Reaching Low-Income, Uninsured Children: Are Medicaid and SCHIP Doing the Job?

Reaching Low-Income, Uninsured Children: Are Medicaid and SCHIP Doing the Job?

Order Code RL30556
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Reaching Low-Income, Uninsured Children:
Are Medicaid and SCHIP Doing the Job?
Updated January 8, 2001
Elicia Herz
Specialist in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division
Evelyne Parizek Baumrucker
Analyst in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Reaching Low-Income, Uninsured Children:
Are Medicaid and SCHIP Doing the Job?
Summary
Congress has shown an on-going commitment to improving children’s access to
health care as demonstrated through eligibility expansions of the Medicaid program
since the 1980s, and the introduction of the State Children’s Health Insurance
Program (SCHIP) in the fall of 1997. The majority of poor and near poor children
are financially eligible for one of these programs.
Until recently, there was general disappointment with the implementation
progress under SCHIP, due to low enrollment rates early in the program.
Furthermore, after steady increases in the early 1990s, Medicaid caseloads showed
an aggregate decline between 1995 and 1997. By FY2000, the pace of enrollment
under SCHIP had improved, and data for 1998-1999 suggest that the decline in
Medicaid participation may be reversing.
States have instituted a variety of outreach activities to bring eligible children
into these two programs. Substantial progress has been made in simplifying the
application and enrollment process under SCHIP, and also to a lesser extent under
Medicaid. Budget limitations require state administrators to think carefully about
their choice of outreach and enrollment facilitation strategies. However, current
research assessing the cost-effectiveness of these strategies is inconclusive. Future
state and federal evaluations of both Medicaid and SCHIP may start to identify what
works, what does not, for whom, and at what cost.
Outreach funding is structured very differently under Medicaid and SCHIP.
Medicaid does not have a specific limit on program spending for outreach, although
the federal matching rate for such administrative activities can be lower than that for
direct services. To date, there has been relatively low use by states of a special $500
million fund for Medicaid outreach to children losing welfare. For federal matching
purposes under SCHIP, there is a limit on spending for administrative expenses
including outreach and education. This cap in a given fiscal year is 10% of the
amount states actually spend on benefits, rather than 10% of appropriated levels.
Recent legislation changes SCHIP outreach funding.
Medicaid and SCHIP enrollment patterns are affected by complex interactions
between economic trends, federal and state policies, program administrative
procedures, and beneficiary perceptions. These interactions result in enormous
enrollment variability across states, suggesting that some solutions may need to be
state-specific. Given significant reductions in Medicaid enrollment among adults with
children, some have argued that providing Medicaid and SCHIP to whole families
may be a more effective mechanism for reducing the number of low-income children
without health insurance than the current fractured set of eligibility rules. Further
simplification of such rules, streamlining enrollment processes, and additional
outreach are also important to improving coverage rates. These goals must be
balanced with budget constraints that may result from any future economic downturns
that may increase the number of individuals eligible for, and enrolling in these
programs.

Contents
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Eligibility and Enrollment of Children Under Medicaid and SCHIP . . . . . . . . . . 2
Major Medicaid Eligibility Pathways for Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Eligibility for SCHIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Recent Trends in Program Enrollment Among Children
Under Medicaid and SCHIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Enrollment Facilitation and Outreach Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Outreach and Enrollment Facilitation Strategies Used by States Under
Medicaid and SCHIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Research on Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Selected
Outreach and Enrollment Facilitation Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Current Funding for Outreach Under Medicaid and SCHIP . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Privately Funded Outreach Initiatives and Coordination
with Medicaid and SCHIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Legislative Changes to Major Outreach and Eligibility
Provisions Under Medicaid and SCHIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
List of Tables
Table 1. Income Eligibility Standards for Medicaid and SCHIP . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Table 2. National Medicaid Enrollment Levels, FY1995-FY1998 . . . . . . . . . . 27
Table 3. Selected Enrollment, Verification and Redetermination Strategies
for Children Under Medicaid and SCHIP, July 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Reaching Low-Income, Uninsured Children:
Are Medicaid and SCHIP Doing the Job?
Overview
Research indicates that children are healthier when they get medical care. Health
insurance improves access to these services. Congress has shown an on-going
commitment to improving access to health care for poor and near-poor children. This
commitment has been demonstrated through expansions of the Medicaid program
since the 1980s and the establishment of the State Children’s Health Insurance
Program (SCHIP) in the fall of 1997.
Nonetheless, recent trends in insurance coverage among children are cause for
concern. The number of children covered by health insurance rose to 86% in 1999.
Still, 10.8 million children – 14% of all children under age 19 – were without health
insurance in 1999, down from 11.9 million uninsured children in 1998.1 In the 106th
Congress, several bills were passed (and signed into law) to further expand eligibility
for children under Medicaid, and to change existing provisions that govern outreach
funding under SCHIP.
This report provides general background information on the current status of
eligibility, enrollment, and outreach issues for children under Medicaid and SCHIP.
We analyze recent enrollment statistics and factors contributing to those trends.
Several issues concerning enrollment facilitation and outreach strategies are also
discussed, including: (1) current approaches used by states under Medicaid and
SCHIP, (2) research on effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of outreach and
enrollment facilitation, (3) current funding for outreach under Medicaid and SCHIP,
and related privately-financed efforts, and (4) legislative changes made during the
106th Congress to major outreach and eligibility provisions under Medicaid and
SCHIP.
1CRS Report 97-975 EPW, Health Insurance Coverage of Children, by Madeleine Smith.

CRS-2
Eligibility and Enrollment of Children Under
Medicaid and SCHIP
Major Medicaid Eligibility Pathways for Children
Medicaid is a means-tested entitlement program. To qualify, applicants’ income
and resources2 must be within program financial standards. These standards vary
considerably among states, and different standards apply to different population
groups within a state. With some exceptions, Medicaid is available only to persons
with very low incomes. In addition, Medicaid eligibility is subject to categorical
restrictions. That is, it is available only to low-income persons who are aged, blind,
disabled, members of families with dependent children, and certain other pregnant
women and children.
The Medicaid statute defines over 50 distinct population groups as potentially
eligible, including those for whom coverage is mandatory and those that states may
elect to cover. Examples of major mandatory coverage groups for children include:
! Those meeting the financial and categorical criteria under the former Aid to
Families with Dependent Children or AFDC program (as of July 16, 1996),
even if they do not qualify for cash grants under the new Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families (TANF) program.3 Income standards here are typically
well below the federal poverty level (FPL). For example, the maximum AFDC
payment levels on July 16, 1996 ranged from 15% of the 1998 FPL in Alabama
to 81% in Connecticut. The median level nationwide was 45%.4
! Children under age 6 years (and pregnant women) with family incomes below
133% FPL.
! In FY2001, children between the ages of 6 and 17 years living in families with
income up to 100% FPL.
2For most eligibility categories in most states, individuals must have resources (also called
assets) valued at less than a specified amount (typically $1,000 for an adult with one or more
dependent children) to be eligible for Medicaid. States determine what items constitute
countable resources and how those countable items are valued. Resources such as homes and
wedding rings are generally not counted, regardless of their value. Other types of resources,
such as cars, savings accounts and savings bonds, are generally counted. However, the entire
value of these countable resources may not be considered. For example, up to $1,500 in
equity value of the first car may be disregarded. (See Schneider, et al. Medicaid Eligibility
for Families and Children. Washington, D.C., The Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the
Uninsured, September 1998.)
3Within certain federal restrictions, states may modify these financial standards for AFDC-
related groups (e.g., make such standards more or less restrictive than those in place on July
16, 1996).
4See Appendix Table 1 in Schneider, et al. Medicaid Eligibility for Families and Children.
Washington, D.C., The Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, September 1998.

CRS-3
! Disabled children meeting the disability and income criteria for the
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program.5
Examples of major optional coverage groups for children include:
! Infants under age one year (and pregnant women) whose family income is no
more than 185% FPL.
! The medically needy, persons who do not meet the financial standards for cash
assistance programs but meet the categorical standards and have income and
resources within specified medically needy limits established by the states. The
income limits here can be as high as 133 and 1/3% of the corresponding AFDC
payment standard (in effect on July 16, 1996, or as subsequently modified).
Some children qualify for this coverage group when medical expenses are
subtracted from family income and the net amount falls below the specified
income standard.
Transitional or extended benefits are available to families who lose Medicaid
eligibility due to increased earnings or child support payments.6 States have the
option of continuing Medicaid eligibility for current child beneficiaries for up to 12
months without a redetermination of eligibility. States are also allowed to extend
Medicaid coverage to children under 19 years of age on the basis of “presumptive”
eligibility until formal determinations are completed.
In addition to SCHIP (discussed below), other provisions in federal law allow
states to extend Medicaid eligibility to children beyond federal requirements. For
example, states have used less restrictive methodologies for determining countable
income permitted under Section 1902(r)(2) of the Social Security Act to cover
children in higher income families. States may also obtain special waivers of eligibility
rules under Section 1115 of the same Act to cover new groups and/or change income
criteria.
The first four columns of Table 1 display Medicaid income eligibility criteria as
a percentage of the FPL by age group and state. These criteria were in effect prior
to implementation of SCHIP, which provides funding to states to cover children at
income levels higher than those in place under their Medicaid programs. Overall, by
early 1997, many states had expanded Medicaid eligibility for selected subgroups of
5States may use more restrictive eligibility standards for Medicaid than those used for SSI if
they were using those standards on January 1, 1972 (before implementation of SSI). These
states may vary in their definition of disability, or in their standards related to income or
resources. Currently 11 states use these more restrictive standards.
6Specifically, when Medicaid eligibility via old AFDC rules is lost due to hours of or income
from employment, or loss of a time-limited earned income disregard (and the family qualified
for Medicaid on the basis of old AFDC rules in at least 3 of the preceding 6 months), states
are required to continue Medicaid for the subsequent 6 months. States must extend Medicaid
for an additional 6 months for families that were covered during the entire first 6-month
period, and are earning below 185% FPL. Finally, certain families who lose Medicaid
because of increased child or spousal support are eligible for a 4-month extension of coverage
if they received Medicaid in at least 3 of the preceding 6 months.

CRS-4
children beyond the federal mandates. For example, 33 states had exceeded the
federal minimum of 133% FPL for infants. Likewise, nine states extended eligibility
for children ages 1 through 5 above this same mandatory minimum. Finally, 25 states
moved beyond the federal mandate of 100% FPL and/or age requirements for children
ages 6 and older.
Eligibility for SCHIP
Since the enactment of Medicaid in 1965, the State Children’s Health Insurance
Program represents the largest federal effort to provide health insurance coverage to
uninsured, low-income children. SCHIP was established by the Balanced Budget Act
of 1997 (BBA 97) under a new Title XXI of the Social Security Act. This block
grant program provides funding to states to provide children with health insurance
that meets specific standards for benefits and cost-sharing, or through their Medicaid
programs, or through a combination of both.7 Like Medicaid, SCHIP is a federal-
state matching program. The federal medical assistance percentage (FMAP) that
determines the federal contribution towards Medicaid spending ranges from 50% to
76.82% across states in FY2001. The enhanced FMAP for SCHIP ranges from 65%
to 83.77%.
Title XXI defines SCHIP-eligible children as those who are not eligible for
Medicaid or covered under a group health plan or other insurance. The law requires
that states cover children in families with incomes that are either: (1) above the state’s
Medicaid financial eligibility standard but less than 200% of the FPL, or (2) in states
with Medicaid income levels for children already at or above 200% FPL, within 50
percentage points over the state’s current Medicaid income eligibility limit for
children.
Not all targeted low-income children will necessarily receive medical assistance
under SCHIP for two reasons. First, the law does not establish an individual
entitlement to the benefits of the SCHIP program.8 Instead, it entitles states with
approved SCHIP plans to a pre-determined, annual federal allotment based on a
formula set in law. Second, each state can define the group of targeted low-income
children who may enroll in SCHIP. Title XXI allows states to use the following
factors in determining eligibility: geography, age, income and resources, residency,
disability status (so long as any standard relating to such status does not restrict
eligibility), access to other health insurance, and duration of eligibility for SCHIP
coverage.
7Under limited circumstances, states have the option to purchase a health benefits plan that
is provided by a community-based health delivery system, or to purchase family coverage
under a group health plan as long as it is cost-effective to do so.
8The one exception to this rule is when a state chooses to implement a Medicaid expansion
under SCHIP. Children enrolled in SCHIP through a Medicaid expansion are entitled to
Medicaid benefits as long as they continue to meet these specific eligibility criteria (even if
SCHIP itself terminates) or until the state is granted approval to eliminate the eligibility
category created by the Medicaid expansion under SCHIP.

CRS-5
As of December 11, 2000, the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA)
had approved SCHIP plans for all 50 states, the District of Columbia and five
territories. Twenty-one states expanded their Medicaid programs for children, 16
used separate state programs to provide children with health insurance, and 19
combined a Medicaid expansion and a separate state program. The upper income
limit for Medicaid expansions and separate state programs under SCHIP has reached
350%9 of the poverty level in one state (Table 1).
While expansions in coverage have been achieved for children of all ages under
SCHIP, the most significant increases in eligibility have benefitted older adolescents.
Under Medicaid in FY2001, states must cover children ages 6 to 17 in families with
incomes up to 100% FPL. The age of mandatory coverage increases to 18 in 2002.
Under SCHIP, most states have taken advantage of the opportunity to cover older
teens in families with incomes up to 100% FPL (or often higher) sooner than required
under Medicaid. Such states will receive an enhanced federal matching rate through
SCHIP to finance the care provided to these older adolescents (until mandatory
coverage under regular Medicaid applies).
Recent Trends in Program Enrollment Among Children
Under Medicaid and SCHIP
There is some recent evidence and considerable speculation that both Medicaid
and SCHIP may be underutilized by currently eligible children. Analyses of 1994-
1997 national survey data indicate that 21 to 42% of all uninsured children under 18
years of age are eligible for Medicaid but not enrolled.10 The U.S. General
Accounting Office (GAO)11 found that, in 1997, compared to Medicaid-enrolled
children of similar ages, uninsured children eligible for, but not enrolled in, Medicaid
were more likely to be in working families, Hispanic and either U.S.-born to foreign-
born parents or foreign-born themselves. They were also more likely to live in the
West and the South – 73% of all uninsured Medicaid-eligible children nationwide
resided in these regions. In a more recent analysis,12 in 1999, there were 7.1 million
9For determining income eligibility for SCHIP and Medicaid, some states apply “income
disregards.” These are specified dollar amounts subtracted from gross income to compute net
income, that is then compared to the applicable income criterion. Such disregards increase
the effective income level above the stated standard. State SCHIP plans do not consistently
report use of income disregards, nor whether the stated income standards include or exclude
such disregards.
10See Table 7 in Lewis, K., M. Ellwood, and J. Czajka. Counting the Uninsured: A Review
of the Literature. Washington, D.C., The Urban Institute, June 1998. The wide variation in
the estimate of uninsured children eligible for Medicaid is due to methodological differences
across reviewed studies in definitions of the target population, data sources and statistical
analysis models.
11U.S. General Accounting Office. Medicaid: Demographics of Nonenrolled Children
Suggest State Outreach Strategies. GAO/HEHS-98-93, March 1998. Washington, 1998.
(Hereafter cited as GAO, Medicaid: Demographics of Nonenrolled Children)
12Broaddus, M., and Ku, L. Nearly 95 Percent of Low-Income Uninsured Children Now are
(continued...)

CRS-6
uninsured children under 19 years of age living in families with incomes below 200%
of the federal poverty level. Of this group, 6.7 million, or 94% would have met their
state’s eligibility criteria under Medicaid or SCHIP based on the rules in place as of
July 2000.
While current eligibility rules under these two publicly financed programs permit
coverage for most low-income children, during the 1990s, actual enrollment
fluctuated for a number of reasons. Between 1990 and 1995, Medicaid participation
increased an average of 7.6% per year.13 These increases were the result of a
combination of factors. During this period, the economy was weak, increasing the
number of low-income individuals and families who qualified for Medicaid. In
addition, during the latter half of the 1980s, Congress established the new poverty-
related eligibility categories for pregnant women and children which continued to
produce significant enrollment increases during the early 1990s. Similarly, coverage
of new groups of disabled children resulted from expansions of eligibility for the
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program14 which in turn confers automatic
Medicaid eligibility in most states.
Trends in Medicaid enrollment changed by the mid-1990s (Table 2). A total of
41.3 million people in the 50 states and the District of Columbia were enrolled in
Medicaid during 1996, a small decrease from the total of 41.7 million people enrolled
in 1995. By 1997, enrollment had declined to 40.6 million. The rate of continuing
decline in Medicaid participation had slowed by 1998, during which there were 40.4
million enrollees.
Enrollment patterns for this period varied by eligibility group. Between 1995
and 1998, the total number of able-bodied adults (typically parents) and children on
Medicaid fell (with one exception described below), while the number of aged
beneficiaries stayed roughly constant, and the number of disabled of all ages rose
slightly. As shown on Table 2, for adults and children, reductions were greatest
among those eligible for Medicaid via welfare or cash-related pathways. However,
these losses were partially offset by increases in enrollment through other eligibility
pathways.15
12(...continued)
Eligible for Medicaid or SCHIP. Washington, D.C., Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,
December 6, 2000.
13Information presented here on trends in Medicaid enrollment and welfare participation
during the early 1990s is taken from Ku, L., and Bruen, B. The Continuing Decline in
Medicaid Coverage (Series A, No. A-37), Washington, D.C., The Urban Institute, December
1999.
14For example, the Supreme Court’s 1990 decision in Sullivan v. Zebley broadened SSI
eligibility for children, particularly those with learning disabilities.
15Other enrollment is likely to be a combination of new beneficiaries and individuals who no
longer qualify for Medicaid via old AFDC rules (after welfare reform), but who continue (or
reinstate) their Medicaid coverage through alternative pathways such as poverty-related
eligibility categories, medically needy groups, transitional Medicaid, or through §1115 waiver
(continued...)

CRS-7
Over this 4-year period, adults qualifying for Medicaid via cash-related groups
fell 36%, while enrollment in other groups rose by nearly 24%, yielding a net loss for
adults of 10%. There was a small increase in the number of adults between 1997 and
1998. New York had added 300,000 adults to its Medicaid program via an expansion
of its §1115 waiver to include the state’s pre-existing Home Relief (health insurance)
program. In addition, Massachusetts added thousands of adults to Medicaid through
an 1115 waiver implemented in 1998. When these two state-specific expansions are
discounted, nationwide enrollment of adults actually dropped by approximately
400,000 in 1998.16
Declines in enrollment were also observed for children, but the losses were less
severe. Between 1995 and 1998, children qualifying for Medicaid under cash-related
groups dropped by 32%, while other Medicaid enrollment increased by 25%, resulting
in a smaller net reduction for children of nearly 5%. These patterns of enrollment loss
for adults and children reflect the fact that more Medicaid eligibility pathways exist
for children, and these pathways use more generous income criteria, compared to
eligibility options for nondisabled adults.
The declines in Medicaid caseloads for adults and children between 1995 and
1998 are likely the result of several concomitant events. During this period, an
improved economy and higher employment rates increased the number of individuals
not meeting income-related criteria for Medicaid eligibility. However, there has been
considerable speculation that the primary cause of the drop in Medicaid participation
has been federal welfare reform under the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA). But in fact, prior to enactment
of PRWORA, both Medicaid and welfare caseloads had already begun to fall, and
most states had already implemented major welfare reform initiatives under waivers
of federal law. Moreover, PRWORA included provisions to prevent the automatic
loss of Medicaid coverage due to the loss of cash assistance. However, as the data
reported above suggest, these provisions may not have been completely effective.
TANF exit studies do not directly assess reasons for the drop in Medicaid enrollment,
but some of the possible contributing factors identified in these studies include, for
example, failure to identify eligible families, lack of awareness of the availability of
continuing Medicaid coverage, and agency errors. In addition, some caseload
declines may have resulted from family members no longer being eligible for
Medicaid.17
15(...continued)
programs.
16Unpublished Urban Institute analysis (results will be forthcoming in a report to be published
by the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured).
17See Greenberg, M. Participation in Welfare and Medicaid Enrollment. Washington, D.C.,
Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, September 1998. Another study on this
issue is Health Management Associates. The Dynamics of Current Medicaid Enrollment
Changes. Washington, D.C., Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, October
1998.

CRS-8
Other research18 documents related reasons why families do not enroll their
children in Medicaid, including:
! families lack knowledge of Medicaid and its eligibility criteria;
! families may not perceive a need for Medicaid due to good health and
alternative sources of care;
! some have concerns about quality of care and low levels of provider
participation limiting access;
! cultural differences, language barriers and immigration policies may prevent
some families from enrolling in Medicaid;
! for many, Medicaid has a negative image associated with its historical ties to
cash assistance and thus the stigma of dependency; and,
! the enrollment process itself, with long forms and extensive documentation,
can be a barrier.
A recent analysis published by the Kaiser Commission19 examining monthly
Medicaid enrollment patterns in the 50 states and the District of Columbia suggests
that the decline in Medicaid participation may be reversing itself. Comparing
December of 1998 to December of 1999, Medicaid enrollment grew by 1.1 million,
or 3.6%, with 43 states and the District of Columbia experiencing growth. As with
the 1995-1998 trends reported previously, this analysis revealed enormous variability
in enrollment across states.
Even though overall enrollment rose, patterns of enrollment within eligibility
groups in this study mirrored national results reported for the 1995-1998 period.
Enrollment among the aged and disabled (data from 43 states) steadily increased by
1.6% for the year ending December 1998, and 1.8% for the year ending December
1999. For families, children and pregnant women, continuing large decreases in cash-
related enrollment were offset by increases in enrollment through other eligibility
pathways. For example, among the 21 states with data for families, children and
pregnant women, cash-related enrollment declined by 18.9% over the year ending
December 1998 and by 16.6% over the year ending December 1999. In contrast,
among 22 states with data, poverty-related groups experienced an increase of 9.4%
in 1998 and 14.0% in 1999. On April 7, 2000, HCFA instructed states to institute
necessary policy and procedural changes to identify, enroll, and re-enroll families and
children who may have been improperly denied coverage under, or terminated from
Medicaid. Of most concern are beneficiaries who are denied Medicaid due to
18GAO, Medicaid: Demographics of Nonenrolled Children; and the Kaiser Commission on
Medicaid and the Uninsured. Medicaid and Children; Overcoming Barriers to Enrollment,
Findings from a National Survey. Washington, D.C., January 2000.
19Ellis, E., Smith, V., and Rousseau, D. Medicaid Enrollment in 50 States. Washington,
D.C.: The Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured. October 2000. This study
is based on monthly enrollment reports for the months of June and December of 1997, 1998
and 1999. These point-in-time estimates do not match official HCFA data which describe the
number of persons ever enrolled in a given fiscal year. Estimates from this study are smaller
than HCFA’s official counts of enrollees. In addition to examining overall trends in
enrollment by state, this study also analyzed enrollment changes by eligibility group, however,
data were not available from some states for each category.

CRS-9
ineligibility for TANF, lose Medicaid when TANF ends, or lose transitional Medicaid
without proper notice or redetermination. States were directed to focus also on
children inappropriately dropped from Medicaid after they lost SSI payments due to
changes in SSI disability rules under welfare reform. States are required to develop
a timetable for redeterminations and conducting additional eligibility reviews as
necessary for these target populations.
Concerns about underutilization have also been raised about SCHIP. SCHIP
faces all the start-up issues confronting a relatively new program that is just over 3
years old. Early enrollment estimates from HCFA20 indicated that nearly 1 million
children (982,000) were enrolled in SCHIP under 43 operational state programs as
of December 1998. More recently, HCFA reported that nearly 2 million children
(1,979,450) were enrolled in SCHIP during FY1999 under 53 operational state
programs.21 Over 1.2 million of these children were served by separate programs and
almost 700,000 were enrolled in Medicaid expansions. On January 5, 2001, the
Clinton Administration announced that enrollment in the SCHIP program reached
approximately 3.3 million children during FY2000, with 2.3 million children enrolled
in separate state programs, and a little more than 1 million children enrolled in
Medicaid expansion programs.22 Subsequent to the enactment of BBA 97, CBO
estimated that SCHIP would cover an average of 2.3 million children per year after
1999.23 The Clinton Administration’s goal was to enroll 5 million children in SCHIP
by FY2002.
Spending projections in the first 2 years of the program are consistent with
HCFA’s enrollment figures and fall well below total federal appropriation levels.
Federal spending in FY1998 totaled less than $500 million. Federal spending in
FY1999 totaled approximately $1 billion. Program spending is expected to accelerate
over time. CBO estimates that federal SCHIP spending will total approximately $2
billion for FY2000 and $3 billion for FY200124 (although these estimates may be
revised in CBO’s new FY2001 baseline as a result of new enrollment data). For each
of these years, total annual federal appropriation levels are approximately $4.3
billion.25
20Health Care Financing Administration. A Preliminary Estimate of the Children’s Health
Insurance Program Aggregate Enrollment Numbers Through December 31, 1998
(background only). April 20, 1999.
21Health Care Financing Administration. The State Children’s Health Insurance Program,
Annual Enrollment Report, October 1, 1998-September 30, 1999 (no date).
22Bureau of National Affairs. HCFA Releases Final SCHIP Rule, As Clinton Notes 70%
Participation Increase. Health Care Daily Report, v. 6, no. 5, January 8, 2001.
23U.S. Congressional Budget Office. Expanding Health Insurance Coverage for Children
Under Title XXI of the Social Security Act (CBO Memorandum). February 1998.
24U.S. Congressional Budget Office. The Budget and Economic Outlook: An Update. July
18, 2000. Washington, GPO, 2000.
25In general, annual allotments for each state will remain available for a period of 3 years.
The period of availability for the FY1998 allotments ended as of October 1, 2000. Unspent
funds for both FY1998 and FY1999 will be redistributed according to provisions contained
(continued...)

CRS-10
Federal law requires that eligibility for Medicaid and SCHIP be coordinated
when states implement separate SCHIP programs. In these circumstances,
applications for SCHIP coverage must first be screened for Medicaid eligibility. CBO
estimates that the “outreach effect” of SCHIP will increase Medicaid enrollment by
460,000 children each year for FY1998 through FY2002. As a result, Medicaid
spending is also expected to increase a total of $2.4 billion over this same 5-year
period.26 The Kaiser study described previously suggests that SCHIP is in fact
facilitating Medicaid enrollment. Comparing monthly enrollment counts for
December 1998 to December 1999, total Medicaid participation increased by 1.1
million. Twenty-seven percent of this increase was due to enrollment via expansions
of Medicaid through SCHIP.
Enrollment Facilitation and Outreach Strategies
Successful enrollment penetration among all potential Medicaid and SCHIP
eligible children will depend at least in part on two different, but interrelated activities
– enrollment facilitation and outreach. How is enrollment facilitation different
conceptually from outreach? The former includes strategies to simplify and expedite
the eligibility determination and enrollment process (e.g., allowing applications to be
submitted by mail or fax, eliminating resource or asset tests). The latter includes
strategies to market the program to the target population so they will perceive the
benefits of participation and initiate the application process (e.g., advertising through
radio, television and print media, establishing toll-free hotlines).27 Some activities can
be classified as both (e.g., placing eligibility workers in non-welfare settings
frequented by the target population, involving local businesses and community-based
organizations in outreach and enrollment efforts).
Ideally, mechanisms to simplify and expedite enrollment for families with eligible
children are put into place prior to launching targeted outreach strategies.28 In
practice, however, both types of activities may evolve and occur in tandem over time
as barriers to enrollment and outreach are identified, and solutions are designed and
implemented.
25(...continued)
in newly enacted legislation (P.L. 106-554). For a complete discussion of redistribution
issues, see CRS Report RS20628, State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP):
Funding Changes in the 106th Congress, by Evelyne Baumrucker.
26GAO, Medicaid: Demographics of Nonenrolled Children.
27National Governors’ Association. Center for Best Practices, and the National Conference
of State Legislatures. State Children’s Health Insurance Program, 1999 Annual Report,
1999. (Hereafter cited as National Governors’ Association, State Children’s Health
Insurance Program.)
28Alliance for Health Reform. Health Coverage: Outreach to Uninsured Kids. May 1998.

CRS-11
Outreach and Enrollment Facilitation Strategies Used by
States Under Medicaid and SCHIP
In an analysis of SCHIP state plans and amendments as of September 30, 1999
for the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and five territories,29 eight common
outreach strategies to market SCHIP to targeted populations were identified. Nearly
all jurisdictions:
! involve health care providers in their educational efforts (54 jurisdictions);
! conduct radio, TV and print media campaigns to educate the target population
(53 jurisdictions);
! develop partnerships with schools to reach eligible children (52 jurisdictions);
! use toll-free hotlines (52 jurisdictions); and,
! place eligibility workers in strategic locations such as sporting events, tax
assistance sites, or free health clinics (50 jurisdictions).
One-half to two-thirds of jurisdictions also:
! use a family-friendly website (39 jurisdictions);
! work with local employers to promote SCHIP (34 jurisdictions); and,
! involve the business community in their outreach efforts (32 jurisdictions).
Accurate identification of the target population upon which to focus outreach
efforts is extremely difficult. Participation in other government programs may provide
a vehicle for such identification. Using data from the 1997 National Survey of
America’s Families, the Urban Institute30 estimates that 73% of all uninsured children
who live in families with incomes below 200% FPL participate in the National School
Lunch program, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and
Children (WIC), the Food Stamp program, or the Unemployment Compensation
program. Among these programs, the National School Lunch program has the
greatest penetration rate, serving roughly 60% of such children. In late 1999,
President Clinton asked the Secretaries of HHS and Agriculture to identify effective
school-based outreach strategies for possible replication throughout the country.31
With respect to enrollment facilitation, federal law stipulates few documentation
requirements for determining eligibility under Medicaid, and even fewer requirements
under SCHIP.32 And the burden of required verification lies with state agencies rather
29National Governors’ Association, State Children’s Health Insurance Program.
30Kenney, G., J. Haley, and F. Ullman. Most Uninsured Children are in Families Served by
Government Programs (Policy Brief, Series B, No. B-4), Washington, D.C., The Urban
Institute, December 1999.
31U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services. Report to the President: Interagency Task Force
on Children’s Health Insurance Outreach, October 12, 1999.
[http://www.hrsa.gov/childhealth/report.htm] Also see HCFA letter to SCHIP State Health
Officials regarding school-based outreach, September 8, 2000.
32HCFA letter to SCHIP State Health Officials regarding application and enrollment
(continued...)

CRS-12
than with families, although states may choose to shift some of this responsibility to
families. States must obtain the Social Security number of children applying for
Medicaid – such information is not required under SCHIP. Income and assets may
be established through self-declaration under both programs. However, under
Medicaid only, subsequent to initial application, states must request information from
other federal and state agencies to verify applicants’ income and resources – such
verification is not required under SCHIP. For both programs, children who are
citizens may establish their citizenship through self-declaration; states are permitted
to require further verification as a condition of eligibility. Children applying for either
program who are qualified aliens must present documentation of their immigration
status, which states must then verify with the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
In sum, under Medicaid and even more so under SCHIP, states have enormous
flexibility in facilitating application for and enrollment in these programs.
According to a recent national survey,33 many states have implemented (or plan
to implement) one or more enrollment facilitation strategies for children under
Medicaid and SCHIP. In general, while substantial progress had been made to
simplify and expedite enrollment, specific policies and procedures are more likely to
have been adopted in separate SCHIP programs than in Medicaid programs (Table
3). Detailed findings from this study include the following:
! At the initial application stage, the majority of states with separate SCHIP
programs have implemented joint Medicaid/SCHIP enrollment forms (87%).
States are less likely to use joint applications at redeterminations (44%).
! The majority of all states have dropped asset tests (Medicaid-82%, separate
SCHIP-97%) and eliminated face-to-face interviews (Medicaid-78%, separate
SCHIP-97%). In most cases, as with initial applications, states forego face-to-
face interviews when redetermining eligibility (Medicaid-84%, separate
SCHIP-100%).
! Subsequent to initial application, about one-fourth of Medicaid programs
(27%) and over two-thirds of separate SCHIP programs (69%) provide 12
months of continuous coverage without regard to changes in family income.
These same states provide 12 months of continuous enrollment at
redetermination of eligibility.
! A small number of states allow presumptive eligibility34 under Medicaid (16%)
and SCHIP (13%).
32(...continued)
simplification, September 10, 1998.
33Ross, D., and Cox, L. Making It Simple: Medicaid for Children and CHIP Income
Eligibility Guidelines and Enrollment Procedures: Findings from a 50-State Survey.
Washington, D.C., The Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, October 2000.
34Presumptive eligibility allows children whose family income appears to be below the state’s
Medicaid income guidelines to enroll temporarily in Medicaid, until a final formal
determination of eligibility is made. At the time of the survey summarized in the text, there
was no explicit presumptive eligibility provision in SCHIP law. Nonetheless, through other
Title XXI authority, HCFA allowed states to implement similar procedures under this
program. A recent law makes Medicaid presumptive eligibility provisions applicable to
separate (non-Medicaid) SCHIP programs.

CRS-13
! Few programs allow self-declaration of income (Medicaid-20%, separate
SCHIP-22%) during the eligibility determination process.
Finally, in some states, the application, enrollment and redetermination
procedures may depend on the point of entry into Medicaid or SCHIP. The findings
described above typically characterize state processes associated with joint
applications used to determine initial eligibility for Medicaid or separate SCHIP
programs. Families initially applying for health coverage through Medicaid or welfare
offices, particularly those families seeking coverage for adults as well as children, are
likely to encounter a different, often more complicated application, enrollment and
redetermination process.
Research on Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Selected
Outreach and Enrollment Facilitation Strategies
Since the initiation of SCHIP a little over 3 years ago, states have struggled to
develop and implement the “right” combination of outreach strategies and enrollment
facilitation processes to maximize program participation. The advent of SCHIP has
also focused attention on a variety of Medicaid enrollment issues.
Anecdotal evidence about the best combination of strategies to increase
enrollment abounds in newspaper articles, speeches and the research literature. Given
the unscientific nature of this type of evidence, it is perhaps not surprising that
resulting conclusions about which states are or will be successful are often
inconsistent. And such conclusions change over time as state strategies evolve. Since
anecdotal evidence has many limitations, what types of data are better? How do we
determine the effectiveness of different outreach and enrollment strategies? And
finally, what are the costs associated with effective outreach and enrollment activities
– what strategies provide the biggest bang for the buck?
To answer these questions, in the summer of 1999, we searched the research
literature for studies examining the effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of various
outreach and enrollment facilitation strategies used to bring families or children into
basic health care programs. While a large number of studies were identified initially
for possible inclusion in our analysis, we found few well-designed studies from which
reliable and valid conclusions could be drawn. And those analyses were only
indirectly related to our purpose – rather than assessing changes in rates of program
enrollment among non-participants as a result of outreach, these studies examined
changes in use of specific preventive services (e.g., well-child visits and
immunizations) subsequent to outreach targeting children already enrolled in a health
care program or physician practice group. Results from studies examining the
effectiveness of outreach in increasing use of key preventive services among program
participants may not be generalizable to outreach aimed at increasing program
enrollment.35 Service utilization may be a less complicated process than the process
35Barents Group LLC. Review of the Literature on Evaluations of Outreach for Public
Health Insurance and Selected Other Programs (Final Report), prepared for the Agency for
Healthcare Quality and Research (Contract No. 290-96-0004). Washington, D.C., Barents
(continued...)

CRS-14
of applying for coverage under Medicaid or SCHIP. In addition, the perceived (and
actual) benefits of service use may be more immediate and obvious than benefits
associated with qualifying for health insurance.
Finally, it was difficult to compare findings and draw conclusions from the few
well-designed studies that we did find because they: (1) assessed different outreach
strategies (e.g., home visits, telephone contacts, letters), (2) used different comparison
groups (e.g., interventions were sometimes compared to no intervention or alternative
strategies), (3) focused on different populations of children, and typically did not
stratify results by subgroup (e.g., infants versus school-age children) to pinpoint
variations in outreach effectiveness, and (4) measured different outcomes to evaluate
the impact of a given outreach strategy (e.g., percent of eligibles reached/contacted
versus percent of eligibles enrolled). Reported costs per “successful” case reached,
enrolled or served varied dramatically across the few studies that attempted to
quantify such cost-effectiveness. The variations in reported costs per successful case
were due both to the modest effectiveness of outreach strategies investigated and the
wide variability in the components included in calculating outreach costs (e.g., labor,
computer hardware and software purchases, travel, training, office space rental,
supplies).
Our conclusions about the status of research in this area were confirmed by a
comprehensive review of the literature sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare
Research and Quality (AHRQ).36 This review concluded that very few outreach
interventions have been evaluated, and that completed evaluations provide minimal
scientific evidence about the absolute effectiveness, relative effectiveness37 or cost-
effectiveness of different outreach and enrollment facilitation strategies for programs
such as Medicaid and SCHIP. However, the analysis did identify three well-designed
studies suggesting that simplified application procedures, aggressive outreach and/or
presumptive eligibility for pregnant women positively impacted timely enrollment into
Medicaid.
While it may be desirable to isolate and quantify the effectiveness of a given
component of outreach or enrollment facilitation strategy, in the real world, states are
implementing multiple activities simultaneously, making such assessments extremely
difficult. It may be more practical and useful to assess the effectiveness of common
combinations of strategies that may have broad application.
Current law requires an evaluation of each state’s SCHIP program, designed to
assess effectiveness in achieving the goals of the program. This evaluation was due
in early 2000. To assist states in meeting this requirement, the National Academy for
State Health Policy, a non-profit forum for state policy leaders, developed a model
framework for the 2000 evaluation report. Because this model framework was
35(...continued)
Group LLC, February 18, 2000.
36Ibid.
37Studies of absolute effectiveness compare an intervention to a control (no intervention).
Studies of relative effectiveness compare two or more interventions to each other.

CRS-15
designed to meet all statutory reporting requirements, HCFA encouraged states to use
it, and all states and territories did so.
We conducted an informal review of these evaluation reports,38 examining
objectives related to reducing the number of uninsured children and improving SCHIP
and Medicaid enrollment, as well as methods and indicators used to assess outreach
effectiveness. In general, the reported data are not typically tied to specific outreach
or enrollment facilitation efforts. That is, the analyses reported describe overall
success/failure of all activities (and other factors) combined. A wide variety of
measures are reported, for example, percent of the targeted population enrolled,
volume of hot line calls received subsequent to a media campaign, number of
applications distributed and returned by source, specified geographic areas, and/or
income groups.
Despite the use of a uniform reporting template, definitions of numerators and
denominators for these measures, and time frames for analysis, varied widely, making
direct comparisons among states extremely difficult. In assessing the percent of the
target population enrolled, establishing a denominator–the estimate of eligible
uninsured children–is clearly a major problem for many states. There are few reliable
data sources, especially for small states for which major national surveys such as the
Current Population Survey (CPS)39 or the Survey of Income and Program
Participation (SIPP) are inadequate. In response, some states have or are planning
to conduct state-specific surveys to derive alternative estimates.
Additional evaluation data will be available in the near future. P. L. 106-113
authorizes a new 10-state federal evaluation that will include an assessment of
effective and ineffective outreach and enrollment practices for both Medicaid and
SCHIP; an analysis of Medicaid eligibility rules and procedures that are a barrier to
enrollment in Medicaid, and how coordination between Medicaid and SCHIP has
affected enrollment under both programs; and an analysis of disenrollment patterns
and factors influencing this process. The Secretary must submit the results of this
evaluation to Congress no later than December 31, 2001.
38Annual state SCHIP reports for FFY1998 are available for most states. Because SCHIP
had just gotten started during this fiscal year, information on the effectiveness of outreach and
enrollment processes in these reports are at best preliminary. States were allowed to combine
their FY1999 annual reports and the 2000 evaluation reports as one comprehensive document.
39CPS improvements are planned to remedy this situation. P.L. 106-113 included funding to
support the collection of reliable annual state-by-state estimates on the number of children
without health insurance, beginning in FY2000, and for each year thereafter.

CRS-16
Current Funding for Outreach Under Medicaid and SCHIP
From a policy standpoint, outreach funding issues differ between Medicaid and
SCHIP. For Medicaid, the main question is whether and how states are using
administrative funds to reach and enroll eligible children. For SCHIP, the main issue
is whether current limitations on outreach funding are a barrier to identification and
enrollment of eligible children.
Medicaid does not have a specific limit on the proportion of program spending
devoted to administrative activities such as outreach, although the federal matching
rate for such administrative expenses can be lower than that for direct services.40 In
addition, there is a special $500 million fund established under the 1996 welfare
reform legislation that provides higher federal matching rates for certain types of
administrative expenses associated with Medicaid outreach to children losing welfare.
This fund became available in FY1997.41
Despite the availability of these funds with federal matching rates of either 75%
or 90% (depending on the outreach activity and allotment spending),42 45 states
received only $195.6 million or 40% of the $500 million fund as of June, 2000.43
According to a 1999 survey of 40 states,44 many have used (or plan to use) this fund
to support activities that qualify for a 90% match from the federal government,
including for example, developing and disseminating new publications (19 states),
training (18 states), outreach (16 states), outstationing of Medicaid eligibility workers
40Administrative expenses are generally matched at the rate of 50%. In FY2000, 41 of 56
states and territories had federal matching rates for services higher than 50%. In FY2001, 42
of 56 states and territories had federal matching rates for services higher than 50%.
41P.L. 106-113 lifted the FY2000 sunset on this fund and removed the requirement that states
use this fund for administrative costs incurred only during the first 12 quarters subsequent to
the effective date of their welfare reform programs.
42The $500 million fund is divided into two allocations for every state: a base allocation which
is the same for all states ($2 million) and a secondary allocation that is distributed across the
states based on four weighted factors. These factors include: (a) state AFDC-related caseload
(60%), (b) state Medicaid administrative expenses (20%), (c) SSI childhood disability case
reevaluations (10%), and (d) SSI immigrant caseload (10%). States may receive
reimbursement at a 90% federal matching rate for expenditures claimed against their base
allocation, and either 75% or 90% federal matching rate for expenditures claimed against their
secondary allocation, depending on the type of activity. Examples of activities matched at
90% include public service announcements, placement of eligibility workers in new locations,
and development and dissemination of new publications for at-risk populations. Activities that
may be matched at either 90% or 75% (depending on whether claims are made against the
base or secondary allocation, respectively) include, for example, hiring new eligibility workers
for eligibility determinations related to welfare reform only, designing new eligibility forms,
and eligibility system changes.
4 3 F a m i l i e s U S A . T A N F $ 5 0 0 M i l l i o n D e - L i n k i n g F u n d .
[http://www.familiesusa.org/tanf_500.htm]
44Darnell, J., H. Lee, and J. Murdock. Medicaid and Welfare Reform: States’ Use of the
$500 Million Federal Fund. Washington, D.C., The Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the
Uninsured, October 1999.

CRS-17
(14 states), community activities (e.g., meetings and speeches; 14 states), public
service announcements (13 states) and educational activities (12 states). Twenty-six
of 40 states were also expecting to receive a 75% match for making necessary
changes to their eligibility systems.
Why has the $500 million fund been underutilized to date? Findings from the
aforementioned 1999 survey of 40 states identify several issues. These states
indicated that initial confusion about the appropriate uses (and previously applicable
dates of expiration) of the $500 million fund created barriers to utilization. The
regulations45 delineating both the types of outreach expenses that qualify for enhanced
matching and the required documentation for reimbursement are very complicated and
thus, may also be burdensome. HCFA has issued a series of letters to State Medicaid
Directors (most recently in early January 2000) to clarify permissible uses of this fund
and proper claiming procedures. States also reported that competing priorities (e.g.,
implementation of SCHIP, Y2K, Medicaid managed care) and other external factors
(e.g., need for legislative approval to implement new strategies) were obstacles to
designing and implementing Medicaid outreach and enrollment activities.
Outreach funding under SCHIP is structured very differently from Medicaid and
thus raises a different set of issues. For federal matching purposes under SCHIP,
there is a limit on spending for administrative expenses including outreach and
education. This limit or cap in a given fiscal year is equal to 10% of the amount states
actually draw down from their allotments to cover benefits under SCHIP, as opposed
to 10% of the appropriated level.
The current law allows flexibility in seeking federal payments for expenditures
associated with outreach for SCHIP. For states that expand Medicaid under SCHIP,
federal financial participation for related administration and outreach expenditures
may be claimed either through Medicaid or SCHIP. To maximize federal payment,
all states have the option to delay claiming administrative expenses under SCHIP up
to 2 years from the date of the expenditure for the service. This option is designed
to allow states with low benefit expenditures in the early years of the program to
receive payments for associated administrative expenses over time at the enhanced
federal matching rate.
The administrative costs of the Medicare and Medicaid programs rarely exceed
5% of total program costs. Based on that percentage, it would seem logical that a
ceiling of 10% of program costs would be sufficient to administer an established
program. Nonetheless, states have expressed concern over the SCHIP administrative
funding cap and their ability to do comprehensive outreach to achieve enrollment
goals, especially early in the program.
Administrative costs tend to be higher during the initial start-up of a new
program, compared with the costs of running an existing program. During the first
2 years after SCHIP was enacted, many states in the start-up phase of their programs
45Medicaid Program; Allocation of Enhanced Federal Matching Funds for Increased
Administrative Costs Resulting From Welfare Reform. Federal Register, v. 62, no. 93, May
14, 1997. p. 26545-26550.

CRS-18
found the 10% cap to be particularly burdensome. In an August 6, 1998 letter to
State Health Officials, HCFA acknowledged that the 10% cap presented a problem
for states. Indeed, of the 15 states that reported any administrative spending in
FY1998, 6 reached the ceiling and claimed the full 10% of total spending for
administrative costs.46 By 1999, the portion of national SCHIP spending claimed for
administrative costs had declined as a percentage of total program spending. To
address state concerns about the cap on administrative spending under SCHIP, the
106th Congress passed legislation (incorporated into P.L. 106-554) that stipulates a
redistribution formula for unspent FY1998 and FY1999 funds. This new provision
further permits states that did not spend their full FY1998 allotments (within required
time limits) to use up to 10% of retained FY1998 funds under the new redistribution
formula specifically for outreach activities. These outreach funds are above and
beyond funding available under the 10% cap for all SCHIP administrative expenses.
States have until the end of FY2002 to use the retained funds.
Privately Funded Outreach Initiatives and Coordination
with Medicaid and SCHIP
To supplement public funding, private funding has become available to help
states implement new outreach initiatives targeted at children and adolescents. For
example, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) has established a new grant
program called Covering Kids. This program will make a total of $47 million
available to states over 3 years, starting in 1999. The funds are intended to help
design and conduct outreach activities that identify and enroll eligible children into
Medicaid and other programs such as SCHIP, to simplify enrollment processes, and
to coordinate existing coverage programs for children. As of July 2000, 50 states and
the District of Columbia have received Covering Kids project grants. In general,
states are not the recipients of these grants. Instead, the program provides grants to
coalitions of community groups that will administer and implement the outreach and
enrollment activities. While RWJF has not yet published an official tabulation of the
specific outreach and enrollment strategies implemented by grantees across the
country, the Covering Kids website [http://www.coveringkids.org] provides a variety
of resources on these topics.
Legislative Changes to Major Outreach and Eligibility
Provisions Under Medicaid and SCHIP
President Clinton’s FY2001 budget included several initiatives that would have
affected the Medicaid and SCHIP programs.47 The 106th Congress made changes in
line with some of the Clinton Administration’s proposals (summarized below). The
subset of the Clinton Administration’s proposals aimed primarily at improving
coverage for families and children would have: (1) replaced SCHIP with a new
46CRS tabulations of Form HCFA-21C data.
47These proposals are outlined in Clinton-Gore Administration Unveils Major New Health
Insurance Initiative (January 19, 2000). CBO provides a detailed analysis of these proposals
and alternative budget estimates in An Analysis of the President’s Budgetary Proposals for
Fiscal Year 2001 (April 2000).

CRS-19
FamilyCare Program that would have provided health insurance to parents of children
enrolled in Medicaid or SCHIP, and included financial incentives to cover whole
families at higher income levels, (2) expanded Medicaid and SCHIP eligibility to 19-
and 20-year-olds at state option,48 (3) restored the option to provide full Medicaid
eligibility to immigrants who lost coverage under welfare reform (including pregnant
women, children and disabled immigrants regardless of date of entry into the US), (4)
allowed states to use SCHIP funds to cover immigrant children, and (5) made
transitional Medicaid coverage permanent and simplified state and family
requirements to promote enrollment. In addition to these eligibility proposals, new
outreach initiatives proposed by the Clinton Administration would have: (1) allowed
School Lunch Programs to share participant information with Medicaid, (2) expanded
sites authorized to presumptively enroll children in Medicaid and SCHIP to include
schools, child care resource and referral centers, homeless programs, and other sites,
and (3) required states to institute under Medicaid the same simplified enrollment
procedures as those used under SCHIP.
Several bills were introduced in the 106th Congress that would have extended
eligibility or facilitated continuous coverage, broadened outreach, simplified
enrollment processes, and/or changed funding for such activities under Medicaid and
SCHIP. Four such pieces of legislation were passed by the 106th Congress and signed
into law. The first was the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Balanced Budget
Refinement Act of 1999 (BBRA 99; H.R. 3426) included by reference in the
Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2000 (H.R. 3194) that became Public Law
106-113. Among other Medicaid provisions, this law permanently extended the
availability of the $500 million Medicaid fund established to assist with the
administrative costs of new Medicaid eligibility activities resulting from welfare
reform. Second, the Foster Care Independence Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-169) gave
states the option to extend Medicaid coverage to former foster care recipients
between 18 and 20 years of age.
In a move to eliminate a barrier posed by the Agriculture Department’s former
policy guidance, the Agriculture Risk Protection Act (H.R. 2559, P.L. 106-224) now
permits schools to share income and other relevant information when determining
eligibility for free or reduced-price meals in the School Lunch Program with state
Medicaid and SCHIP agencies for the purpose of identifying and enrolling children
in these two programs. This law also established a one-state pilot project under which
administrative funds for the WIC program can be used to help identify and enroll
eligible children in Medicaid and SCHIP.
The most far reaching piece of legislation was the Medicare, Medicaid, and
SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000 (BIPA; H.R. 4557) that
became P.L. 106-554. This law made several important changes affecting eligibility,
outreach and enrollment under Medicaid and SCHIP.
48Under current law, individuals who are 19 or 20 years of age can qualify for Medicaid if
they are pregnant, disabled or meet welfare-related standards (i.e., are adults with dependent
children). Some individuals in this age group who were formerly in foster care are also
eligible for Medicaid. SCHIP eligibility is limited to those under 19 years of age.

CRS-20
With respect to Medicaid, P.L. 106-554 extended by 1 year (to September 30,
2002) the availability of transitional medical assistance for families no longer eligible
for Medicaid on the basis of meeting former AFDC rules. It also added several
entities to the list of those qualified to make Medicaid presumptive eligibility
determinations for children, including for example, schools, child support enforcement
agencies, certain programs for the homeless, and federally funded housing assistance
programs. (Prior Medicaid law defined qualified entities to include Medicaid
providers, Head Start programs, WIC programs, and agencies that determine
eligibility for subsidized child care.) In addition, a technical amendment in this law
exempted from a general upper income limit rule those adolescents aging out of foster
care who are eligible for Medicaid under the Foster Care Independence Act of 1999
(as well as certain women eligible for Medicaid under the Breast and Cervical Cancer
Treatment Act of 2000).
Significant changes were also made to SCHIP under P.L. 106-554. Prior law
required that unused SCHIP funds be redistributed only to those states that spend
their full allotments for a given fiscal year within a specified time frame. P.L. 106-554
extends the availability of unused funds from FY1998 and FY999 (through the end
of FY2002) and redistributes these unused funds among both those states that spend
and those that do not spend their full original allotments for these years. As
previously described, P.L. 106-554 also permits certain states to use up to 10% of
retained FY1998 funds for outreach activities. Finally, the new law clarifies states’
authority to conduct presumptive eligibility determinations, as defined in Medicaid
law, under separate (non-Medicaid) SCHIP programs.
Conclusions
Recent trends in insurance coverage among children (and others) have shown
some improvements. Expansions of eligibility under Medicaid in the last two decades,
and the advent of SCHIP in late 1997, have significantly increased the opportunities
for coverage among poor and near poor children. HCFA reported continued
increases in SCHIP enrollment in FY1999, rising to 3.3 million children during
FY2000. Other data for 1998 and 1999 suggest that the decline in Medicaid
caseloads that began in the mid-1990s may have started to reverse itself. Despite
these improved opportunities, there were an estimated 6.7 million low-income
children eligible for, but not enrolled in either of these two programs in 1999. These
enrollment patterns are affected by complex interactions between economic trends,
federal and state policies, program administrative procedures, and beneficiary
perceptions. These interactions result in considerable enrollment variability across
states, suggesting that at least some solutions will need to be state-specific.
Under both Medicaid and SCHIP, states face a number of challenges in reaching
and enrolling the current target populations, most notably the working poor and near-
poor, two-parent families, and immigrants. Medicaid faces the additional challenge
of preventing previously enrolled individuals who remain eligible from dropping out
of the program. Retention issues are beginning to surface under SCHIP as well.

CRS-21
Some policy makers have argued that providing Medicaid and SCHIP to whole
families may be a more effective mechanism for reducing the number of low-income
children without health insurance than the current fractured program structure. In
recent years, able-bodied adults, typically parents of eligible children, experienced
severe enrollment losses under Medicaid. Some of this loss was inadvertent, but the
fact remains that there are few eligibility pathways into Medicaid, and even more
restrictions under SCHIP, for providing coverage to low-income adults with children.
Further simplification of eligibility rules, streamlining of enrollment processes and
additional outreach are also important to reducing the number of low-income,
uninsured children. Recent progress in these areas may be starting to take hold.
State budget limitations under Medicaid and SCHIP require state administrators
to think carefully about their choice of outreach strategies and enrollment facilitation
efforts. Cost-effectiveness should be a key consideration in making these choices.
The existing research literature does not adequately pinpoint such strategies, but
future evaluations at the state and federal level may fill this information gap. States
may require a large investment of both time and money to evaluate the effectiveness
of their outreach methods and enrollment simplification procedures, and to
subsequently apply those lessons to their Medicaid and SCHIP programs.
SCHIP and Medicaid generally received continuing support from the 106th
Congress. However, in recent months, there have been some signs that the economic
growth enjoyed for the past several years may be slowing down. An economic
downturn may increase the number of individuals eligible for Medicaid and SCHIP.
Current SCHIP funding levels can probably absorb some of such an increase, but a
huge influx of new enrollees into Medicaid could severely strain both federal and state
budgets as was the case in the early to mid-1990s when major Medicaid reform was
considered. If an economic downturn takes place, the 107th Congress may be faced
with difficult domestic policy and funding choices. The goal of reducing the number
of children without health insurance must be balanced with budget constraints that
may result from any future economic downturns.

CRS-22
Table 1. Income Eligibility Standards for Medicaid and SCHIP
(By Percentage of the Federal Poverty Level)
Medicaid
Medicaid standards in effect 3/31/97b
SCHIP-
Separate
(lower income boundary for SCHIP)
expansion
SCHIP
program
approved
Ages
approved
as
Age 0 to
Ages
Ages 6
15 thru
as of
of
Statea
1
1 thru 5
thru 14
18
12/11/00c
12/11/00c
Alabama
133%
133%
100%
15%
100%
200%
(ages 17
(ages 0
thru 18)
thru 18)
Alaska
133%
133%
100%
100%
200%
n/a
(ages 0
thru 18)
Arizona
140%
133%
100%
30%
n/a
200%
(ages 0
thru 18)
Arkansasd
133%
133%
100%
18%
100%
n/a
(born after
9/30/82
and before
10/1/83)
California
200%
133%
100%
82%
100%
250%
(ages 17
(ages 0
and 18)
thru 18)
Colorado
133%
133%
100%
37%
n/a
185%
(ages 0
thru 18)
Connecticut
185%
185%
185%
100%
185%
300%
(ages 17
(ages 0
and 18)
thru 18)
Delaware
133%
133%
100%
100%
n/a
200%
(ages 0
thru 18)
District of
185%
133%
100%
50%
200%
n/a
Columbia
(ages 0
thru 18)
Floridae
185%
133%
100%
28%
100%
200%
(ages 17
(ages 1
and 18)
thru 18)
200%
(ages 0
thru 1)
Georgia
185%
133%
100%
100%
n/a
200%
(ages 0
thru 18)

CRS-23
Medicaid
Medicaid standards in effect 3/31/97b
SCHIP-
Separate
(lower income boundary for SCHIP)
expansion
SCHIP
program
approved
Ages
approved
as
Age 0 to
Ages
Ages 6
15 thru
as of
of
Statea
1
1 thru 5
thru 14
18
12/11/00c
12/11/00c
Hawaii
185%
133%
100%
100%
200%
n/a
(ages 0
thru 18)
Idaho
133%
133%
100%
100%
150%
n/a
(ages 0
thru 18)
Illinois
133%
133%
100%
46%
133%
185%
(ages 6
(ages 1
thru 18)
thru18)
Indiana
150%
133%
100%
100%
150%
200%
(ages 1
(ages 0
thru 18)
thru 18)
Iowa
185%
133%
100%
37%
133%
200%
(ages 6
(ages 0
thru 18)
thru 18)
Kansas
150%
133%
100%
100%
n/a
200%
(ages 0
thru 18)
Kentucky
185%
133%
100%
33%
150%
200%
(ages 1
(ages 0
thru 18)
thru 18)
Louisiana
133%
133%
100%
10%
150%
n/a
(ages 0
thru 18)
Maine
185%
133%
125%
125%
150%
185%
(ages 1
(ages 1
thru 18)
thru 18)
Maryland
185%
185%
185%
100%
200%
300%f
(ages 0
(ages 0
thru 18)
thru 18)
Massachusetts
185%
133%
114%
86%
150%
200%
(ages 1
(ages 1
thru 18)
thru 18)
200%
(ages 0
thru 1 and
pregnant
teens)
Michigan
185%
133%
100%
100%
150%
200%
(ages 17
(ages 0
and 18)
thru 18)

CRS-24
Medicaid
Medicaid standards in effect 3/31/97b
SCHIP-
Separate
(lower income boundary for SCHIP)
expansion
SCHIP
program
approved
Ages
approved
as
Age 0 to
Ages
Ages 6
15 thru
as of
of
Statea
1
1 thru 5
thru 14
18
12/11/00c
12/11/00c
Minnesota
275%
275%
275%
275%
280%
n/a
(below age
2)
Mississippi
185%
133%
100%
34%
100%
200%
(ages 17
(ages 0
and 18)
thru 18)
Missouri
185%
133%
100%
100%
300%
n/a
(ages 0
thru 18)
Montana
133%
133%
100%
40.5%
n/a
150%
(ages 0
thru 18)
Nebraska
150%
133%
100%
33%
185%
n/a
(ages 0
thru 18)
Nevada
133%
133%
100%
31%
n/a
200%
(ages 0
thru 18)
New Hampshire
185%
185%
185%
185%
300%
300%
(ages 0
(ages 1
thru 1)
thru 18)
New Jersey
185%
133%
100%
41%
133%
350%
(ages 6
(ages 0
thru 18)
thru 18)
New Mexico
185%
185%
185%
185%
235%
n/a
(ages 0
thru 18)
New Yorke
185%
133%
100%
51%
100%
192%
(ages
(ages 0
17and 18)
thru 18)
North Carolina
185%
133%
100%
100%
n/a
200%
(ages 0
thru 18)
North Dakota
133%
133%
100%
100%
100%
140%
(thru
(18 year
(ages 0
age 17)
olds)
thru 18)
Ohio
133%
133%
100%
33%
200%
n/a
(ages 0
thru 18)

CRS-25
Medicaid
Medicaid standards in effect 3/31/97b
SCHIP-
Separate
(lower income boundary for SCHIP)
expansion
SCHIP
program
approved
Ages
approved
as
Age 0 to
Ages
Ages 6
15 thru
as of
of
Statea
1
1 thru 5
thru 14
18
12/11/00c
12/11/00c
Oklahoma
150%
133%
100%
48%
185%
n/a
(thru age
17)
Oregon
133%
133%
100%
100%
n/a
170%
(ages 0
thru 18)
Pennsylvaniae
185%
133%
100%
41%
n/a
200%
(ages 0
thru 18)
Rhode Islandg
250%
250%
100%
100%
250%
n/a
(thru
(ages 8
(ages 8
age 7)
thru 14)
thru 18)
South Carolina
185%
133%
100%
48%
150%
n/a
(ages 1
thru 18)
South Dakota
133%
133%
100%
100%
140%
200%
(ages 0
(ages 0
thru 18)
thru 18)
Tennesseeh
–-
–-
–-
16%
100%
n/a
(ages 17
and 18)
Texas
185%
133%
100%
17%
100%
200%
(ages 17
(ages 0
and 18)
thru 18)
Utah
133%
133%
100%
100%
n/a
200%
(thru
(ages 0
age 17)
thru 18)
Vermont
225%
225%
225%
225%
n/a
300%
(ages 0
thru 17)
Virginia
133%
133%
100%
100%
n/a
185%
(ages 0
thru 18)
Washington
200%
200%
200%
200%
n/a
250%
(ages 0
thru 18)
West Virginia
150%
133%
100%
100%
n/a
200%
(ages 0
thru 18)

CRS-26
Medicaid
Medicaid standards in effect 3/31/97b
SCHIP-
Separate
(lower income boundary for SCHIP)
expansion
SCHIP
program
approved
Ages
approved
as
Age 0 to
Ages
Ages 6
15 thru
as of
of
Statea
1
1 thru 5
thru 14
18
12/11/00c
12/11/00c
Wisconsin
185%
185%
100%
45%
185%
n/a
(ages 6
thru 18)
Wyoming
133%
133%
100%
55%
n/a
133%
(ages 6
thru 18)
Source: Health Care Financing Administration. The State Children’s Health Insurance Program,
Annual Enrollment Report, October 1, 1998-September 30, 1999. Baltimore, Health Care Financing
Administration, January 11, 2000. Medicaid expansion and separate state expansion program
eligibility limits were updated to reflect amendments approved as of 12/11/00.
a The Territories are not included in this table. Due to the unique nature of their SCHIP plans, the
U.S. Territories and jurisdictions may cover existing Medicaid populations with SCHIP funds,
but only after their Medicaid funding caps are reached.
b SCHIP contains a provision that a child’s family income must exceed the Medicaid income level
that was in effect on March 31, 1997 in order for that child to be eligible for SCHIP-funded
coverage. If approved, the proposed rule (published in the Federal Register, v. 64, no. 215,
Monday, November 8, 1999) will change that date from March 31, 1997 to June 1, 1997 —
a change that will affect the eligibility in a few states. On January 5, 2001, the Department
of Health and Human Services released the final rule implementing comprehensive program
requirements and administrative procedures for SCHIP. The final SCHIP rule is scheduled
to be published in the January 11, 2001 Federal Register and will become effective 90 days
after publication.
c Reflects upper eligibility level of SCHIP plans and amendments approved as of December 11, 2000.
Upper eligibility is defined as a percent of the federal poverty level (FPL), which, in 1999, is
$16,700 for a family of 4. In general, states with Medicaid expansion SCHIP programs must
establish their upper eligibility levels net of income disregards. States with separate SCHIP
programs can establish their upper eligibility levels on a gross income basis or net of income
disregards.
d Arkansas increased Medicaid eligibility to 200% FPL effective September 1997 though section
1115 demonstration authority.
e These states had state-funded programs that existed prior to SCHIP. Title XXI permitted children
previously in these state-funded programs to be covered under SCHIP and requires these states
to maintain their previous level of state spending.
f Maryland’s Expansion to 300% was approved but will be implemented on July 1, 2001.
g Rhode Island has implemented its program to 250% of the FPL. The state also has an approved
amendment (February 5, 1999) in place to further expand the program to 300% of the FPL.
h Under its section 1115 demonstration, Tennessee has no upper eligibility level. The currently
approved SCHIP plan covers children born before October 1, 1983 in the expansion group and
who enrolled in TennCare on or after April 1, 1997.

CRS-27
Table 2. National Medicaid Enrollment Levels, FY1995-FY1998
Enrollment levels (thousands)
Percent change
Type of beneficiary
FY1995
FY1996
FY1997
FY1998
1995-1996
1996-1997
1997-1998
1995-1998
Adults
9,600
9,255
8,583
8,643
-3.6
-7.3
0.7
-10.0
Cash related
5,399
4,934
4,082
3,452
-8.6
-17.3
-15.4
-36.1
Other
4,202
4,321
4,501
5,190
2.8
4.2
15.3
23.5
Children
21,630
21,259
21,058
20,665
-1.7
-0.9
-1.9
-4.5
Cash related
11,236
10,474
8,931
7,640
-6.8
-14.7
-14.5
-32.0
Other
10,393
10,785
12,127
13,025
3.8
12.4
7.4
25.3
Aged
4,115
4,117
4,114
4,090
0.0
-0.1
-0.6
-0.6
Cash related
1,847
1,840
1,813
1,783
-0.4
-1.5
-1.7
-3.5
Other
2,268
2,278
2,301
2,306
0.4
1.0
0.2
1.7
Disabled
6,333
6,664
6,836
6,984
5.2
2.6
2.2
10.3
Cash related
5,025
5,268
5,331
5,448
4.8
1.2
2.2
8.4
Other
1,308
1,396
1,505
1,536
6.7
7.8
2.1
17.4
Total Medicaid
41,677
41,295
40,591
40,381
-0.9
-1.7
-0.5
-3.1
Source: Unpublished Urban Institute (UI) estimates based on data from HCFA 2082-reports (12/14/00). Percent change calculations estimated by the Congressional Research Service
(CRS). Does not include the U.S. Territories. Figures may not sum to totals due to rounding. Enrollees are defined as people who sign up for Medicaid for any length of time in
a given fiscal year. Due to variations in the duration of enrollment periods, the reported number of enrollees tends to be higher than point-in-time estimates and the enrollment
distributions may differ substantially from those based on point-in-time estimates. “Cash related” refers to enrollees who receive AFDC (prior to welfare reform), SSI, or mandatory
state cash supplements, or who qualify for Medicaid via old AFDC rules (after welfare reform). “Other” includes all other enrollees, primarily the medically needy, poverty-related
expansion groups, and people eligible under Medicaid Section 1115 waivers. Some states may include Title XXI program (SCHIP) enrollees in their HCFA-2082 forms, though this
should not be the case.
Note: For data quality reasons, we elected to summarize UI’s analysis in this report, rather than official HCFA-2082 data (named for the label on the reporting form). States generate
2082 data from their Medicaid administrative files using a standard format accompanied by instructions from HCFA. Historically, these official data have contained some classification
errors and missing information. The magnitude of these problems varies by state and fiscal year. UI edited HCFA’s 2082 data to minimize these data problems. In particular, for
the analysis summarized here, UI reassigned cases classified as “unknown” or “other” for basis of eligibility into the adult, children, aged and disabled categories. UI replaced missing
data when possible. Other state- and year-specific edits were also performed. To inform this editing process and derive alternative counts, they performed distributional analysis
on other 2082 data elements, contacted state officials to identify appropriate adjustments, and substituted other state data when available. Thus, UI’s numbers do not match official
HCFA data for fiscal years 1995 through 1998.

CRS-28
Table 3. Selected Enrollment, Verification and Redetermination Strategies for Children Under Medicaid and SCHIP,
July 2000
Medicaid (50 states and the District of
Selected strategies
Columbia)
Separate SCHIP programs (32 states)
Simplification criteria at initial application
Joint application for Medicaid and SCHIP
N/Aa
28 (87.5%)
No face-to-face interview
40 (78.4%)
31 (96.9%)
No asset test
42 (82.4%)
31 (96.9%)
Presumptive eligibilityb
8 (15.7%)
4 (12.5%)
12-months continuous eligibilityc
14 (27.4%)
22 (68.8%)
Self-declaration of income as verificationd
10 (19.6%)
7 (21.9%)
Redetermination procedures
Joint application for Medicaid and SCHIP
N/Aa
14 (43.7%)
No face-to-face interview
43 (84.3%)
32 (100%)
Source: Ross, D., and Cox, L. Making It Simple: Medicaid for Children and CHIP Income Eligibility Guidelines and Enrollment Procedures: Findings from a 50-State Survey.
Washington, D.C., The Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, October 2000.
Note: The “Medicaid” column indicates the number of states that have adopted a particular strategy for their children’s Medicaid program. It includes all 50 state Medicaid programs
and the District of Columbia, regardless of whether the state implemented a Medicaid expansion, a separate SCHIP program, or a combination of the two, with its SCHIP allotment.
The “Separate SCHIP Programs” column indicates the number of states that have adopted a particular strategy for their SCHIP-funded, separate state program. It includes 32
states (AL, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, IL IN, IA, KS, KY, ME, MA, MI, MS, MT, NV, NH, NJ, NY, NC, ND, OR, PA, TX, UT, VA, WA, WV, and WY). The remaining 19
states have chosen to use their SCHIP allotment to expand Medicaid exclusively and are not included in this column.
a A joint application for Medicaid and SCHIP is only relevant in the 32 states that have both Medicaid and separate SCHIP programs. See column 3.
b Presumptive eligibility allows children whose family income appears to be below the state’s Medicaid income-eligibility guidelines to enroll temporarily in Medicaid, giving families
time to complete the formal application process. While several states have adopted a presumptive eligibility procedure for their separate SCHIP programs, the rules under the
Medicaid presumptive eligibility option do not necessarily apply.

CRS-29
c States have the option to continuously enroll children in Medicaid for up to 12 months, without regard to changes in their family income. Families are not obliged to report changes
in their circumstances that may occur before the end of the 12-month enrollment period. This option applies for both initial enrollment and redetermination periods. The states
reporting 12 months of continuous eligibility at initial application also provide 12-month redetermination periods.
d Federal Medicaid rules require states to verify information on the application form through various data exchanges with other agencies (for example, the Social Security
Administration and the state agency that administers unemployment insurance). Federal law, however, does not require families to supply third-party verification of information
provided in the application, except in one situation – when the person seeking coverage is not a citizen, documentation of the non-citizen’s immigration status is required.
Otherwise, states have the flexibility to determine documentation requirements and can allow self-declaration of income and assets.