Department of Health and Human Services 

OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Controlling Medicaid Non-Emergency 

Transportation Costs 

JUNE GIBBS BROWN 

Inspector General 

April 1997 

OEI-O4-95-00140 

I 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

The mission of the Office of Inspector General (OIG), as mandated by Public Law 95 

452, is to protect the integrity of the Department of Health and Human Services 

programs as well as the health and welfare of beneficiaries served by them. This 

statutory mission is carried out through a nationwide program of audits, investigations, 

inspections, sanctions, and fraud alerts. The Inspector General informs the Secretary 

of program and management problems and recommends legislative, regulatory, and 

operational approaches to correct them. 

Office of Evaluationand Inspections 

The Office of Evaluation and Inspections (OEI) is one of several components of the 

Office of Inspector General. It conducts short-term management and program 

evaluations (called inspections) that focus on issues of concern to the Department, the 

Congress, and the public. The inspection reports provide findings and 

recommendations on the efficiency, vulnerability, and effectiveness of departmental 

programs. 

OEI’s Atlanta Regional Office prepared this report under the direction of Jesse J. 

Flowers, Regional Inspector General, and Christopher Koehler, Deputy Regional 

Inspector General. Principal OEI staff included: 

REGION HEADQUARTERS 

Jacqueline Watkins, Project Leader Winnie Walker, Program Specialist 

Betty Apt, Team Leader 

Josiah Townsel, ProgramAnalyst 

To obtain a copy of this report, call the Atlanta Regional Office at 404-730-9452. 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

PURPOSE 

To identify and describe effective practices for controlling non-emergency 

transportation costs in the Medicaid program. 

BACKGROUND 

The U.S. Health Care Financing Administration estimated that nationally nonemergency transportation costs increased 10 percent per year from 1990 until 1995. 

Some individual States reported that their non-emergency transportation costs 

increased substantially more. For example, one State reported a 250 percent increase 

in 4 years, another a 230 percent increase in only one year, and another a 136 percent 

increase in two years. 

,We used a case study method to identify and describe practices for controlling 

Medicaid non-emergency transportation costs. We selected programs in Miami, 

Florida; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Louisiana, and Washington for review. Various 

experts recommended these Medicaid programs for case study because they were 

unique cost saving programs, and had significantly reduced or maintained low nonemergency transportation costs over several years. 

FINDINGS 

selected case study pnqrams reported significant sav@sjk~m conbdkg non-emergency 

tranqmation cosfs. 

Each of the four programs we studied reported that savings can result from controlling 

non-emergency transportation costs. For example, Louisiana reported reductions in 

non-emergency transportation costs of $52 million in 1 year. Miami, Florida claims to 

have decreased average Medicaid non-emergency transportation costs per beneficiary 

from $630 per month to $30 per month in two years. Washington State and 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania reported increases of less than 8 percent per year during an 

8 year period. 

--4Y prqpms fmuwdcontrol@OHSon the kin& of fraud and abuse which were 

most&~tom~ 

--people who have other means of transportation, 

--unnecessary trips, 

--excessive claims, and 

--trips claimed, but not made by providers. 

i 
cast? st@y pqpm aiko reduced rwn-tmmgency .tmnsp~tion costs by uring least costly 

tram 

Each program we surveyed used the least costly mode of non-emergency 

transportation available. Even in instances where the freedom of choice provision of 

the Medicaid law applied, States offered beneficiaries a choice among the lowest cost 

providers. The freedom of choice provision of the Medicaid law states that 

beneficiaries have a right to choose their provider of services. 

States that claimed Federal reimbursement for non-emergency transportation as an 

administrative expense did not have to adhere to the freedom of choice provision. In 

addition, States can obtain a waiver of the freedom of choice provision from the 

Health Care Financing Administration. 

Using b&em may help contd carts. 

Our case study programs use brokers as intermediaries to assure that transportation is 

necessary. Such brokers have a contractual incentive to control costs. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

We recommend that HCFA advise States of opportunities to establish controls to 

reduce costs for non-emergency transportation. Most States could adopt practices 

similar to those used by the case study programs described in this report. We cannot 

accurately estimate the precise amount that could be saved. However, this is a 

program with over $1 billion in expenditures. If all States adopted practices similar to 

those used by the case study programs, substantial savings could be achieved. 

AGENCY COMMENTS 

The HCFA Administrator concurred with our recommendations. He stated that the 

report recommendations are consistent with existing HCFA activities. The HCFA 

established a Non-Emergency Transportation Technical Advisory Group comprised of 

State and Federal Medicaid staff. The group is currently developing recommendations 

for HCFA and the Executive Committee of the National Association of State 

Medicaid Directors on a wide range of issues, including those in our report. He 

believes that their recommendations will facilitate the changes we seek. 

The Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) also 

concurred with our recommendations. 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

PAGE 

ExEmnwEsuMMARY 

INTRODUCTION.. ............................................... 1 

FINDINGS ...................................................... 4 

Significant savings realized ........................................ 4 

Focus on problem areas .......................................... 5 

Using least costly providers ....................................... 7 

Brokers ..................................................... 9 

RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................... 11 

AGENCYCOMMENTS ........................................... 12 

APPENDIX 

Full Text of Agency Comments .................................. A-l 
INTRODUCTION 

PURPOSE 

To identify and describe effective practices for controlling non-emergency 

transportation costs in the Medicaid program. 

BACKGROUND 

Medicaid Non-EmergencyTransportationServices 

Federal regulation 42 CFR 431.53 requires all States that receive Federal Medicaid 

funds to assure transportation for Medicaid beneficiaries to and from medical 

appointments. A description of the method of providing transportation must be 

included in State Medicaid plans. 

The way in which States manage non-emergency transportation services varies. Some 

States use regional offices while others use local agencies. An increasingly popular 

way to manage non-emergency transportation is through contracts with separate 

entities, commonly referred to as brokers. 

States can elect to claim Federal reimbursement for Medicaid non-emergency 

transportation as either an optional medical or administrative expense. There are 

three major distinctions between claiming non-emergency transportation as an optional 

medical expense versus an administrative expense. First, States that claim nonemergency transportation services as an optional medical expense are required to 

make direct payments to transportation providers. In contrast, States that claim nonemergency transportation as an administrative expense may pay a broker who, in turn, 

pays the transportation provider. 

Second, States that claim non-emergency transportation services as an optional 

medical expense are reimbursed for transportation expenses at a State’s Federal 

financial participation rate for medical expenses--50 to 83 percent of their medical 

expenses. States that claim non-emergency transportation services as an administrative 

expense are always reimbursed at the administrative rate of 50 percent of their 

administrative expenses. 

Third, States that claim non-emergency transportation as an optional medical expense 

must give beneficiaries a right to choose their provider of services. The right to 

choose a transportation provider is granted by a provision of the Medicaid law 

referred to as freedom of choice. States that claim non-emergency transportation as 

an administrative expense do not have to give beneficiaries a choice of transportation 

providers. 
Rising Costs of Non-EmergencyTransportationServices 

The Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) estimates that non-emergency 

transportation expenditures total 1 percent of all Medicaid program costs, or about $1 

billion in 1995. The HCFA also estimated that nationally non-emergency 

transportation costs increased 10 percent per year from 1990 until 1995’. 

Some individual States reported that their non-emergency transportation costs 

increased substantially more. For example, Louisiana costs increased from $20 million 

in 1990 to $72 million in 1994--a 250 percent increase in 4 years. Georgia’s 

expenditures increased from $3 million in 1993 to $10 million in 1994--a 230 percent 

increase in only one year. Indiana’s costs increased from $19 million in 1990 to $45 

million in 1992--a 136 percent increase in two years. 

States report that fraud and abuse by providers and beneficiaries contributes to the 

increased costs. The major types of fraud and abuse reported include providers billing 

Medicaid for more miles than they actually provide, providers billing Medicaid for 

trips they did not provide, and beneficiaries using Medicaid transportation when they 

have other means of transportation to a medical appointment. Other problems such 

as unnecessary trips and use of the most costly mode of transportation have also 

contributed to the increasing cost of non-emergency transportation. 

Increasing costs and allegations of fraud and abuse have led some members of the 

Congress to consider eliminating non-emergency transportation as a covered Medicaid 

service. 

In addition, HCFA has been concerned about the increasing non-emergency 

transportation cost. In November 1994, HCFA created a Medicaid Transportation 

Technical Advisory Group to identify ways to more efficiently and effectively provide 

Medicaid transportation services. The technical advisory group includes Federal and 

State members who meet regularly. 

Finally, States are seeking ways to reduce non-emergency transportation costs. They 

have an ever increasing number of Medicaid beneficiaries placing demands on their 

already strained budgets. Therefore, States are analyzing their programs to identify 

more cost efficient ways to provide non-emergency transportation. Likewise, States 

are intensifying their scrutiny of non-emergency transportation claims. 

‘HCFA can only estimate the percent increasebecause they do not collect cost data from 

States specifically for non-emergency transportation. 

2 
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 

We used a case study method to identify and describe practices for controlling 

Medicaid non-emergency transportation costs. We selected programs in Miami, 

Florida; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Louisiana, and Washington for revied. 

In selecting four programs for case study, we consulted with various experts on nonemergency transportation. We consulted with HCFA, the American Public Welfare 

Association (APWA), and Ecosometrics, Inc. Ecosometrics completed a national 

study on non-emergency transportation for HCFA in 1994. The experts recommended 

these Medicaid programs for case study because they were unique cost saving 

programs, and had significantly reduced or maintained low non-emergency 

transportation costs over several years. We also consulted with HCFA’s Technical 

Advisory Group for Medicaid transportation to identify pertinent issues to consider in 

our study. 

We conducted on-site visits to each selected program. We interviewed program 

officials and staff using a standardized discussion guide. We also reviewed applicable 

program policies, procedures, and records. 

We obtained savings data directly from the case study programs. We did not 

independently verify the data, and we limited our discussion to those practices that the 

case study programs reported were effective. We did not collect administrative costs 

of the practices States used. Use of the case study method does not enable us to 

generalize how much other programs can save by adopting our study results or what 

their administrative costs would be. But, the study results can provide insight to States 

on effective practices to develop and improve their non-emergency transportation 

programs. 

We conducted this inspection in accordance with the Quality Standards for Inspections 

issued by the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency. 

‘The Miami metropolitan area includesMonroe and Dade counties. Philadelphia includes 

Philadelphia county. 

3 
FINDINGS 

CASE STUDY PROGRAMS REPORTED SIGNIFICANT SAVINGS THROUGH 

CONTROLLING NON-EMERGENCY TRANSPORTATION COSTS 

Each of the four Medicaid programs we inspected reported that they had operated 

cost effective non-emergency transportation programs in recent years. Two of the four 

reported significant reductions in their non-emergency transportation cost. The 

remaining two reported constantly keeping non-emergency transportation cost low. 

The two Medicaid programs that reported significant reductions in non-emergency 

transportation costs are Louisiana and Miami, Florida. 

In 1991, non-emergency transportation costs in Louisiana were $20 million. By the 

end of 1994, the costs had increased to $70 million--a 250 percent increase in 4 years. 

To detect and prevent fraudulent and abusive practices in non-emergency 

transportation, Louisiana implemented program controls in 1994. The Louisiana 

legislature supported the State Medicaid agency’s actions to implement such controls. 

Further, to ensure that controls were enforced, the legislature reduced funding for 

Medicaid transportation to $28 million in Fiscal Year 1995. As a result, Louisiana 

reduced non-emergency transportation costs from $72 million in 1994 to $18 million in 

1995. This was a $54 million decrease in 1 year. 

Miami, Florida substantially reduced its non-emergency transportation cost in a similar 

manner. In 1993, non-emergency transportation cost the Miami, Florida Medicaid 

program $630 per beneficiary per month. By the end of 1995, non-emergency 

transportation costs per beneficiary had decreased to $30 per month. During the 3 

year period, the Miami, Florida ‘Medicaid staff reported saving over $6 million. 

According to the Miami program administrator, their Medicaid budget would have 

increased by $6 million during this time period had they not been able to reduce the 

costs of non-emergency transportation. 

The two Medicaid programs that reported constantly keeping non-emergency 

transportation costs low are the State of Washington and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 

Both Washington State, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Medicaid staffs said they have 

had program controls in place to prevent fraudulent and abusive practices in nonemergency transportation for the last 8 years. 

Washington reported that in 1985 their costs for non-emergency transportation was 

about $4 million. In 1993, their non-emergency transportation cost had increased to 

only $15 million--an $11 million increase in 8 years. 

Similarly, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania reported non-emergency transportation cost of 

about $10 million in Fiscal Year 1986. In Fiscal Year 1994, the cost had increased to 

$14 million--a $4 million increase in 8 years. 

4 
CASE STUDY PROGRAMS FOCUSED CONTROL EFFORTS ON THE KINDS 

OF FRAUD AND ABUSE WHICH WERE MOST LIKELY TO OCCUR 

People who Have OtherM&zns of ll-aetion 

According to HCFA regulations, persons who have other means of transportation are 

not eligible for Medicaid transportation. States should use all available sources of free 

transportation services, such as relatives and friends, before authorizing nonemergency transportation payments. 

The four Medicaid programs we inspected each had controls to verify that Medicaid 

beneficiaries had no other means of transportation. For example, each of the four 

programs used transportation brokers to manage non-emergency transportation for 

Medicaid beneficiaries. When a beneficiary contacts a broker for non-emergency 

transportation, the broker makes several tests before authorizing non-emergency 

transportation. The broker checks computerized beneficiary records to verify that they 

are eligible for Medicaid services. 

When a beneficiary calls for transportation, the broker asks a series of questions 

designed to ascertain whether or not beneficiaries have access to other transportation. 

Computerized software programs are designed to prompt broker personnel on the 

types of questions to ask. For example, a broker might ask questions such as the 

following. How do you usually get to the grocery store? Do you live with other 

people, and do the other people have a car ? Have you contacted your friends and 

relatives for help in getting to your medical appointment? When such controls 

indicate that a beneficiary does have access to other transportation, non-emergency 

transportation is denied. The beneficiary is advised to use those sources. 

Three of the four Medicaid programs we inspected screen for such information each 

time a beneficiary asks for help with transportation. The other program screens for 

such information during a beneficiary’s initial request for transportation. Thereafter, 

the broker assumes that a beneficiary’s status has not changed unless the beneficiary 

presents new information. 

The four programs we inspected had implemented controls to prevent payment of 

claims for unnecessary trips and excessive claims. Three of the four programs used 

trip sheets to match against authorized trips. One program used an authorization 

control number to match against authorized trips. 

Use Of Trip Sheets: The Miami, Florida, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Washington 

State Medicaid programs used trip sheets to help prevent unauthorized trips. A trip 

sheet is a record that brokers require providers to keep. It shows beneficiary name 

and address, destination address, beginning and ending odometer reading, and pick-up 

5 
and drop-off times. The trip sheet is either submitted with a claim, or serves as the 

actual claim for payment. 

The Medicaid programs we inspected used trip sheets to identify providers who bill 

Medicaid for unauthorized trips. When a Medicaid beneficiary calls to obtain nonemergency transportation, a broker either authorizes or denies the trip. If the trip is 

authorized, it is added to a computerized list of authorized trips. When a provider 

submits the trip sheet and claim for payment, the broker matches it to the list of 

authorized trips. If it does not match, payment is denied. 

Trip sheets are also used to detect providers who bill for more miles than they actually 

provide. Before paying a claim, brokers examine odometer readings on the trip sheets 

to assure that providers do not bill for excessive mileage. 

The Medicaid programs admitted that it is difficult to precisely verify mileage from 

one destination to another. However, their brokers told us that the trip sheets are 

reviewed by staff who know the geographic area. Further, by repeatedly reviewing trip 

sheets, the staff become familiar with the distance from one destination to another. In 

instances where the distance appears excessive, the provider is questioned and the 

payment may be adjusted. One broker in Washington State is experimenting with a 

computer program that actually calculates the mileage from one destination to 

another. Then they can compare the mileage on provider claims to that calculated by 

the computer. 

Use Of Prior AuthorizationNumbers: Louisiana prevents payment for unauthorized 

trips by assigning a unique prior authorization number to each authorized trip. When 

a trip is authorized, the broker gives a transportation provider a prior authorization 

number. The broker then sends all prior authorization numbers to the claims payment 

center. When a provider submits a claim for payment, the claim must show the prior 

authorization number. The payment center matches the prior authorization number 

on the claim to the prior authorization number assigned by the broker. If the prior 

authorization numbers do not match, the claim will not be paid. 

lXps Not l+wided 

All of the Medicaid programs we inspected have established controls to identify 

unethical providers who bill for trips not provided. The Medicaid programs required 

brokers to routinely call a random sample of medical providers to verify that patients 

received medical care on the same day that trips were authorized. 

To illustrate, one broker in Washington State verified 15 percent of the trips each day 

by calling medical providers. In instances where the appropriate medical providers did 

not have a record of a beneficiary receiving a medical service, the broker was required 

to deny payment, or in instances where payment had already been made, initiate 

action to recover it. Usually, this involved sending a letter to the non-emergency 

transportation provider demanding reimbursement of the payment. 

6 
The brokers for the Miami, Florida program operate a similar control. The broker 

had a listing of health providers that they call regularly to verify that beneficiaries had 

and kept medical appointments. The health providers they called were family health 

centers, mental health agencies, and AIDS programs. 

CASE STUDY PROGRAMS ALSO REDUCED NON-EMERGENCY 

TRANSPORTATION COSTS BY USING LEAST ColFTLY TRANSPORTATION 

According to HCFA regulations, States must use the least costly means of 

transportation when multiple methods exist. All of the programs we inspected 

adhered to the policy. Each program had established criteria for determining the least 

costly mode of non-emergency transportation. The criteria, in priority order, was to 

authorize non-emergency transportation from (1) family and friends who are willing to 

provide non-emergency transportation for reimbursement, (2) available public 

transportation, (3) available non-profit providers, and (4) available for-profit providers. 

Non-profit and for-profit providers are typically vans and taxis. Vans equipped to 

provide rides to wheelchair bound beneficiaries are usually reimbursed at a higher 

rate. 

Typically, when a beneficiary calls a broker for transportation, the broker will ask the 

beneficiary if they have family or friends that can provide the transportation or if they 

live on a bus line. If not, the broker will ask them to choose between available nonprofit providers. For-profit providers will only be used when non-profit providers are 

not available. 

The following two examples illustrate the need for using the least costly transportation. 

Prior to 1994, Louisiana largely used the more costly modes of transportation. In 

1994, an audit of Louisiana’s program showed that for-profit providers received 99.6 

percent of all non-emergency transportation reimbursements in 1993. This is the 

highest cost type of provider. The audit further stated that most unnecessary nonemergency transportation cost resulted from using the most costly sources of nonemergency transportation. Following the audit, Louisiana started determining the least 

costly mode of transportation before authorizing non-emergency transportation. As a 

result of this and other program changes, non-emergency transportation costs 

decreased from $72 million in 1994 to $18 million in 1995--a $54 million decrease in 

one year. 

Likewise, in 1993 the Miami, Florida program reduced its non-emergency 

transportation costs by using the least costly method of transportation. Miami, Florida 

began a program, referred to as the Metropass program. Under Metropass, public 

transportation bus passes are issued by the State to Medicaid beneficiaries for nonemergency transportation. 

The Metropass program targets beneficiaries who have three or more medical 

appointments a month. Three appointments would normally cost the program $90 

whereas, a monthly bus pass only costs $30. In instances where such transportation 

7 
was not readily available or accessible for beneficiaries, other forms of transportation 

was authorized. 

Freedom of Choice l+rwisbn does not have to hit Statesabilityto use leastco&y 

bzlrlsetion 

The freedom of choice provision of the Medicaid law states that beneficiaries have a 

right to chose their provider of services when Federal reimbursement for Medicaid 

services are claimed as a medical expense. Therefore, States that claim nonemergency transportation as an optional medical expense must adhere to the freedom 

of choice provision. 

Two of our selected Medicaid programs, Miami, Florida, and Louisiana, claim Federal 

reimbursement for non-emergency transportation as an optional medical expense. 

Both programs demonstrated that adhering to the freedom of choice provision does 

not limit their ability to use low cost transportation. 

Freedom of choice does not require a State to provide transportation at unusual or 

exceptional costs to meet a recipient’s personal choice of provider. Louisiana and 

Miami, Florida used this exception to the freedom of choice provision to use low cost 

transportation and reduce their non-emergency transportation costs. To illustrate, 

Louisiana offers beneficiaries a choice, however, the choice is among the lowest cost 

providers. A beneficiary in Louisiana would have to choose among a non-profit 

provider before choosing among a for-profit provider. 

In Miami, Florida, a beneficiary must use public transportation if it is most cost 

effective for the Medicaid program. They cannot use a for-profit or non-profit 

provider if public transportation is available in their area. Again, the Medicaid 

beneficiary has a choice, but they still must use the lowest cost transportation 

available. 

Statescan limiijkedom of choice by ckning Federal rebnb rmsementfor iwn-ernegyncy 

trmqmtation as an adininktrative erperse 

Two of our selected Medicaid programs, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Washington, 

chose to claim Federal reimbursement for non-emergency transportation as an 

administrative expense. Both programs do not have to adhere to the freedom of 

choice provision. They can reduce costs by contracting with only low cost providers. 

They can choose the type of transportation and the transportation providers who will 

provide the services. 

However, the extent of potential savings from claiming non-emergency transportation, 

as an administrative expense may or may not offset future losses in Federal revenue. 

For example, Louisiana chose to treat non-emergency transportation as an optional 

medical expense because they receive a Federal matching rate of 75 percent for 

medical services. If they changed the way they treat non-emergency transportation to 

8 
an administrative expense, they would only receive a Federal matching rate of 50 

percent. Therefore, Louisiana may or may not realize significant savings by claiming 

non-emergency transportation as an administrative expense. 

In contrast, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Washington State’s Federal matching rates 

for Medicaid medical services are 56 percent and 54 percent, respectively. By 

choosing to treat non-emergency transportation as an administrative expense, they 

receive a 50 percent Federal matching rate which is only slightly lower than their 

Federal matching rate for medical services. These Medicaid programs believe the loss 

in Federal matching funds is offset by savings in programs costs. 

States can obtain a waiver of the freti of choice pnnkim to have greaterwiliiy in 

usingleart cxmly tnlrLY~tio?l 

States that claim Federal reimbursement for non-emergency transportation as an 

optional medical expense can also reduce costs by obtaining a waiver of the freedom 

of choice provision. By obtaining a freedom of choice waiver, States are not required 

to give beneficiaries a right to choose their provider of transportation services. Such 

programs can choose what types of transportation they will provide and who will 

provide transportation service to Medicaid beneficiaries. A freedom of choice waiver 

allows Medicaid programs to control costs by having more flexibility to contract with 

low-cost non-emergency transportation providers, while maintaining their higher 

Federal matching rate. 

According to HCFA, only three States currently have a freedom of choice waiver. 

The freedom of choice waiver is contingent upon Federal approval. Medicaid 

programs must demonstrate that their transportation methods do not limit beneficiary 

accessibility to Medicaid services. 

USING BROKERS MAY HELP CONTROL CGS’IS 

The four Medicaid programs we ins ected used brokers to help manage their nonemergency transportation programs P . Brokers are contractors who may be private or 

public organizations. The Medicaid programs we inspected contracted with one or 

several brokers who managed non-emergency transportation on a regional or county 

basis. Medicaid staffs in the four programs we inspected told us brokers can help 

control costs. The brokers, they said, have a contractual obligation to keep costs at a 

specified level--an incentive to control cost. 

Washington State, for example, reported significant cost savings from using brokers. 

In 1990, Washington Medicaid staff compared non-emergency transportation costs 

against what it would have cost under a pre-broker system in 1988. The comparison 

31n Louisiana, the brokers are referred to as dispatch offices. 

9 
showed that given the same number of trips, non-emergency transportation would 

have cost $3.7 million more under the pre-broker system in 1988. 

Major Advantages of Using Brokers 

Staff of the four programs we inspected cited several advantages to using brokers to 

manage non-emergency transportation. First, brokers are intermediaries to assure that 

transportation is necessary. The four Medicaid programs we inspected used brokers 

to schedule appointments for trips. They require Medicaid beneficiaries to schedule 

non-emergency transportation through a broker rather than a transportation provider. 

By scheduling trip appointments through brokers, they assure that trips requested by 

beneficiaries are necessary before giving approval and scheduling the trip with a 

provider. In contrast, when a beneficiary asks a provider directly for non-emergency 

transportation, unethical providers have an opportunity to provide the transportation 

whether or not it is needed. Further, unethical providers may solicit transportation 

business from beneficiaries who do not need it. 

Second, brokers who manage non-emergency transportation at local levels typically 

know the transportation resources, conditions, and beneficiary needs. 

Third, brokers usually have expertise in providing transportation services. They can 

use their experience to determine the most cost-effective mode of transportation. 

Many brokers are social service agencies that have experience in arranging trips. For 

example, the Philadelphia broker existed many years as a volunteer transportation 

organization. 

Fourth, brokers have flexibility to develop cost-saving ways of providing transportation. 

For example, a broker in Washington State is developing a system by which they give 

beneficiaries gas vouchers, and gas stations bill the broker. 

Major Diwdvwge of Using Brdxm 

Staff at the four programs we inspected cited one potential disadvantage of using 

brokers to manage non-emergency transportation. They noted that some brokers may 

also be in the transportation business, or have relatives and close friends in the 

business. In such instances, an unethical broker has an opportunity to assign nonemergency transportation business to their own company, or that of a friend or 

relative. If so, the non-emergency transportation provider may not be the least costly 

provider. Only one non-emergency Medicaid transportation program we inspected 

said they had experienced this problem to a great extent. In this instance, the 

Medicaid program staff said they resolved the problem by immediately discontinuing 

use of the abusive brokers involved. The other three Medicaid programs we inspected 

said they had not experienced this problem to any great extent. 

10 
RECOMM.ENDATIONS 

We recommend that HCFA advise States of opportunities to reduce expenditures for 

non-emergency transportation. Specifically, to 

focus efforts and establish controls on the kinds of fraud 

and abuse which are most likely to occur, 

use least costly transportation, and 

use brokers where appropriate to help manage nonemergency transportation. 

We also recommend that HCFA advise States of their options for using less costly 

transportation methods. Two of the States we surveyed demonstrated that 

opportunities exist to use less costly transportation methods while still adhering to the 

freedom of choice provision. States can avoid constraints of the freedom of choice 

provision by electing to claim Federal reimbursement for non-emergency 

transportation as an administrative expense. In addition, States can get a waiver of 

the freedom of choice provision. 

Most States could adopt practices similar to those used by the case study programs 

described in this report. We cannot accurately estimate the precise amount that could 

be saved because we did not independently verify the savings data, we did not collect 

administrative cost data for the case study programs, and we do not know what 

progress other States have made in controlling costs. However, this is a program with 

over $1 billion in expenditures. If all States adopted practices similar to those used by 

the case study programs, we believe substantial savings could be achieved. 

11 
AGENCY COMMENTS 

The HCFA Administrator concurred with our recommendations. He stated that the 

report recommendations are consistent with existing HCFA activities. The HCFA 

established a Non-Emergency Transportation Technical Advisory Group comprised of 

State and Federal Medicaid staff. The group is currently developing recommendations 

for HCFA and the Executive Committee of the National Association of State 

Medicaid Directors on a wide range of issues, including those in our report. He 

believes that their recommendations will facilitate changes we seek. 

In response to HCFA’s technical comments, we made appropriate revisions to the 

report. 

The Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) 

conditionally concurred with our recommendations. In the draft report, we roughly 

estimated that if all States adopted practices similar to our case study programs, the 

Medicaid program could save $100 million per year. The ASPE comments challenged 

the accuracy of this estimate and recommended that it not be included in the report. 

We agree that this was, at best, a rough estimate. We had only intended to illustrate 

in broad terms the potential for savings. We removed the savings estimate of $100 

million and substituted general language indicating the potential for savings. 

The full text of HCFA and ASPE comments are provided in Appendix A. 

12 
APPENDIXA 

AGENCY COMMENTS ON THE DRAFI’ REPORT 

A-l 
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES Health Care Financing Administration 

The Administrator 

Washington, D.C. 20201 

DATE: FEB I3 1997 

TO: June Gibbs Brown 

Inspector General 

n 

FROM: 

SUBJECT: Office of Inspector General (OIG) Draft Report: “Controlling Medicaid 

Non-Emergency Transportation Costs,” (OEI-04-95-00 140) 

We reviewed the above-referenced report that describes effective practices for controlling 

non-emergency transportation costs in the Medicaid program. The report 

recommendations are consistent with existing Health Care Financing Administration 

(HCFA) activities that have already been initiated in this area. HCFA established a NonEmergency Transportation (NET) Technical Advisory Group (TAG) comprised of state 

and Federal Medicaid staff. The TAG is currently developing recommendations to 

HCFA and the Executive Committee of the National Association of State Medicaid 

Directors that will address a wide range of issues, including those in the subject report. 

We believe the tidings of this group will be the ideal instrument to facilitate the 

necessary changes we all seek. Our detailed comments are attached. 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this report. 

Attachment 

EIG ­

iii: = 

DIG-AS 

EE ZE 

DIG-01 

DIG-W = 
. . th Care Financing: 

on Office of bnector G-1 (OIG) Draft 

on-Em,ergency SET) Costs, >, 

PI B04B95s00140’1 

OIG Recp 

o HCFA should advise states of opportunities to reduce expenditures for non-emergency 

transportation. 

o HCFA should advise states of their options for using less costly transportation . methods. 

HCFAResm 

HCFA concurs. The report recommendations are consistent with existing HCFA 

activities that have already been initiated in this area. HCFA worked with the states to 

ensure the positive developments outlined below. 

In 1994, HCFA created the Non-Emergency Transportation (NET) Technical Advisory 

Group (TAG) to find cost-effective and efficient ways to provide transportation services 

under Medicaid and to address the wide range of transportation-related issues that impact 

Medicaid. The TAG’s membership is comprised of 10 state members from each of the 

HCFA regions. Currently, the TAG is preparing a comprehensive report with 

recommendations to HCFA and the Executive Committee of the National Association of 

State Medicaid Directors that will address a wide range of issues, including those 

discussed in the OIG report. We believe the findings of this group of experts will be the 

ideal instrument to facilitate the necessary changes we all seek. The work is scheduled 

for completion by the end of June 1997. 

In recognition of the need to give states flexibility to provide access to needed medical 

care, the Federal statute permits Medicaid transportation services to be provided as either 

an administrative activity or an optional covered medical service. In an effort to provide 

clarification to states and others, HCFA discussed the policies associated with the 

provision of transportation services under Medicaid in different forums, both written and 

verbal, including onsite assistance. During several annual State Medicaid Directors’ 

conferences, HCFA sponsored a workshop for states to share the workings of their NET 

programs with others. 
Page 2 

We agree with the report recommendation regarding the use of brokers as a means to help 

manage NET expenditures. Additionally, we believe it would be helpful to accompany 

the recommendation with a reminder of the alternative approaches to be aware of when 

claiming these costs for Federal matching purposes. 

Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) - On page 1 of the OIG report, in the 

second to last paragraph, the report refers to the FMAP rate as ranging from 50 to 

80 percent. We suggest the report reference section 1905(b) of the Social Security Act, 

which indicates that the extreme limits for the FMAP range from 50 to 83 percent. 

We recommend consistency between paragraph 3 on page 4, and paragraph 4 on page 7; 

i.e., show the savings as either $52 million or $54 million, whichever is correct. 
. 8

: -4I DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary 

Washington, D.C. 20201 

FEB 2 I 1997 

To: June Gibbs Brown 

Inspector General 

From: David F. Garrison 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secre 

for Planning and Evaluation x/ICI -

Subject: OIG Draft Report: “Controlling Medicaid Non-Emergency 

Transportation Costs - CONDITIONALCONCURRENCE 

&I- Q+ 9 5- &6/5/LJ 

Thank you for the opportunity to review this draft report. The strategies undertaken in the case 

study states to control non-emergency transportation costs in Medicaid are of interest and should 

certainly be shared with the other states. 

I concur with the IG’s report with one condition. The estimate of potential annual savings of 

$100 million if all states reduced their costs by 10 percent is not well-grounded and is probably 

excessive. This reference should be omitted so as to avoid unrealistic expectations for Medicaid 

savings in this area. My criticism of the estimate is based on the following considerations: 

. It is unrealistic to expect lo-percent cost reductions in every state, on an annual basis. It 

is more likely that some states may be able to achieve significant savings in the first year 

or years that they institute new cost-control measures, rather than on a continuous basis. 

Depending on circumstances and state practices, other states may not be able to achieve 

significant savings. 

. Relatedly, the $100 million estimate assumes savings in the case study states as well as 

the others, even though the case study states have probably already achieved most of the 

cost-reducing effect of their practices. 

. Although the case study states were chosen for their exemplary accomplishments, other 

states may also have practices in effect currently to control their Medicaid spending on 

non-emergency transportation. To the extent that this is so, the estimate is overstated. 

. The report (page 3) offers several caveats about the savings data obtained from the case 

study states, such as the fact that the data were not validated independently and do not 

reflect administrative costs incurred by the study states. In light of these limitations, the 

savings reported in the study states do’not provide a sturdy foundation for the national 

annual estimate. 

If you have/any questions, please contact Julia Paradise, of my staff, at 6904476 . r : 3 

t= 

c; o r;: s ..<J‘ 

1.1 mc - z-:: N c-2 

m::: 3 < . u-l F 

I?? -cJ ;: 

8 2 c ig --. 

c._ w .-. w