed to states that qualified.
For FY2006, the amount available for redistribution was inadequate for covering projected
federal CHIP shortfalls in 12 states. In DRA, Congress appropriated an additional $283 million to
cover the projected shortfalls. Two states (Illinois and Massachusetts) ultimately had higher
FY2006 CHIP spending than anticipated, so they experienced shortfalls totaling approximately
$100 million, almost all of that from Illinois.
In FY2007, $147 million in unspent FY2004 original allotments was available for redistribution.
In the closing hours of the 109th Congress, a bill was passed to specify how those funds would be

30 For more information, see CRS Report R40129, Projections of FY2009 Federal CHIP Allotments Under CHIPRA
(P.L. 111-3).
ȱȱȱ
ŗŚȱ

ȱȂȱ ȱȱȱǻ ǼǱȱȱȱ ȱ
ȱ
redistributed. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Reform Act of 2006 (H.R. 6164, P.L. 109-
482, NIHRA) required that the funds go to states “in the order in which such [shortfall] States
realize monthly funding shortfalls ... for fiscal year 2007.” The purpose was to delay any state
facing a shortfall as far into the year as possible with the available funds. CRS projections
indicated that this particular provision would delay shortfalls until the end of March 2007. To
delay shortfalls even further, the CHIP provisions of NIHRA called for an initial redistribution of
up to half of unspent FY2005 original allotments as of March 31, 2007 (capped at $20 million per
state)—after 2½ years of availability. For a state to forgo unspent FY2005 funds on that date,
NIHRA required not only that the state have unspent FY2005 balances but that the state’s total
CHIP balances (from the FY2005-FY2007 original allotments) as of March 31, 2007, were at
least double what the state projected to spend in federal CHIP funds in FY2007. This was
projected to provide an additional $138 million for shortfall states, delaying any state facing a
shortfall of federal CHIP funds until May 2007. The shortfalls remaining for the rest of the fiscal
year were projected at just over $600 million in 12 states.
On May 25, 2007, P.L. 110-28 (the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and
Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007; UTRA) was enacted. In it, Congress appropriated
up to $650 million to cover shortfalls of federal CHIP funds in 10 states31 for the remainder of
FY2007. Table 2 shows cumulative federal CHIP financing from the BBA 97 era of CHIP—
from1998 through FY2007.
For FY2008, MMSEA required that unspent FY2005 allotments be redistributed to shortfall states
on a monthly basis in the order in which these states experience shortfalls. In addition to this
redistribution, MMSEA appropriated up to $1.6 billion for states’ remaining shortfalls in FY2008.
Actual shortfall funding provided in FY2008 totaled just under $1 billion, as shown in Column E
of Table 3.
For FY2009, MMSEA also required that unspent FY2006 allotments be redistributed to states
projected to face shortfalls in FY2009 before March 31, 2009, on a monthly basis in the order in
which these states experience shortfalls. In addition to this redistribution, MMSEA appropriated
up to $275 million for states’ remaining shortfalls through March 31, 2009.
The increased FY2009 allotments provided by CHIPRA should prevent any federal CHIP funding
shortfalls for the second half of FY2009. Under CHIPRA, any unspent funds available for
redistribution would first be provided to shortfall states and then, if any redistribution funds still
remain, toward bonus payments, which are discussed in the next section.
The creation of a Child Enrollment Contingency Fund was an additional CHIPRA measure to
prevent states from experiencing shortfalls of federal CHIP funds. This fund receives an
appropriation separate from the national CHIP allotment amounts. Direct payments from the
Contingency Fund can be made to shortfall states for the federal share of expenditures for CHIP
children above a target enrollment level.32 Payments from the Contingency Fund cannot exceed
20% of that year’s national allotment amount and are to be reduced proportionally if necessary.

31 Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Jersey, and Rhode Island.
32 The structure of CHIPRA financing is such that funding through the regular allotments should be adequate for
children under a state’s target enrollment level.
ȱȱȱ
ŗśȱ

ȱȂȱ ȱȱȱǻ ǼǱȱȱȱ ȱ
ȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱ
Like Medicaid, CHIP is a federal-state matching program. For each dollar of state spending, the
federal government makes a matching payment drawn from CHIP accounts. A state’s share of
program spending for Medicaid is equal to 100% minus the federal medical assistance percentage
(FMAP). The enhanced FMAP (E-FMAP) for CHIP means a state’s share of expenditures is 30%
lower than under the regular FMAP. One new exception is that the temporary Medicaid FMAP
increases specified in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, H.R. 1, P.L.
111-5) are not considered in calculating the E-FMAP.33
Compared with the Medicaid FMAP, which ranged from 50% to 75.84% in FY2009 prior to
ARRA, the enhanced FMAP for CHIP ranges from 65% to 83.09%. All CHIP assistance for
targeted low-income children, including coverage provided under Medicaid, is eligible for the
enhanced FMAP. The Medicaid FMAP and the enhanced CHIP FMAP are subject to a ceiling of
83% and 85%, respectively, and a floor of 50% and 65%.
There is a limit on federal spending for CHIP administrative expenses, which include activities
such as data collection and reporting, outreach and education, and other activities. For federal
matching purposes, a 10% cap applies to state non-benefit expenses. This cap is tied to the dollar
amount that a state draws down from its annual allotment to cover benefits and these non-benefit
costs under CHIP, as opposed to 10% of a state’s total annual allotment. In other words, no more
than 10% of the federal funds that a state draws down for CHIP benefit and non-benefit
expenditures combined can be used for non-benefit costs including administrative expenses.
Under CHIPRA, federal CHIP bonus payments are available to states that (1) increase Medicaid
(not CHIP) child enrollment by certain amounts,34 and (2) implement five out of eight specific
outreach and enrollment activities.35 The source of funding for these payments would be an initial
$3.225 billion appropriation in FY2009 as well as unspent national allotment and redistribution
amounts.

33 For more information, see CRS Report R40223, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA): Title V,
Medicaid Provisions.
34 Qualifying children must have been able to meet the state’s Medicaid eligibility criteria in place on July 1, 2008.
35 For addition detail, see Sec. 104 of CHIPRA as described in CRS Report R40226, P.L. 111-3: The Children’s Health
Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009.
ȱȱȱ
ŗŜȱ

ȱȂȱ ȱȱȱǻ ǼǱȱȱȱ ȱ
ȱ
Table 1. CHIP Enrollment and Eligibility Information for the States and the District of Columbia
Reported
Number of Children Ever Enrolled in
Number of Adults Ever Enrolled in CHIP Waivers in FY2008 (and
Upper Income
FY2008
Income Level by Group)
Level for
State and Program
Children (%
Separate
Type as of January
FPL) as of
Medicaid
CHIP
Total
Pregnant
Parents of Medicaid
Childless
Total
2009
January 2009 Expansions Programs
Children
Women
and/or CHIP Children
Adults
Adults
Alabama (S)
200%

110,821
110,821

Alaska
(M)
175%
18,707
18,707

Arizona (S)
200%

112,072
112,072

24,000
(0-100%)b 24,000
(100-200%)a
Arkansas (C)
200%
89,646
3,800
93,446

2,317
2,317
(0-200%)c
California (C)
250%d 304,918 1,387,169 1,692,087

Colorado (S)
200%

99,555
99,555
3,868

3,868
(185-200%)e
Connecticut (S)
300%

22,270
22,270

Delaware
(C)
200%
81 11,111 11,192

DC
(M)
300%
8,746
8,746

Florida
(C)
200%
1,250 353,135 354,385

Georgia (S)
235%

311,234
311,234

Hawaii
(M)
300%
28,803
28,803

Idaho
(C)
185% 19,772 23,754 43,526
(133-185%)f 371
121
492
(above §1931 levels-185%)g (0-185%)g
Illinois
(C)
200% 164,482 191,978 356,460

Indiana (C)
250%
92,488
32,466
124,954

Iowa
(C)
200% 17,709 32,681 50,390

Kansas (S)
200%

51,162
51,162

Ȭŗŝȱ

ȱȂȱ ȱȱȱǻ ǼǱȱȱȱ ȱ
ȱ
Reported
Number of Children Ever Enrolled in
Number of Adults Ever Enrolled in CHIP Waivers in FY2008 (and
Upper Income
FY2008
Income Level by Group)
Level for
State and Program
Children (%
Separate
Type as of January
FPL) as of
Medicaid
CHIP
Total
Pregnant
Parents of Medicaid
Childless
Total
2009
January 2009 Expansions Programs
Children
Women
and/or CHIP Children
Adults
Adults
Kentucky
(C)
200% 43,073 24,644 67,717

Louisiana (C)
250%
142,691
5,172
147,863

Maine (C)
200%
21,660
9,287
30,947

Maryland
(M)
300%
132,864
132,864

Massachusetts
(C)
300% 100,097 100,853 200,950

Michigan
(C)
200% 14,885 52,878 67,763

87,313 87,313
(0-35%)h
Minnesota
(C)
280%
78 5,543 5,621

26,852
26,852
(100-200%)h
Mississippi (S)
200%

84,370
84,370

Missouri (C)
300%
52,920
83,215
136,135

Montana (S)
175%

22,679
22,679

Nebraska
(M)
185%
48,827
48,827

Nevada (S)
200%

38,592
38,592
174
3
177
(133-185%)j
(0-200%)j
New Hampshire (C)
300%
712
11,524
12,236

New Jersey (C)
350%
56,652
95,153
151,805
323
125,060
125,383
(185-200%)k (above Medicaid-200%)k
New Mexico (M)
235%
14,944

14,944

11,193
23,469
34,662
(37-200%)l
(0-200%)l
New York (S)
250%

517,256
517,256

North Carolina (C)
200%
70,787
180,866
251,653

North Dakota (C)
150%
1,672
5,945
7,617

ȬŗŞȱ

ȱȂȱ ȱȱȱǻ ǼǱȱȱȱ ȱ
ȱ
Reported
Number of Children Ever Enrolled in
Number of Adults Ever Enrolled in CHIP Waivers in FY2008 (and
Upper Income
FY2008
Income Level by Group)
Level for
State and Program
Children (%
Separate
Type as of January
FPL) as of
Medicaid
CHIP
Total
Pregnant
Parents of Medicaid
Childless
Total
2009
January 2009 Expansions Programs
Children
Women
and/or CHIP Children
Adults
Adults
Ohio
(M)
300%
251,278
251,278

Oklahoma (C)
200%
114,208
3,299
117,507

Oregon (S)
185%

73,686
73,686

5,939
5,939
(100-185%)m
Pennsylvania (S)
300%

256,627
256,627

Rhode Island (C)
250%
24,038
1,993
26,031
357
20,149
20,506
(185-250%)n (100-185%)n
South Carolina (C)
200%
67,799
5,821
73,620

South Dakota (C)
200%
11,713
3,564
15,277

Tennessee
(C)
250% 32,751 30,868 63,619

Texas (S)
200%

731,916
731,916

Utah (S)
200%

51,092
51,092

Vermont (S)
300%

6,496
6,496

Virginia (C)
200%
70,715
84,574
155,289
3,107

3,107
(133-185%)o
Washington (S)
250%

16,831
16,831

West Virginia (S)
250%

37,645
37,645

Wisconsin (C)
250%
48,846
4,094
52,940

Wyoming (S)
200%

8,976
8,976

(130-185%)p

State
Total

2,069,812 5,298,667 7,368,479
7,829 215,884
110,903 334,616
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) analysis of information from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)
Note: (M) is a Medicaid-expansion CHIP program; (S) is separate from Medicaid; (C) is a combination, having both a Medicaid-expansion portion and a separate portion.
FPL is “federal poverty level.”
Ȭŗşȱ

ȱȂȱ ȱȱȱǻ ǼǱȱȱȱ ȱ
ȱ
a. Arizona adult CHIP expiration date: 9/30/11.
b. Arizona has CMS authority to extend CHIP coverage to childless adult populations, but the state has claimed Title XIX matching funds for this population since 2006.
c. Arkansas adult CHIP expiration date:9/30/11.
d. California also provides coverage up to 300% in four select counties and for infants covered under the Access for Infants and Mother’s (AIM) Program.
e. Colorado adult CHIP expiration date: 9/30/09.
f. FY2008 CHIP annual enrollment reports did not show enrollment estimates associated with Idaho’s pregnant women coverage group despite the fact that the state
added this population in FY2008.
g. Idaho’s CHIP adult coverage waiver is doe employees of small businesses (and their families) with access to job-based health insurance. Idaho adult CHIP expiration
date: 11/3/09.
h. E-mail correspondence with CMS/OL (from 1/7/09) confirms that Michigan submitted a letter to CMS expressing interest in continuing their Title XXI SCHIP adult
coverage waiver, but the state failed to submit a renewal application and supporting documents within the statutory deadlines required under the Section 1115 waiver
authority (i.e., Requests for an extension must be submitted 120 days prior to the expiration of the current period of the waiver in accordance with Section 1115 (f)(1)
of the Social Security Act). Michigan adult CHIP waiver expiration date: 3/31/09.
i. Minnesota adult CHIP waiver expiration date: 6/12/09. The state is transitioning its CHIP adults to Title XIX funding through their Medicaid Comprehensive
Demonstration waiver.
j. Nevada’s adult CHIP waiver provides coverage through job-based insurance. Nevada adult CHIP waiver expiration date: 11/30/11.
k. E-mail correspondence with CMS/OL (from 1/7/09) confirms that New Jersey submitted a letter to CMS expressing interest in continuing their Title XXI SCHIP adult
coverage waiver, but the state failed to submit a renewal application and supporting documents within the statutory deadlines required under the Section 1115 waiver
authority (i.e., Requests for an extension must be submitted 120 days prior to the expiration of the current period of the waiver in accordance with Section 1115 (f)(1)
of the Social Security Act). New Jersey adult CHIP waiver expiration date: 3/31/09.
l. New Mexico adult CHIP waiver expiration: 12/31/10.
m. Oregon adult CHIP waiver expired: 10/31/07.
n. Rhode Island adult CHIP waiver expired: 7/31/08.
o. Virginia adult CHIP waiver expiration date: 6/30/10.
p. As of 10/1/07, parents in Wisconsin’s CHIP adult coverage waiver are eligible for CHIP between 130% and 185% FPL. Although family income cannot exceed 185% FPL
for initial eligibility, parents may continue enrollment as long as family income does not exceed 200% FPL. Wisconsin adult CHIP waiver expiration date: 3/31/10.

ȬŘŖȱ

ȱȂȱ ȱȱȱǻ ǼǱȱȱȱ ȱ
ȱ
Table 2. Cumulative FY1998-FY2007 Federal CHIP Financing, by State and Territory
(millions of dollars)
Amount of expired
FY1998-FY2007
Net funds gained
FY1998-FY2007
FY1998-FY2002
original CHIP
(forfeited) through
FY2006 and FY2007
Federal CHIP
reallocated CHIP
State and territory
allotments
redistributions
shortfall allotmentsa
expenditures
funds
A B C D E F
Alabama
$680
($73)

$561

Alaska
$82
$98

$170
$9
Arizona
$1,091
$25

$1,083

Arkansas
$451
($134)

$249
$11
California
$6,892
($1,455)

$5,141

Colorado
$479
($55)

$319

Connecticut
$338
($89)

$160

Delaware
$90
($29)

$39

DC
$100
($24)

$53

Florida
$2,326
$50

$1,902

Georgia
$1,248
($37)
$109
$1,356

Hawaii
$108
($24)

$71

Idaho
$186
($20)

$129

Illinois
$1,466
($167)
$237
$1,591

Indiana
$659
$67

$610

Iowa
$285
($11)
$16
$290

Kansas
$283
$32

$295

Kentucky
$509
$240

$588
$99
Louisiana
$804
($127)

$640

Maine
$121
$50
$7
$172
$6
Maryland
$499
$390
$54
$961
$8
ȬŘŗȱ

ȱȂȱ ȱȱȱǻ ǼǱȱȱȱ ȱ
ȱ
Amount of expired
FY1998-FY2007
Net funds gained
FY1998-FY2007
FY1998-FY2002
original CHIP
(forfeited) through
FY2006 and FY2007
Federal CHIP
reallocated CHIP
State and territory
allotments
redistributions
shortfall allotmentsa
expenditures
funds
A B C D E F
Massachusetts
$519
$217
$98
$865
$31
Michigan
$1,065
($153)

$868

Minnesota
$343
$52
$9
$404

Mississippi
$497
$81
$84
$662

Missouri
$540
$41
$8
$573

Montana
$125
($5)

$106

Nebraska
$165
$0
$16
$180

Nevada
$346
($63)

$175

New Hampshire
$100
($34)

$50

New Jersey
$855
$586
$144
$1,663

New Mexico
$468
($177)

$170
$33
New York
$2,680
$1,788

$3,070
$951
North Carolina
$957
$165
$3
$1,109

North Dakota
$59
($8)

$50

Ohio
$1,238
($14)

$1,161

Oklahoma
$637
($171)

$433

Oregon
$439
($116)

$260

Pennsylvania
$1,242
($33)

$1,060

Rhode Island
$95
$157
$24
$303

South Carolina
$577
$144

$440
$152
South Dakota
$77
($1)
$1
$71

Tennessee
$728
($247)

$72
$97
ȬŘŘȱ

ȱȂȱ ȱȱȱǻ ǼǱȱȱȱ ȱ
ȱ
Amount of expired
FY1998-FY2007
Net funds gained
FY1998-FY2007
FY1998-FY2002
original CHIP
(forfeited) through
FY2006 and FY2007
Federal CHIP
reallocated CHIP
State and territory
allotments
redistributions
shortfall allotmentsa
expenditures
funds
A B C D E F
Texas
$4,482
($832)

$2,512

Utah
$282
($11)

$230

Vermont
$42
($6)

$28

Virginia
$692
($134)

$493

Washington
$559
($178)

$183
$12
West Virginia
$219
$25

$220

Wisconsin
$480
$142

$610

Wyoming
$65
($19)

$36

Puerto Rico
$348
$93
$3
$442

Guam
$13
$4
$0
$19

Virgin Islands
$10
$3
$0
$12

American Samoa
$5
$1
$0
$8

N. Mariana Islands
$4
$1
$0
$9

Total
$39,651
$0
$811
$34,925
$1,409
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) analysis of information from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)
a. This column shows the amount of funds provided to states to eliminate their FY2006 and FY2007 federal CHIP shortfalls as appropriated, respectively, in the Deficit
Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171, enacted February 8, 2006) and the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability
Appropriations Act, 2007 (P.L. 110-28, enacted May 25, 2007).

ȬŘřȱ

ȱȂȱ ȱȱȱǻ ǼǱȱȱȱ ȱ
ȱ
Table 3. FY2008 Federal CHIP Financing
(millions of dollars)
Redistribution
Available unspent from other states’ States' FY2008 Additional allotments
States' FY2008
States' projected
FY2006 and
unspent FY2005
federal CHIP
for FY2008 to
federal CHIP
FY2008 federal
State
FY2007 balances
allotments
allotments
eliminate shortfallsa
balances
CHIP spending
A
B
C
D
E
F = B + C + D + E
G
Alabama
$45.8

$72.3

$118.1 $108.8
Alaska $0.6

$11.2
$2.6
$14.4 $14.4
Arizona
$33.1

$143.0

$176.0 $119.4
Arkansas $56.5

$47.5
$9.2
$113.2 $113.2
California $296.1
$789.2
$174.1
$1,259.3 $1,259.3
Colorado
$99.7

$71.5

$171.2 $82.5
Connecticut
$68.8

$38.8

$107.6 $26.3
Delaware
$17.9

$12.8

$30.7 $9.7
DC
$20.4

$12.1

$32.5 $10.1
Florida
$453.1

$301.7

$754.8 $272.3
Georgia

$167.9
$57.1
$225.0 $225.0
Hawaii
$14.0

$15.2

$29.2 $17.6
Idaho
$36.7

$23.8

$60.5 $35.4
Illinois

$208.3
$84.5
$292.9 $292.9
Indiana
$115.2

$97.4

$212.6 $102.4
Iowa

$33.2
$22.1
$55.3 $55.3
Kansas
$19.4

$36.6

$56.1 $47.9
Kentucky
$62.9

$68.2

$131.1 $90.3
Louisiana $37.0

$84.1
$38.2
$159.2 $159.2
Maine

$0.3
$15.4
$17.6
$33.4 $33.4
Maryland

$3.3
$72.4
$80.6
$156.2 $156.2
ȬŘŚȱ

ȱȂȱ ȱȱȱǻ ǼǱȱȱȱ ȱ
ȱ
Redistribution
Available unspent from other states’ States' FY2008 Additional allotments
States' FY2008
States' projected
FY2006 and
unspent FY2005
federal CHIP
for FY2008 to
federal CHIP
FY2008 federal
State
FY2007 balances
allotments
allotments
eliminate shortfallsa
balances
CHIP spending
A
B
C
D
E
F = B + C + D + E
G
Massachusetts

$46.9
$73.3
$139.1
$259.3 $259.3
Michigan
$43.7

$147.1

$190.8 $172.9
Minnesota

$48.6
$22.8
$71.4 $71.4
Mississippi

$0.7
$61.0
$81.2
$142.9 $142.9
Missouri
$16.0

$77.6

$93.6 $79.6
Montana
$14.0

$15.9

$29.9 $24.9
Nebraska $0.4

$21.4
$13.7
$35.6 $35.6
Nevada
$90.4

$51.1

$141.5 $28.8
New Hampshire
$14.7

$10.7

$25.4 $11.2
New Jersey

$42.8
$105.5
$174.7
$323.1 $323.1
New Mexico
$74.6

$52.0

$126.6 $124.3
New York
$447.0

$328.7

$775.6 $326.9
North Carolina
$15.7

$136.1
$41.8
$193.7 $193.7
North Dakota
$1.9

$7.9
$3.7
$13.5 $13.5
Ohio $62.4

$157.9
b
$227.5 $227.5
Oklahoma
$33.8

$70.8

$104.6 $99.4
Oregon
$63.9

$60.1

$124.1 $66.3
Pennsylvania
$149.2

$168.8

$318.0 $204.5
Rhode Island

$13.0
$14.0
$32.2
$59.1 $59.1
South Carolina
$122.4

$71.0

$193.5 $57.8
South Dakota
$5.8

$10.5

$16.3 $15.6
Tennessee
$177.9

$99.8

$277.7 $77.5
ȬŘśȱ

ȱȂȱ ȱȱȱǻ ǼǱȱȱȱ ȱ
ȱ
Redistribution
Available unspent from other states’ States' FY2008 Additional allotments
States' FY2008
States' projected
FY2006 and
unspent FY2005
federal CHIP
for FY2008 to
federal CHIP
FY2008 federal
State
FY2007 balances
allotments
allotments
eliminate shortfallsa
balances
CHIP spending
A
B
C
D
E
F = B + C + D + E
G
Texas
$1,012.7

$556.2

$1,568.9 $698.0
Utah
$40.4

$41.3

$81.7 $50.3
Vermont
$7.5

$5.6

$13.1 $5.7
Virginia
$65.4

$90.3

$155.7 $131.3
Washington
$144.6

$79.9

$224.5 $43.4
West Virginia
$23.3

$25.7

$49.0 $36.8
Wisconsin
$11.7

$69.6

$81.3 $75.3
Wyoming
$9.7

$6.4

$16.1 $8.7
State Total
$4,026.4
$107.0
$4,987.5
$995.2
$10,123.2
$6,896.6
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) analysis of information from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)
a. Up to $1.6 billion provided The Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP Extension Act of 2007 (MMSEA, P.L. 110-173, enacted December 29, 2007).
b. Ohio experienced an FY2008 federal CHIP shortfall of $7.2 million. Because its CHIP program is a Medicaid expansion, the state could claim those shortfall
expenditures under Medicaid, for which it received $6.0 million in federal Medicaid funding.

ȬŘŜȱ

ȱȂȱ ȱȱȱǻ ǼǱȱȱȱ ȱ
ȱ

ȱȱȱ

Elicia J. Herz
Evelyne P. Baumrucker
Specialist in Health Care Financing
Analyst in Health Care Financing
eherz@crs.loc.gov, 7-1377
ebaumrucker@crs.loc.gov, 7-8913
Chris L. Peterson

Specialist in Health Care Financing
cpeterson@crs.loc.gov, 7-4681

ȱȱȱ
Řŝȱ