prompt_front: You are given two reports by the government agency.



Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 1.

Report 1: NAS is a withdrawal condition within infants that can result from the prenatal use of opioids by pregnant women  Prenatal opioid use occurs when a woman, during the course of her pregnancy, uses an opioid- based medication or substance  Prenatal opioid use can take various forms, including (1) the use of prescriptions for pain management, such as fentanyl and oxycodone; (2) medication-assisted treatment for opioid addiction, such as methadone and buprenorphine; (3) prescription drug misuse or use disorder (such as using an opioid without a prescription, using a different dosage than prescribed, or continuing to use an opioid when it is no longer needed for pain); and (4) illicit opioid use, such as heroin use  These types of prenatal opioid use are not mutually exclusive  A 2014 study found that almost 22 percent of pregnant Medicaid beneficiaries filled a prescription for an opioid during their pregnancy  Medication-assisted treatment—an approach that combines the use of certain medications and behavioral therapy—is generally considered by HHS and medical specialty societies to be the standard of care for treating pregnant women with opioid use disorders, depending on the individual and her circumstances  SAMHSA and several medical specialty societies, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Society of Addiction Medicine, have noted that providing medication-assisted treatment during pregnancy prevents complications associated with illicit opioid use, encourages prenatal care, and reduces the risk of obstetric complications  Further, women may use multiple substances in addition to opioids during pregnancy—known as maternal polysubstance use—such as tobacco, alcohol, or anti-depressants, among others  GAO reported in 2015 that the gaps in efforts to address prenatal opioid use and NAS most commonly cited by federal agency officials and experts were related to the treatment of prenatal opioid use and NAS  Agency officials and experts said that there has not been adequate research comparing different types of treatment approaches and that research is needed on how best to treat a pregnant woman with an opioid use disorder so that the treatment is most effective for the woman while offering minimal risk to the fetus  See GAO-15-203  For more information on factors that can affect access to medication- assisted treatment, see GAO, Opioid Addiction: Laws, Regulations, and Other Factors Can Affect Medication-Assisted Treatment Access, GAO-16-833 (Washington, D C : Sept  2016)  respiratory distress  There is currently no national standard of care for screening or treating NAS  There have been a few scoring tools developed to screen the infant to determine the appropriate course of treatment  Health care providers predominantly diagnose NAS using the Finnegan Neonatal Abstinence Scoring Tool, which calculates a score based on a variety of central nervous, metabolic, respiratory, and gastro-intestinal symptoms that might be observed  The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommend that infants with NAS should not be initially treated with medication, known as pharmacologic treatment  Instead, these organizations recommend starting with non-pharmacologic treatment, which includes placing the infant in a dark and quiet environment, swaddling, breastfeeding, rooming-in with the mother, and providing high-calorie nutrition, among other things  For example, rooming-in—allowing the mother to reside with the infant during the infant’s treatment—may have benefits, such as helping to develop a bond between the mother and infant and to reduce the severity of the infant’s NAS symptoms  Pharmacologic treatment, such as using methadone or morphine, may be necessary only for the relief of moderate to severe signs of NAS  See figure 1 for more information on non-pharmacologic and pharmacologic treatment  HHS has published several guidance and educational resources related to NAS and prenatal opioid use  These documents serve as tools to help stakeholders, including state entities and health care providers, who work with this population  For example, SAMHSA published a clinical report for health care providers in 2016 that provides recommendations to help them when making decisions regarding the evaluation, care, and treatment of women with opioid use disorders and infants with NAS  As of July 2017, SAMHSA is in the process of producing a clinical guide based on this report and expects to publish an updated report later this year  In another example, SAMHSA published a guidance document in 2016 that aims to support the efforts of states, tribes, and local communities in addressing the needs of pregnant women with opioid use disorders and their infants  Among other things, the document includes strategies and guidance to promote care coordination among stakeholders, including child welfare agencies and medical professionals, when treating infants with NAS  (See app  II for a list of federal educational resources related to NAS and prenatal opioid use published by HHS ) As we previously noted, more than 80 percent of NAS cases are paid for by Medicaid, which is a federal-state health care program that finances health care coverage for low-income and medically needy populations, including children and aged or disabled adults  States administer their Medicaid programs within broad federal requirements and according to a state plan approved by CMS, the federal agency within HHS that oversees Medicaid  The Medicaid program allows states to design and implement their programs within certain federal parameters, resulting in more than 50 distinct state-based programs  For example, states generally determine the type and scope of services to cover, set payment rates that different health care providers will receive for various covered services, and pay these providers for claims submitted for services rendered  In addition, states vary in the extent to which they enroll beneficiaries in managed care versus delivering care through the more traditional fee-for-service model  Under a managed care delivery model, states typically contract with managed care plans to provide a specific set of Medicaid-covered services to beneficiaries and pay them a set amount per beneficiary—referred to as capitation payments—to provide those services  Under fee-for-service, Medicaid pays health care providers a fee for each service provided to a Medicaid beneficiary  Medicaid’s Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic, and Treatment benefit, which states are required to provide, covers comprehensive health screenings, preventive health services, and all medically necessary treatment and services—for Medicaid eligible-children under the age of 21—to correct or ameliorate health conditions discovered through screenings  According to the literature we reviewed, most infants with NAS in the United States are treated in a hospital setting, often in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), which has a relatively high daily cost of care  Stakeholders we interviewed told us that these infants may also be treated in other hospital settings  According to state and perinatal collaborative officials in the four selected states we reviewed, infants diagnosed with NAS begin—and most complete—treatment for the condition in various hospital settings which provide different levels of care: a well newborn nursery (level I), special care nursery (level II), or NICU (level III or IV)  For example, according to these officials, most infants with NAS in Vermont are treated in well newborn nurseries, while most infants with NAS in Kentucky and Wisconsin are treated in NICUs  West Virginia perinatal collaborative officials told us that about a third of infants with NAS are treated in well newborn nurseries, while two-thirds receive treatment in either a special care nursery or NICU  According to perinatal collaborative officials and hospital providers in the four selected states, the severity of the infant’s NAS symptoms or the hospital’s capability to treat NAS can determine whether the infant receives care in a nursery or NICU  Health care providers in the four selected states described the general clinical approach for treating infants with NAS  According to these providers, they generally start with non-pharmacologic treatment—for example, swaddling or placing the infant in a quiet, dark room  Health care providers may continue to monitor and assess the severity of the infant’s NAS symptoms using one of the available scoring tools for NAS  If the infant’s symptoms meet or exceed a certain threshold, these providers may initiate pharmacologic treatment by administering morphine or methadone, for example  Some perinatal collaborative officials that we interviewed in the four selected states told us that not all hospitals may have the capability to provide pharmacologic treatment  For example, these officials told us that level I hospitals—hospitals with only well newborn nurseries—in Kentucky and Wisconsin may not provide pharmacologic treatment to infants with NAS because these hospitals may not have the staff expertise to administer the needed medication and monitor the infants who receive it  Instead, these hospitals may transfer infants with NAS who require pharmacologic treatment to hospitals with higher levels of care, such as those with a NICU  Table 1 provides information on the eight selected hospitals in our review that provide NAS services  According to a 2015 study we reviewed, nationwide, infants with NAS who require pharmacologic treatment generally have longer average hospital stays (23 days) compared with infants with NAS who do not require such medication (17 days)  Health care providers from our selected hospitals also indicated a similar trend—the average length of hospital stay in calendar year 2016 for infants with NAS who received pharmacologic treatment ranged from 7 to 30 days, while the stays for infants who did not require such medication ranged from 3 to 7 days  Medicaid generally pays for NAS treatment services in our four selected states using a diagnosis-related group (DRG) based payment system, in which hospitals receive a fixed amount for a bundle of services  In general, the DRG-based system used in Medicaid pays for the medical services necessary for treating infants with NAS, such as medication, bed space, and nursing staff, according to CMS officials  CMS officials said that the DRG-based system generally does not pay for professional services, such as physician visits; instead, these services are typically paid under a fee-for-service payment schedule, in which states or contracted managed care plans pay health care providers directly for their services  Officials in our selected states said information on total Medicaid payments for hospital-based NAS services was not readily available  Several DRGs are typically used to bill Medicaid for services provided to infants  However, these codes alone cannot provide an accurate estimate of Medicaid payments for NAS treatment services because the codes are not used exclusively for NAS  For example, according to some health care providers we interviewed, two DRG codes that may be used to bill Medicaid and other payers for NAS treatment services are 791 (prematurity with major problems) and 793 (full term neonate with major problems)  However, these codes could be used to bill for over 2,000 diagnoses—for example, pneumonia or measles  One state official said that while they could provide us with information on Medicaid payments for these infants, they could not parse out the costs by diagnosis codes, such as those related to NAS  Thus, estimates of total Medicaid payments based only on DRG codes likely overstate the amount paid for NAS hospital-based services  Officials from two of the four selected states told us that their state has a public health surveillance system that tracks the incidence of infants diagnosed with NAS; however, the surveillance systems do not capture financial information, including Medicaid payments for NAS  At our request, one of the states cross-referenced their surveillance and Medicaid data and estimated that in 2016, their state Medicaid program spent over $22 million to treat 1,565 infants with NAS  While selected states generally could not provide information on total Medicaid payments for infants with NAS, some hospitals in our selected states were able to generate this information at our request using diagnosis codes that they identified as related to NAS from hospital claims data  Six of our selected eight hospitals reported that in calendar year 2016, the average Medicaid payment for treating infants with NAS ranged from about $1,500 to about $20,200 per infant per stay  The wide range in Medicaid payment averages may be because the averages included both infants who did and did not require pharmacologic treatment and because these hospitals treated infants in various settings, such as a nursery or a NICU  The literature we reviewed also had limited information on Medicaid payments for NAS treatment services provided in hospitals  A recent study reported that from 2009 through 2012—the most recent data available at the time of the study—Medicaid payments to hospitals for NAS treatment services increased from about $564 million to $1 2 billion nationwide  While most infants with NAS typically complete treatment in a hospital setting, stakeholders told us that some of these infants may be transferred to a non-hospital setting to complete pharmacologic treatment and continue non-pharmacologic treatment  HHS officials told us that there is not a comprehensive list of facilities that may treat infants with NAS outside of the hospital  Based on information from the stakeholders we interviewed and the literature we reviewed, we identified two types of non-hospital settings available in certain states that treat infants with NAS: (1) outpatient clinics and programs and (2) neonatal withdrawal centers  For the purposes of this report, we defined neonatal withdrawal centers as facilities that can treat infants who are prenatally exposed to drugs, including infants with NAS, within the facility  Outpatient clinics and programs to treat NAS Through stakeholder interviews and the literature we reviewed, we identified examples of outpatient clinics and programs in certain states where infants with NAS can continue pharmacologic treatment after their discharge from the hospital  For example, some stakeholders we interviewed told us about a Neonatal Medical Follow-Up Clinic in Vermont used to follow-up with infants with NAS who have been discharged from the hospital and are being weaned off methadone on an outpatient basis  Hospital providers train the infant’s family on how to administer the infant’s medication at home and provide a referral to the clinic  After hospital discharge, the infant and family have follow-up visits in the clinic every 1 to 2 weeks, during which the family discusses with health care providers the weaning schedule and demonstrate how they administer the infant’s medication  Health care providers told us that they also encourage the family to continue providing non-pharmacologic treatment to the infant  After weaning is complete, the infant continues to follow-up at the clinic every 1 to 2 months until the infant reaches 12 to 18 months of age  Literature we reviewed indicated that other outpatient treatment clinics or programs such as the one in Vermont have been established or considered in other states  Specifically, four studies we reviewed described instances in which infants began their treatment in the hospital but completed their treatment through a dedicated outpatient program in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania  Each study noted that the inpatient-to- outpatient approach can result in a shorter hospital length of stay  For example, one 2015 study found that infants who began treatment in a hospital and completed their treatment in an outpatient setting stayed in the hospital an average of 11 days, compared to infants who completed treatment in the hospital, where the stays averaged about 25 days  However, the studies also noted that the inpatient-to-outpatient approach resulted in a longer overall treatment duration across the two settings  Neonatal withdrawal centers to treat NAS Some stakeholders we interviewed, including health care providers, described examples of neonatal withdrawal centers in two states, where infants with NAS can continue pharmacologic treatment after their discharge from the hospital  Health care providers in these facilities told us that in Washington and West Virginia, some infants with NAS who began treatment in a hospital may be referred to these facilities, where they reside until they complete treatment and are discharged from the facility  These providers explained that in these facilities, the infants are placed in nursery rooms, where health care providers can monitor them and administer and adjust their medication as needed  In addition, nursing staff or other caregivers are responsible for providing continuous non-pharmacologic treatment, and mothers are encouraged to visit and continue this care  For example, health care providers told us that in Washington, two to three infants may share a nursery room where trained caregivers provide them with non-pharmacologic treatment  In West Virginia, health care providers said infants are typically placed in individual nursery rooms where nurses provide them with non- pharmacologic treatment  The rooms in the West Virginia facility are also equipped with a rocking chair to encourage mothers to visit and provide this care as well  Health care providers told us that the facility currently offers one nursery room equipped with a bed to help prepare mothers on what to expect after discharge; they also said that they encourage mothers to spend the night prior to the infant’s discharge from the facility  (See text box below)  Treating infants with neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) in a neonatal withdrawal center One health care provider from a neonatal withdrawal center told us that the practice of rooming-in helps to facilitate the bond between the mother and infant  He also said that rooming-in allows health care providers to model care for the mothers and for mothers to learn how to care for their infants with NAS  Health care providers told us that the facility currently offers one nursery room equipped with a bed to help prepare mothers on what to expect after discharge and that they encourage mothers to spend the night prior to the infant’s discharge from the facility  One health care provider told us that one mother, after staying overnight with her infant, realized that she was not prepared to take care of her infant and consequently gave up custody of the infant  Because of rooming-in, health care providers were able to ensure that the infant was safe because the mother came to this realization at the facility, rather than alone at home  Although the lack of physical space at the facility currently makes it difficult to accommodate rooming-in for the entire course of the infant’s treatment, these providers noted the importance of this practice and that they are committed to parental involvement when treating infants with NAS at their facility  Figure 2 depicts nursery rooms in the neonatal withdrawal center in West Virginia  Efforts are also underway to open a neonatal withdrawal center in Arizona and Ohio, according to stakeholders we interviewed  Stakeholders we interviewed and the literature we reviewed suggest some limitations as well as benefits of treating infants with NAS in non- hospital settings, including factors to consider in these settings  Health care providers from one of the hospitals we visited in Vermont told us that their hospital is the only one in the state that allows infants with NAS to complete pharmacologic treatment through the Vermont outpatient clinic because they have established the necessary infrastructure to ensure families’ compliance and safe practices at home  These providers said that they worked with one local pharmacy to ensure proper dispensing of the medication  Additionally, these providers measured the amount of medication left over at each follow- up visit with the families  Some state and perinatal collaborative officials told us that neonatal withdrawal centers may not be the best environment to treat infants with NAS because these settings may limit a mother’s access to her infant, since she may not always be allowed to reside with the infant  Such limits, according to officials, do not facilitate bonding between mother and infant  Another state perinatal collaborative official, as well as health care providers and staff, told us that neonatal withdrawal centers may be better for treating infants with NAS because the environment is quieter and less stimulating than hospital settings, such as NICUs  Several studies we reviewed also emphasized that the inpatient-to- outpatient approach requires ongoing coordination, communication, and commitment from multidisciplinary providers, as well as the families  These studies highlighted instances in which these approaches reduced the length of the infants’ stay in a hospital, though the studies emphasized that more work needs to be done to determine whether these are the optimal approaches for infants with NAS, as well as the potential long-term benefits of such approaches  Medicaid pays for NAS treatment services provided in the non-hospital settings we identified in certain states, according to CMS officials and other stakeholders we spoke with, but generally pays for these services separately, in contrast with the single bundled payment paid to hospitals  State officials and health care providers in the non-hospital settings we examined described various ways in which Medicaid covered services they provided to treat infants with NAS  For example: Outpatient follow-up clinic in Vermont  State officials and staff at this facility told us that the Vermont Medicaid program pays for an infant’s outpatient physician visits using a fee-for-service payment schedule  They added that the Vermont Medicaid program also pays for the infant’s medication used in pharmacologic treatment and explained that the pharmacy that dispenses the medication bills Medicaid for these services  Neonatal withdrawal center in Washington  Health care providers at this facility told us that the Washington Medicaid program or their contracted managed care plans pay for physician visits using a fee- for-service payment schedule, noting that the facility decided to stop billing Medicaid for medical supplies because of the low reimbursement  Additionally, these providers suggested that because the facility does not meet the Medicaid standards required for receiving payment for hospital inpatient, nursing, or other covered facility services, the facility is ineligible to receive Medicaid payment for the costs of room and board  These providers said that they receive funding for the cost of these services through state appropriations, foster care payments, city contracts, grants, and private donations  Neonatal withdrawal center in West Virginia  State officials and health care providers at this facility told us that West Virginia pays for NAS services through two mechanisms, depending on whether the infant is in foster care  Specifically, if the infant is in foster care, the facility receives a bundled payment from the state Medicaid program and the Bureau of Children and Families  However, if the infant is not in foster care, the state Medicaid program pays for physician visits using a fee-for-service schedule  Additionally, the facility can receive payment under a per diem rate that is negotiated with state Medicaid managed care plans  The health care providers said that they also receive funding through grants and private donations to help cover the costs of NAS services  Stakeholders we interviewed and literature we reviewed suggest that the costs of treating infants with NAS in non-hospital settings were lower than treating them in hospital settings  However, supporting data and research of the costs in different settings are anecdotal or otherwise limited  For example: Health care providers from the neonatal withdrawal center in Washington told us that their facility could treat infants at a lower average cost per day than could hospitals—at about $700 per infant per day compared to an average cost of about $1,500-2,500 per infant per day in a hospital  These providers said that this cost savings is in part due to their limited staffing of nurses and their ability to leverage specially trained caregivers to provide infants with non-pharmacologic treatment and hands-on care, such as feeding and bathing  These providers also said they use volunteers to help with household duties, such as laundry and replenishing supplies  A health care provider from the neonatal withdrawal center in West Virginia conducted a study that found that the average daily charges per infant were about $400 in their facility, compared to about $2,600 in a special care nursery and $4,000 in a NICU  Two studies we reviewed found that inpatient-to-outpatient treatment approaches reduced hospital costs for NAS treatment; however, these studies were not generalizable and did not account for the duration of treatment across the two settings  Specifically, one study found that an inpatient-to-outpatient treatment approach reduced hospital length of stay by 55 percent—estimated to save hospitals $396 million annually—compared with treatment provided solely in a hospital  The second study found that infants who received care for NAS through an inpatient-to-outpatient treatment approach had an average length of stay of 13 days and cost about $14,000, while an inpatient- only approach had an average length of stay of 25 days and cost about $28,000  The 32 stakeholders we interviewed and the literature we reviewed identified several recommended practices for addressing NAS—that is, treating women with opioid use disorders during pregnancy or treating infants diagnosed with NAS after birth  The most frequently recommended practices were (1) prioritizing non-pharmacologic treatment, such as allowing the mother to reside with the infant during treatment, to facilitate the mother-infant bond; (2) educating mothers on prenatal care, treatment for NAS, and available resources for after an infant’s discharge; (3) educating health care providers on the stigma faced by women who use opioids during pregnancy and on how to screen for and treat NAS; and (4) using a protocol in a hospital or non-hospital setting for screening and treating infants with NAS  These recommended practices are described in more detail below  Volunteer programs to provide non- pharmacologic treatment for neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) Some stakeholders told us that some hospitals have established volunteer cuddler programs that train volunteers to help provide some of these non-pharmacologic treatments—-namely, swaddling, feeding, soothing, and coddling infants  However, health care providers at some facilities noted that volunteers are not necessarily available during late shifts  indicated that non-pharmacologic treatment may (1) facilitate the mother- infant bond, (2) reduce the severity of NAS symptoms, (3) reduce the need for pharmacologic treatment, and (4) reduce the length of an infant’s hospital stay  For example, two of the articles we reviewed noted that rooming-in has been shown to help decrease the need for pharmacologic treatment, the number of admissions to the NICU, and the length of an infant’s hospital stay  Additionally, 17 of the stakeholders we interviewed and nine articles we reviewed recommended that mothers be allowed to breastfeed while their infants are treated for NAS, as it helps to build a bond between the mother and infant  Most of these articles also noted that breastfeeding has been shown to reduce the severity of NAS  Educating mothers on prenatal care, treatment for NAS, and resources for after an infant’s hospital discharge  Most stakeholders we interviewed and several of the literature articles we reviewed recommended providing comprehensive, ongoing education to mothers on prenatal care and treatment for NAS and on the resources that are available after an infant’s discharge  (See text box below)  The stakeholders and literature indicated that this education may (1) facilitate a non-combative relationship between the mother and health care providers; (2) help to reassure and support the mother, who may feel responsible for the infant’s suffering, in addition to facilitating treatment of NAS; and (3) help the mother understand her infant’s behavior and develop greater confidence in her parenting skills  For example, one article noted that an infant’s withdrawal behavior, such as fisting, back arching, and jaw clenching, may be misinterpreted by the mother as dislike of touch, and that educating mothers on these behaviors can help alleviate feelings of guilt  Education for mothers on prenatal care, treatment for neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS), and resources for after an infant’s hospital discharge Explaining to the mother during the prenatal period what she can expect when the infant is born to help ensure she understands the effects of and treatment for NAS; Informing the mother about non-pharmacologic treatment techniques that can help reduce the severity of the infant’s NAS symptoms; Modeling good parenting skills, such as demonstrating how to comfort an infant who may be crying inconsolably for hours because of withdrawal; and Informing the mother about contraception for preventing future pregnancies  Educating health care providers on the stigma faced by women who use opioids during pregnancy, and how to screen for and treat NAS  Most stakeholders we interviewed and several of the literature articles we reviewed recommended educating health care providers, including providers who are not addiction specialists, on both the stigma faced by women who use opioids during pregnancy as well as on how to screen for and treat infants with NAS  The stakeholders and literature indicated that this education may: (1) improve care so that mothers with opioid use disorders feel more comfortable seeking and obtaining prenatal care, (2) help health care providers know how to recognize NAS symptoms to help ensure infants receive appropriate treatment, and (3) allow for more consistency among these providers in NAS screening and treatment  For example, 26 stakeholders told us that educating health care providers about stigma is important because provider attitudes affect how and if pregnant women obtain prenatal care and treatment for their opioid use disorders, which can affect the severity of NAS  Additionally, several articles we reviewed noted the importance of educating and training clinicians on how to administer the screening tools used to identify infants with NAS, which helps ensure infants are identified and receive optimal care  Using a protocol for screening and treating infants with NAS  While there is no single national standard of care for screening and treating NAS, most stakeholders we interviewed and several of the literature articles we reviewed recommended that hospital and non-hospital settings use a protocol to screen for and treat infants with NAS  The stakeholders and literature indicated that having a protocol can help: (1) identify infants at risk for NAS, (2) ensure that care is provided consistently, and (3) reduce the length of stay for infants receiving pharmacologic treatment  For example, the stakeholders we interviewed explained that a standard protocol also helps health care providers understand the tools used to assess the severity of NAS; know the types of medication used in treatment, including amounts and duration; and learn how to wean the infant off these medications  Similarly, one article we reviewed noted that infants who were treated at facilities that adopted standard treatment protocols experienced shorter durations of pharmacologic treatment compared with infants who were treated at facilities that did not use a standard protocol  Stakeholders we interviewed and literature we reviewed identified several challenges health care providers face in their efforts to address NAS  The most frequently cited challenges included (1) the use of multiple substances by pregnant women, which can exacerbate NAS; (2) the stigma faced by women who use opioids during pregnancy, which may affect whether they seek prenatal care to address NAS, among other things; (3) hospital staff burden and limited physical capacity to care for infants with NAS; (4) limited coordination of care for mothers and infants with NAS; and (5) gaps in research and data on NAS  These challenges are described in more detail below  The use of multiple substances by pregnant women, which can exacerbate NAS  Most stakeholders we interviewed and some of the literature we reviewed noted that the use of multiple substances by pregnant women, including opioids—referred to as maternal polysubstance use—can be a challenge, and some stated that the use of these substances can exacerbate NAS symptoms  According to the stakeholders, the substances can include methamphetamines, nicotine, alcohol, cocaine, marijuana, benzodiazepines, and Gabapentin  The stakeholders and literature indicated that maternal polysubstance use can lead to multiple conditions in the infant—such as prematurity or Hepatitis C—that can exacerbate NAS symptoms and prolong the length of an infant’s hospital stay  For example, one expert noted that many women with opioid use disorders are also heavy cigarette smokers, and the nicotine typically exacerbates NAS withdrawal symptoms  Additionally, officials from a hospital and non-hospital setting we visited told us that they had developed a separate protocol for treating infants exposed to multiple substances that includes the use of several medications to address the more severe NAS withdrawal symptoms  Stigma faced by women who use opioids which may affect whether they seek prenatal care to mitigate the severity of NAS, among other things  Most stakeholders we interviewed and several of the literature articles we reviewed noted that the stigma faced by pregnant women with opioid use disorders is a challenge in addressing NAS  The stakeholders and literature indicated that stigma may: (1) prevent pregnant women from seeking substance use treatment or prenatal care; (2) prevent them from disclosing their drug use to health care providers during pregnancy; or (3) cause the women to fear punitive effects, such as losing custody of their children, being detained, or losing their jobs  For example, officials from one perinatal quality collaborative told us that these women may fail to seek care because of stigma, which can ultimately make it more difficult for health care providers to build relationships with these women and identify infants at risk for NAS  Hospital staff burden and limited physical capacity to care for infants with NAS  According to most stakeholders we interviewed and some literature we reviewed, staff burden and a limited physical capacity at facilities can pose challenges for addressing NAS  The stakeholders and literature indicated that there is increased burden on staff to care for these infants because they require frequent, personal attention  For example, the stakeholders explained that a hospital may have to increase the number of nurses on duty in order to provide the care the infants need  Health care providers at one hospital said that nurses still struggle to care for infants with NAS, even with additional staff, because these infants are overstimulated, cry, and do not eat or sleep well  As a result, they require much time and one-on-one attention—including cuddling— from nurses  With respect to physical capacity, some stakeholders told us that limited physical capacity can make it difficult to (1) find space in the facility where the infants can be protected from high levels of stimulation and (2) facilitate the mother-infant bond  For example, some stakeholders told us that hospitals may not have a dedicated space for rooming-in, making it more difficult to facilitate bonding between mothers and infants  Limited coordination of care for mothers and infants with NAS  Most stakeholders we interviewed explained that the lack of coordination among health care providers and others for the mother and infant with NAS during the prenatal period, after the infant is born, and following the infant’s discharge can be a challenge  This coordination includes organizing patient care activities and sharing information among health care providers, social workers, and all other participants concerned with the mother and infant’s care  The stakeholders indicated that this lack of coordination can make it difficult for families to get the resources or support they need  (See text box below)  For example, some stakeholders told us that women may miss health care visits because of a lack of access to enabling services such as transportation or child care  Limited coordination of care for mothers and infants with neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) One expert told us that there is a disproportionate number of infants with NAS born in rural areas  Infants in these areas may be discharged from the hospital without many follow-up services, such as transportation and care coordination  Gaps in research and data on NAS  Some stakeholders we interviewed noted that gaps in research and data on NAS make it challenging to conduct research on the affected population and fully understand the magnitude of the problem  The stakeholders indicated that there are gaps in adequate research and data on (1) the different types of treatment approaches for NAS; (2) the extent and effects of maternal polysubstance use among pregnant women; (3) the long-term effects of prenatal drug exposure, including the effects seen in childhood and adolescence; and (4) the efforts to ensure more consistent provider diagnosis and screening, such as through an improved screening tool  For example, the stakeholders told us that gaps in research and data may contribute to a lack of a national standard of care for screening and treating infants with NAS  According to some stakeholders, this may result in missed opportunities for identifying and treating infants with NAS  Some stakeholders also told us that because of gaps in research on the long- term effects of prenatal drug exposure, there is limited information on the types of services that infants with NAS may need in early childhood  Additionally, some stakeholders noted they found that because NAS was not consistently diagnosed and coded in medical records using diagnosis codes, the condition may be under-reported, and researchers may be limited in their ability to track these infants  In May 2017, HHS published the Protecting Our Infants Act: Report to Congress, which—among other things—presents a strategy that identifies key recommendations related to addressing NAS  Specifically, HHS’s strategy—known as the Protecting Our Infants Act: Final Strategy—made 39 recommendations related to the prevention, treatment, and related services for NAS and prenatal opioid use  Of the 39 recommendations HHS made in its report, we found that 28 of them directly relate to the recommended practices or challenges that we describe above  For example, the Strategy recommends the following: promoting non-pharmacologic treatment, such as rooming-in; providing continuing medical education to health care providers for managing and treating infants with NAS, such as on NAS treatment protocols; conducting research on the long-term effects of prenatal drug exposure so that appropriate services can be developed for infants with NAS; and establishing clear definitions of NAS and standardizing the use of diagnosis codes to collect more meaningful and actionable data on NAS  According to the Strategy, the recommendations will be used to inform planning and policy across HHS  However, HHS does not include any information in the Strategy on how the department and other stakeholders will implement the recommendations  Specifically, HHS does not include in its Strategy the following: the explicit priorities among the numerous recommendations and associated efforts the department has initiated related to NAS; timeframes for partial or full implementation of these recommendations; clear roles and responsibilities for the recommendations, such as the extent to which HHS will need to rely on the medical community and federal and public stakeholders for implementation; and the methods that will be used to assess the department’s progress in implementing any of these recommendations  HHS officials told us that they expect to develop a separate plan to guide implementation of the recommendations and that efforts to develop this plan were likely to begin in July 2017  However, as of September 2017, HHS could not provide any documentation that it had started to develop this implementation plan or establish a timeline for completing the plan; nor was HHS able to provide any information on what the plan may include  Having such a plan in place is important to ensure priorities are known and responsibilities are clear so that agencies and stakeholders can take appropriate action  Federal internal control standards call for agencies to have defined objectives clearly as part of their objective- setting process and to assign roles and responsibilities for achieving these objectives  Objectives defined in specific and measurable terms allow for the assessment of performance toward achieving objectives  Furthermore, leading principles on sound planning we have identified in our prior work call for developing robust plans to achieve agency goals  Until HHS finalizes an implementation plan that includes specific priorities, timeframes, responsibilities, and methods for evaluating progress, it is at risk of not being able to provide reasonable assurance that it can successfully implement these recommendations in a timely manner and assess the effectiveness of its efforts  The rising opioid crisis has caused a significant increase in the number of infants born and diagnosed with NAS, a condition that affects infants and their families, hospitals, and other health care providers who are treating them  The increase in infants born with NAS also increases medical and other treatment costs experienced by the federal government and states  HHS recently published a strategy with key recommendations that have the potential to address some of the challenges related to treating NAS  However, HHS lacks a sound plan for implementing these recommendations  The absence of such planning raises questions about whether and when HHS will be able to implement these recommendations in a timely manner and be able to assess its progress  The Secretary of HHS should expeditiously develop a plan—that includes priorities, timeframes, clear roles and responsibilities, and methods for assessing progress—to effectively implement the NAS-related recommendations identified in the Protecting Our Infants Act: Final Strategy  (Recommendation 1) We provided a draft of this report to HHS for review, and HHS provided written comments, which are reprinted in appendix III  HHS also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate  In its written comments, HHS concurred with our recommendation to expeditiously take steps to address NAS and re-stated that its Strategy will be used to inform planning and policy across HHS  Specifically, HHS said that as part of its broader initiative to address the opioid crisis, the department will develop and implement a plan—that will include priorities, timeframes, roles and responsibilities, and methods for assessing progress—to address as appropriate and possible, the NAS-related recommendations in its Strategy  HHS also stated that full implementation would be contingent on funding, though it provided no information on how much funding was needed or how the funding would be used  Developing a plan to guide implementation can help the department determine what resources, if any, are needed to implement the recommendations in its Strategy  We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional addressees, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and other interested parties  In addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO’s website at http://www gao gov  If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-7114 or at iritanik@gao gov  Contact points for our Office of Congressional Relations and Office of Public Affairs can be found on the last page of this report  GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV  To address our first three audit objectives to describe care settings for treating infants with neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS), Medicaid payment for NAS treatment, and the recommended practices and challenges for addressing NAS, we selected 32 stakeholders based on their relevant experience to cover a range of perspectives on NAS  Specifically, these stakeholders included those from site visits we conducted to four states—Kentucky, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin  We selected these states because they met the following criteria: 1  the state had one of the top 10 highest incidence rates of NAS, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for 2013, the most recent year of publicly available data; 2  the state provided variation in United States geographic regions with high rates of NAS, as of 2012; 3  more than 40 percent of births in the state were financed by Medicaid, according to a 2016 Kaiser Family Foundation Medicaid Budget Survey; and 4  the state has a perinatal quality collaborative—a state or multi-state network of teams working to improve health outcomes for mothers and infants—with work related to NAS, which we identified through the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists  As part of these site visits, we interviewed (1) officials from each of the four states, including Medicaid officials, Maternal and Child Health Directors, and Women’s Services Coordinators; (2) representatives from the four state perinatal collaboratives; (3) health care providers (including physicians or nurses) from eight hospitals of varying levels of care (two hospitals in each state), which were selected based on recommendations from the state perinatal collaboratives because of the hospitals’ experience treating NAS; and (4) officials from a residential treatment facility in each of the four states that provide prenatal and postpartum care to mothers, which were also selected based on recommendations from the state perinatal collaboratives regarding the facilities’ experience with pregnant women with opioid use disorders and their infants with NAS  In addition to our site visits, we selected 12 additional stakeholders that included health care providers or administrators in non-hospital settings across the United States; officials from medical specialty societies; and experts  Specifically, we spoke with (1) health care providers (including physicians or nurses) or administrators from four non-hospital settings in Arizona, Ohio, Washington, and West Virginia, which were selected based on recommendations from stakeholders we interviewed and on the availability of such settings and their experience treating NAS; (2) health care providers from five medical specialty societies, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Society of Addiction Medicine, MedNAX (a network of physicians that specialize in neonatal care, including NAS treatment), and the National Association of Neonatal Nurses; and (3) three experts, including the authors of published literature we reviewed  We interviewed each of these 32 stakeholders and requested information from stakeholders about treating infants with NAS, including the utilization of available hospital and non-hospital care settings and associated costs of treatment services  For example, we requested protocols for screening and treating infants with NAS from hospital and non-hospital care settings  We reviewed available protocols provided by hospitals and a non-hospital care setting  We also reviewed available information reported by state officials, hospital and non-hospital providers, and state perinatal collaboratives on the utilization of hospital and non-hospital care settings, the facilities’ cost of treating NAS in hospital and non-hospital settings, the lengths of stay for treating infants with NAS, or the amount of Medicaid payments for treating infants with NAS  We discussed the information provided by stakeholders and examined the information for obvious errors  The information obtained from these stakeholders is not generalizable to other states or other hospital and non-hospital settings  In addition, in some cases, stakeholders used different methods to collect the information they reported, including information on Medicaid payments; as a result, the information reported by stakeholders is not directly comparable  Additionally, we interviewed officials from HHS, including those from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and HHS’s Behavioral Health Coordinating Council—which includes officials from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), the Indian Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Food and Drug Administration, among others—concerning NAS treatment services, settings of care, Medicaid payment, and recommended practices and challenges related to addressing NAS  We also conducted a comprehensive literature review to identify relevant studies on NAS published in peer-reviewed journals from January 2013 to December 2016  We searched more than 40 databases for research published in relevant peer-reviewed journals, including BIOSIS Previews®, Embase®, Gale Group Health Periodicals Database, MEDLINE®, and New England Journal of Medicine  Key search terms included “neonatal abstinence syndrome,” “neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome,” and “newborn infants ” After excluding duplicates, we identified and reviewed 325 abstracts  For those abstracts we found relevant, we obtained and reviewed the full study and selected 40 that were relevant to (1) hospital and non-hospital settings and related treatment services for infants with NAS; (2) the costs associated with treating infants with NAS, including Medicaid payments for services in these care settings; or (3) recommended practices and challenges for addressing NAS  We examined the methodologies for each of these studies and interviewed some of their authors  We determined that the studies were sufficiently reliable for our audit objectives  For a complete list of the studies we reviewed, see below  To examine our last audit objective on HHS’s strategy related to addressing NAS, we interviewed agency officials and reviewed agency documents on the agency’s efforts to develop a strategy  Specifically, we interviewed relevant officials from CMS and HHS’s Behavioral Health Coordinating Council concerning their efforts to develop a strategy related to addressing NAS  In reviewing relevant HHS documents, we focused on HHS’s Protecting Our Infants Act Report to Congress, which includes a strategy to address identified gaps, challenges, and recommendations related to NAS and prenatal opioid use  In addition, we reviewed the relevant standards for internal control in the federal government and the relevant criteria from GAO’s body of work on effectively managing performance under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993 and the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010  Allocco, E , M  Melker, F  Rojas-Miguez, C  Bradley, K  A  Hahn, and E  M  Wachman  “Comparison of Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome Manifestations in Preterm Versus Term Opioid-Exposed Infants ” Advances in Neonatal Care, vol  16, no 5 (2016)  Artigas, V  “Management of Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome in the Newborn Nursery ” Nursing for Women’s Health, vol  18, issue 6 (Dec  2014/Jan  2015)  Asti, L , J  S  Magers, E  Keels, J  Wispe, and R  E  McLead  “A Quality Improvement Project to Reduce Length of Stay for Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome ” Pediatrics, vol  135, no  6 (2015)  Busch, D  W  “Clinical management of the Breast-Feeding Mother-Infant Dyad in Recovery from Opioid Dependence ” Journal of Addictions Nursery, vol  27, no  2 (2016)  Casper, T  and M  Arbour  “Evidence-Based Nurse-Driven Interventions for the Care of Newborns with Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome ” Advances in Neonatal Care, vol  14, no  6 (2014)  Chau, K  T , J  Nguyen, B  Miladinovic, C  M  Lilly, T  L  Ashmeade, and M  Balakrishnan  “Outpatient Management of Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome: A Quality Improvement Project ” The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety, vol  42, no  11 (2016)  Cirillo, C  and K  Francis  “Does Breast Milk Affect Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome Severity, the Need for Pharmacologic Therapy, and Length of Stay for Infants of Mothers on Opioid Maintenance Therapy During Pregnancy?” Advances in Neonatal Care, vol  16, no 5 (2016)  Clark, L  and A  Rohan  “Identifying and Assessing the Substance- Exposed Infant ” MCN in Advance (2015)  Demirci, J  R , D  L  Bogen, and Y  Klionsky  “Breastfeeding and Methadone Therapy: The Maternal Experience ” Substance Abuse, vol  36, no  2 (2015)  Edwards, L  and L  F  Brown  “Nonpharmacologic Management of Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome: An Integrative Review ” Neonatal Network, vol  35, no  5 (2016)  Gregory, K  E  “Caring for the Infant with neonatal Abstinence Syndrome in a Community-Based Setting ” The Journal of Perinatal & Neonatal Nursing, (2014)  Grim, K , T  E  Harrison, and R  T  Wilder  “Management of Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome from Opioids ” Clinics in Perinatology, (2013)  Hahn, J , A  Lengerich, R  Byrd, R  Stoltz, J  Hench, S  Byrd, and C  Ford  “Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome: The Experience of Infant Massage ” Creative Nursing, vol  22, issue 1 (2016)  Hall, E  S , S  L  Wexelblatt, M  Crowley, J  L  Grow, L  R  Jasin, M  A  Klebanoff, R  E  McClead, J  Meinzen-Derr, V  K  Mohan, H  Stein, and M  C  Walsh  “A Multicenter Cohort Study of Treatments and Hospital Outcomes in Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome ” Pediatrics, vol  134, no  2 (2014)  Hall, E  S , S  L  Wexelblatt, M  Crowley, J  L  Grow, L  R  Jasin, M  A  Klebanoff, R  E  McClead, J  Meinzen-Derr, V  k  Mohan, H  Stein, and M  C  Walsh  “Implementation of a Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome Weaning Protocol: A Multicenter Cohort Study ” Pediatrics, vol  136, no  4 (2015)  Holmes, A  V , E  C  Atwood, B  Whalen, J  Beliveau, J  D  Jarvis, J  C  Matulis, and S  L  Ralston  “Rooming-In to Treat Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome: Improved Family-Centered Care at Lower Cost ” Pediatrics, vol  137, no  6 (2016)  Jones, H  E , K  Deppen, M  L  Hudak, L  Leffert, C  McClelland, L  Sahin, J  Starer, M  Terplan, J  M  Throrp Jr , J  Walsh, and A  A  Creanga  “Clinical Care for Opioid-Using Pregnant and Postpartum Women: The Role of Obstetric Providers ” American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, vol  210, issue 4 (2014)  Jones, H E , C  Seashore, E  Johnson, E  Horton, K E  O’Grady, K  Andringa, M  R  Grossman, B  Whalen, and A V  Holmes  “Brief Report: Psychometric Assessment of the Neonatal Abstinence Scoring System and the MOTHER NAS Scale ” American Journal on Addictions, (2016)  Kraft, W K , M  W  Stover, and J  M  Davis  “Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome: Pharmacologic Strategies for the Mother and Infant ” Seminars in Perinatology, vol  40, issue 3 (2016)  Krans, E  E , G  Cochran, and D  L  Bogen  “Caring for Opioid Dependent Pregnant Women: Prenatal and Postpartum Care Considerations ” Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol  58, no  2 (2015)  Lee, J , S  Hulman, M  Musci Jr , and E  Stang  “Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome: Influence of a Combined Inpatient/Outpatient Methadone Treatment Regimen on the Average Length of Stay of a Medicaid NICU Population ” Population Health Management, vol  18, no 5 (2015)  MacMullen, N  J , L  A  Dulski, and P  Blobaum  “Evidence-Based Interventions for Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome ” Pediatric Nursing, vol  40, no  4 (2014)  Maguire, D  J , “Mothers on Methadone: Care in the NICU ” Neonatal Network, vol  32, no  6 (2013)  Marcellus, L  “Supporting Women with Substance Use Issues: Trauma- Informed Care as a Foundation for Practice in the NICU ” Neonatal Network, vol  33, no 6 (2014)  McKeever, A  E , S  Spaeth-Brayton, and S  Sheerin  “The Role of Nurses in Comprehensive Care Management of Pregnant Women with Drug Addiction ” Nursing for Women’s Health, vol  18, no 4 (2014)  Meyer, M  and J  Phillips  “Caring for Pregnant Opioid Abusers in Vermont: A Potential Model for Non-Urban Areas ” Preventive Medicine, vol  80 (2015)  Newnam, K  M  “The Right Tool at the Right Time: Examining the Evidence Surrounding Measurement of Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome ” Advances in Neonatal Care, vol  14, no 3 (2014)  Orlando, S  “An Overview of Clinical Tools Used to Assess Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome ” Journal of Perinatal and Neonatal Nursing, vol  28, no 3 (2014)  Patrick, S W , M M  Davis, C U  Lehman, and W O  Cooper  “Increasing Incidence and Geographic Distribution of Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome: United States 2009 to 2012 ” Journal of Perinatology, vol  35 (2015)  Patrick, S W , H C  Kaplan, M  Passarella, M M  Davis, and S A  Lorch  “Variation in Treatment of Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome in U S  Children’s Hospitals, 2004-2011 ” Journal of Perinatology, vol  34, no  11 (2014)  Patrick, S W , J  Dudley, P R  Martin, F E  Harrell, M D  Warren, K E  Hartmann, E W  Ely, C G  Grijalva, and W O  Cooper  “Prescription Opioid Epidemic and Infant Outcomes ” Pediatrics, vol  135, no 5 (2015)  Patrick, S W , R  E  Schumacher, J  D  Horbar, M  E  Buus-Frank, E  M  Edwards, K  A  Morrow, K  R  Ferrelli, A  P  Picarillo, M  Gupta, and R  F  Soll  “Improving Care for Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome ” Pediatrics, vol  137, no  5 (2016)  Reece-Stremtan, S , and K  A  Marinelli  “ABM Clinical Protocol #21: Guidelines for Breastfeeding and the Drug-Dependent Woman, Revised 2015 ” Breastfeeding Medicine, vol  10, no 3 (2015)  Shaw, M  R , C  Lederhos, M  Haberman, D  Howell, S  Fleming, and J  Roll  “Nurses Perceptions of Caring for Childbearing Women Who Misuse Opioids ” The American Journal of Maternal-Child Nursing, vol  41, no  1 (2016)  Sublett, J  “Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome: Therapeutic Interventions ” The American Journal of Maternal-Child Nursing, vol  38, no  2 (2013)  Sutter, M  B , L  Leeman, and A  Hsi  “Neonatal Opioid Withdrawal Syndrome ” Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinics of North America, vol  41, issue 2 (2014)  Teague, A  H , A  J  Jnah, and D  Newberry  “Intraprofessional Excellence in Nursing: Collaborative Strategies for Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome ” Neonatal Network, vol  34, no 6 (2015)  Terplan, M , A  Kennedy-Hendricks, and M  S  Chisolm  “Prenatal Substance Use: Exploring Assumptions of Maternal Unfitness ” Substance Abuse: Research and Treatment (2015)  Tolia, V  N , S  W  Patrick, M  M  Bennett, K  Murthy, J  Sousa, P  B  Smith, R  H  Clark, and A  R  Spitzer  “Increasing Incidence of the Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome in U S  Neonatal ICUs ” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol  372, no  22 (2015)  Wiles, J  R , B  Isemann, L  P  Ward, A  A  Vinks, and H  Akinbi  “Current Management of Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome Secondary to Intrauterine Opioid Exposure ” Journal of Pediatrics, vol  165, no  3 (2014)  The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has published several guidance and educational resources related to neonatal abstinence syndrome and prenatal opioid use  According to HHS, these documents serve as tools to help stakeholders, including state entities and health care providers, and policymakers  Examples of these resources are listed below  Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Pregnancy and Opioid Medications Factsheet, accessed June 8, 2017, https://www cdc gov/drugoverdose/pdf/pregnancy_opioid_pain_factsheet- a pdf  CDC Public Health Grand Rounds, Primary Prevention and Public Strategies to Prevent Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome (Atlanta, GA: CDC, last updated August 18, 2016), accessed July 19, 2017, https://www cdc gov/cdcgrandrounds/archives/2016/August2016 htm  CDC, Treating for Two: Safer Medication Use in Pregnancy Initiative (Atlanta, GA: CDC, last updated May 5, 2016), accessed June 8, 2017, https://www cdc gov/pregnancy/meds/treatingfortwo  Department of Health and Human Services, Opioids: The Prescription Drug & Heroin Overdose Epidemic (Washington, D C , last reviewed March 24, 2016), accessed June 8, 2017, https://www hhs gov/opioids/index html  Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Substance Abuse and Child Welfare, Resources & Topics on Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome, accessed June 8, 2017, https://www ncsacw samhsa gov/resources/opioid-use-disorders-and-me dication-assisted-treatment/neonatal-abstinence-syndrome aspx  Jean Y  Ko  et al , “CDC Grand Rounds: Public Health Strategies to Prevent Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, March 10, 2017), accessed June 8, 2017, https://www cdc gov/mmwr/volumes/66/wr/mm6609a2 htm  National Institute on Drug Abuse, Principles of Substance Abuse Prevention for Early Childhood: A Research Based Guide (last updated March 2016), accessed June 8, 2017, https://www drugabuse gov/publications/principles-substance-abuse-prev ention-early-childhood/principles-substance-abuse-prevention-early-child hood  National Institute on Drug Abuse, Substance Use in Women (last updated September 2016), accessed June 8, 2017, https://www drugabuse gov/publications/research-reports/substance-use-i n-women/summary  Reddy, Uma M  J  M  Davis, Z  Ren, and M  F  Greene, “Opioid Use in Pregnancy, Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome, and Childhood Outcomes: Executive Summary of a Joint Workshop ” Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol  130, issue 1 (July 2017)  Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, A Collaborative Approach to the Treatment of Pregnant Women with Opioid Use Disorders  HHS Publications No  (SMA) 16-4978  Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2016  Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, “Advancing the Care of Pregnant and Parenting Women With Opioid Use Disorder and Their Infants: A Foundation for Clinical Guidance,” Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2016  Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, “Methadone Treatment for Pregnant Women ” HHS Publication No  (SMA) 14-4124 (Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, revised 2014)  In addition to the contact named above, Rashmi Agarwal, Assistant Director; Amy Leone, Analyst-in-Charge; Melissa Duong; Krister Friday; Jacquelyn Hamilton; Giao N  Nguyen; and Laurie Pachter made key contributions to this report  Drug Control Policy: Information on Status of Federal Efforts and Key Issues for Preventing Illicit Drug Use  GAO-17-766T  Washington, D C : July 26, 2017  Medicaid Expansion: Behavioral Health Treatment Use in Selected States in 2014  GAO-17-529  Washington, D C : July 21, 2017  VA Health Care: Actions Needed to Ensure Medical Facility Controlled Substance Inspection Programs Meet Agency Requirements  GAO-17-242  Washington, D C : February 15, 2017  Highlights of a Forum: Preventing Illicit Drug Use  GAO-17-146SP  Washington, D C : November 14, 2016  Opioid Addiction: Laws, Regulations, and Other Factors Can Affect Medication-Assisted Treatment Access  GAO-16-833  Washington, D C : September 27, 2016  Drug Enforcement Administration: Additional Actions Needed to Address Prior GAO Recommendations  GAO-16-737T  Washington, D C : June 22, 2016  Office of National Drug Control Policy: Progress toward Some National Drug Control Strategy Goals, but None Have Been Fully Achieved  GAO-16-660T  Washington, D C : May 17, 2016  Veterans Justice Outreach Program: VA Could Improve Management by Establishing Performance Measures and Fully Assessing Risks  GAO-16-393  Washington, D C : April 28, 2016  State Marijuana Legalization: DOJ Should Document Its Approach to Monitoring the Effects of Legalization  GAO-16-1  Washington, D C : December 30, 2015  Prescription Drugs: More DEA Information about Registrants’ Controlled Substances Roles Could Improve Their Understanding and Help Ensure Access  GAO-15-471  Washington, D C : June 25, 2015  Mental Health: Better Documentation Needed to Oversee Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Grantees  GAO-15-405  Washington, D C : May 12, 2015  Prenatal Drug Use and Newborn Health: Federal Efforts Need Better Planning and Coordination  GAO-15-203  Washington, D C : February 10, 2015  Medicare Program Integrity: CMS Pursues Many Practices to Address Prescription Drug Fraud, Waste, and Abuse  GAO-15-66  Washington, D C : October 24, 2014  Office of National Drug Control Policy: Office Could Better Identify Opportunities to Increase Program Coordination  GAO-13-333  Washington D C : March 26, 2013  Child Welfare: States Use Flexible Federal Funds, But Struggle to Meet Service Needs  GAO-13-170  Washington, D C : January 30, 2013 


Report 2:  Second, it allowed states to drug test UC applicants for whom suitable work (as defined under state law) is available only in an occupation that regularly conducts drug testing, to be determined under new regulations issued by the Secretary of Labor  As required by  P L  112-96 , on August 1, 2016, DOL promulgated  20 C F R  Part 620 ,  a new rule to implement the provisions of the law relating to the drug testing of UC applicants for whom suitable work (as defined under state law) is available only in an occupation that regularly conducts drug testing  Amid concerns voiced by stakeholders about the 2016 DOL rule, Congress repealed this UC drug testing rule using the Congressional Review Act (CRA) via H J Res  42 / P L  115-17   On November 5, 2018, DOL published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to reissue the rule identifying occupations that regularly conduct drug testing for purposes of Section 2105 of  P L  112-96   The CRA prohibits an agency from reissuing the rule in "substantially the same form" or issuing a "new rule that is substantially the same" as the disapproved rule, "unless the reissued or new rule is specifically authorized by a law enacted after the date of the joint resolution disapproving the original rule " Notably, this is the first time an agency has proposed to reissue a rule after the original version was disapproved under the CRA  According to the 2018 NPRM, DOL has addressed the reissue requirements of the CRA by proposing a substantially different and more flexible approach to the statutory requirements than the 2016 Rule, enabling states to enact legislation to require drug testing for a far larger group of UC applicants than the previous rule permitted  This flexibility is intended to respect the diversity of states' economies and the different roles played by employment drug testing in those economies  Comments on the proposed 2018 rule were required to be submitted by January 4, 2019  On January 16, 2019, Senator Richard Blumenthal introduced S  165 , the Federal Unemployment Compensation Equity Act of 2019  This proposal would amend UCFE law and create a new permanent UCFE eligibility category for excepted federal employees who are unpaid but required to work during a government shutdown due to a lapse in appropriations  During any shutdown beginning on or after December 22, 2018, all excepted federal workers would be deemed eligible for UCFE benefits  Additionally, these employees would not be subject to a one-week waiting period (otherwise often required under state laws) before UCFE benefits were to be paid  On January 23, 2019, Representative Debbie Dingell introduced H R  725 , the Pay Federal Workers Act  This proposal would also provide UCFE benefits in a similar manner to S  165 , including permanently amending 5 U S C  Chapter 85 to provide federal authority for these benefits  On January 23, 2019, Representative Anthony Brown introduced H R  720   This proposal would deem excepted federal employees during a government shutdown to be eligible for UCFE during FY2019  The authority to provide UCFE to these excepted workers would expire at the end of FY2019  On February 8, 2019, Representative Katie Hill introduced H R  1117 , the Shutdown Fairness Act of 2019  This proposal would deem excepted federal employees and unpaid military servicemembers during a government shutdown to be eligible for UCFE or UCX during FY2019  The authority to provide UCFE to these excepted workers would expire at the end of FY2019  On January 15, 2019, Senator Ron Wyden and Representative Danny Davis introduced S  136 and H R  556 , the Economic Ladders to End Volatility and Advance Training and Employment Act of 2019 (the ELEVATE Act)   Among other provisions, this proposal would establish new self-employment and relocation assistance benefits for unemployed workers to be administered by the Social Security Administration, in consultation with DOL  The self-employment assistance benefits would provide weekly income replacement (half of prior earnings up to the maximum weekly benefit amount in the state) for up to of 26 weeks to individuals  They would be available to individuals who are (1) eligible for any type of UI benefit; or ineligible for any type of UI benefit, but became involuntarily unemployed over the previous 12 weeks; or were previously self-employed, but lost a hiring contract, and (2) have a viable business plan approved by their state department of labor, workforce board, or the Small Business Administration  Additionally, Section 3 of S  136 and H R  556 would provide up to $2,000 (or more, depending on family size) to fund to up to 90% of certain relocation expenses for eligible individuals and their families  In order to be eligible for this relocation assistance, an individual must be a (1) dislocated worker, (2) long-term unemployed individual, or (3) underemployed individual and also have filed a claim for relocation assistance and obtained suitable work with an expectation of obtaining such work in a new geographic region  On March 7, 2019, Representative Karen Bass introduced H R  1585 , the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2019  Among many other provisions, Section 703 of H R  1585 would require states to consider an individual who quit employment because of sexual harassment, domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking to be eligible for UC benefits  The House passed H R  1585 on April 4, 2019  On March 14, 2019, Representative Stephanie Murphy introduced H R  1759 , the Building on Reemployment Improvements to Deliver Good Employment (BRIDGE) for Workers Act  This proposal would extend eligibility to any claimant of unemployment benefits, including those profiled as likely to exhaust benefits (rather than limiting eligibility to those who were profiled as likely to exhaust benefits)  The House passed H R  1759 on April 9, 2019  The Extended Benefit (EB) program was established by the Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970 (EUCA; P L  91-373) (26 U S C  §3304, note)  EUCA may extend receipt of unemployment benefits (extended benefits) at the state level if certain economic conditions exist within the state  As of the date of this publication, EB is not active in any state  Extended Benefit Triggers The EB program is triggered when a state's insured unemployment rate (IUR) or total unemployment rate (TUR) reaches certain levels  All states must pay up to 13 weeks of EB if the IUR for the previous 13 weeks is at least 5% and is 120% of the average of the rates for the same 13-week period in each of the two previous years  States may choose to enact two other optional thresholds  (States may choose one, two, or none ) If the state has chosen one or more of the EB trigger options, it would provide the following: Option 1—up to an additional 13 weeks of benefits if the state's IUR is at least 6%, regardless of previous years' averages  Option 2—up to an additional 13 weeks of benefits if the state's TUR is at least 6 5% and is at least 110% of the state's average TUR for the same 13 weeks in either of the previous two years; up to an additional 20 weeks of benefits if the state's TUR is at least 8% and is at least 110% of the state's average TUR for the same 13 weeks in either of the previous two years  EB benefits are not "grandfathered" (phased out) when a state triggers "off" the program  When a state triggers "off" of an EB period, all EB benefit payments in the state cease immediately regardless of individual entitlement  The EB benefit amount is equal to the eligible individual's weekly regular UC benefits  Under permanent law, FUTA finances half (50%) of the EB payments and 100% of EB administrative costs  States fund the other half (50%) of EB benefit costs through their SUTA  On March 7, 2019, Representative Karen Bass introduced H R  1585 , the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2019  Among many other provisions, Section 703 of H R  1585 would require states to consider an individual who quit employment because of sexual harassment, domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking to be eligible for UC benefits  The House passed H R  1585 on April 4, 2019  On March 14, 2019, Representative Stephanie Murphy introduced H R  1759 , the Building on Reemployment Improvements to Deliver Good Employment (BRIDGE) for Workers Act  This proposal would extend eligibility to any claimant of unemployment benefits, including those profiled as likely to exhaust benefits (rather than limiting eligibility to those who were profiled as likely to exhaust benefits)  The House passed H R  1759 on April 9, 2019 

ground_truth: As the opioid crisis has increased in recent years, so has the number of pregnant women who use opioids, which can result in NAS. A recent peer-reviewed study found that cases of NAS have grown nearly five-fold between 2000 and 2012 and that most infants with NAS are covered under Medicaid. The Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2016 includes a provision for GAO to examine NAS in the United States and related treatment services covered under Medicaid. This report 1) describes the hospital and non-hospital settings for treating infants with NAS and how Medicaid pays for services, 2) describes recommended practices and challenges for addressing NAS, and 3) examines HHS's strategy for addressing NAS. GAO reviewed HHS documentation and interviewed HHS officials. GAO also conducted site visits to four states—Kentucky, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin—selected based on several factors, including incidence rates of NAS and geographic variation. GAO interviewed stakeholders from 32 organizations, including health care providers and state officials in the selected states. The prenatal use of opioids or other drugs can produce a withdrawal condition in newborns known as neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS). Health care providers, state officials, and other stakeholders told GAO that most infants with NAS are treated in the hospital—such as in a neonatal intensive care unit—though some may be referred to a non-hospital setting—such as a neonatal withdrawal center with nursery rooms—to complete their treatment. The table below provides more information on settings for treating infants with NAS and on how Medicaid pays for services in these settings. According to stakeholders GAO interviewed and literature reviewed, there are several recommended practices and challenges associated with addressing NAS. The most frequently recommended practices included prioritizing non-pharmacologic treatment to infants—treatment that does not involve medications—such as allowing the mother to reside with the infant during treatment; educating mothers and health care providers on treatment of NAS, among other things; and using a protocol in the hospital or non-hospital setting for screening and treating infants with NAS. The most frequently cited challenges included the maternal use of multiple drugs—or polysubstance use—as it can exacerbate NAS symptoms; stigma faced by pregnant women who use opioids; hospital staff burden and limited physical capacity to care for infants with NAS; limited coordination of care for mothers and infants with NAS; and gaps in research and data on NAS, such as research on the long-term effects of the condition. In May 2017, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published a strategy document that makes key recommendations to address NAS. The Strategy recommends, for example, that health care providers receive continuing education on managing and treating infants with NAS and promote non-pharmacologic treatment. According to HHS officials, these recommendations will inform planning and policy across the department. However, HHS has yet to determine how and when the recommendations will be implemented, including establishing priorities; the roles and responsibilities of other federal, state, and public stakeholders; implementation timeframes; and methods for assessing progress. HHS officials told GAO that they expect to develop an implementation plan sometime in 2017 but had no timeline for doing so. Without a plan that clearly specifies how HHS will implement the Strategy and assess its progress, the department increases the risk that its recommendations for addressing NAS will not be implemented. HHS should expeditiously develop a plan for implementing the recommendations included in its strategy related to addressing NAS. HHS concurred that it should expeditiously address NAS, but noted implementation of the strategy is contingent on funding.

prompt_front: You are given two reports by the government agency.



Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 2.



Report 2: CAPTA, originally enacted in 1974, provides formula grants to states to improve child protective service systems  ACF administers the CAPTA state grant program and provides guidance and oversight to states  In fiscal year 2017, Congress provided about $25 million for the program  As part of the CAPTA state grant program, states are required to submit to the Secretary of HHS plans outlining how they intend to use CAPTA funds to improve their child protective service systems, among other things  State plans remain in effect for the duration of states’ participation in the grant program; if modifications are needed, these must be submitted  In addition to state plans, states are required to submit to HHS an annual data report providing information on agency decisions made in response to referrals of child abuse and neglect, as well as preventive services provided to families, among other things  CAPTA requires state governors to provide a series of assurances in their state plans  Since 2003, governors have had to provide an assurance that states have in effect and are enforcing a state law or program that includes policies and procedures to address the needs of infants affected by prenatal substance abuse or displaying withdrawal symptoms at birth  Under states’ policies and procedures, health care providers are required to notify CPS of such infants  Governors must also assure that a plan of safe care is developed for these infants  Although CAPTA does not define “plans of safe care,” for the purposes of this report we define them as plans to ensure the safety and well-being of infants who are born substance-affected  The Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2016 (CARA) amended certain provisions of CAPTA that relate to substance-affected infants (see table 1)  In addition to provisions related to substance-affected infants, CAPTA also requires governors to provide an assurance to the Secretary of HHS that they have provisions or procedures for certain individuals to report known and suspected instances of child abuse and neglect, which are generally referred to as mandated reporter laws  All states have statutes identifying persons who are required to report suspected child maltreatment to an appropriate agency, such as child protective services, a law enforcement agency, or a state’s toll-free child abuse reporting hotline, according to a 2016 HHS report  Mandatory reporters often include social workers; teachers, principals, and other school personnel; physicians, nurses, and other health care workers; and counselors, therapists, and other mental health professionals  The circumstances under which a mandatory reporter must make a report vary from state to state, according to HHS  Typically, a report must be made when the reporter, in his or her official capacity, suspects or has reason to believe that a child has been abused or neglected  State laws require mandatory reporters to report the facts and circumstances that led them to suspect that a child has been abused or neglected; they do not have the burden of providing proof that abuse or neglect has occurred  CPS, a division within state and local social services, is generally the agency that conducts an initial assessment or investigation of reports of child abuse and neglect  It also offers services to families and children where maltreatment has occurred or is likely to occur  Typically, when CPS agencies receive a notification about suspected child abuse, including a substance-affected infant, social workers review the referral to determine if it should be accepted for investigation  During an investigation, social workers determine, among other things, the nature, extent, and cause of abuse or neglect, and identify the person responsible for the maltreatment  An investigation may include the following: a visit to the hospital and/or infant’s home; observation of the infant; risk and safety assessments; evaluation of the home environment; background checks, including criminal record checks of adults that reside with the family; as well as mental health evaluations  If social workers determine that there is enough evidence to suggest that an infant is at risk for harm or neglect, or that abuse or neglect occurred, the case is substantiated  Once a case is substantiated, CPS develops a case plan with the family outlining objectives and tasks for the family  Among other things, CPS may refer the family to services in the community, such as early intervention services, parenting classes, and substance abuse treatment  Generally, CPS attempts to strengthen the family and alleviate the problems which led to maltreatment  If the case is not substantiated, but there is genuine concern about the child’s situation and the family may benefit from services in the community, the case may be closed and/or the family may be referred for voluntary services (see figure 1)  Prenatal maternal opioid use has increased considerably in recent years  This increase has contributed to a significant rise in the rate of NAS  According to a recent study, the rate of NAS has increased from 1 2 per 1,000 hospital births in 2000 to 5 8 per 1,000 hospital births in 2012, reaching a total of 21,732 infants diagnosed with NAS  NAS occurs with considerable variability  According to a recent HHS report, various studies indicate that anywhere from 55 to 94 percent of infants exposed to opioids in-utero exhibit some degree of symptoms  Typically, infants with NAS develop symptoms within 72 hours of birth, but may develop symptoms within the first 2 weeks of life, including after hospital discharge  For the purpose of this report, infants exposed to opioids ingested by mothers in utero are considered substance-exposed, and those born negatively affected by exposure or experiencing withdrawal symptoms are considered substance-affected  According to experts, NAS is considered an expected and treatable result of women’s prenatal opioid use  Opioid exposure during pregnancy may occur for the following reasons: Women receiving pain medication with a prescription under the care of a physician  Medications can include fentanyl and oxycodone  Women under the care of a physician and undergoing treatment for an opioid use disorder with medications, such as methadone or buprenorphine  This type of treatment is generally referred to as medication-assisted treatment (MAT)  Women misusing opioid pain medications with or without a prescription (such as using without a prescription, using a different dosage than prescribed, or continuing to use a drug when no longer needed for pain)  Women using or abusing illicit opioid, such as heroin  In response to our survey, 42 states reported that state policies and procedures require health care providers to notify CPS about substance- affected infants  Some states reported that they explicitly require health care providers to notify CPS of substance-affected infants  For example, Wisconsin reported that under its state law if tests indicate that infants have controlled substances or controlled substance analogs in their bodily fluids, the health care provider shall report the occurrence of that condition to CPS  Others reported that the requirement is met by their states’ mandated reporter law—whereby people in certain positions, including health care providers, are required to notify CPS about substance-affected infants, similar to the manner in which other mandatory reporters, like school teachers, day care personnel, and social workers are required to report other instances of child abuse and neglect  For example, Kentucky statute requires that “any person who knows or has reasonable cause to believe that a child is dependent, neglected, or abused shall immediately” make a report to the police or CPS  The statutory definition for an abused or neglected child in Kentucky includes situations where a child’s health or welfare is harmed or threatened with harm because of parental incapacity due to alcohol and other drug abuse  Of the 42 states that require health care providers to notify CPS of substance-affected infants, 21 reported that notification is required for infants affected by both illegal and legal use of opioids  For example, in Massachusetts health care providers are required to notify CPS orally and, in writing within 48 hours, about substance-affected infants physically dependent on drugs, even if the drugs were legally obtained and the mother is under the care of a prescribing medical professional  Sixteen of the 42 states reported that health care providers are required to notify CPS of infants affected only by the illegal use of opioids, and five of the 42 states reported that they did not know if health care providers were required to notify CPS of infants affected by the illegal and legal use of opioids  The other eight states reported that although they did not have policies and procedures that require health care providers to notify CPS about substance-affected infants, they have laws or policies that encourage notification  Specifically, in written responses to our survey: Two states reported that under their state mandated reporter laws health care providers are encouraged, but not required, to notify CPS about substance-affected infants  Four states reported that they are working to amend their states’ policies and procedures to require that health care providers refer substance-affected infants to CPS  Another state reported that it encourages the notification from health care providers, but has not sought legislation to require health care providers to report substance-affected infants to CPS because of concerns that any laws that criminalize prenatal substance use would further deter substance-using pregnant women from seeking prenatal care  The state’s law requires all hospital personnel who suspect abuse and neglect or observe conditions that are likely to result in abuse or neglect to notify CPS  One state reported that all persons, including health care providers, are required to report child abuse and neglect, but reporting depends on whether a hospital’s policy indicates substance abuse is child abuse or neglect  Further, the state CPS director reported collaboration with the health care community on reporting substance exposed infants to its child abuse hotline  Although one state reported in our survey that it does not require or encourage health care providers to notify CPS about substance-affected infants, in an interview, state officials explained that its policy requires that health care providers notify CPS if, through an assessment, they conclude that infants are at risk for abuse and neglect  Under the state’s law, health care providers in each county are required to assess the needs of mothers and substance-affected infants using a protocol established by county health departments, CPS agencies, and hospitals  State officials told us that under the state’s law, the birth of a substance- affected infant is not in and of itself a sufficient basis for reporting child abuse or neglect  In addition to having policies and procedures regarding the reporting of substance-affected infants, in written responses to our survey some states reported providing training and guidance to support the efforts of health care providers to notify CPS about these infants  Three states reported that they offer mandatory reporter training to inform health care providers that they are obligated to notify CPS about substance-affected infants  Another state reported that its Department of Human Services developed a guide for mandated reporters that discusses what needs to be reported and where to make reports  Also, one state reported that it sent a formal letter to its state hospital association about how to report substance-affected infants to CPS  This state also sent a memo to its CPS county directors instructing them to contact their local health care providers on the importance of reporting substance-affected infants to CPS and the process for doing so  In addition, during our Massachusetts site visit, officials shared with us a memo that was sent to mandated reporters, community partners, and other stakeholders that offered guidance on when to file a report about substance-exposed infants  Further, local CPS staff at one Massachusetts field office told us that upon request they provide mandated reporter training to health care providers  Despite these policies, procedures, and guidance, in written responses to our survey, a few states reported concerns about requiring health care providers to notify CPS about substance-affected infants and the definition of substance-affected  All of the hospitals that we visited have policies consistent with their state’s law that require that health care providers, primarily hospital social workers, to notify CPS about substance-affected infants  However, one state reported that some medical personnel have been reluctant to report some infants that are positive for illegal and legal substances due to fears of mothers being arrested  Another state reported that stakeholders are concerned that having to notify CPS about substance-affected infants will have a chilling effect on the willingness of pregnant women who use substances to be honest with providers and seek the help and support they need and deserve  According to one state, there is often an inherent resistance to contacting CPS in these cases as health care providers tend to view child welfare involvement as punitive rather than a potential resource for the family  In addition, three states reported in written responses to our survey challenges understanding how to define terms, such as substance- affected, under CAPTA  For example, the Pennsylvania CPS director expressed concerns during our site visit, suggesting that CAPTA raises many unanswered questions, such as (1) if “affected by substances” means at-risk of being or physically affected by substances, (2) what policies relating to substance-affected infants should look like and include, and (3) whether “affected by substances” should include women who are under the care of health care or treatment providers and taking their medications as prescribed  A Kentucky public health official told us that a drug test, or whether the infant is affected by legal or illegal substances, should not be the sole factor in determining CPS’ involvement with a family  Rather, a holistic view of the family, whether the substance prohibits the mother’s ability to care for her child, and any risk factors present that places the infant at risk should also be considered  According to officials, an infant that is exposed to substances, but has not been affected by the substance, can still be at risk for child abuse and neglect  In response to our survey, 46 states reported that they have policies and procedures for deciding which notifications about substance-affected infants are accepted for investigation  Seventeen of those states reported that all notifications of substance-affected infants are accepted for investigation, regardless of the circumstances  The remaining 29 states reported that they apply specific criteria to determine if children who present as substance-affected are accepted for investigation by CPS  Several states reported in written responses to our survey that they base their criteria for accepting notifications on the infant’s safety  For these states, drug exposure does not by itself indicate that an infant’s safety is at risk  For example, one state explained that in determining a child’s safety risk, staff evaluate a number of factors including the history of the family; the family’s presentation at the birthing hospital (appearance of chaotic behavior, suspected intoxication of adults, lack of appropriate concern or bonding with the infant); the presentation of the infant’s physical condition; the results of any testing of parent or child (blood, urine, etc ); discrepancies identified in the parent’s representation of their substance use or substance use treatment; and any other concerns noted by the reporting source  Other states reported that their criteria for accepting notifications for investigation are based on the degree or type of drug exposure in question  For example, one state reported that its policy directs CPS agencies to accept notifications for investigation when a parent has used illegal substances or non-medical use of prescribed medication during the last trimester of pregnancy  Another state reported that it will accept notifications for investigation if the infant is born with a positive toxicology or is experiencing drug withdrawal, or if the mother tests positive for substances  A few states reported using both risk to the safety of infants as well as degree or type of drug as their criteria for accepting notifications  For example, one state reported that it considers factors, such as the type of drug, the parent’s ability to care for the child, addiction history, and the parent’s readiness and preparation to care for the infant  In follow-up correspondences with states that reported that they do not have policies and procedures to decide whether to accept for investigation notices about substance-affected infants, one state reported that decisions are made on a case-by-case basis  A few states reported that after receiving notifications about substance- affected infants, CPS agencies may decide to opt out of investigating some families, referred to as “screening out” families  For example, in Massachusetts, CPS can “screen out” referrals of mothers if the only substance affecting the infants was used by the mothers as prescribed by their physician  In these instances, when CPS in Massachusetts is notified by the hospital about an infant, the screener gathers information from the caller and consults with a supervisor to determine whether the referral should be accepted for investigation or screened out  If the mother is on methadone, for example, but is involved with services and is in a treatment plan, CPS verifies with medical or other qualified providers that the mother used the drug as part of substance abuse or medical treatment as authorized  Additionally, CPS confirms that there are no other concerns of child abuse and/or neglect  If CPS officials in Massachusetts are unable to collect all the information that they need to screen out families, for example when a mother does not sign a release allowing CPS officials to speak with her health care providers, notifications about substance-affected infants are accepted for investigation  In response to our survey, 49 states reported that their CPS agency has policies to develop a plan to ensure the safety and well-being of substance-affected infants who meet the state’s criteria for investigation  Two states reported that CPS staff are not required to develop such a plan, even if a notification is accepted for an investigation or an assessment  For purposes of this report, we are defining a plan of safe care as a plan to ensure the safety and well-being of the infant  States’ approaches to identifying children and families who will receive a plan of safe care generally fall into two categories: 38 states reported that CPS is required to develop a plan of safe care for all notifications of substance-affected infants that are accepted for investigation, including those that are not substantiated  11 states reported that CPS staff are required to develop a plan of safe care only in those instances where an investigation substantiates the notification or uncovers an unmet need or present or emerging danger  For example, local Pennsylvania CPS officials told us that they only develop plans when there is a safety threat or other concern about the infant  Most states reported that after a notification of a substance-affected infant is accepted for investigation, CPS always conducts a needs assessment for the infant and caregivers  For example, one local CPS office that we visited told us that social workers assess risk to and safety of infants, their function (development, age appropriate behavior, etc ), and environment  In addition, workers assess the caregiver’s ability to parent and employment status, as well as housing  The assessments conducted as part of the investigation inform the development of plans of safe care, as well as decisions about the removal of infants from the home  Among the 49 states that reported that plans of safe care are developed for all or some substance-affected infants, 47 reported that these plans either always or sometimes address infants’ safety needs  Plans also address other needs, such as infants’ immediate medical and longer-term developmental needs, as well as caregiver’s substance use treatment needs  See figure 2 for the number of states whose plans of safe care address various issues facing the infant and parent  In written responses to our survey and during our site visits, officials reported that plans of safe care and referrals for services included in the plans are individualized based on the infant and family’s needs  For example, Massachusetts state CPS officials told us that plans of safe care are developed for each family based on the information that staff collect from the safety, risk, and family assessments, as well as information collected from individuals who may have knowledge that would inform the family assessments, such as medical and treatment providers, and family members  Kentucky state CPS officials told us that the local organizations and service providers that they collaborate with to develop the plan of safe care also vary based on the family’s needs  For example, Kentucky will only collaborate with substance use treatment providers to develop the plan of safe care when families have substance use disorders  Similarly, during our site visits, officials from two states told us that the decision to place an infant in foster care is based on the individualized needs of the infant and caregiver  For example, Massachusetts state officials told us that their decision to remove a baby from the home depends on a myriad of factors and is determined on a case-by-case basis  Officials explained that if a mother is discharged from the hospital and begins using drugs again and does not have adequate supports in place to care for her baby, CPS may decide to place the infant in foster care  However, if a mother has existing support systems in place to mitigate safety risks, CPS may decide to keep the baby in the home  In our survey, all 51 states reported that their agencies either always or sometimes refer parents or caregivers to substance use treatment programs, and most states reported that they always or sometimes refer parents or caregivers to parenting classes or programs (49), and other supportive services (49)  CPS officials in each of the three states that we visited told us that their plans of safe care include referrals to address not only the immediate needs of the infants, but also the needs of the parent or caregiver  For example, officials from a local Kentucky CPS agency told us that staff refer mothers of substance-exposed infants to a program called Sobriety Treatment and Recovery Team (START)  START is comprised of a social worker and a peer support mentor who has at least 3 years of sobriety, previous involvement with CPS, and was successfully able to regain or keep custody of her own children  According to officials, the START program has been able to provide participants with quick access to substance use disorder treatment  Officials from a Massachusetts local CPS agency told us that one of the services that they provide to parents of substance-affected infants is a parent aide who can help monitor how the parent is caring for the infant, such as administering the infant’s medications appropriately and ensuring the parent is not abusing the infant’s drugs  In addition, a parent aide can provide emotional support and help parents adjust after the infant is discharged from the hospital  Kentucky officials noted the effect that a healthy caregiver has on the outcome of the infant and emphasized that a baby cannot be healthy if the mother is not  Kentucky CPS officials said that they have found that the earlier caregivers enter treatment, the better the outcomes are for mothers and babies  According to Kentucky officials, parents who participate in the START program are less likely to have their child placed in foster care  Officials from the states that we visited told us that developing and monitoring plans of safe care under CAPTA’s new requirements for infants affected by their mother’s legal use of prescribed medications, as well as plans for these infants’ caregivers, present challenges  Specifically, officials reported concerns about increased caseloads, particularly if they are required to provide plans and services for infants at low risk of abuse or neglect, the content of plans, and confidentiality restrictions  Thirty-one of 50 states reported on our survey that staffing or resource limitations was very or extremely challenging, and CPS officials across the 3 states we visited said that the opioid epidemic has directly contributed to increased caseloads  According to a local Kentucky CPS office, the number of babies that met criteria for being accepted for investigation has increased about 55 percent from 2011 to 2016, while the number of staff has remained the same  Similarly, hospitals reported being impacted by this challenge  For example, staff at four hospitals we visited told us that they have delayed discharging infants from the hospital because CPS social workers did not identify caregivers to whom infants may be released or make plans for infants in a timely manner  In addition, staff from three hospitals told us that some CPS workers are difficult to contact and not especially responsive to their questions  One hospital social worker told us that she is concerned that the changes to CAPTA that require notifying CPS of all substance-affected newborns will inundate the agencies with cases  Officials from two of the three states we visited anticipated that providing services to infants affected by the legal use of prescribed medications, but not likely to be at risk for child abuse and neglect, will result in an increase in the number of families referred to CPS  This, in turn, will require a plan of safe care and further strain limited resources  Twenty- five states reported in our survey that the plan they develop for substance-affected infants is the same as for other children in CPS care, suggesting that states devote the same level of resources to these infants as other cases  The states we visited interpret CAPTA to require that plans of safe care be developed for all substance-affected infants who are referred to CPS, including those who may not meet usual criteria to be accepted for an investigation  Some state officials we interviewed questioned whether the new CAPTA requirements would allow for the best use of limited resources  For example, one senior state CPS official questioned whether it would be a good use of resources to develop plans of safe care for mothers in substance use disorder treatment or mothers using opioid medications due to chronic pain  A local CPS official we interviewed stated that drug exposure, in and of itself, is not necessarily a safety risk, and CPS should not intervene with families who are not at risk for child abuse or neglect  Instead, hospitals or treatment providers should intervene and refer families who do not meet criteria for CPS involvement, but could benefit from additional supports, to voluntary services  Kentucky public health officials told us that the period after a woman gives birth is a critical time for families as mothers may be stressed, sleep-deprived, exhausted, and may have other children in the home  This period may be especially challenging for mothers with substance use disorders, if adequate supports are not in place  According to officials women are typically covered for substance use treatment during pregnancy; however, this coverage ends roughly 60 days after the baby is born  In written responses to our survey, some states reported that they would rely on other agencies to develop plans of safe care  Similarly, in order to manage limited CPS resources, officials from two of the three states that we visited said they are considering having hospitals or other agencies assume responsibility for developing plans of safe care when there is no evidence of abuse or neglect and there appears to be minimal risk to the safety and well-being of the infant  Kentucky officials told us that they envision that CPS will be responsible for developing a plan of safe care for notifications that are accepted for investigation, while hospitals, or another agency, will be responsible for developing plans of safe care for referrals that are screened out by CPS  According to CPS state officials, the plan of safe care for the infant and the family can be part of the discharge plan prior to the family leaving the hospital  However, officials reported that obtaining cooperation from other agencies may be difficult  Some state officials reported being concerned that other agencies may not feel obligated to develop these plans, in part, because CAPTA provides funding to child welfare, and other agencies may therefore believe that child welfare should be responsible for developing the plan of safe care  CPS officials we interviewed in two of our site visit states, as well as one state we followed up with, told us that they were unsure of whether their current plans will meet new CAPTA requirements because CAPTA does not define a plan of safe care  For example, Massachusetts officials said that their plans include everything that a family might need to ensure the safety of the child, including resources to ensure stabilization and reunification of a family, but they are not sure whether the plans meet new CAPTA requirements, in part because they are not familiar with the term “plan of safe care ” An official in another state was also unsure about whether his state’s “safety plans” would meet CAPTA requirements  According to the official, safety plans may include a treatment plan for mothers, and referral services, such as early intervention for the child  In practice, plans of safe care generally address gaps that place an infant at risk for harm or neglect  However, state officials we interviewed reported being unsure about what a plan of safe care should look like for families where these gaps do not exist  Also, in a written response to our survey, one state expressed uncertainty about CPS’ role if required to work with infants who do not typically receive CPS services  For example, a Pennsylvania official said that it is unclear what types of interventions child welfare should conduct with families of infants exposed to legal substances, such as medications prescribed by doctors, when the caregivers are taking their medications correctly  Similarly, officials also questioned whether a plan would be necessary, and what the plan would entail, for caregivers who are already addressing their substance use disorder and taking steps to ensure their infant’s safety  Officials from a local Kentucky CPS office described a case in which a mother was participating in medication-assisted treatment, had attended counseling three times per week throughout her pregnancy, and was continuing treatment in the postpartum period  Through CPS’ investigation, the agency found that the case was not substantiated, in part, because there were no additional services that CPS could connect her with that she was not already receiving  Officials across the three states we visited also said that state and federal drug and alcohol confidentiality restrictions may challenge their ability to monitor plans of safe care  To monitor plans of safe care, CPS staff may need access to confidential information in order to know how caregivers are progressing in treatment, particularly now that these plans must address the substance use disorder needs of the caregiver  However, federal law restricts the disclosure and use of alcohol and drug patient records maintained in connection with the performance of any federal- assisted alcohol and drug abuse program  Generally, confidential information may be disclosed in accordance with the prior written consent of the patient  State and local CPS staff we interviewed said that strict confidentiality requirements make it challenging for drug and alcohol treatment providers to share information about mothers and infants  A CPS state director from Pennsylvania said that treatment providers are often reluctant to provide CPS case workers with information or updates on a mother’s treatment, which prevents child welfare workers from fully understanding how mothers are progressing with their treatment and the extent to which those in treatment are adhering to prescribed directions as outlined by treatment providers  In addition, one official from a state we visited said state statutes regarding sharing of drug and alcohol treatment information may be more restrictive than the federal statute  Some states have developed ways to obtain confidential information about mothers in substance use disorder treatment  For example, officials from one local CPS office told us that in instances when they have to develop a long-term plan of safe care for families, they have mothers sign a release of information form in order to obtain updates about her treatment adherence from the medication- assisted treatment provider  Similarly, a local Massachusetts CPS office told us that typically staff obtain releases from mothers so that they can verify whether mothers are actively participating in their treatment and that there are no records of relapse  In HHS’ role to assist states in the delivery of child welfare services, two agencies—ACF and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)—provided technical assistance to states through the National Center on Substance Abuse and Child Welfare (NCSACW)  In addition, in ACF’s role to administer and monitor states’ implementation of CAPTA, the agency has provided some guidance to states on the provisions pertaining to substance-affected infants and has begun its monitoring responsibilities  ACF and SAMHSA, which leads public health efforts to reduce the impact of substance abuse and mental illness, established the NCSACW in 2002  The NCSACW provides technical assistance to states, and has issued publications and hosted forums to help states develop policies and procedures around issues affecting substance-affected infants  The technical assistance has focused on a broad range of issues, including collaboration among service providers, and plans of safe care  With respect to collaboration, NCSACW has issued several studies that identify opportunities for strengthening interagency efforts to prevent, intervene, identify, and treat prenatal substance exposure  The NCSACW collaboration guides encourage states to involve CPS agencies with medical providers in an interagency collaborative setting, thereby facilitating the process for CPS agencies to be notified of substance- affected infants  Regarding plans of safe care, NCSACW has provided technical assistance and best practices to states around development of these plans  For example, in one state it has facilitated discussion groups to help the state develop a model plan  From calendar year 2011 to 2016, NCSACW processed approximately 600 requests from state CPS agencies for short-term technical assistance related to improving care for substance-affected infants and their families  This short-term technical assistance included activities such as responding to telephone inquiries, mailing information, identifying needed resources, and making referrals  The NCSACW has also provided in- depth assistance to 16 states to strengthen collaboration and linkages across child welfare, addiction treatment, medical communities, early care and education systems, and family courts to improve outcomes for substance-affected infants and their families  Through this in-depth assistance, NCSACW identified areas for improvement in states, including a lack of clarity regarding compliance with CAPTA requirements (such as identification, notification, and developing plans of safe care) and the need for state models to comply with CAPTA requirements to develop plans of safe care  In one state, the project overview report indicated that a next step for the in-depth technical assistance is to continue development of the plan of safe care model and ensure practices and protocols are in place across systems to meet CAPTA requirements  The report indicated that this will include ongoing work with hospitals to ensure consistent identification of infants with prenatal exposure and notifications to CPS  Although18 states reported in our survey that technical assistance from the NCSACW was very or extremely helpful, 11 reported that it was moderately helpful, 7 reported that it was slightly helpful, and 1 reported that it was not at all helpful  Eleven states reported that they were not familiar with this assistance  Since July 2016, when the most recent amendments to CAPTA were enacted, ACF has issued one information memorandum and two program instructions to states about provisions relating to substance-affected infants  According to an ACF official, information memoranda share information with states, while program instructions provide interpretations of the law and inform states of actions they must take  ACF issued an August 2016 information memorandum informing states of the 2016 amendments to CAPTA  The August 2016 information memorandum also provided states with best practices, drawing on an NCSACW guide on collaboration for developing multi-systemic approaches to assist child welfare, medical, substance use disorder treatment, and other systems to support families affected by opioid use disorders  In January 2017, ACF issued a program instruction which provided guidance to states on implementing the 2016 amendments to CAPTA made by CARA and informed states of the flexibilities that they have under the law  Particularly, the guidance noted that: “CAPTA does not define ‘substance abuse’ or ‘withdrawal symptoms resulting from prenatal drug exposure ’ We recognize that by deleting the term ‘illegal’ as applied to substance abuse affecting infants, the amendment potentially expands the population of infants and families subject to the provision [that states have policies and procedures in place to address their needs]  States have flexibility to define the phrase, ‘infants born and identified as being affected by substance abuse or withdrawal symptoms resulting from prenatal drug exposure,’ so long as the state’s policies and procedures address the needs of infants born affected by both legal (e g , prescribed drugs) and illegal substance abuse ” “While CAPTA does not specifically define a ‘plan of safe care,’ CARA amended the CAPTA state plan requirement       to require that a plan of safe care address the health and substance use disorder treatment needs of the infant and affected family or caregiver ” “CAPTA does not specify which agency or entity must develop the plan of safe care; therefore the state may determine which agency will develop the plans  We understand that in most instances the state already has identified the responsible agency in its procedures  When the state reviews and modifies its policies and procedures to incorporate the new safe care plan requirements in CARA, the state may wish to revisit its procedures regarding which agency develops the plan of safe care, including any role for agencies collaborating with CPS in caring for the infant and family ” In addition, in April 2017, ACF issued a program instruction on reporting requirements, including changes in those requirements brought about by the 2016 amendments to CAPTA  ACF conducted limited monitoring of states prior to the amendments passed in 2016  According to ACF officials, if presented with evidence of potential deficiencies, the agency would attempt to learn more about the state’s activities  In one instance, ACF reviewed South Carolina’s policies and found them to not be in compliance with the notification and safe care plan requirements of CAPTA  It directed the state to develop a program improvement plan to bring it into full compliance, which South Carolina submitted in April 2016  In a recent progress report (February–April 2017), South Carolina reported that it was focused on updating statutes, developing policies and procedures, training child protective service workers, and building relations with health care providers  In response to the 2016 amendments to CAPTA that added the requirement for HHS to monitor state policies and procedures to address the needs of substance-affected infants, ACF officials told us that staff in regional offices will review states’ annual reports, submitted in June 2017  In its program instruction describing the reporting requirements, ACF asked each state to submit a new Governor’s Assurance, as well as a narrative explaining what they have done in response to the amendments  Specifically, ACF asked states to provide information on any changes that were made in state laws, policies, or procedures related to identifying and referring infants affected by substance abuse to CPS as a result of prenatal drug exposure  It also requested updates on states’ policies and procedures regarding the development of plans of safe care; a description of how states have developed systems to monitor plans of safe care; and a description of any outreach or coordination efforts the states have taken to implement the amendments, among other things  According to ACF officials, as of October 1, 2017, some states have provided information and a Governor’s Assurance demonstrating compliance with the amended provisions and some states have been placed on Program Improvement Plans, but the agency does not yet have information on the status of all states  An ACF official explained that, in their annual reports, some states either acknowledged that they are trying to get legislation enacted to bring them into compliance with the law and it has failed, or that they are not in compliance, for example, because they were limiting their policies to those infants affected only by illegal substances  In addition, in May 2017, ACF issued a technical bulletin informing states of the new data collection requirements that resulted from the 2016 amendments to CAPTA  ACF stated that it intends to collect data required by the amendments to CAPTA through the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System, beginning with states’ submission of fiscal year 2018 data  This system is maintained by ACF and contains data from states about children who have been abused or neglected  ACF issued a Federal Register notice about the proposed data elements and requested comments on the accuracy and quality of the proposed data collection, among other things; the comment period closed in July 2017  In the Federal Register notice, ACF notes that the 2016 amendments to CAPTA require it to collect information from state CPS agencies on the number of notifications from health care providers that are accepted for investigation or screened out  Further, of those infants screened in, ACF is required to collect data on the number of safe care plans developed for substance- affected infants as well as the number of infants for whom a referral was made for appropriate services, including services for the affected family or caregiver  In the Federal Register notice, ACF proposed to collect this information using a combination of existing and new data from states  Thirty-two states reported in our survey that they already collect data on the incidence of substance-affected and/or substance-exposed infants; 15 of those 32 states also collect data on the incidence of NAS  Further, 18 states reported that they collect data on the number of notifications health care providers make to CPS  Of those states, 8 reported that they collect specific data on notifications related to infants diagnosed with NAS  Most states reported in our survey that additional guidance and assistance would be extremely or very helpful (see figure 3)  For example, 38 states reported that additional guidance on requirements for health care providers to notify CPS of substance-affected infants would be extremely or very helpful  Similarly, 37 states reported that additional guidance on developing, implementing, and monitoring plans to ensure the safety and well-being of substance-affected infants would be extremely or very helpful  In written responses to our survey, states suggested ideas for additional guidance, training, and technical assistance to help them address the needs of substance-affected infants  States’ suggestions ranged from assisting in the development of substance abuse training curriculum for staff to video conferences with other states to share information about implementing CAPTA  A few states suggested that the guidance ACF has provided to date is not clear and reported grappling with the meaning of terms such as “affected” and “legal vs  illegal” substances, and two states requested “concrete guidance” and “specificity ” A few other states suggested that it would be helpful to obtain additional information about meeting the requirements of plans of safe care within the constraints of state and federal confidentiality laws, technical assistance on what plans of safe care look like, and a format for a plan of safe care  ACF officials told us that states have flexibility with implementing the law and the agency does not anticipate issuing additional written guidance on the amendments to CAPTA made by CARA  ACF officials explained, in October 2017, that they were finalizing their review of the plans that states were required to submit  These plans are expected to include details on how the states are addressing the CAPTA requirements  While ACF could not provide the number, officials reported that some of the state plans submitted to date did not meet the requirements and those states have been asked to develop program improvement plans  They expect states to work with the ACF regional offices, which will provide or facilitate technical assistance to states on their implementation of the provisions, as needed  In addition to the review of state plans, ACF officials explained that regional officials may learn about states’ needs for technical assistance through meetings or informational exchanges  Finally, the NCSACW is expected to review and prepare a summary of CAPTA state plans, current state statutes and policies and procedures relating to amended CAPTA requirements  In addition, according to ACF, NCSACW will continue to offer technical assistance on the development and implementation of plans of safe care to states  Technical assistance may include responding to requests for information, disseminating written materials and resources, and conducting webinars/conference calls  Further, ACF reported that some states will receive more in-depth technical assistance, albeit in some instances on a time-limited basis  Undertaking these actions can enhance states’ understanding of CAPTA requirements and better address known challenges such as the ones described in this report  However, more specific guidance from HHS on the issues which states have expressed confusion can assist them in better understanding CAPTA requirements and providing more effective protections and services for the children and families most in need  The opioid epidemic has generated a significant increase in the number of substance-affected infants born and diagnosed with NAS  These vulnerable infants may be at risk for child abuse and neglect if adequate supports and services are not available to ensure their safety  CAPTA requires states to have policies and procedures to address the needs of these infants and their families, including mothers with a substance use disorder  However, states have experienced challenges implementing new CAPTA requirements  Many states reported in our survey that they are not completely adhering to the law  This is reflected in ACF’s review of state plans, some of which are resulting in program improvement plans  States cite challenges that stem, in part, from ACF’s lack of specificity in providing guidance on implementing CAPTA requirements  Specifically, states report that ACF has not provided clear guidance about which substance-affected infants health care providers are required to notify CPS about, as well what a plan of safe care is and for whom it should be developed  Given the challenges that states reported facing in implementing the provisions, a majority reported wanting more help from ACF, such as trainings and teleconferences with other states, to help overcome their challenges  Additional guidance and assistance from HHS would help states better understand what they need to do to develop policies and procedures that meet the needs of children and families affected by substance use  The Secretary of HHS should direct ACF to provide additional guidance and technical assistance to states to address known challenges and enhance their understanding of CAPTA requirements, including the requirements for health care providers to notify CPS of substance- affected infants and the development of a plan of safe care for these infants  We provided a draft of this report to HHS for review and comment  HHS’s comments are reproduced in appendix I  HHS also provided technical comments, which we incorporated into our report where appropriate  HHS did not concur with our recommendation  HHS stated that: in January 2017, ACF clarified in guidance several of the issues raised in the report, including the population of infants and families covered by the provision and the state flexibility inherent in determining which infants are “affected by” substance abuse, and the terminology used in the federal law of what a “plan of safe care” is; ACF believes it is necessary to allow states the flexibility to meet the requirements in the context of their state CPS program; several of the challenges that the GAO notes are not specific to CAPTA compliance with the safe care plan and notification requirements; and it does see the value in continuing to provide technical assistance to states to address known challenges and to enhance their understanding of CAPTA requirements  With respect to HHS’ January 2017 guidance, state officials reported in our survey and during site visits that they found some terms unclear and were uncertain about what is required of them  In written responses to our survey, states reported challenges understanding how to define substance-affected under CAPTA  In addition, as we note in our report, the guidance about plans of safe care described the following: “While CAPTA does not specifically define a ‘plan of safe care,’ CARA amended the CAPTA state plan requirement       to require that a plan of safe care address the health and substance use disorder treatment needs of the infant and affected family or caregiver ” States reported in our survey and in follow-up discussions that this lack of specificity remained an ongoing challenge for them  For example, as we discuss in our report, one state that we followed up with in August 2017 was still unsure about whether its safety plans would meet CAPTA requirements for plans of safe care  In addition, as of October 2017, HHS confirmed that some state plans did not meet CAPTA requirements and that the states were asked to develop program improvement plans  Accordingly, a key ongoing challenge was not addressed by the January guidance  Regarding allowing states flexibility to meet CAPTA requirements, we acknowledge in our report that HHS said that states have flexibility  However, in our survey and site visits, states indicated that they would find it helpful for HHS to provide them with greater specificity around terms, including the degree of flexibility they are allowed  States added that this would include parameters within which they can develop policies and procedures that meet CAPTA requirements  We continue to believe that additional guidance addressing these concerns would benefit states and could be provided without imposing additional mandates  Concerning HHS’ third point that some of the issues raised in the report are not specific to CAPTA, the states we visited interpret CAPTA to require that plans of safe care be developed for all substance-affected infants who are referred to CPS  During our discussions with states and in responses to our survey, state officials did not delineate which federal requirement impacted their approach to serving children and families  As stated in our conclusion, vulnerable infants may be at risk for child abuse and neglect if adequate supports and services are not available to ensure their safety  Lastly, HHS indicated that it will continue to provide technical assistance to states and fund demonstration sites to establish or enhance collaboration across community agencies and courts  Although continuing to provide technical assistance to states should be beneficial, our findings demonstrate that additional guidance is also needed  For example, 38 states reported that additional guidance on requirements for health care providers to notify CPS of substance-affected infants would be extremely or very helpful  Similarly, 37 states reported that additional guidance on developing, implementing, and monitoring plans to ensure the safety and well-being of substance-affected infants would be extremely or very helpful  Overall, given the results of our review, we continue to believe our recommendation is warranted  Effective implementation of our recommendation should help states better implement protections for children  As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report date  At that time, we will send copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees and the Secretary of Health and Human Services  In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www gao gov  If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-7215 or larink@gao gov  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report  GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix II  Kathryn A  Larin, (202) 512-7215 or larink@gao gov  In addition to the contact above, Sara Schibanoff Kelly (Assistant Director), Ramona L  Burton (Analyst-in-Charge), Kay E  Brown, Hannah Dodd, Ada Nwadugbo, and Srinidhi Vijaykumar made key contributions to this report  Also contributing to this report were Sandra L  Baxter, James Bennett, Gina Hoover, Jessica Orr, Rhiannon Patterson, Jean McSween, and James Rebbe 
Report 2:  Second, it allowed states to drug test UC applicants for whom suitable work (as defined under state law) is available only in an occupation that regularly conducts drug testing, to be determined under new regulations issued by the Secretary of Labor  As required by  P L  112-96 , on August 1, 2016, DOL promulgated  20 C F R  Part 620 ,  a new rule to implement the provisions of the law relating to the drug testing of UC applicants for whom suitable work (as defined under state law) is available only in an occupation that regularly conducts drug testing  Amid concerns voiced by stakeholders about the 2016 DOL rule, Congress repealed this UC drug testing rule using the Congressional Review Act (CRA) via H J Res  42 / P L  115-17   On November 5, 2018, DOL published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to reissue the rule identifying occupations that regularly conduct drug testing for purposes of Section 2105 of  P L  112-96   The CRA prohibits an agency from reissuing the rule in "substantially the same form" or issuing a "new rule that is substantially the same" as the disapproved rule, "unless the reissued or new rule is specifically authorized by a law enacted after the date of the joint resolution disapproving the original rule " Notably, this is the first time an agency has proposed to reissue a rule after the original version was disapproved under the CRA  According to the 2018 NPRM, DOL has addressed the reissue requirements of the CRA by proposing a substantially different and more flexible approach to the statutory requirements than the 2016 Rule, enabling states to enact legislation to require drug testing for a far larger group of UC applicants than the previous rule permitted  This flexibility is intended to respect the diversity of states' economies and the different roles played by employment drug testing in those economies  Comments on the proposed 2018 rule were required to be submitted by January 4, 2019  On January 16, 2019, Senator Richard Blumenthal introduced S  165 , the Federal Unemployment Compensation Equity Act of 2019  This proposal would amend UCFE law and create a new permanent UCFE eligibility category for excepted federal employees who are unpaid but required to work during a government shutdown due to a lapse in appropriations  During any shutdown beginning on or after December 22, 2018, all excepted federal workers would be deemed eligible for UCFE benefits  Additionally, these employees would not be subject to a one-week waiting period (otherwise often required under state laws) before UCFE benefits were to be paid  On January 23, 2019, Representative Debbie Dingell introduced H R  725 , the Pay Federal Workers Act  This proposal would also provide UCFE benefits in a similar manner to S  165 , including permanently amending 5 U S C  Chapter 85 to provide federal authority for these benefits  On January 23, 2019, Representative Anthony Brown introduced H R  720   This proposal would deem excepted federal employees during a government shutdown to be eligible for UCFE during FY2019  The authority to provide UCFE to these excepted workers would expire at the end of FY2019  On February 8, 2019, Representative Katie Hill introduced H R  1117 , the Shutdown Fairness Act of 2019  This proposal would deem excepted federal employees and unpaid military servicemembers during a government shutdown to be eligible for UCFE or UCX during FY2019  The authority to provide UCFE to these excepted workers would expire at the end of FY2019  On January 15, 2019, Senator Ron Wyden and Representative Danny Davis introduced S  136 and H R  556 , the Economic Ladders to End Volatility and Advance Training and Employment Act of 2019 (the ELEVATE Act)   Among other provisions, this proposal would establish new self-employment and relocation assistance benefits for unemployed workers to be administered by the Social Security Administration, in consultation with DOL  The self-employment assistance benefits would provide weekly income replacement (half of prior earnings up to the maximum weekly benefit amount in the state) for up to of 26 weeks to individuals  They would be available to individuals who are (1) eligible for any type of UI benefit; or ineligible for any type of UI benefit, but became involuntarily unemployed over the previous 12 weeks; or were previously self-employed, but lost a hiring contract, and (2) have a viable business plan approved by their state department of labor, workforce board, or the Small Business Administration  Additionally, Section 3 of S  136 and H R  556 would provide up to $2,000 (or more, depending on family size) to fund to up to 90% of certain relocation expenses for eligible individuals and their families  In order to be eligible for this relocation assistance, an individual must be a (1) dislocated worker, (2) long-term unemployed individual, or (3) underemployed individual and also have filed a claim for relocation assistance and obtained suitable work with an expectation of obtaining such work in a new geographic region  On March 7, 2019, Representative Karen Bass introduced H R  1585 , the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2019  Among many other provisions, Section 703 of H R  1585 would require states to consider an individual who quit employment because of sexual harassment, domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking to be eligible for UC benefits  The House passed H R  1585 on April 4, 2019  On March 14, 2019, Representative Stephanie Murphy introduced H R  1759 , the Building on Reemployment Improvements to Deliver Good Employment (BRIDGE) for Workers Act  This proposal would extend eligibility to any claimant of unemployment benefits, including those profiled as likely to exhaust benefits (rather than limiting eligibility to those who were profiled as likely to exhaust benefits)  The House passed H R  1759 on April 9, 2019  The Extended Benefit (EB) program was established by the Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970 (EUCA; P L  91-373) (26 U S C  §3304, note)  EUCA may extend receipt of unemployment benefits (extended benefits) at the state level if certain economic conditions exist within the state  As of the date of this publication, EB is not active in any state  Extended Benefit Triggers The EB program is triggered when a state's insured unemployment rate (IUR) or total unemployment rate (TUR) reaches certain levels  All states must pay up to 13 weeks of EB if the IUR for the previous 13 weeks is at least 5% and is 120% of the average of the rates for the same 13-week period in each of the two previous years  States may choose to enact two other optional thresholds  (States may choose one, two, or none ) If the state has chosen one or more of the EB trigger options, it would provide the following: Option 1—up to an additional 13 weeks of benefits if the state's IUR is at least 6%, regardless of previous years' averages  Option 2—up to an additional 13 weeks of benefits if the state's TUR is at least 6 5% and is at least 110% of the state's average TUR for the same 13 weeks in either of the previous two years; up to an additional 20 weeks of benefits if the state's TUR is at least 8% and is at least 110% of the state's average TUR for the same 13 weeks in either of the previous two years  EB benefits are not "grandfathered" (phased out) when a state triggers "off" the program  When a state triggers "off" of an EB period, all EB benefit payments in the state cease immediately regardless of individual entitlement  The EB benefit amount is equal to the eligible individual's weekly regular UC benefits  Under permanent law, FUTA finances half (50%) of the EB payments and 100% of EB administrative costs  States fund the other half (50%) of EB benefit costs through their SUTA  On March 7, 2019, Representative Karen Bass introduced H R  1585 , the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2019  Among many other provisions, Section 703 of H R  1585 would require states to consider an individual who quit employment because of sexual harassment, domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking to be eligible for UC benefits  The House passed H R  1585 on April 4, 2019  On March 14, 2019, Representative Stephanie Murphy introduced H R  1759 , the Building on Reemployment Improvements to Deliver Good Employment (BRIDGE) for Workers Act  This proposal would extend eligibility to any claimant of unemployment benefits, including those profiled as likely to exhaust benefits (rather than limiting eligibility to those who were profiled as likely to exhaust benefits)  The House passed H R  1759 on April 9, 2019 

ground_truth: Under CAPTA, states perform a range of prevention activities, including addressing the needs of infants born with prenatal drug exposure. The number of children under the age of 1 entering foster care increased by about 15 percent from fiscal years 2012 through 2015. Child welfare professionals attribute the increase to the opioid epidemic. GAO was asked to examine the steps states are taking to implement CAPTA requirements on substance-affected infants and related amendments enacted in 2016. This report examines (1) the extent to which states have adopted policies and procedures to notify CPS of substance-affected infants; (2) state efforts to develop plans of safe care, and associated challenges; and (3) steps HHS has taken to help states implement the provisions. To obtain this information, GAO surveyed state CPS directors in all 50 states and the District of Columbia and reached a 100 percent response rate. GAO also visited 3 states (Kentucky, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania); reviewed relevant documents such as federal laws and regulations, and HHS guidance; and interviewed HHS officials. GAO did not assess states' compliance with CAPTA requirements. All states reported adopting, to varying degrees, policies and procedures regarding health care providers notifying child protective services (CPS) about infants affected by opioids or other substances. Under the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA), as amended, governors are required to provide assurances that the states have laws or programs that include policies and procedures to address the needs of infants affected by prenatal substance use. This is to include health care providers notifying CPS of substance-affected infants. In response to GAO's survey, 42 states reported having policies and procedures that require health care providers to notify CPS about substance-affected infants and 8 states reported having policies that encourage notification. The remaining 1 state has a policy requiring health care providers to assess the needs of mothers and infants and if they conclude that infants are at risk for abuse or neglect, CPS is notified. In response to GAO's survey, 49 states reported that their CPS agency has policies to develop a plan of safe care; 2 reported not having such a requirement. Under CAPTA, states are required to develop a plan of safe care for substance-affected infants. Although not defined in law, a plan of safe care generally entails an assessment of the family's situation and a plan for connecting families to appropriate services to stabilize the family and ensure the child's safety and well-being. States reported that plans typically address the infant's safety needs, immediate medical needs, and the caregiver's substance use treatment needs. However, officials in the 3 states GAO visited noted challenges, including uncertainty about what to include in plans and the level of intervention needed for infants at low risk of abuse or neglect. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has provided technical assistance and guidance to states to implement these CAPTA requirements. Most states reported in GAO's survey that additional guidance and assistance would be very or extremely helpful for addressing their challenges. Nevertheless, HHS officials told GAO that the agency does not anticipate issuing additional written guidance, but that states can access technical assistance through their regional offices and the National Center on Substance Abuse and Child Welfare—a resource center funded by HHS. However, of the 37 states that reported on the helpfulness of the assistance they have received, 19 said it was only moderately helpful to not helpful. States offered suggestions for improving the assistance, such as developing substance abuse training materials for staff and holding video conferences with other states to share information. In October 2017, HHS officials explained that some states have submitted plans that include details on how they are addressing the CAPTA requirements. HHS officials reported that some of the plans submitted to date indicated that states are not meeting the requirements and those states have been asked to develop program improvement plans. Without more specific guidance and assistance to enhance states' understanding of CAPTA requirements and better address known challenges such as the ones described in this report, states may miss an opportunity to provide more effective protections and services for the children and families most in need. GAO recommends that HHS provide additional guidance and technical assistance to states to address known challenges and enhance their understanding of requirements. HHS did not concur with the recommendation. As discussed in the report, GAO continues to believe that added guidance would benefit states.